My entire HTML page for my web site is my content, in its HTML form
Exactly. But folks surfing the Web don't actually *see* HTML, they see an interpretation, a rendering.
A web browser takes the HTML and uses it to perform some actions. There may be some general consensus on what the results should be, but there is no guarantee. In fact, it is well known that what a viewer sees can greatly vary from one browser (say, IE) to the next (lynx).
When lynx fails to render a page's background color or fancy font, does anyone complain that the content has been altered?
Unless there is some contractual agreement about how someone's HTML is to be rendered, I'd say the rendering tool (e.g. a browser) has carte blanche to do whatever. Hell, it's doing all the work.
This hit the nail right on the head, particularly point #1.
And I think people are unaware of point #3. Even when corporate officers *want* to do the right thing, they are compelled by law to max on profits. For example, if taking a fine for improper waste disposal is cheaper than proper waste management, then the that's what the officers must do, or face being sued by shareholders.
I had just the oposite experience. I also know Perl, C, PHP, Java, FORTRAN, and whatever others. I saw Ruby, and the "everything is an object" concept, and it clicked right away. Rather than having to create a special Math object and ask it to perform an operation on my integer to, say, give me the absoulte value, I can just ask the integer itself. So much cleaner.
Thus, even if sun themselves tried to control the direction java was taking, there's forces pulling them back towards the straight and narrow
Not true. Sun can do as it damn well pleases, and if anyone tries to do anything with Java(tm) that doesn't suit Sun, Sun will drag their asses into court pronto. Just ask Microsoft.
The minute you disagree with Sun, you must stop refering to your product as Java(tm). Sun *owns* Java(tm), and can move the spec any way it pleases. Hell, look at J2EE(tm); how does one explain *that*?
Now, maybe if Java(tm) was given to a standards comittee, as was done with C#, things would be different...
Freedom of speech is article 19 of the declaration of human rights.
This is the same declaration that claims paid holidays are a human right (article 24). Not exactly a cogent philosophical tract.
Ill-defined words such as "free" and "equal" are easy to toss around to restrict some select group's expression. Seems the U.N. is more interested in persuing a political adgenda than defining a metaphysical framework.
The only solution is [...] to tell our politicians that we don't want them to interfere in the marketplace.
So, does that mean doing away with corporate charters? These are a special shield against personal liability, granted by the government, and have a major effect on the marketplace.
I agree with your larger point, that businesses want to bribe politicians only because politicans have the power to contort the marketplace and business regulations, but if we want to stop the government from meddling with business, we should also stop the special protection offered by the government.
I think we would see coproprate officers acting a bit different if each one could be financialy ruined, and/or jailed, for screwing people.
I understand the need for limited liabilty, but this should be part of a negotiated contract among willing partners, not a handy legal fiction to hide behind when your poor judgement results in (for example) poisoning the town lake.
A truly good business man would sell his best friend for a profit.
Er, no. A truly good business man knows that trust and reputation count, and screwing people catches up with you pretty fast. Do some folks get away with it? Yes, but they're the minority. It need not have anything to do with altruism or being a "good human."
I can only assume that you've never run a business.
Yes, and Waffle House shouldn't have to serve those pesky black people if it doesn't want to, right?
Well, actually, that's right. They could refuse to serve white people as well, if they choose. That you don't like who people prefer to associate with doesn't mean they don't have the right to decide for themselves. Or do you prefer to legislate morality?
Re:I Never Thought I'd Hear It. You didn't!
on
Palm In Trouble?
·
· Score: 1
And since Rob was so impressed by the hardware, he decided to identify them by... an MS OS.
What defines a monopoly is the amount of market share, and possible how difficult (b/c of practices by the monopolistic company) a new competiter would have entering the market
Um, monopoly is defined as 80% or more of the market share, not 100%
WHAT?
Where in the world do you get your definitions? Why not just say a monopoly is defined as having a whole lot of market share, just to make it more arbitrary?
When would you need to reboot? Restarting IIS doesn't require it, not does restarting MTS or COM+ objects. Unless, perhaps, you're brand-new to ASP developement and don't use MTS/COM+ stuff.
Information may be everywhere, but it's only useful when it gets to someone. The problem I see is that, technically, I'll have the right to publish whatever I like on my website, but the owners of the infrastructure will have the "right" to shut me down, or filter me out for their subscribers.
And information-everywhere technology only helps those who have it (and that doesn't include those on AOL).
Forced? Really? That's bulshit. You could have paid someone to go buy the various parts and construct a PC from scratch, no? But that would have likely been more expensive and inconvenient.
So, you're just mad becasue you couldn't get exactly what you wanted, at the price, you wanted, and think force (which is what lawsuits ultimately depend on) is the best answer for this.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. Compaq can do what it wants with CompaqOS and the CompaqOS desktop.
