How is he supposed to have known the seed were RR? If he didn't use roundup to kill his crops, how is he supposed to know?
Are you a farmer? Do you know anything about farming? Show us your credentials and give us reason why, as a farmer of 50 years, 'he had to have known'. If you can show reasonable data to back it up, you will have gained a supporter to your view, but my experience as a farmer taught me that one plant in a crop looks broadly similar to another and when you have a whole field of them which, incidentally, you are not wandering around the middle of for the sheer sake of it, you are hardly likely to know anything is different. Unless the plants grew eyes and fangs and snagged samml passing aircraft, or the seeds would grow legs and devour small rodents its not so likely he would have noticed.
Before you make the argument that the onsanto investigators could tell the difference, I say 'So What'.
They would be far more familiar with the plants, that being their whole purpose in life. Where the farmer has to spend his time of thousands of other tasks in his daily work, the monsanto expert has studing the plants as his whole job. He may also have more advanced tools for sampling that can test for a gene or enzyme though this is speculation since I have never read anything on how initial identifcation was done other that the act of criminal damage commited by dropping chemicals onto crops, potentially destroying them and definately contaminating the crop and the farmland.
As regards his reusing the seed. He claims, and there is no evidence against it, that the crop was contaminated by outside means. How is he supposed to make an income? Is he supposed to throw away his crop and 50 years of work? Possibly his farm along with it? Why should he? He didn't choose to use the geneline. He didn't introduce it to the wild. He didn't ignore the risk to third parties and introduce a crop that has no cross contamination safeguards. There is no evidence to say he is not completely innocent, though there is plenty to suggest that Monsanto's intentions and actions are less than honourable.
He has a right to reuse his seed line. It is this action and right that has kept us fed for 10000+ years and allowed our 'civilisation' to thrive.
Surely, though, the whole argument of buying certified seed will still fall down.
If the GMO seed in the.25% proves genetically dominant, then if you were to reuse and resow the seed then over time it's percentage would increase; probably rather rapidly by cross pollination. How long before the content exceeded any arbitrarily set threshold and the farmer then become liable for attention by the legal heavy mob?
Even if the government or some other supplier can 'guarantee' asupply of safe seeds each year the farmer, who for the last 10,000+ years has been entitled to resow seed and develop his own crop line cannot do this. Farmers lose a right that has existed far longer than civilisation and are financially held to ransom.
Since these people so appreciate practical jokes, why don't you play one on them?
Publish all the names and phone numbers of the people you had dealings with, together with any email and snailmail addresses.
It would be such a laugh watching how they react. It will be even funnier when they start to complain about being spammed and having to change all their phone numers.
I and many others were talking about this kind of show in general, so it is not whining. Not in any way. It is in fact the same kind of response that is required if your vacuous concept of 'good taste' requires if it is to work. You can hardly champion a method of safeguarding people while belittling the people who involve themselves in the process. (not unless you are a US or UK polititian, that is)
Your opinion about whether it is "unforgivably humiliating them" is worth worth sweet f.a. As is mine, as is anyone's other than the person who feels they have been humiliated or cheated.
Their being paid for their time is a daft argument. When you take a job, or otherwise sell you time, it is not purely a decision based on money, but based on circumstance and what value you put on your time. Ask anyone who has taken a lower paid job to spend more time with family or live in a less urban environment. Had it acutally occured to you that the people who have been cheated and lied to to take part in these potential lynchings (as many view them) might have decided that the remuneration was totally inadequate in relation to the experience for potential damage to their reputation of social standing. How would you feel if you found yourself a joke professionally because of such an assasination. how would you feel if your kids had to be subjected to humiliation and grief at school because of your being made an object of ridicule without your permission?
If they had TV in ancient Rome, I wonder if they would have had this kind of support for televising events in the arena and how our society would view them today. I don't think the 'good taste' argument would cut much ice now, and I don't think that people have changed all that much to make it work now.
That is fair enough, to a very small and limited point.
Would the TV company be willing to write off all the investment in that filming should the victim object? To destroy all footage? Somehow I don't think so, but that is one thing they should be prepared to so should the victim demand it. If they take a flyer which is so likely to humiliate or annoy someone then that persons already neglected feelings should be observed.
Even so, consider the case of a person whose time is limited but is willing to provide time for a subject they believe in. That this time is effectively stolen from them under false pretenses should also be something that the program makers should be willing to take responsibility for.
