I can still submit comments to Slashdot with Javascript disabled. Be sure your submission system works that way as well. Javascript can enhance, and should. Lack of Javascript should not disable. It is not required to submit a comment.
As for YouTube... totally possible without Javascript, Java, or even Flash. True, it would not look so good and would be harder for some people to use. But the way they do it, it's a broken site altogether when these facilities are not usable, and that does not have to be.
There are many sites that do just plain stupid things with otherwise great tools, mostly because they use them the wrong way, or for the wrong purpose. One example is the use of Javascript to replace hyperlinks. That breaks tabs. Instead, the design should include a genuine hyperlink that is intercepted by Javascript if Javascript is enabled. Make sure every "link" on your site works when I press the middle button to open it in a tab.
Until technologies like Flash are made reliable and secure across all platforms, web developers... don't have to stop using them, but... really must take into account that some web users won't have the capability and they (the developers) need to provide alternatives, even if less glitzy. Things like don't make the whole content be in flash would apply here. Use Flash for what can't be done by other means. And make audios and videos available directly in standard formats.
... keyboards drawn on the screen under each input field, with Javascript to tie clicks by the mouse pointer on the keys in that keyboard image so the characters are inserted into the appropriate field.
Another option where Javascript can't be used is to create a printed character array that has all the characters. Use the mouse to copy and paste characters one at a time between there and the input field.
All this will be done through HTTPS, of course. Next come the mandatory rootkits. Then patrons bringing in their own Ubuntu or Knoppix disks.
If you are paying for TV content to be delivered to you, then maybe that provider should offer it as an extra fee service. But for free terrestrial and free satellite TV programming, at least those listings should be free if the source providers are willing to make their piece of it free, as long as there are people willing to do the distributing for free.
I don't think we need the detailed show format (segment timings, commercial breaks, etc)... do we? What we need is the basic start and end time for the show, the name and code of the show, and where applicable the episode number. Other data is a nice plus but could usually be indexed by the show's code and episode number (e.g. lists of actors/actresses, plot description, date of production, and other trivia). I assume (because I've never looked at the MythTV stuff, yet) the XML DTD has already been worked out. If not, we need to do that, too. What we need to do is be sure we are getting data with a legal right to redistribute it.
... the UV-ray players with 320 GB capacity... or the X-ray players with 2 TB capacity. Oh wait. Even those will have DRM (Destroys Retail Movies, Damned Revenue Mongrels, Dirty Raunchy Managers, Disk Rot Method, and Distributing Rootkits Mainly). Forget it. Nevermind.
For local broadcasters, we can collect our own. Many broadcasters may be willing to provide their schedules for free. Someone in each city would have to be the "point person" to encourage the stations to provide them in a usable form with no distribution restriction. Then they would be submit them to central databases (can be more than one) where they would be merged and others can then download in bulk. The national networks might be harder to get them from.
It's fine by me if they give out no code at all as long as they give out the full interface specs so that all features in the hardware can be used (like 2d/3d rendering and h264 acceleration). This needs to be made available to everyone, not just a select few at Xorg as a later Phoronix article suggests will be what happens. I have some non-XWindows stuff to do with video cards and I'm not about to ever sign an NDA.
1) Cell phones aren't usually terribly expensive. If you apply a $150 subsidy to a $200 phone over 24 months, that works out to about $6.25/month. Furthermore, not all phones are subsidized. Look at the iPhone for example. Why are people being roped in to a long term contracts with it? Simple: the cell phone companies want contracts and subsidies are just a convenient cover story.
They once were expensive, which is how it got started. It's just that the service providers aren't passing on all the savings; they are pocketing it as profit. The fact that so many people don't know they can buy an unlocked phone now at a reasonable price and sign up month to month means there is still a "locked market" for phones that look cheap and are expensive. But this can be changed without banning term contracts. With alternatives, the market for term contracts can then be competitive.
2) Long term contracts aren't the only way to recover subsidies. The cellular companies should be able to subsidize phones, but they should be upfront about it. First, they should list the actual price of the phone when you buy it. Then to subsidize it you should be told how much subsidy will be paid by the cellular company each month (equal to the cost of the phone divided by number of months with no lump sum grand payoff in the last month or other such tricks), the subsidy should be limited to a certain number of months (probably six or twelve, in order to prevent the provider from saying it subsidizes $0.05/month on a $200 phone), and if you cancel before the total cost of the phone is paid off your cancellation fees will be limited to ONLY the remaining subsidy payments on the phone.
