I ride three feet out into the street because it's safer.
The gutter is often filled with broken glass, rubbish, and other obstacles. If I have to swerve to avoid these it's quite likely I will be swerving right into the path of a passing car.
So I stay out in the open lane, where the road is clean, and where cars can see me easily. The cars either wait behind me, or overtake me. Sometimes people are delayed for about 10 seconds. No doubt that makes their blood boil about "inconsiderate cyclists". People like that need to relax a bit.
With 1 GB or 3 GB transfer caps, and very expensive per MB charges for data transfers in excess of this, Australian broadband users are hardly likely to be sharing any movies.
My reaction to learning how all this works was to suggest that our system should be more like the British system, where the loser pays the legal fees. That would stop these nuisance suits. But it also effectively stops private indivuals from suing large corporations.
How many private individuals successfully sue large corporations in the US? Not many, huh?
Moving to a loser pays system will not make this sad fact appreciably worse. Under a loser pays system, private individuals will have no problems raising the necessary legal firepower to take on Nasty Large Corporation in a fair fight if their case is strong. In such a situation, the risk of the plaintiff losing is minimal, and Nasty Large Corporation will probably settle, or if spectacularly pigheaded, fight the case and lose.
If the plaintiff's case is weak or borderline, they probably won't take the risk of losing, and this is the only real drawback of the loser pays system. I'd consider it a small price to pay for being immune to nuisance suits. Remember, those nuisance suits are just as likely to be a case of Nasty Large Corporation preying on a poor helpless individual.
The Sex Pistols didn't begin as a packaged commodity. With their original bass player, Glen Matlock, they were an authentic band. It was only at the very end of their short career, when the musically competent Matlock was sacked and replaced with Sid Vicious, that they were successfully commoditised and sold as "punk" to naive teenagers.
Most Americans are only familiar with this stage of the Pistols, because it was during this stage that the Pistols toured America.
It's effect, not affect, and the point is that they are confused.
If a web designer adds a doodad to a page that results in reducing accessibility, and that web designer knows that it will reduce accesibility (or should know if they are a professional), then intent and effect are effectively confused.
It's not a conspiracy. It's either an unprofessional level of ignorance, or a deliberate reduction in accessibility. Take your pick.
Well, we all know that the number of users using a tool is directly proportional to the quality of the tool, right?
Actually, this is often true. It's because of network effects.
If web developers are creating IE-only sites because 95% of people are using IE, then IE is in fact "better" for most people, regardless of any other measure of "quality" you might want to use.
Now, we add a whole new method of content rendering. We can't even impliment the main standards properly. How do we plan to ensure that an audio interface can successfully read a website, as well? Keep in mind that this is not what the web was originally designed to handle.
Keep in mind that this is exactly what the web was originally designed to handle.
It's easy - follow the standards, and if you want to add "extensions", do so in a way that your site does not rely on them.
You might want to s/denied/not able to attain, because there is no active attempt to disallow entry to the site. The company hasn't made provisions for this special group.
Web pages start with close to universal accessability. The "special provisions" that designers usually make are not to enhance accessability, but to reduce it. This could be construed as "making an active attempt to disallow entry".
It depends on how CSS is used. If it is used simply for cosmetic purposes (fonts, font sizes, colours, margins, etc.) then the lack of it will not adversely impact on the usability of the site. It may even improve it.
If tables are foregone, and CSS is used to create a columnar layout using DIVs, then the usability will be worse.
I guess my argument with Zeldman's "conform to the standards or die" approach boils down to the fact that the browsers used by my clients often do not conform to the standards.
It's a false choice. Using current standards (for HTML and CSS) does not break older browsers. They'll work fine.
Zeldman is not saying that users should upgrade their browsers. He's saying that designers should upgrade their code to make it standards compliant, which will then work in both old and future browsers.
Again, we're back to a very basic problem. Do you write your page to work in old browsers or do you use the latest standards?
This is a false choice. Writing your page using the latest HTML and CSS standards does not break older browsers. Everything will still work fine, although browsers that do not support CSS will get a plainer looking page.
The only exception is when NS4 users have not disabled CSS in their browsers. This is not because NS4 is an outdated browser. It's because NS4's CSS implementation was broken when it was released, and users should always switch it off, which is relatively easy to do.
If you are not using CSS, then there is no objective standard for correct rendering - in fact the question makes no sense. A <P>, an <H1>, a <BLOCKQUOTE> - these do not specify any particular appearance, and browsers are free to display them however they want.