Playing a joke on a friend or other loved one is one thing. Usually you know the limits that person will go to while still finding fun themselves in the joke. The broadcast media doesn't know these limits and time and time again have proven themselves to not be concerned with such things so long as they make money. You value a relationship with a friend and will not go so far as to risk that; there is no such safeguard with these vultures.
Practical jokes are an old broadcast format. That doesn't mean they are right. I cannot imagine there is anyone, including the supporters of this format, who do not have some aspect of their lives that could be used to cause hilarity for others while unforgivably humiliating them. Maybe people should stop and think on that before supporting the making of money at other people's expense and accusing those who object of being whiners.
If you choose to take up the whole screen with your window, then it is your choice, but at least you have the choice. Many people with large high res screens have them because they want multiple windows or panes across the screen.
Such users will rarely take up the whole screen with a browser window unless it has content on it that would require it.
Other users with large screens choose them because they might have bad eyesight and choose to display things larger than normal and want to play with the size of fonts. Idiots who use pixel based positioning which doesn't adapt to changes in font size alienate these users because when they resize the fonts the layouts will all go to pot.
You don't have to have bad eyesight to want to change font size. It is good to be further away from the screen sometimes for the sake of your eyes. Changing the font sizes can help in doing that. badly designed sites make this difficult to do.
In fact this can happen for other reasons. I recently installed some Microsoft updates and since then some sites don't display so well under IE, showing the same positioning problems due to font size changes.
Oh yes! Let us not forget the braindead asses who believe that their site looks absolutely brilliant with all the text at 4pt. It may look brilliant on a 24" screen at 800x600 when their noses are pressed to the glass but most of the rest of us may disagree. Especially when we only have 19-21" monitors at 1280x1024 and would like to be far enough away fro the screen that our children won't have 2 heads.
nope, it shouldn't be a standard. No size should be a standard. Unless there is good reason to set a MINIMUM page width, then pages should attempt to be rescalable.
Anyone dumb enough to use naive pixel based positioning should be ridiculed since people with different fonts and browsers will have trouble reading the pages,
Then you should do what any sensible engineer would do and identify your target browsers and choose a sensible subset of CSS that works across all of them. Alternatively write code that adapts to the 'odd' ones out.
As for your not being a 'real' web designer, that doesn't matter so long as you are a skilled individual who approaches the task methodically and with a good eye to problems and their solutions. I fully agree with your attitude about so called professionals. Many of them probably know far less than you (as a stated non-professional) yet arrogantly state their supposed expertise.
In a way this is similar to the way I've sometimes used DocBook to generate pages, using different XSLT to render for different screen layouts and also to generate PDF or RTF versions.
With SVG and MathML, DocBook could be a powerful tool for content providers. However, it still doesn't address the issue of rescaling pages to different sizes.
Maybe we need to try producing a solution that addresses these problems better than the combinaion of HTML, CSS and Javascript.
Isn't it? Surly you are using techology to impart information to people. This makes it technological.
Understanding of the limitations and advantages of the technology are required. This is technical.
Perhaps you need to take a step back and define exactly what you are doing; what you require of the site.
If it is a platform to show off your artistic prowess, then maybe your points have 100% validity (I'm not being sarcastic, even artists need to advertise) however perhaps if you rethought your requirements then you would find a new design that would allow, at least a certain degree of rescaling. Saying it cannot be done is an insult to the great designers who make the effort to engineer great sites.
Just saying that it won't work without considering these issues is a little like only having a Ford Sierra and trying to use it for everything from a kiddies pram all the way through to being a tank. If something doesn't fit, try to find something that can. If you can't then you have to redefine the problem, but at least make the effort.
Not even the slightest bit off topic. You have done something most of the rest of us haven't bothered to do and given an example of where you have found a site that is acceptable at quite an extreme screen size.
This problem continues all through web development.
Web applications (effectively anything that has active/dynamic content) are just implementations of the Client/Server paradigm. Back before the web Client/Server development was considered quite an art and effective practioners were respected.
This was not elitism; good client server is involved requiring consideration to be given to information issues and protocols. Web design is actually a difficult implementation of this because it is a 'one shot' protocol with only limited state keeping capability.
Because these designers don't realise this they assume that they can design a site and someone else just does the server code behind it.
For all but the simplest sites this is plain rubbish and the reason why there are so many poor implementations in web land.
