Your page only uses <span class="blink">NEW!</span>, which is styled using text-decoration:blink;. That's different from the <blink> element that was actually being discussed.
Yes, because blink is not defined as conforming in any standard. However, it is possible to make a page containing blink (or any other element or attribute you like) pass validation by providing a custom DTD or an internal subset.
But note that the claim that "4.13% of the Web Is Standards-compliant" isn't quite accurate. The study only used the W3C markup validator, which is only able to detect a subset of the machine checkable conformance criteria. It's trivial to create a non-standards compliant page that passes validation.
USB keys are definitely a terrible idea, especially if you're required to have the USB key plugged in to watch the movie. The DRM is going to kill this idea pretty damn quickly; I know I certainly won't be buying. Also, 2GB is barely enough capacity to distribute a film with a reasonable bit-rate and resolution. It's less than DVD and even with h.264 instead of MPEG2, it's not going to be as good.
I've thought for a while that selling DRM-free movies on 32GB SD cards would be a better solution than Blu-ray, with the ability to transfer the movie onto a hard drive. Imagine walking into a store, plugging in your own reusable SD card into computer kiosk, selecting the movie you want, paying and having it loaded onto your card for you. (This could be done over the internet too, but it may not be practical yet given that not everyone has high speed broadband, overly restrictive usage caps in some countries, and the fact that ISPs are already complaining about having insufficient capacity to deal with the demand.) Then, when you get home, plug your SD card into your media centre, complete with several terabytes of storage and copying it.
I know there's no way of this happening in the short term thanks to DRM and the relatively high cost of setting up a multi-terrabyte storage system with redundancy (e.g. RAID or something like Drobo) compared with the cost of, say, a blu-ray player. But DRM completely failed for the music industry and it's only a matter of time before it fails for the movie industry too, and the cost of storage is constantly falling.
I'd be very surprised if your usage rate was that high. When I was in Australia and we actually had bandwidth caps (significantly lower than the 250GB limit Comcast is imposing) and the ability to monitor our usage was provided by the ISP, I didn't get anywhere near that. YouTube doesn't use up more than a few hundred MB per day, if that, and general browsing and work certainly doesn't use up 2-3GB per week.
I guess, if you're constantly downloading high definition 720p or 1080p TV/Blu-ray rips, then maybe fair enough. I know an average 720p 40 min TV episodes are about 1GB each, and a blu-ray rip is generally 8-15GB. It would also depend on whether your ISP counts uploads too, and how much you seed torrents. My ISP in Australia didn't count or limit uploads at all.
I have CD-RW media from 1998 (over-written on a 3-week cycle) here that still read just fine.
The difference is that the discs in the time capsule aren't going to be continually overwritten. They're just going to sit there for 25 years. I had some files backed up on DVD-Rs once. When they were written, they read just fine. After about a year or so when I needed to recover the files from them, a few files on some of the discs had become unreadable. That was the last time I ever used DVDs to backup anything, and I now use removable hard drives.
Personally, I would recommend using a few USB drives. The USB port isn't going anywhere any time soon, and so they will be almost guaranteed to be readable in any future device, assuming the data doesn't get corrupted over time. I would also recommend using several alternative backup methods so you get both redundancy and more chance of at least one medium being readable.
(Also, maintain a copy of all the data on your own hard drives so that if the buried data still gets corrupted, you can cheat after it's opened in 25 years and just bring in your own copy)
1. [He] Did not make a good case that usability is a "Major Problem" in OpenOffice and MOST linux distro's when compared to MS products. 2. Sweeping statements like "the open source communities (should) improve their development methods". Actually, these development methods are revolutionary, and all but the best funded orgs cannot keep up to it. Even traditional source control methodologies/products cannot handle it!
If you followed and read the link I provided above, that page makes quite a good case about what is wrong with the development process with regards to the usability and design aspects and what needs to be changed. While the overall development process could be considered revolutionary in comparison with closed source projects, the end result from a UI perspective, at least from the POV of a typical (non-geek) end user, can't quite compete.
Compare, for example, the graphic design quality of icons used throughout the system and various applications on Linux, Windows and OS X. Of course, OS X wins that hands down, but even XP's and Vista's look quite reasonable. Also, look at the default theme of Ubuntu: it's predominately brown, which is not at all attractive. Sure, it can be changed, but first impressions last.
