Blocking ads doesn't do anything to convince the bastards to change their evil ways, you have to let sites know that they're hurting themselves by using Vibrant's advertising to have an effect.
The one where Kirk penetrates a giant flaming vagina dentata? The episode by Norman Spinrad where he put in more freudian references per second than Barbarella? I don't know whether to cheer or cringe in horror!
* PC-Pro uses Vibrant "in-text" advertising, which creates highly intrusive in-frame popups on mouseover. * Vibrant no-longer allows you to opt out of their intrusive pop-ups.
Please do not link to sites like PC-Pro that use this intrusive advertising scheme.
uh, it's a proven fact that serif fonts are easier to read but harder to scan.
At 600 dpi, I'll believe that.
Even at 300 dpi, most serif typefaces suffer from rendering problems.
At 72 dpi, most serif fonts simply can not be rendered even vaguely accurately at reasonable point sizes. If they'd picked something like Clarendon it would be a different matter, but Times Roman? That's where "conventional wisdom" turns into "conventional foolishness".
Oh, you said dropcaps but you meant illuminated manuscripts.
When the glorious day comes and we have futuristic 600 dpi touchscreens on every surface, get back to me. In the meantime one or two SVGs per page isn't going to make a big difference... and I'm still not sure I want to see a web page that looks like the Book of Kells.
Why should the people who do want nice features and customization be forced to suffer because the majority simply doesn't care or won't notice?
Are you talking about PDF, or HTML?
If you want to deliver a print-quality document, use a format that's designed for print-quality output, like a Postscript derivative like PDF, not one that's designed for readability on a huge variety of display devices at the cost of accurate rendering.
No, when it comes to something as major as the web, all major standards (HTML, JavaScript, CSS) need to be adhered to by the standards.
Assuming you mean what I think you were trying to say (...by the standard browsers? Something like that?), where do you get the idea that this embedded font scheme is a "major standard"?
I always wondered what the problem would be with establishing some sort of private/public key signature/encryption method of DRM.
Yes, open source DRM! Nobody would ever take advantage of the fact that if you're using DRM you're giving the recipient the encrypted data, the algorithm to decrypt it, and the key, to write a little tool that just strips the DRM off and web content you point it at! Even those commie open source people are that heartless!
As far as I know, PDF has supported embedded fonts from the start. There are some people who obsess over fonts embedded in their PDF documents and using exactly the right font, and what's the impact?
Most people don't even notice.
Trying to turn HTML into PDF has never worked well.
If it doesn't even make a difference for PDF, why should we care?
Actually, I care, because it's already too damned hard to specify that you want your pages rendered in a san-serif font as it is. What kind of sick weirdo decided that Times Roman was a sane default? If I was god of the Internet BODY { font-style: san-serif; } would DTRT. But no, you have to maintain an ever-growing font-family list...
if you're old enough, remember what what Linux desktops used to look like before 2003.
I'm old enough to remember what UNIX desktops looked like before 1973, kid, but my free UNIX of choice is FreeBSD and my window manager of choice is Windowmaker, so I have no idea what happened in 2003. Was it fierce?
5% will think "That depends on how much money Microsoft spends to pack voting bodies with sock puppets." 10% will think "So what, I won't use it anyway." 50% will think "Microsoft will do whatever it wants anyway." 90% will be various trolls and flamebait.
Disclaimer: totals do not add to 100% because some contestants qualify for more than one category. Contents may have settled in shipping. 186,000 miles a second.... it's not just a good idea, it's the law. No animals were harmed in testing this product. Fnord.
Assuming I've correctly parsed your somewhat confusing comment, that's not my opinion. It's how the internet works, not how I think it should work (really, if it was up to me the Internet would be a lot different. And tastier).
I suppose it's nice for people whose only interaction with the computer is a web browser, but I already do most of the things they described naturally without using crippled browser interfaces for everything, using the Mac's native services and scripting. It's almost funny that he demos a scripted way to copy a map out of a browser window when I already have a little scripted shortcut that pulls up the map based on an address (and it's not limited to craigslist and some restaurant site) and the Mac snapshot-region shortcut lets me paste the map in email (an ANY mail program) or any other document I'm editing... and he's running his demo on a Mac.
I've routinely used similar tools on UNIX, all the way back to when an "advanced editor" meant "vi" instead of "edit".
Slashdot Mirror
Mac's aren't "overpriced". Macs do cost more, but OS X is worth more than Windows Vista (if you don't agree, don't get a Mac, sheesh).
And a $30 change in the cost of a PC isn't going to make much difference.
Hmmm... Best Buy charges $30 for the cleanup, customers are willing to pay that $30.
Computer companies are currently getting $30 per computer for bloatware.
If they can't include bloatware, that means... prices will rise by $30, but customers won't have to pay Best Buy $30 to remove it...
Where's the downside?
Blocking ads doesn't do anything to convince the bastards to change their evil ways, you have to let sites know that they're hurting themselves by using Vibrant's advertising to have an effect.
The one where Kirk penetrates a giant flaming vagina dentata? The episode by Norman Spinrad where he put in more freudian references per second than Barbarella? I don't know whether to cheer or cringe in horror!
I don't use adblocker because I don't object to ads. I object to stupid abusive techniques whether they're used for ads or knock-knock jokes.
* PC-Pro uses Vibrant "in-text" advertising, which creates highly intrusive in-frame popups on mouseover.