Truly great sites have been designed with this interdependence in mind. Even if the original versions didn't, either by decision or a kind of Darwinian Extreme Refactoring the current great versions take this into account.
For good sites, you either need architects who are also good artists, or teams where each skill is regarded with the respect it requires without undue emphasis being given to one discipline over another. This is a professional and management issue that shouldn't be a problem. Other engineering disciplines manage to combine art with engineering effectively (cars, architecture, civils) so it should be achievable. I suspect it all comes down to professionalism (the real stuff, not the excrement bad managers talk about)
It is too a point. It is a mark up language but has so little actual semantic information that it is only really any use as a simple page layout.
Where it excels is that is groups information blocks and, if left to its own devices, will allow its content to be rendered in a sensible, if not pretty format.
What has happened is that JavaScript, CSS etc has taken that simple and 'pure' form and allowed some to corrupt it by allowing people to try and turn it into another form of PDF:)
If you want a pure markup then DocBook would be a good way to go and I have used it for some sites in the past where I've wanted the information to be searchable or presented via multiple media.
... that having to use horizontal scrolling may actually be part of the base state of the Universe!
Back in the dark ages, when a web was something you cleaned out of a server case, and the internet was a new fangled name for the Arpanet I remember the 'joy' of getting textual information from the net. We had a couple of formats ranging from text, all the way through wordstar, troff and TeX, all having to be saved and/or extracted before we could even attempt to read them.
Back then the output was text and it almost always was too wide for the terminal you were reading from:(
Then came HTML! The sun had risen and there was a nice tidy and portable way of documenting that could be read without the risk RSI, tunnel vision and seized neck muscles. Nerds, geeks and other fellow sad cases rejoiced, were happy and read (when reading was still a common skill:) ) texts on all shapes and size of displays.
Then, slowly, no doubt attracted by the lure of pretty things rather than content the web began the change.
The agents of darkness religiously avoided those pesky things called 'knowledge' & 'skill' and armed with a demonic ability to kill any browser's wish to make text readable, theyinfiltrated the ranks of 'Web Developers'.
The old ways came back and horizontal scrolling returned. Darkness has again returned...
Sometimes a minimum size is unavoidable if you are to present information sensibly. I myself have had to make decisions to set a minimum size in the past, but only after trying hard to avoid doing so. Sad though it is, it is a brutal fact of life that you can't have anything.
It is a problem in a feedback site like/. that you can rarely fully qualify points you make and I've probably already made a few in this discussion that should have long and detailed notes/excuses.exceptions:D
There do exist technologies and paradigms that would allow you to use a smaller screen resolution but these have their own problems and would expect plugins and other resources that devices with smaller screens may not have available, Sometime you just can't win:(
One of the main things that annoys me about web site design, though, is that the reasons for these choices are rarely justifiable, as in your case, but made just because the designers are either too lazy or inept to do it any other way. They take a dynamic web medium and try to treat it as if it was a sheet of paper because they cannot code the dynamic sizing. Often this is perceived as lack of consideration or arrogance, although I suspect it is more usually stupidity or lack of skills to do the job at hand (which is probably worse!)
I bet you'd love to know if you were losing business because of it though. Oh well, maybe in some utopian afterlife...:)
The problem is that many cannot make the leap from a fixed size media to a dynamic media like the web.
While many wet themselves with excitement over the potential of the new media they didn't spend time learning enough about it.
Many of them would laugh themselves silly at an artist who insisted on choosing the wrong combination of materials while not seeing that they are doing so themselves. To compound things, they then take the typical art world disregard those who do know better by convincing themselves that these people are not artists. Wonder how many are just plain arrogant, or not willing to admit they don't know what they are doing?
I do actually know a few experienced Graphics Artists who are also Computer Scientists (strange, but true:) ) You should hear them rant!
A good point and similar to one I have made about PDAs, though I suspect the phones will also have to improve a bit first. I suspect it would be pushing things a bit to expect all pages to work on my Treo600 or a 3650:)
When phones have reached a reasonable position in no-ones' land then it be time to expect this to happen
Slashdot Mirror
...Just how far technology has come in the last 3 years :)
...just how fa technology has come in just 3 years :)
How is he supposed to have known the seed were RR? If he didn't use roundup to kill his crops, how is he supposed to know?