That sounds reasonable to me. That's not banning contracts; that's "full disclosure" (which we need).
3) All devices should be available without service, and exclusive contracts between cellular makers and cellular providers should be banned.
I'm not sure if I totally agree. It would be great if Apple decided to cell the iPhone unlocked and unbound to anyone who wanted to pay for it. Where things get complicated is that a lot of phones are really platforms in which service providers add software to add features. And there is a long history of manufacturers contracted by other companies to produce a product for that other company to sell. I'm not all opposed to this idea, but it would have to be done very very carefully.
4) All devices should be available both for an up front charge, and be unlocked. Once you can use any device on any technically compatible network you won't be forced to turn to the cellular provider to buy equipment. Then the already weak argument for contracts unravels.
We do need to have a clear separation between service provider and manufacturer, prohibiting any one entity from doing both. Same for other things like cable set top boxes.
I still stand by my position that the term contracts should not be banned. Instead, the phone companies should be required to divulge that alternatives exist. And manufacturers need to be required to make the phones available to domestic resellers under standand warranty sale.
I don't want to take away one particular method of purchase. While that might speed up getting decent phone service for those that hate contracts (I being one of them), I'm opposed to the idea of taking away an option some people will find useful.
You would be locking out the poor from even getting a cell phone at all, since they can't afford to pay the full cost of a phone up front. You would be preventing an entire class of big businesses from exploiting them and keeping them poor. Then these people would have to find something else to do instead of chatting on the phone all day, like actually going to work and keeping their job.
I have to disagree with you. Contracts should not be banned. Some people even like those. They can get a new phone every couple years without paying a lot up front. These are the same people that lease cars and trade up every 2 or 3 years.
Cell phone contracts used to be the only way the majority of people could afford a cell phone. This practice emerged from the days of mobile phones before cellular technology, which existed at least as far back as the 1950's although I don't know what all the terms were then. The first one I ever saw even used tubes (not transistors) inside a pair of large boxes installed in the trunk of a car. When cellular technology emerged, the phones were still fairly large and also expensive due to lack of economy of scale. That, of course, eventually changed.
The problem is, of course, the cell phone service providers still like the term contracts for many reasons I'm sure you are aware of. They try to make it hard for people to get phone service, or even phones, any other way.
But you can buy an unlocked cell phone even in the USA, and then sign up with the carrier of your choice. A friend of mine who works for a major cell phone service provider based on GSM technology in the customer service inbound call center has told me that a fraction of a percent of customers are in fact monthly no-term customers using unlocked phones. They are trained not to offer such services, but do know how to sign people up if someone wants it. He also told me that it is a full price service that way, about as costly as a pre-paid phone.
You can find unlocked phones easily. For example at Amazon.Com, look at the left side of the home page under "Consumer Electronics" and click on that link. From that page of cell phones, on the left side find a whole subsection of links for unlocked phones. Be sure you get 850/1900 MHz phones for use in the USA and a few other countries in the Americas. If you want a phone good for international use, get a triband (850/1800/1900 for both USA bands) or quadband phone.
These phones are apparently overseas phones that may or may not come with a USA warranty. That's one of the problems in the USA is that the manufacturers are not selling directly to retailers here that I can find. It could help if we get wording added to this law change that requires the manufacturers to make their phones available to resellers that want to sell them a full price as no contract unlocked phones. Then people can have a choice.
Some other places to look for unlocked phones are here, here, here, here, and here.
FB does not work the same. With a frame buffer, the text has to be re-rendered every time the virtual console switches. It would probably be just as costly to save the entire pixel contents and copy them around in the buffer as well. Also, the scroll rate becomes limited with FB. Sometimes you just need to let some commands flow through their massive output, and for a given geometry, text will flow through a whole lot faster than pixels because of scrolling. Maybe a whole new FB implementation might help. Nevertheless, even with frame buffers one needs to know the register structure (the specifications AMD will supposedly release... I'll believe it only when I see it) to implement complete control (e.g. precise modelines, etc). The current FB implementation does not have this level of control and depends on BIOS modes, which are a limited selection.
