So, if I understand you correctly, it would have been much clearer (to me) had you said "No he's wrong, if he considers software development to be all of "IT". It's not.".
Or something. It was obvious that you were talking about the relationship between the two, but it wasn't clear what you were saying the relationship was.
I don't think it is that important. Assume Amazon had sold 30 million of them (they haven't). That means there is something like a 1 in 10 chance a given visitor has a Kindle (probably slightly better than 1 in 10, as I expect there is some correlation between affluence and literacy, but I bet that when Kindle sales have reached 30 million, the odds will still be something like 1 in 8, maybe lower).
It's actually perfectly OK for a corporation to go out of business (rather than making money).
The "is extending limited liability to this corporation a net benefit to the public" test needs to be applied much more. And then the corporations that fail it need to be executed.
It's called "copy" "right", so it isn't that crazy that it is more applicable in a situation where you "copy" something.
There is certainly a disconnect between the modern cost of creating copies and the fines you expose yourself to by generating those copies though (prior to cheap digital copying, copyright was relatively equivalent to 'commercial rights', so people were okay with it; I expect that there would be much wider acceptance of something framed as a right to sell or some such).
I agree that his logic is tortured, but I bet Google is making money on Firefox referrals. And as long as Firefox has millions of users, I imagine it will continue to make sense for Google to work with them, rather than ignoring them.
They didn't just decide that they didn't like that and re-interpret it to something they liked. They followed the rules laid out in the Constitution and amended the Constitution
The difference between that first sentence and the second sentence is pretty minimal (sure, in the latter, there isn't any reinterpretation, but they went ahead and set aside the existing content and replaced it with something else).
And my point is not that we should use the constitution as toilet paper, my point is that we are much better served by making sure the constitution serves the intents that we have today than we are worrying about why the founders wrote it the way they did. That's a pipe dream in the current political climate, but I don't feel bad arguing from an ideal on some web forum (I might have a slightly more practical attitude if I were actually part of some political process).
So even though people coming into the country may not enjoy constitutional protection from search and seizure, that doesn't mean we need to alter the constitution in order to alter the actions of the government (the government could go ahead and respect their privacy out of courtesy, or some other silly concept; especially considering how easy it is to move large encrypted blobs of data across the internets).
Sure. For anyone with any sort of audience that uses IE, the features that you gain with xhtml instead of plain ol' html (probably) don't offset the pain in the ass that you incur.
The bigger problem is that the people developing flash content implement their own event loops without putting any sort of sleep statement in them, meaning that they check whether they should be doing something thousands of times between actually doing anything.
(I suppose this is sort of a flaw with flash, but it isn't real terrible that it allows the use of lots of resources)
One of the nice things about DC motors is that the efficiency is nearly linear; at higher speeds, they aren't going to have the power to add all that much torque, but they aren't going to lose much efficiency.
I'm not suggesting that it can simply be ignored, I am suggesting it is valuable because of the ideas that it contains, not because it happens to exist.
(Look at it this way: Is it a bigger deal that the government is trampling all over "The Constitution", or is it a bigger deal that the government is trampling all over "human rights"; I go with the latter.)
The only thing that gives the Constitution any power at all is our collective acceptance of it.
For instance, the founders also intended that only landowning men could vote and that humans could be property (perhaps not universally, but they did all sign that document).
To render stuff to a video screen on Linux, Wine needs to use some sort of system API. It uses X (presumably because ignoring it would be monumentally stupid). There is apparently decent separation between the code supporting the higher level Windows APIs and the the code that does the drawing, but there needs to be something more there than what you are calling 'drivers'. The code will in fact be much like a driver, with some code doing the support for X, and some other code doing the support for ReactOS.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if I understand you correctly, it would have been much clearer (to me) had you said "No he's wrong, if he considers software development to be all of "IT". It's not.".
Or something. It was obvious that you were talking about the relationship between the two, but it wasn't clear what you were saying the relationship was.
Is your meaning lost if your first paragraph is rewritten as "No he's wrong, if he considers software development to be "IT". It's not."?
I don't think it is that important. Assume Amazon had sold 30 million of them (they haven't). That means there is something like a 1 in 10 chance a given visitor has a Kindle (probably slightly better than 1 in 10, as I expect there is some correlation between affluence and literacy, but I bet that when Kindle sales have reached 30 million, the odds will still be something like 1 in 8, maybe lower).