Are you a farmer? Do you know anything about farming? Show us your credentials and give us reason why, as a farmer of 50 years, 'he had to have known'. If you can show reasonable data to back it up, you will have gained a supporter to your view, but my experience as a farmer taught me that one plant in a crop looks broadly similar to another and when you have a whole field of them which, incidentally, you are not wandering around the middle of for the sheer sake of it, you are hardly likely to know anything is different. Unless the plants grew eyes and fangs and snagged samml passing aircraft, or the seeds would grow legs and devour small rodents its not so likely he would have noticed.
Before you make the argument that the onsanto investigators could tell the difference, I say 'So What'.
They would be far more familiar with the plants, that being their whole purpose in life. Where the farmer has to spend his time of thousands of other tasks in his daily work, the monsanto expert has studing the plants as his whole job. He may also have more advanced tools for sampling that can test for a gene or enzyme though this is speculation since I have never read anything on how initial identifcation was done other that the act of criminal damage commited by dropping chemicals onto crops, potentially destroying them and definately contaminating the crop and the farmland.
As regards his reusing the seed. He claims, and there is no evidence against it, that the crop was contaminated by outside means. How is he supposed to make an income? Is he supposed to throw away his crop and 50 years of work? Possibly his farm along with it? Why should he? He didn't choose to use the geneline. He didn't introduce it to the wild. He didn't ignore the risk to third parties and introduce a crop that has no cross contamination safeguards. There is no evidence to say he is not completely innocent, though there is plenty to suggest that Monsanto's intentions and actions are less than honourable.
He has a right to reuse his seed line. It is this action and right that has kept us fed for 10000+ years and allowed our 'civilisation' to thrive.
If you were found guilty by a 'Justice' System when you knoew yourself to be innocent, would you still have faith in it?
Surely, though, the whole argument of buying certified seed will still fall down.
.25% proves genetically dominant, then if you were to reuse and resow the seed then over time it's percentage would increase; probably rather rapidly by cross pollination. How long before the content exceeded any arbitrarily set threshold and the farmer then become liable for attention by the legal heavy mob?
.
If the GMO seed in the
Even if the government or some other supplier can 'guarantee' asupply of safe seeds each year the farmer, who for the last 10,000+ years has been entitled to resow seed and develop his own crop line cannot do this. Farmers lose a right that has existed far longer than civilisation and are financially held to ransom
Since these people so appreciate practical jokes, why don't you play one on them?
:)
Publish all the names and phone numbers of the people you had dealings with, together with any email and snailmail addresses.
It would be such a laugh watching how they react. It will be even funnier when they start to complain about being spammed and having to change all their phone numers.
What a jape
I and many others were talking about this kind of show in general, so it is not whining. Not in any way. It is in fact the same kind of response that is required if your vacuous concept of 'good taste' requires if it is to work. You can hardly champion a method of safeguarding people while belittling the people who involve themselves in the process. (not unless you are a US or UK polititian, that is)
Your opinion about whether it is "unforgivably humiliating them" is worth worth sweet f.a. As is mine, as is anyone's other than the person who feels they have been humiliated or cheated.
Their being paid for their time is a daft argument. When you take a job, or otherwise sell you time, it is not purely a decision based on money, but based on circumstance and what value you put on your time. Ask anyone who has taken a lower paid job to spend more time with family or live in a less urban environment. Had it acutally occured to you that the people who have been cheated and lied to to take part in these potential lynchings (as many view them) might have decided that the remuneration was totally inadequate in relation to the experience for potential damage to their reputation of social standing. How would you feel if you found yourself a joke professionally because of such an assasination. how would you feel if your kids had to be subjected to humiliation and grief at school because of your being made an object of ridicule without your permission?
If they had TV in ancient Rome, I wonder if they would have had this kind of support for televising events in the arena and how our society would view them today. I don't think the 'good taste' argument would cut much ice now, and I don't think that people have changed all that much to make it work now.
That is fair enough, to a very small and limited point.
Would the TV company be willing to write off all the investment in that filming should the victim object? To destroy all footage? Somehow I don't think so, but that is one thing they should be prepared to so should the victim demand it. If they take a flyer which is so likely to humiliate or annoy someone then that persons already neglected feelings should be observed.
Even so, consider the case of a person whose time is limited but is willing to provide time for a subject they believe in. That this time is effectively stolen from them under false pretenses should also be something that the program makers should be willing to take responsibility for.