If ATI actually follows through with this, and I see the documentation, and it has enough of the important details, then it looks like my new computers (2 of them) will be dual or quad AMDs. But they will need to hurry, since I'm planning to buy those machines within the next 30-60 days.
I have a different interest in this. With documentation, even SVGATextMode can be enhanced to run at higher geometries, and adjust modelines to better fit various displays... on the new ATI hardware. But someone will have to hack it, given the many years that SVGATextMode has been stagnant, and that may end up being me.
Major ISP's in the US have told me in meetings that P2P makes up 70-80% of their total traffic. Do you really believe that the majority of this is legal content?
If they want to do this on the basis of the traffic being illegal, then what reliable means do they have to determine whether a given connection is carrying legal content or not?
If you want high-end power machines that run Linux, build them yourself or go buy them pre-configured here or here. In the mean time, the more non-geeks we can get to be using Linux, the more hardware manufacturers and applications developers will have to consider Linux compatibility. Once we get to the point where all hardware works in Linux (either because they make it use an existing interface, or fully and openly document the new one they design, or provide kernel license compatible open source drivers) and all useful applications have native Linux versions, then I really don't care how many people use Windows. But until then, I see expanding the Linux user base as a means to the desired ends.
Smaller companies have been doing this for a while. Why do we need to go to big companies like HP when we can get computers from places like Los Alamos Computers and Penguin Computing? Oh wait, geeks now want dirt cheap computers instead of top of the line machines?
... Dell shipped FreeDOS systems that actually cost more than with Windows (which means there is definitely malarky going on there).
The "malarky" is some combination of bulk deal with Microsoft for a lower per-unit price, money received to insert tryware and other junk, and economy of scale of both sales and support for Windows based products... passed on to the buyer in the form of lower costs. Compare that with Linux where the software is mostly free, cuts off the tryware and junk revenue stream, and requires a more expensive smaller scale sales and support department (or subset of sales and support trained to handle Linux).
Once Linux becomes as popular as Windows (if that ever happens), we'll see: even lower pricing from Microsoft (possibly even free, bundled with more tryware for Office, etc), tryware actually designed to run on Linux (binary only, most likely), equivalent sales teams, and quite possibly for the average consumer an even larger support department, given Linux's propensity to be friendlier to geeks than other people.
And even if "Linux machines" always cost more, Linux users will be better off because more hardware manufacturers will have to make sure their stuff actually works on the Linux kernel, etc. Then I won't have to deal with machines like the HP DC7700 which couldn't boot the Fedora, Slackware, or Ubuntu install disks without disabling ACPI which caused the sound card and on-board ethernet to not be found.
And of course, with fewer Windows users online, there will be fewer spam zombies... at least for a while.
Slashdot Mirror
I can still submit comments to Slashdot with Javascript disabled. Be sure your submission system works that way as well. Javascript can enhance, and should. Lack of Javascript should not disable. It is not required to submit a comment.
As for YouTube ... totally possible without Javascript, Java, or even Flash. True, it would not look so good and would be harder for some people to use. But the way they do it, it's a broken site altogether when these facilities are not usable, and that does not have to be.
There are many sites that do just plain stupid things with otherwise great tools, mostly because they use them the wrong way, or for the wrong purpose. One example is the use of Javascript to replace hyperlinks. That breaks tabs. Instead, the design should include a genuine hyperlink that is intercepted by Javascript if Javascript is enabled. Make sure every "link" on your site works when I press the middle button to open it in a tab.
Until technologies like Flash are made reliable and secure across all platforms, web developers ... don't have to stop using them, but ... really must take into account that some web users won't have the capability and they (the developers) need to provide alternatives, even if less glitzy. Things like don't make the whole content be in flash would apply here. Use Flash for what can't be done by other means. And make audios and videos available directly in standard formats.
... keyboards drawn on the screen under each input field, with Javascript to tie clicks by the mouse pointer on the keys in that keyboard image so the characters are inserted into the appropriate field.
Another option where Javascript can't be used is to create a printed character array that has all the characters. Use the mouse to copy and paste characters one at a time between there and the input field.
All this will be done through HTTPS, of course. Next come the mandatory rootkits. Then patrons bringing in their own Ubuntu or Knoppix disks.