Oh, wait! Compaq doesn't *own* an OS. I guess that's why they don't have the rights of *ownership*!
Consider: MSFT doesn't tell Compaq what soundcard to include.
Exactly. But folks surfing the Web don't actually *see* HTML, they see an interpretation, a rendering.
A web browser takes the HTML and uses it to perform some actions. There may be some general consensus on what the results should be, but there is no guarantee. In fact, it is well known that what a viewer sees can greatly vary from one browser (say, IE) to the next (lynx).
When lynx fails to render a page's background color or fancy font, does anyone complain that the content has been altered?
Unless there is some contractual agreement about how someone's HTML is to be rendered, I'd say the rendering tool (e.g. a browser) has carte blanche to do whatever. Hell, it's doing all the work.
Once you serve up HTML, you've lost control.
And I think people are unaware of point #3. Even when corporate officers *want* to do the right thing, they are compelled by law to max on profits. For example, if taking a fine for improper waste disposal is cheaper than proper waste management, then the that's what the officers must do, or face being sued by shareholders.
It sucks.
You're right, though; Java is no more of a standard than Visual Basic is.
Almost as bad as "We're the 'dot' in 'dot-com'" phrase by that other monopoly
Not true. Sun can do as it damn well pleases, and if anyone tries to do anything with Java(tm) that doesn't suit Sun, Sun will drag their asses into court pronto. Just ask Microsoft.
The minute you disagree with Sun, you must stop refering to your product as Java(tm). Sun *owns* Java(tm), and can move the spec any way it pleases. Hell, look at J2EE(tm); how does one explain *that*?
Now, maybe if Java(tm) was given to a standards comittee, as was done with C#, things would be different ...
Er, this is not an example of begging the question. Please learn the correct use of the phrase, or don't use it at all.
Tell me about it! The 101 *is* the autobahn. On the bright side, it means my going 80 is less likely to catch the troopers' attention.
And the road is almost all straightaway, so you can put the car on cruise control and catch up on some reading ...
This is the same declaration that claims paid holidays are a human right (article 24). Not exactly a cogent philosophical tract.
Ill-defined words such as "free" and "equal" are easy to toss around to restrict some select group's expression. Seems the U.N. is more interested in persuing a political adgenda than defining a metaphysical framework.
So, does that mean doing away with corporate charters? These are a special shield against personal liability, granted by the government, and have a major effect on the marketplace.
I agree with your larger point, that businesses want to bribe politicians only because politicans have the power to contort the marketplace and business regulations, but if we want to stop the government from meddling with business, we should also stop the special protection offered by the government.
I think we would see coproprate officers acting a bit different if each one could be financialy ruined, and/or jailed, for screwing people.
I understand the need for limited liabilty, but this should be part of a negotiated contract among willing partners, not a handy legal fiction to hide behind when your poor judgement results in (for example) poisoning the town lake.
You're off to a bad start when you have to tell people how to pronounce some cute-but-contrived name for a technology.
Er, no. A truly good business man knows that trust and reputation count, and screwing people catches up with you pretty fast. Do some folks get away with it? Yes, but they're the minority. It need not have anything to do with altruism or being a "good human."
I can only assume that you've never run a business.
And people think life is simple
As you've proven.
Well, actually, that's right. They could refuse to serve white people as well, if they choose. That you don't like who people prefer to associate with doesn't mean they don't have the right to decide for themselves. Or do you prefer to legislate morality?
Got it.
Oh? Since when?
If the value of Gracenote depends on the accuracy of their information, what would happen if people started submitting bogus data?
WHAT?
Where in the world do you get your definitions? Why not just say a monopoly is defined as having a whole lot of market share, just to make it more arbitrary?
404 File Not Found
Got that on trying to read the FAQ and the background pages.
Very Sun, I think. Maybe they should stop the vaoprware approach.
I hardly think we should be blaming Apple for this.
When would you need to reboot? Restarting IIS doesn't require it, not does restarting MTS or COM+ objects. Unless, perhaps, you're brand-new to ASP developement and don't use MTS/COM+ stuff.
And information-everywhere technology only helps those who have it (and that doesn't include those on AOL).
Don't like it? Don't use it. Why is this such a big deal? Because it's MSFT? They're not the first, won't be the last.
Forced? Really? That's bulshit. You could have paid someone to go buy the various parts and construct a PC from scratch, no? But that would have likely been more expensive and inconvenient.
So, you're just mad becasue you couldn't get exactly what you wanted, at the price, you wanted, and think force (which is what lawsuits ultimately depend on) is the best answer for this.
How do you say "Doh!" in British?