One of the major problems is that open source software like OpenOffice.org and most Linux distributions are seriously lacking good UI design and usability. I know there are geeks who will argue that they're easy to use, but the problem is that a lot of open source software has been designed by geeks, for geeks. (Although, I will admit that Vista has also become largely unusable in many ways)
I don't blame them for opting for more usable alternatives, despite the cost and security problems with Windows. But I think taking legal action to force them to use free software is the wrong approch. I think the right approach is for the open source communities to improve their development methods and spend more time designing usable and attractive software.
Apple will just kill retail sales of OS X upgrades, and do it all through the iTunes store. Won't prevent hackintoshes but it'll kill Psystar's ability to ride Apple's development efforts.
IANAL, but if psystar wins and Apple is found guilty of anti-competitive behaviour, then it doesn't seem like simply using alternative technical measures to continue its anti-competive practices will work. I would expect that they would have some sort of legal obligations to meet that would prevent those anti-competitive practices.
In Australia, the e-tags have to be registered for use with specific cars, at least with the company I got mine through. IIRC, when you register, you have to provide information about things like the make, model and licence plate number of all cars you intend to use the e-tag with.
I'm not sure what procedures they have in place for when an e-tag is used in a different vehicle, but it seems likely that, if a similar hack were possible with e-tags used in Australia, the forged e-tag would get caught relatively easily because the car wouldn't match.
If by header, you mean , it's probably because that's where Javascript should be kept. All my webpages validate as xhtml strict, and placing the tag in is the only way for it to validate.
Wrong! The script element can be placed within either the head or body of a page, so placing it near the end is perfectly fine.
Hard drives are formatted with block sizes that are a power of two (e.g., 512 bytes). Thus it is more useful to see how many of them you would have on a filesystem than some power of ten figure that also conveniently inflates the capacity.
The issue being discussed isn't whether they should use base 10 or base 2 values, it's about which SI Prefix names that should be used for reporting the values.
It is an indisputable fact that hard drive manufacturers do currently use base 10 values and the base 10 prefixes. If you think they should use base 2 values, then fine, you may have a valid point. But you would have take it up with their marketing departments. However, if they did, they would also have to switch to the base 2 prefixes to avoid any confusion. IMHO, they should just report both sizes. e.g. 1TB / 931.32GiB
You seem to be trying to calculate in Tebibytes (TiB) and Pebibytes (PiB), which are based on the binary system, rather than Terabytes (TB) and Petabytes (PB), which are base 10.
Although some operating systems incorrectly use the decimal-based units with binary-based values (i.e. 1TB = 1024MB), that is technically wrong. Hard drive manufacturers actually report correctly using the decimal-based values (i.e. 1TB = 1000MB).
Also, you still got your maths wrong. 10TiB = ~0.09PiB.
I agree, it's a shame they had to fill it with it with mythology, instead of something more useful like some sort of documentation of our current scientific knowledge, information about actual significant historical events, or something.
No, if you RTFA, you'll see that it's China who have blocked access to it. Ordinarily, it's possible to access any localised iTunes store from anywhere in the world. That's why I can buy from the Australian iTunes store, even though I'm currently overseas. So Americans who are in China should be able to purchase from the USA store.
The article already says the funds are divided up by the collection societies based on statistical analysis, so it seems that's how the proposed model would work. But I'd prefer to know that all my money is going directly to the artists I like.
If it was like some kind of subscription service that accurately tracked exactly what I downloaded, and then divided up what I paid fairly between only those artists, then that would be ok. The problem is accurately tracking the songs if the proposed model is to allow users to download from anywhere after paying the fee.
Fall backwards: your head will arc over your heels.
I don't know about you, but the way I walk in an upright position, my head is always above my heals. If, on the other hand, my head was under my heals, I'd have a problem.
Put a cake in front of you, then eat it. Is the cake still there?
I hope that helps.
That works with the original ordering of the quote, which was to eat your cake and have it too. But the more widely used, corrupted version puts eating after having it, which is entirely possible.
There should still be some part of a person's brain that stops and says, "That doesn't make any sense..."
You'd think that would be the case, but oddly enough, there are plenty of idiomatic phrases that really don't make sense. For instance: "Falling head over heels", or "you can't have your cake and eat it too".
Also, I used to think it was "intensive purposes" when I was younger too, probably because whenever I heard it said on American TV shows, that's seriously what it sounds like.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, this page is non-conforming but validates.
http://damowmow.com/playground/not-html-yet-valid.html
It's also possible to, for example, include bogus values in attributes that won't be detected by a DTD based validator. e.g.
<script type="bogus">non-conforming but valid</script>
(Note that this particular error is caught by the HTML5 conformance checker which checks a lot more than DTDs can.)
yes, but this was about markup validation and I was only referring to the blink element in HTML, not the text-decoration value in CSS.