If you are paying for TV content to be delivered to you, then maybe that provider should offer it as an extra fee service. But for free terrestrial and free satellite TV programming, at least those listings should be free if the source providers are willing to make their piece of it free, as long as there are people willing to do the distributing for free.
I don't think we need the detailed show format (segment timings, commercial breaks, etc) ... do we? What we need is the basic start and end time for the show, the name and code of the show, and where applicable the episode number. Other data is a nice plus but could usually be indexed by the show's code and episode number (e.g. lists of actors/actresses, plot description, date of production, and other trivia). I assume (because I've never looked at the MythTV stuff, yet) the XML DTD has already been worked out. If not, we need to do that, too. What we need to do is be sure we are getting data with a legal right to redistribute it.
... the UV-ray players with 320 GB capacity ... or the X-ray players with 2 TB capacity. Oh wait. Even those will have DRM (Destroys Retail Movies, Damned Revenue Mongrels, Dirty Raunchy Managers, Disk Rot Method, and Distributing Rootkits Mainly). Forget it. Nevermind.
For local broadcasters, we can collect our own. Many broadcasters may be willing to provide their schedules for free. Someone in each city would have to be the "point person" to encourage the stations to provide them in a usable form with no distribution restriction. Then they would be submit them to central databases (can be more than one) where they would be merged and others can then download in bulk. The national networks might be harder to get them from.
It's fine by me if they give out no code at all as long as they give out the full interface specs so that all features in the hardware can be used (like 2d/3d rendering and h264 acceleration). This needs to be made available to everyone, not just a select few at Xorg as a later Phoronix article suggests will be what happens. I have some non-XWindows stuff to do with video cards and I'm not about to ever sign an NDA.
They once were expensive, which is how it got started. It's just that the service providers aren't passing on all the savings; they are pocketing it as profit. The fact that so many people don't know they can buy an unlocked phone now at a reasonable price and sign up month to month means there is still a "locked market" for phones that look cheap and are expensive. But this can be changed without banning term contracts. With alternatives, the market for term contracts can then be competitive.
That sounds reasonable to me. That's not banning contracts; that's "full disclosure" (which we need).
I'm not sure if I totally agree. It would be great if Apple decided to cell the iPhone unlocked and unbound to anyone who wanted to pay for it. Where things get complicated is that a lot of phones are really platforms in which service providers add software to add features. And there is a long history of manufacturers contracted by other companies to produce a product for that other company to sell. I'm not all opposed to this idea, but it would have to be done very very carefully.
We do need to have a clear separation between service provider and manufacturer, prohibiting any one entity from doing both. Same for other things like cable set top boxes.
I still stand by my position that the term contracts should not be banned. Instead, the phone companies should be required to divulge that alternatives exist. And manufacturers need to be required to make the phones available to domestic resellers under standand warranty sale.
I don't want to take away one particular method of purchase. While that might speed up getting decent phone service for those that hate contracts (I being one of them), I'm opposed to the idea of taking away an option some people will find useful.
Isn't there some EPA regulation against this?
You would be locking out the poor from even getting a cell phone at all, since they can't afford to pay the full cost of a phone up front. You would be preventing an entire class of big businesses from exploiting them and keeping them poor. Then these people would have to find something else to do instead of chatting on the phone all day, like actually going to work and keeping their job.
I have to disagree with you. Contracts should not be banned. Some people even like those. They can get a new phone every couple years without paying a lot up front. These are the same people that lease cars and trade up every 2 or 3 years.
Cell phone contracts used to be the only way the majority of people could afford a cell phone. This practice emerged from the days of mobile phones before cellular technology, which existed at least as far back as the 1950's although I don't know what all the terms were then. The first one I ever saw even used tubes (not transistors) inside a pair of large boxes installed in the trunk of a car. When cellular technology emerged, the phones were still fairly large and also expensive due to lack of economy of scale. That, of course, eventually changed.
The problem is, of course, the cell phone service providers still like the term contracts for many reasons I'm sure you are aware of. They try to make it hard for people to get phone service, or even phones, any other way.
But you can buy an unlocked cell phone even in the USA, and then sign up with the carrier of your choice. A friend of mine who works for a major cell phone service provider based on GSM technology in the customer service inbound call center has told me that a fraction of a percent of customers are in fact monthly no-term customers using unlocked phones. They are trained not to offer such services, but do know how to sign people up if someone wants it. He also told me that it is a full price service that way, about as costly as a pre-paid phone.