* Vibrant no-longer allows you to opt out of their intrusive pop-ups.
Please do not link to sites like PC-Pro that use this intrusive advertising scheme.
uh, it's a proven fact that serif fonts are easier to read but harder to scan.
At 600 dpi, I'll believe that.
Even at 300 dpi, most serif typefaces suffer from rendering problems.
At 72 dpi, most serif fonts simply can not be rendered even vaguely accurately at reasonable point sizes. If they'd picked something like Clarendon it would be a different matter, but Times Roman? That's where "conventional wisdom" turns into "conventional foolishness".
Oh, you said dropcaps but you meant illuminated manuscripts.
When the glorious day comes and we have futuristic 600 dpi touchscreens on every surface, get back to me. In the meantime one or two SVGs per page isn't going to make a big difference... and I'm still not sure I want to see a web page that looks like the Book of Kells.
But fonts can do a lot of things nonetheless: they might contain drop-caps that don't turn into a nasty pixelated mess when printed,
like this?
Why should the people who do want nice features and customization be forced to suffer because the majority simply doesn't care or won't notice?
Are you talking about PDF, or HTML?
If you want to deliver a print-quality document, use a format that's designed for print-quality output, like a Postscript derivative like PDF, not one that's designed for readability on a huge variety of display devices at the cost of accurate rendering.
No, when it comes to something as major as the web, all major standards (HTML, JavaScript, CSS) need to be adhered to by the standards.
Assuming you mean what I think you were trying to say (...by the standard browsers? Something like that?), where do you get the idea that this embedded font scheme is a "major standard"?
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't Microsoft.
What does that have to do with anything?
Again, you don't care either way about all this
Where did I say that? My point was that the OP was in that group, not that I was.
I always wondered what the problem would be with establishing some sort of private/public key signature/encryption method of DRM.
Yes, open source DRM! Nobody would ever take advantage of the fact that if you're using DRM you're giving the recipient the encrypted data, the algorithm to decrypt it, and the key, to write a little tool that just strips the DRM off and web content you point it at! Even those commie open source people are that heartless!
If you want precise fonts, use PDF.
As far as I know, PDF has supported embedded fonts from the start. There are some people who obsess over fonts embedded in their PDF documents and using exactly the right font, and what's the impact?
Most people don't even notice.
Trying to turn HTML into PDF has never worked well.
If it doesn't even make a difference for PDF, why should we care?
Actually, I care, because it's already too damned hard to specify that you want your pages rendered in a san-serif font as it is. What kind of sick weirdo decided that Times Roman was a sane default? If I was god of the Internet BODY { font-style: san-serif; } would DTRT. But no, you have to maintain an ever-growing font-family list...
if you're old enough, remember what what Linux desktops used to look like before 2003.
I'm old enough to remember what UNIX desktops looked like before 1973, kid, but my free UNIX of choice is FreeBSD and my window manager of choice is Windowmaker, so I have no idea what happened in 2003. Was it fierce?
Just because a standard exists ^[1mdoesn't^[0m mean it has to be supported.
Font designers are not going to allow their creations to be installed and used for free on a million PCs.
Who cares...
The question here is whether or not we want the special fonts.
I won't use it anyway.
And BTW, that "monopoly" was greatly aided by the early Linux desktop adopters.
What in the name of Turing's Sainted Mother are you talking about?
5% will think "That depends on how much money Microsoft spends to pack voting bodies with sock puppets."
10% will think "So what, I won't use it anyway."
50% will think "Microsoft will do whatever it wants anyway."
90% will be various trolls and flamebait.
Disclaimer: totals do not add to 100% because some contestants qualify for more than one category. Contents may have settled in shipping. 186,000 miles a second.... it's not just a good idea, it's the law. No animals were harmed in testing this product. Fnord.
Pantone would love that!
I haven't been so excited since JWZ came up with BLINK.
Assuming I've correctly parsed your somewhat confusing comment, that's not my opinion. It's how the internet works, not how I think it should work (really, if it was up to me the Internet would be a lot different. And tastier).
You don't have the "right" to a secure website and a professional interaction with your bank, no.
Your bank doesn't have a "right" to stay in business after driving off customers either.
I suppose it's nice for people whose only interaction with the computer is a web browser, but I already do most of the things they described naturally without using crippled browser interfaces for everything, using the Mac's native services and scripting. It's almost funny that he demos a scripted way to copy a map out of a browser window when I already have a little scripted shortcut that pulls up the map based on an address (and it's not limited to craigslist and some restaurant site) and the Mac snapshot-region shortcut lets me paste the map in email (an ANY mail program) or any other document I'm editing... and he's running his demo on a Mac.
I've routinely used similar tools on UNIX, all the way back to when an "advanced editor" meant "vi" instead of "edit".
I guess it might be useful for Windows users.
Isn't Applescript more or less the poster child for why "english like" languages are a bad idea?
The only thing worth asking is this: is the plugin model still based on ActiveX and "security zones".
If so, IE is still not acceptable for use with any site that is not completely trusted.
Aside from PDF none of those things are bigger than Flash on the internet so there isn't much point in bringing those up.
*shrug*
None of those things are bigger than HTML, so there's no point bringing any of them up... including Flash.
We have established that the government is drawing an arbitrary line, you are arguing about details.
And actually if the system was open, like it should be, then it could have those things.
I bloody hope not. No application that supports ActiveX should be exposed to the public Internet.