Playing a joke on a friend or other loved one is one thing. Usually you know the limits that person will go to while still finding fun themselves in the joke. The broadcast media doesn't know these limits and time and time again have proven themselves to not be concerned with such things so long as they make money. You value a relationship with a friend and will not go so far as to risk that; there is no such safeguard with these vultures.
Practical jokes are an old broadcast format. That doesn't mean they are right. I cannot imagine there is anyone, including the supporters of this format, who do not have some aspect of their lives that could be used to cause hilarity for others while unforgivably humiliating them. Maybe people should stop and think on that before supporting the making of money at other people's expense and accusing those who object of being whiners.
If you choose to take up the whole screen with your window, then it is your choice, but at least you have the choice. Many people with large high res screens have them because they want multiple windows or panes across the screen.
Such users will rarely take up the whole screen with a browser window unless it has content on it that would require it.
Other users with large screens choose them because they might have bad eyesight and choose to display things larger than normal and want to play with the size of fonts. Idiots who use pixel based positioning which doesn't adapt to changes in font size alienate these users because when they resize the fonts the layouts will all go to pot.
You don't have to have bad eyesight to want to change font size. It is good to be further away from the screen sometimes for the sake of your eyes. Changing the font sizes can help in doing that. badly designed sites make this difficult to do.
In fact this can happen for other reasons. I recently installed some Microsoft updates and since then some sites don't display so well under IE, showing the same positioning problems due to font size changes.
Oh yes! Let us not forget the braindead asses who believe that their site looks absolutely brilliant with all the text at 4pt. It may look brilliant on a 24" screen at 800x600 when their noses are pressed to the glass but most of the rest of us may disagree. Especially when we only have 19-21" monitors at 1280x1024 and would like to be far enough away fro the screen that our children won't have 2 heads.
nope, it shouldn't be a standard. No size should be a standard. Unless there is good reason to set a MINIMUM page width, then pages should attempt to be rescalable.
Anyone dumb enough to use naive pixel based positioning should be ridiculed since people with different fonts and browsers will have trouble reading the pages,
Interesting idea.
:)
By overloading their perception of the word 'scalability' many of them may get so flustered that their heads explode and rid us of them
Then you should do what any sensible engineer would do and identify your target browsers and choose a sensible subset of CSS that works across all of them. Alternatively write code that adapts to the 'odd' ones out.
As for your not being a 'real' web designer, that doesn't matter so long as you are a skilled individual who approaches the task methodically and with a good eye to problems and their solutions. I fully agree with your attitude about so called professionals. Many of them probably know far less than you (as a stated non-professional) yet arrogantly state their supposed expertise.
In a way this is similar to the way I've sometimes used DocBook to generate pages, using different XSLT to render for different screen layouts and also to generate PDF or RTF versions.
With SVG and MathML, DocBook could be a powerful tool for content providers. However, it still doesn't address the issue of rescaling pages to different sizes.
Maybe we need to try producing a solution that addresses these problems better than the combinaion of HTML, CSS and Javascript.
Please!!!!
Not even in jest!!!
I have actually seen people trying to do this.
A good general set of rules, but it is always worth considering alternatives in cases where they could be worthwhile.
Isn't it? Surly you are using techology to impart information to people. This makes it technological.
Understanding of the limitations and advantages of the technology are required. This is technical.
Perhaps you need to take a step back and define exactly what you are doing; what you require of the site.
If it is a platform to show off your artistic prowess, then maybe your points have 100% validity (I'm not being sarcastic, even artists need to advertise) however perhaps if you rethought your requirements then you would find a new design that would allow, at least a certain degree of rescaling. Saying it cannot be done is an insult to the great designers who make the effort to engineer great sites.
Just saying that it won't work without considering these issues is a little like only having a Ford Sierra and trying to use it for everything from a kiddies pram all the way through to being a tank. If something doesn't fit, try to find something that can. If you can't then you have to redefine the problem, but at least make the effort.
or laptops, which cannot be upgraded
Not even the slightest bit off topic. You have done something most of the rest of us haven't bothered to do and given an example of where you have found a site that is acceptable at quite an extreme screen size.
This problem continues all through web development.
Web applications (effectively anything that has active/dynamic content) are just implementations of the Client/Server paradigm. Back before the web Client/Server development was considered quite an art and effective practioners were respected.
This was not elitism; good client server is involved requiring consideration to be given to information issues and protocols. Web design is actually a difficult implementation of this because it is a 'one shot' protocol with only limited state keeping capability.