If you are using CSS, then the CSS specifications do set out an objective standard for the rendering. Even in this case, however, the rendering may depend on the broweser configuration. For example, if you use em or percent units to specify your font sizes and line heights in your CSS, these will be based on the user's default font size. A user with a default font of 14pt will have a very different looking oage than a user with a default font of 12pt.
The appearance of a web page is the result of a negotiation between the author and the user, and the bottom line is that it is the user who has ultimate control over the appearance. Many authors fight against this, often with some success, but at the cost of pissing off those users who like to have their choices respected.
An agreement was reached between AMCOS transmission licensing director Richard Mallett and Little Ripper CEO Greg Moore in an e-mail exchange late on Friday.
"The terms of the proposed licensing arrangement must remain confidential for now," AMCOS said in its letter to Little Ripper.
So AMCOS, which represents "songwriters and music publishing companies" are giving the green light on the condition that they get a cut of the profits.
But what right do they have to do that? It's not their technology, and these kiosks are clearly just as legal as any other CD-burner, so what gives them the power to muscle in on the deal?
Copy-Crippled PCC's (Polycarbonate Coated Circles.. note I didn't call them CD's)
I agree that we need new terminology, but this will never catch on. We need something a bit easier. How about "pseudo-CDs"? And "copy-prevention" instead of "copy-protection".
I've always loved that paragraph from Hunter Thompson, but you left off the last sentence, which is quite apt:
So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark- that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
Hunter was describing the hippy movement (for want of a better term), seeing it as an inevitable wave that rolled in from the west coast, and then crashed and rolled back before it got even as far east as Las Vegas.
Convince them that no matter what they do, they can't beat open source/free software. It's only if they see that their current business model has no future that they will consider changing it.
'Cos right now, Microsoft have a very successful business model. The threat that free software/open source represents is quite distant to them - they're still making a whole heap of money doing what they're doing, and will likely continue doing so for quite a few more years.
Why would they give this up? The only possible reason would be that they recognise that defeat is imminent. The point at which they've got nothing left to lose is when you might see them shift to open source/free software, just as Netscape did.
So the strategy should be to convince them of both the inevitability of the coming dominance of open source/free software, and of the fact that it will come sooner rather than later. When the revolution comes there will be no choice but to die or join it, and if they start the process of joining it now they'll be in a much better position than if they have to play catch up.
Yes, this is how the streetcars work in Zurich, and many other cities I imagine. It makes the streetcars fast and efficient, and the cars slow and inefficient, which is exactly the sort of incentive/disincentive I was talking about.
Keep it above grade so there is little disruption of traffic....We love our cars way too much.
Indeed you do. Perhaps it's a better design for the mass transit system to take advantage of the pre-existing infrastructure (roads), while intentionally disrupting the traffic, thus creating a disincentive to drive at the same time as offering a replacement for it?
One could make the case that neither company had the time to wait for the W3C to release new, "official" standards when they busy innovating like Hell in order to get a leg up on the competition.
Not true. Take a look at style sheets, for which a draft spec was in place long before Netscape had even dreamt up the FONT tag. The idea that the standards bodies were too slow for fast moving web companies like Netscape is simply wrong. Speed wasn't the issue - it was all about having proprietary technology and trying to own the web.
Just imagine if Netscape had adopted CSS instead of "innovating" FONT. What a different place the web would be...
I have a fancy Japanese toilet, but the only feature I really like is the heated seat. It gets below freezing *inside* my house at night, so a heated seat is a great idea.
But let me tell you about my Japanese bath! Firstly, it has no taps - just a control pad with buttons. You set the water temperature (42C for me) and the water volume (160 litres is just right), and then press the big red button. The bath fills automatically from an inlet in its base, and then beeps to tell me when those 160 litres of 42C water are ready.
But that's not the end of it. If the water cools too far below 42C, the bath water is automatically circulated through the instant gas heater until it reaches 42C again. Your bath never goes cold!
There is also a timer, so you can set your bath to automatically fill itself at exactly the same time every night.
Slashdot Mirror
I ride three feet out into the street because it's safer.
The gutter is often filled with broken glass, rubbish, and other obstacles. If I have to swerve to avoid these it's quite likely I will be swerving right into the path of a passing car.
So I stay out in the open lane, where the road is clean, and where cars can see me easily. The cars either wait behind me, or overtake me. Sometimes people are delayed for about 10 seconds. No doubt that makes their blood boil about "inconsiderate cyclists". People like that need to relax a bit.
With 1 GB or 3 GB transfer caps, and very expensive per MB charges for data transfers in excess of this, Australian broadband users are hardly likely to be sharing any movies.