Your page only uses <span class="blink">NEW!</span>, which is styled using text-decoration:blink;. That's different from the <blink> element that was actually being discussed.
Does using "blink" make my code non-standard?
Yes, because blink is not defined as conforming in any standard. However, it is possible to make a page containing blink (or any other element or attribute you like) pass validation by providing a custom DTD or an internal subset.
But note that the claim that "4.13% of the Web Is Standards-compliant" isn't quite accurate. The study only used the W3C markup validator, which is only able to detect a subset of the machine checkable conformance criteria. It's trivial to create a non-standards compliant page that passes validation.
Yes, because having finger prints all over the TV screen is just what everyone wants to improve their viewing experience.
You still missed 0100
USB keys are definitely a terrible idea, especially if you're required to have the USB key plugged in to watch the movie. The DRM is going to kill this idea pretty damn quickly; I know I certainly won't be buying. Also, 2GB is barely enough capacity to distribute a film with a reasonable bit-rate and resolution. It's less than DVD and even with h.264 instead of MPEG2, it's not going to be as good.
I've thought for a while that selling DRM-free movies on 32GB SD cards would be a better solution than Blu-ray, with the ability to transfer the movie onto a hard drive. Imagine walking into a store, plugging in your own reusable SD card into computer kiosk, selecting the movie you want, paying and having it loaded onto your card for you. (This could be done over the internet too, but it may not be practical yet given that not everyone has high speed broadband, overly restrictive usage caps in some countries, and the fact that ISPs are already complaining about having insufficient capacity to deal with the demand.) Then, when you get home, plug your SD card into your media centre, complete with several terabytes of storage and copying it.
I know there's no way of this happening in the short term thanks to DRM and the relatively high cost of setting up a multi-terrabyte storage system with redundancy (e.g. RAID or something like Drobo) compared with the cost of, say, a blu-ray player. But DRM completely failed for the music industry and it's only a matter of time before it fails for the movie industry too, and the cost of storage is constantly falling.
I'd be very surprised if your usage rate was that high. When I was in Australia and we actually had bandwidth caps (significantly lower than the 250GB limit Comcast is imposing) and the ability to monitor our usage was provided by the ISP, I didn't get anywhere near that. YouTube doesn't use up more than a few hundred MB per day, if that, and general browsing and work certainly doesn't use up 2-3GB per week.
I guess, if you're constantly downloading high definition 720p or 1080p TV/Blu-ray rips, then maybe fair enough. I know an average 720p 40 min TV episodes are about 1GB each, and a blu-ray rip is generally 8-15GB. It would also depend on whether your ISP counts uploads too, and how much you seed torrents. My ISP in Australia didn't count or limit uploads at all.
I have CD-RW media from 1998 (over-written on a 3-week cycle) here that still read just fine.
The difference is that the discs in the time capsule aren't going to be continually overwritten. They're just going to sit there for 25 years. I had some files backed up on DVD-Rs once. When they were written, they read just fine. After about a year or so when I needed to recover the files from them, a few files on some of the discs had become unreadable. That was the last time I ever used DVDs to backup anything, and I now use removable hard drives.
Personally, I would recommend using a few USB drives. The USB port isn't going anywhere any time soon, and so they will be almost guaranteed to be readable in any future device, assuming the data doesn't get corrupted over time. I would also recommend using several alternative backup methods so you get both redundancy and more chance of at least one medium being readable.
(Also, maintain a copy of all the data on your own hard drives so that if the buried data still gets corrupted, you can cheat after it's opened in 25 years and just bring in your own copy)
1. [He] Did not make a good case that usability is a "Major Problem" in OpenOffice and MOST linux distro's when compared to MS products.
2. Sweeping statements like "the open source communities (should) improve their development methods". Actually, these development methods are revolutionary, and all but the best funded orgs cannot keep up to it. Even traditional source control methodologies/products cannot handle it!
If you followed and read the link I provided above, that page makes quite a good case about what is wrong with the development process with regards to the usability and design aspects and what needs to be changed. While the overall development process could be considered revolutionary in comparison with closed source projects, the end result from a UI perspective, at least from the POV of a typical (non-geek) end user, can't quite compete.
Compare, for example, the graphic design quality of icons used throughout the system and various applications on Linux, Windows and OS X. Of course, OS X wins that hands down, but even XP's and Vista's look quite reasonable. Also, look at the default theme of Ubuntu: it's predominately brown, which is not at all attractive. Sure, it can be changed, but first impressions last.