You can find unlocked phones easily. For example at Amazon.Com, look at the left side of the home page under "Consumer Electronics" and click on that link. From that page of cell phones, on the left side find a whole subsection of links for unlocked phones. Be sure you get 850/1900 MHz phones for use in the USA and a few other countries in the Americas. If you want a phone good for international use, get a triband (850/1800/1900 for both USA bands) or quadband phone.
These phones are apparently overseas phones that may or may not come with a USA warranty. That's one of the problems in the USA is that the manufacturers are not selling directly to retailers here that I can find. It could help if we get wording added to this law change that requires the manufacturers to make their phones available to resellers that want to sell them a full price as no contract unlocked phones. Then people can have a choice.
Some other places to look for unlocked phones are here, here, here, here, and here.
Phoronix says it will be an NDA.
FB does not work the same. With a frame buffer, the text has to be re-rendered every time the virtual console switches. It would probably be just as costly to save the entire pixel contents and copy them around in the buffer as well. Also, the scroll rate becomes limited with FB. Sometimes you just need to let some commands flow through their massive output, and for a given geometry, text will flow through a whole lot faster than pixels because of scrolling. Maybe a whole new FB implementation might help. Nevertheless, even with frame buffers one needs to know the register structure (the specifications AMD will supposedly release ... I'll believe it only when I see it) to implement complete control (e.g. precise modelines, etc). The current FB implementation does not have this level of control and depends on BIOS modes, which are a limited selection.
If ATI actually follows through with this, and I see the documentation, and it has enough of the important details, then it looks like my new computers (2 of them) will be dual or quad AMDs. But they will need to hurry, since I'm planning to buy those machines within the next 30-60 days.
I have a different interest in this. With documentation, even SVGATextMode can be enhanced to run at higher geometries, and adjust modelines to better fit various displays ... on the new ATI hardware. But someone will have to hack it, given the many years that SVGATextMode has been stagnant, and that may end up being me.
If they want to do this on the basis of the traffic being illegal, then what reliable means do they have to determine whether a given connection is carrying legal content or not?
Try NAT Traversal.
If you are going to get lost in the middle of nowhere, you need one of these.
Well, your up is our down, so I guess that makes sense.
If you want high-end power machines that run Linux, build them yourself or go buy them pre-configured here or here. In the mean time, the more non-geeks we can get to be using Linux, the more hardware manufacturers and applications developers will have to consider Linux compatibility. Once we get to the point where all hardware works in Linux (either because they make it use an existing interface, or fully and openly document the new one they design, or provide kernel license compatible open source drivers) and all useful applications have native Linux versions, then I really don't care how many people use Windows. But until then, I see expanding the Linux user base as a means to the desired ends.
Smaller companies have been doing this for a while. Why do we need to go to big companies like HP when we can get computers from places like Los Alamos Computers and Penguin Computing? Oh wait, geeks now want dirt cheap computers instead of top of the line machines?
The "malarky" is some combination of bulk deal with Microsoft for a lower per-unit price, money received to insert tryware and other junk, and economy of scale of both sales and support for Windows based products ... passed on to the buyer in the form of lower costs. Compare that with Linux where the software is mostly free, cuts off the tryware and junk revenue stream, and requires a more expensive smaller scale sales and support department (or subset of sales and support trained to handle Linux).
Once Linux becomes as popular as Windows (if that ever happens), we'll see: even lower pricing from Microsoft (possibly even free, bundled with more tryware for Office, etc), tryware actually designed to run on Linux (binary only, most likely), equivalent sales teams, and quite possibly for the average consumer an even larger support department, given Linux's propensity to be friendlier to geeks than other people.
And even if "Linux machines" always cost more, Linux users will be better off because more hardware manufacturers will have to make sure their stuff actually works on the Linux kernel, etc. Then I won't have to deal with machines like the HP DC7700 which couldn't boot the Fedora, Slackware, or Ubuntu install disks without disabling ACPI which caused the sound card and on-board ethernet to not be found.
And of course, with fewer Windows users online, there will be fewer spam zombies ... at least for a while.
WARNING! That link goes to a stupid Flash-only web site. Must be a bunch of fools running that place.