Keeping up with the Jones is using your cellphone to browse the web.
Keeping up with the Jones is using you in-car audio browser to listen to the web.
Keeping up with the Jones is using your new IBM monitor with 10,000 x 8,000 pixel resolution to view the web.
Keeping up with the Jones is using browsers like Mozilla and Opera that have a better feature set than IE.
Writing web pages that work only on a narrow set of user conditions is not keeping up with the Jones - it's floundering along on the trailing edge.
My reaction to learning how all this works was to suggest that our system should be more like the British system, where the loser pays the legal fees. That would stop these nuisance suits. But it also effectively stops private indivuals from suing large corporations.
How many private individuals successfully sue large corporations in the US? Not many, huh?
Moving to a loser pays system will not make this sad fact appreciably worse. Under a loser pays system, private individuals will have no problems raising the necessary legal firepower to take on Nasty Large Corporation in a fair fight if their case is strong. In such a situation, the risk of the plaintiff losing is minimal, and Nasty Large Corporation will probably settle, or if spectacularly pigheaded, fight the case and lose.
If the plaintiff's case is weak or borderline, they probably won't take the risk of losing, and this is the only real drawback of the loser pays system. I'd consider it a small price to pay for being immune to nuisance suits. Remember, those nuisance suits are just as likely to be a case of Nasty Large Corporation preying on a poor helpless individual.
I have my own domain, but it has increased the amount of spam I get.
I receive spam to {random_string_of characters}@domainname.com. These random strings are things I have never typed or spoken or thought of before.
It seems spammers are inventing email addresses in the hope that they are valid addresses.
The Sex Pistols didn't begin as a packaged commodity. With their original bass player, Glen Matlock, they were an authentic band. It was only at the very end of their short career, when the musically competent Matlock was sacked and replaced with Sid Vicious, that they were successfully commoditised and sold as "punk" to naive teenagers.
Most Americans are only familiar with this stage of the Pistols, because it was during this stage that the Pistols toured America.
Don't confuse affect with intent.
It's effect, not affect, and the point is that they are confused.
If a web designer adds a doodad to a page that results in reducing accessibility, and that web designer knows that it will reduce accesibility (or should know if they are a professional), then intent and effect are effectively confused.
It's not a conspiracy. It's either an unprofessional level of ignorance, or a deliberate reduction in accessibility. Take your pick.
Well, we all know that the number of users using a tool is directly proportional to the quality of the tool, right?
Actually, this is often true. It's because of network effects.
If web developers are creating IE-only sites because 95% of people are using IE, then IE is in fact "better" for most people, regardless of any other measure of "quality" you might want to use.
Now, we add a whole new method of content rendering. We can't even impliment the main standards properly. How do we plan to ensure that an audio interface can successfully read a website, as well? Keep in mind that this is not what the web was originally designed to handle.
Keep in mind that this is exactly what the web was originally designed to handle.
It's easy - follow the standards, and if you want to add "extensions", do so in a way that your site does not rely on them.
You might want to s/denied/not able to attain, because there is no active attempt to disallow entry to the site. The company hasn't made provisions for this special group.
Web pages start with close to universal accessability. The "special provisions" that designers usually make are not to enhance accessability, but to reduce it. This could be construed as "making an active attempt to disallow entry".
It depends on how CSS is used. If it is used simply for cosmetic purposes (fonts, font sizes, colours, margins, etc.) then the lack of it will not adversely impact on the usability of the site. It may even improve it.
If tables are foregone, and CSS is used to create a columnar layout using DIVs, then the usability will be worse.
I guess my argument with Zeldman's "conform to the standards or die" approach boils down to the fact that the browsers used by my clients often do not conform to the standards.
It's a false choice. Using current standards (for HTML and CSS) does not break older browsers. They'll work fine.
Zeldman is not saying that users should upgrade their browsers. He's saying that designers should upgrade their code to make it standards compliant, which will then work in both old and future browsers.
Again, we're back to a very basic problem. Do you write your page to work in old browsers or do you use the latest standards?
This is a false choice. Writing your page using the latest HTML and CSS standards does not break older browsers. Everything will still work fine, although browsers that do not support CSS will get a plainer looking page.
The only exception is when NS4 users have not disabled CSS in their browsers. This is not because NS4 is an outdated browser. It's because NS4's CSS implementation was broken when it was released, and users should always switch it off, which is relatively easy to do.
If you are not using CSS, then there is no objective standard for correct rendering - in fact the question makes no sense. A <P>, an <H1>, a <BLOCKQUOTE> - these do not specify any particular appearance, and browsers are free to display them however they want.