Because these designers don't realise this they assume that they can design a site and someone else just does the server code behind it.
For all but the simplest sites this is plain rubbish and the reason why there are so many poor implementations in web land.
Truly great sites have been designed with this interdependence in mind. Even if the original versions didn't, either by decision or a kind of Darwinian Extreme Refactoring the current great versions take this into account.
For good sites, you either need architects who are also good artists, or teams where each skill is regarded with the respect it requires without undue emphasis being given to one discipline over another. This is a professional and management issue that shouldn't be a problem. Other engineering disciplines manage to combine art with engineering effectively (cars, architecture, civils) so it should be achievable. I suspect it all comes down to professionalism (the real stuff, not the excrement bad managers talk about)
It is too a point. It is a mark up language but has so little actual semantic information that it is only really any use as a simple page layout.
:)
Where it excels is that is groups information blocks and, if left to its own devices, will allow its content to be rendered in a sensible, if not pretty format.
What has happened is that JavaScript, CSS etc has taken that simple and 'pure' form and allowed some to corrupt it by allowing people to try and turn it into another form of PDF
If you want a pure markup then DocBook would be a good way to go and I have used it for some sites in the past where I've wanted the information to be searchable or presented via multiple media.
... that having to use horizontal scrolling may actually be part of the base state of the Universe!
:(
:) ) texts on all shapes and size of displays.
Back in the dark ages, when a web was something you cleaned out of a server case, and the internet was a new fangled name for the Arpanet I remember the 'joy' of getting textual information from the net. We had a couple of formats ranging from text, all the way through wordstar, troff and TeX, all having to be saved and/or extracted before we could even attempt to read them.
Back then the output was text and it almost always was too wide for the terminal you were reading from
Then came HTML! The sun had risen and there was a nice tidy and portable way of documenting that could be read without the risk RSI, tunnel vision and seized neck muscles. Nerds, geeks and other fellow sad cases rejoiced, were happy and read (when reading was still a common skill
Then, slowly, no doubt attracted by the lure of pretty things rather than content the web began the change.
The agents of darkness religiously avoided those pesky things called 'knowledge' & 'skill' and armed with a demonic ability to kill any browser's wish to make text readable, theyinfiltrated the ranks of 'Web Developers'.
The old ways came back and horizontal scrolling returned. Darkness has again returned...
Most are already in one. The Hell of Ignorance :)
Sometimes a minimum size is unavoidable if you are to present information sensibly. I myself have had to make decisions to set a minimum size in the past, but only after trying hard to avoid doing so. Sad though it is, it is a brutal fact of life that you can't have anything.
/. that you can rarely fully qualify points you make and I've probably already made a few in this discussion that should have long and detailed notes/excuses.exceptions :D
:(
:)
It is a problem in a feedback site like
There do exist technologies and paradigms that would allow you to use a smaller screen resolution but these have their own problems and would expect plugins and other resources that devices with smaller screens may not have available, Sometime you just can't win
One of the main things that annoys me about web site design, though, is that the reasons for these choices are rarely justifiable, as in your case, but made just because the designers are either too lazy or inept to do it any other way. They take a dynamic web medium and try to treat it as if it was a sheet of paper because they cannot code the dynamic sizing. Often this is perceived as lack of consideration or arrogance, although I suspect it is more usually stupidity or lack of skills to do the job at hand (which is probably worse!)
I bet you'd love to know if you were losing business because of it though. Oh well, maybe in some utopian afterlife...
The problem is that many cannot make the leap from a fixed size media to a dynamic media like the web.
:) ) You should hear them rant!
While many wet themselves with excitement over the potential of the new media they didn't spend time learning enough about it.
Many of them would laugh themselves silly at an artist who insisted on choosing the wrong combination of materials while not seeing that they are doing so themselves. To compound things, they then take the typical art world disregard those who do know better by convincing themselves that these people are not artists. Wonder how many are just plain arrogant, or not willing to admit they don't know what they are doing?
I do actually know a few experienced Graphics Artists who are also Computer Scientists (strange, but true
A good point and similar to one I have made about PDAs, though I suspect the phones will also have to improve a bit first. I suspect it would be pushing things a bit to expect all pages to work on my Treo600 or a 3650 :)
When phones have reached a reasonable position in no-ones' land then it be time to expect this to happen