One of the major problems is that open source software like OpenOffice.org and most Linux distributions are seriously lacking good UI design and usability. I know there are geeks who will argue that they're easy to use, but the problem is that a lot of open source software has been designed by geeks, for geeks. (Although, I will admit that Vista has also become largely unusable in many ways)
I don't blame them for opting for more usable alternatives, despite the cost and security problems with Windows. But I think taking legal action to force them to use free software is the wrong approch. I think the right approach is for the open source communities to improve their development methods and spend more time designing usable and attractive software.
Apple will just kill retail sales of OS X upgrades, and do it all through the iTunes store. Won't prevent hackintoshes but it'll kill Psystar's ability to ride Apple's development efforts.
IANAL, but if psystar wins and Apple is found guilty of anti-competitive behaviour, then it doesn't seem like simply using alternative technical measures to continue its anti-competive practices will work. I would expect that they would have some sort of legal obligations to meet that would prevent those anti-competitive practices.
In Australia, the e-tags have to be registered for use with specific cars, at least with the company I got mine through. IIRC, when you register, you have to provide information about things like the make, model and licence plate number of all cars you intend to use the e-tag with.
I'm not sure what procedures they have in place for when an e-tag is used in a different vehicle, but it seems likely that, if a similar hack were possible with e-tags used in Australia, the forged e-tag would get caught relatively easily because the car wouldn't match.
If by header, you mean , it's probably because that's where Javascript should be kept. All my webpages validate as xhtml strict, and placing the tag in is the only way for it to validate.
Wrong! The script element can be placed within either the head or body of a page, so placing it near the end is perfectly fine.
Hard drives are formatted with block sizes that are a power of two (e.g., 512 bytes). Thus it is more useful to see how many of them you would have on a filesystem than some power of ten figure that also conveniently inflates the capacity.
The issue being discussed isn't whether they should use base 10 or base 2 values, it's about which SI Prefix names that should be used for reporting the values.
It is an indisputable fact that hard drive manufacturers do currently use base 10 values and the base 10 prefixes. If you think they should use base 2 values, then fine, you may have a valid point. But you would have take it up with their marketing departments. However, if they did, they would also have to switch to the base 2 prefixes to avoid any confusion. IMHO, they should just report both sizes. e.g. 1TB / 931.32GiB
Yeah, well, like it or not, hard drive manufacturers and data transmission rates use the base 10 SI units.
You seem to be trying to calculate in Tebibytes (TiB) and Pebibytes (PiB), which are based on the binary system, rather than Terabytes (TB) and Petabytes (PB), which are base 10.
Although some operating systems incorrectly use the decimal-based units with binary-based values (i.e. 1TB = 1024MB), that is technically wrong. Hard drive manufacturers actually report correctly using the decimal-based values (i.e. 1TB = 1000MB).
Also, you still got your maths wrong. 10TiB = ~0.09PiB.
I agree, it's a shame they had to fill it with it with mythology, instead of something more useful like some sort of documentation of our current scientific knowledge, information about actual significant historical events, or something.
No, if you RTFA, you'll see that it's China who have blocked access to it. Ordinarily, it's possible to access any localised iTunes store from anywhere in the world. That's why I can buy from the Australian iTunes store, even though I'm currently overseas. So Americans who are in China should be able to purchase from the USA store.
Yeah, HD DVDs are the future!
Perhaps wikipedia can explain the issue better than I have.
The article already says the funds are divided up by the collection societies based on statistical analysis, so it seems that's how the proposed model would work. But I'd prefer to know that all my money is going directly to the artists I like.
If it was like some kind of subscription service that accurately tracked exactly what I downloaded, and then divided up what I paid fairly between only those artists, then that would be ok. The problem is accurately tracking the songs if the proposed model is to allow users to download from anywhere after paying the fee.
Fall backwards: your head will arc over your heels.
I don't know about you, but the way I walk in an upright position, my head is always above my heals. If, on the other hand, my head was under my heals, I'd have a problem.
Put a cake in front of you, then eat it. Is the cake still there?
I hope that helps.
That works with the original ordering of the quote, which was to eat your cake and have it too. But the more widely used, corrupted version puts eating after having it, which is entirely possible.
This is old technology. S1m0ne looked pretty realistic to me 6 years ago. ;-)
There should still be some part of a person's brain that stops and says, "That doesn't make any sense..."
You'd think that would be the case, but oddly enough, there are plenty of idiomatic phrases that really don't make sense. For instance: "Falling head over heels", or "you can't have your cake and eat it too".
Also, I used to think it was "intensive purposes" when I was younger too, probably because whenever I heard it said on American TV shows, that's seriously what it sounds like.