If you are using CSS, then the CSS specifications do set out an objective standard for the rendering. Even in this case, however, the rendering may depend on the broweser configuration. For example, if you use em or percent units to specify your font sizes and line heights in your CSS, these will be based on the user's default font size. A user with a default font of 14pt will have a very different looking oage than a user with a default font of 12pt.
The appearance of a web page is the result of a negotiation between the author and the user, and the bottom line is that it is the user who has ultimate control over the appearance. Many authors fight against this, often with some success, but at the cost of pissing off those users who like to have their choices respected.
The BB service in Japan does not require a computer or internet connection. You use your regular telephone.
It requires the following
Pretty easy really.
Yeah, and a law permitting the US armed forces to invade Australia to free captured media company execs.
Since when did the US need a law to invade foreign countries? Hell, they do it even where there are international laws forbidding them from doing it.
From the article:
An agreement was reached between AMCOS transmission licensing director Richard Mallett and Little Ripper CEO Greg Moore in an e-mail exchange late on Friday.
"The terms of the proposed licensing arrangement must remain confidential for now," AMCOS said in its letter to Little Ripper.
So AMCOS, which represents "songwriters and music publishing companies" are giving the green light on the condition that they get a cut of the profits.
But what right do they have to do that? It's not their technology, and these kiosks are clearly just as legal as any other CD-burner, so what gives them the power to muscle in on the deal?
Seriously, what is the answer?
Copy-Crippled PCC's (Polycarbonate Coated Circles.. note I didn't call them CD's)
I agree that we need new terminology, but this will never catch on. We need something a bit easier. How about "pseudo-CDs"? And "copy-prevention" instead of "copy-protection".
I've always loved that paragraph from Hunter Thompson, but you left off the last sentence, which is quite apt:
Hunter was describing the hippy movement (for want of a better term), seeing it as an inevitable wave that rolled in from the west coast, and then crashed and rolled back before it got even as far east as Las Vegas.
SuSE will certainly get $$$ for this.
Why? IBM just downloads a set of SUSE ISOs, and that's it. What do they need SUSE for after that?
Convince them that no matter what they do, they can't beat open source/free software. It's only if they see that their current business model has no future that they will consider changing it.
'Cos right now, Microsoft have a very successful business model. The threat that free software/open source represents is quite distant to them - they're still making a whole heap of money doing what they're doing, and will likely continue doing so for quite a few more years.
Why would they give this up? The only possible reason would be that they recognise that defeat is imminent. The point at which they've got nothing left to lose is when you might see them shift to open source/free software, just as Netscape did.
So the strategy should be to convince them of both the inevitability of the coming dominance of open source/free software, and of the fact that it will come sooner rather than later. When the revolution comes there will be no choice but to die or join it, and if they start the process of joining it now they'll be in a much better position than if they have to play catch up.
Good luck convincing them.
Yes, this is how the streetcars work in Zurich, and many other cities I imagine. It makes the streetcars fast and efficient, and the cars slow and inefficient, which is exactly the sort of incentive/disincentive I was talking about.
Keep it above grade so there is little disruption of traffic....We love our cars way too much.
Indeed you do. Perhaps it's a better design for the mass transit system to take advantage of the pre-existing infrastructure (roads), while intentionally disrupting the traffic, thus creating a disincentive to drive at the same time as offering a replacement for it?
One could make the case that neither company had the time to wait for the W3C to release new, "official" standards when they busy innovating like Hell in order to get a leg up on the competition.
Not true. Take a look at style sheets, for which a draft spec was in place long before Netscape had even dreamt up the FONT tag. The idea that the standards bodies were too slow for fast moving web companies like Netscape is simply wrong. Speed wasn't the issue - it was all about having proprietary technology and trying to own the web.
Just imagine if Netscape had adopted CSS instead of "innovating" FONT. What a different place the web would be...
I have a fancy Japanese toilet, but the only feature I really like is the heated seat. It gets below freezing *inside* my house at night, so a heated seat is a great idea.
But let me tell you about my Japanese bath! Firstly, it has no taps - just a control pad with buttons. You set the water temperature (42C for me) and the water volume (160 litres is just right), and then press the big red button. The bath fills automatically from an inlet in its base, and then beeps to tell me when those 160 litres of 42C water are ready.
But that's not the end of it. If the water cools too far below 42C, the bath water is automatically circulated through the instant gas heater until it reaches 42C again. Your bath never goes cold!
There is also a timer, so you can set your bath to automatically fill itself at exactly the same time every night.