It's actually perfectly OK for a corporation to go out of business (rather than making money).
The "is extending limited liability to this corporation a net benefit to the public" test needs to be applied much more. And then the corporations that fail it need to be executed.
Well, if they are insane, it sounds like a good thing that they aren't running around free.
I would say it is well past the experimental stage:
http://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/EBook_Lending_Libraries
It just isn't to the widespread stage yet (presumably because not all that many people have ebook readers).
It's called "copy" "right", so it isn't that crazy that it is more applicable in a situation where you "copy" something.
There is certainly a disconnect between the modern cost of creating copies and the fines you expose yourself to by generating those copies though (prior to cheap digital copying, copyright was relatively equivalent to 'commercial rights', so people were okay with it; I expect that there would be much wider acceptance of something framed as a right to sell or some such).
I agree that his logic is tortured, but I bet Google is making money on Firefox referrals. And as long as Firefox has millions of users, I imagine it will continue to make sense for Google to work with them, rather than ignoring them.
They didn't just decide that they didn't like that and re-interpret it to something they liked. They followed the rules laid out in the Constitution and amended the Constitution
The difference between that first sentence and the second sentence is pretty minimal (sure, in the latter, there isn't any reinterpretation, but they went ahead and set aside the existing content and replaced it with something else).
And my point is not that we should use the constitution as toilet paper, my point is that we are much better served by making sure the constitution serves the intents that we have today than we are worrying about why the founders wrote it the way they did. That's a pipe dream in the current political climate, but I don't feel bad arguing from an ideal on some web forum (I might have a slightly more practical attitude if I were actually part of some political process).
So even though people coming into the country may not enjoy constitutional protection from search and seizure, that doesn't mean we need to alter the constitution in order to alter the actions of the government (the government could go ahead and respect their privacy out of courtesy, or some other silly concept; especially considering how easy it is to move large encrypted blobs of data across the internets).
That's the biggest immediate reason not to use xhtml.
There are other ongoing reasons, like the movement of much of the web development community to html5.
Sure. For anyone with any sort of audience that uses IE, the features that you gain with xhtml instead of plain ol' html (probably) don't offset the pain in the ass that you incur.
Because IE doesn't handle
, and you aren't using xhtml if you aren't using that Mime type.
The bigger problem is that the people developing flash content implement their own event loops without putting any sort of sleep statement in them, meaning that they check whether they should be doing something thousands of times between actually doing anything.
(I suppose this is sort of a flaw with flash, but it isn't real terrible that it allows the use of lots of resources)
One of the nice things about DC motors is that the efficiency is nearly linear; at higher speeds, they aren't going to have the power to add all that much torque, but they aren't going to lose much efficiency.
A small emergency tank with a pint of gasoline in it will get you an awful long ways on most motorcycles.
Real pro-cables are made with human horn.
The constitution doesn't actually list any human rights anywhere, it lists a bunch of things that the government it authorizes is not supposed to do.
And the Constitution was not voted on or ratified by any living person. It is all inertia at this point.
'collective'. You can't argue with the fact that, as a whole, the American people accept the government that they have.
I'm not suggesting that it can simply be ignored, I am suggesting it is valuable because of the ideas that it contains, not because it happens to exist.
(Look at it this way: Is it a bigger deal that the government is trampling all over "The Constitution", or is it a bigger deal that the government is trampling all over "human rights"; I go with the latter.)
What does their intent matter?
The only thing that gives the Constitution any power at all is our collective acceptance of it.
For instance, the founders also intended that only landowning men could vote and that humans could be property (perhaps not universally, but they did all sign that document).
That may not be a good assumption to make:
http://www.rawtherapee.com/RAW_Compare/
The author says it is more than a front end:
http://www.rawtherapee.com/?mitem=4&faqid=17
To render stuff to a video screen on Linux, Wine needs to use some sort of system API. It uses X (presumably because ignoring it would be monumentally stupid). There is apparently decent separation between the code supporting the higher level Windows APIs and the the code that does the drawing, but there needs to be something more there than what you are calling 'drivers'. The code will in fact be much like a driver, with some code doing the support for X, and some other code doing the support for ReactOS.
Even if it is 100% parody, the intensity is still a bit towards the far edge of sane.
Go read Reddit for 5 minutes, account name gags are waaaay more popular over there.