The publishing industry wants one-book one-device, something Amazon is currently going along with. Custom formats that can be derived from an EPUB formatted version of the book aren't going to significantly increase costs, mitigating the issues that come from fragmentation.
The device supports a wide range of formats (Tools for Mobipocket are pretty easy to come by, and it is basically the format Amazon uses, with some minor differences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobipocket ).
So really, you aren't interested in buying the media, the device passes your sniff test just fine, and you could put books from Project Gutenburg or whatever on it (the ebook production available on free versions of these books is somewhat lacking, but it is pretty much only going to get better).
A key feature of html5 is that is specifies the algorithms to use when normalizing poorly formed markup. It doesn't eliminate ambiguous cases, but it gets rid of many of them, meaning that the presentation and DOM should almost always be the same, regardless of the browser.
"Snapshot" means that it isn't constantly changing.
Still, the only way they do a complete review is if they are slavishly, inanely devoted to process rather than results (because the group of people offended by Wikipedia is so small as to not be worth worrying about as customers; perhaps this isn't obvious, but I would take it as obvious).
Microsoft doesn't have a legal problem on their hands. For a somewhat concrete example, Mozilla probably didn't even have to stop using the Firebird name, they did so to get past the public complaints about the database system using the same name. The software involved here has even less similarity, and the number of people that care about the bandwidth monitor that you link is probably a great deal smaller than the number of people who cared about the database.
Besides, if that guy has any sort of reasonable claim, he should just sell the name, not go to court to try to stop Microsoft using it (I certainly wouldn't stand on principle over something like this, I mean hold out for a decent offer though).
Lots of people essentially do this using divs and spans. For a while, people were also shouting about the css code that they started each document with, usually css that reset the spacing, padding and fonts for almost every element.
It may be because I installed a bunch of ram at about the same time I switched, but Reader9 is much more responsive than 7 or 8 (it is still a bit of a pig the first time it loads, but subsequent launches are quick enough).
I had started looking for an alternative, but I needed to install 9 for the Adobe only commenting support (they use some sort of certificate system so it only works in their products) and the experience has been smooth enough that I stopped messing around with Foxit and Sumatra.
Most word processors have good support for creating structured documents. They also make it straightforward to create a giant mash of custom styled text, which most users do (this is what I do, but I see why it is stupid and I would move away from it if I had a large project in front of me).
Font support hasn't been an issue for a long time (basically since Windows 2000 for windows people, Linux is probably more complicated, but it looks like freetype2 made most fonts available, starting, at the latest, in 2002).
I'm not going to say anything dumb about typography, but high end word processors generally have pretty decent layout engines.
If the offer was for 2x what I thought the company was worth and I were a Redhat shareholder, probably.
On the other hand, if I were a Microsoft shareholder and they took said action, I would think they were screwing up also (well probably; if they bought the company to shut it down I would be sure, IBM and other Linux services companies would benefit from that, not Microsoft).
Another way of looking at it is that the Yahoo! board completely screwed the pooch when they turned down the offer. Yahoo! currently has a market cap of $21 billion, just under 47% of the $44.6 billion that Microsoft offered for the company. Even if the deal had been entirely for Microsoft stock (much of it was for cash), Yahoo! shareholders would have something like 75 cents on the dollar today, instead of the 47 cents the board so gracefully awarded them.
It's generally applied in a way that you can't be repeatedly brought up on different charges for a single set of actions (there are jurisdictional exceptions and civil cases are treated differently).
Yeah, they are actually concerned about bandwidth (Theora will take more) and encoding time (Theora will take more (especially given presently available encoders)).
What do you want them to do? They are happy to implement Theora (and they already have...), but it is unlikely that they would be able to get a license for H.264 that anyone else could use (so, for instance, Debian would not be able to legally distribute the implementation in the branding fork).
If Apple, Microsoft and Google aren't playing along, it doesn't really matter what the spec says (Oh yeah, Opera and Mozilla too), no one will be able to rely on it anyway.
What do you want in a beer that you aren't getting? If you bump up the alcohol percentage, it isn't legally a beer anymore, and it seems like you should be able to find something you like given the variety available.
As far as productivity, hops are a bigger problem than yeast.
Slashdot Mirror
The publishing industry wants one-book one-device, something Amazon is currently going along with. Custom formats that can be derived from an EPUB formatted version of the book aren't going to significantly increase costs, mitigating the issues that come from fragmentation.
The device supports a wide range of formats (Tools for Mobipocket are pretty easy to come by, and it is basically the format Amazon uses, with some minor differences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobipocket ).
So really, you aren't interested in buying the media, the device passes your sniff test just fine, and you could put books from Project Gutenburg or whatever on it (the ebook production available on free versions of these books is somewhat lacking, but it is pretty much only going to get better).
A key feature of html5 is that is specifies the algorithms to use when normalizing poorly formed markup. It doesn't eliminate ambiguous cases, but it gets rid of many of them, meaning that the presentation and DOM should almost always be the same, regardless of the browser.
It goes slow.
Of course, you meant to expand it as 'TIARA is a recursive acronym'.
This is one of the biggest reasons xhtml was never widely adopted.
Microsoft screwing up the mime types is also a big one.
Also, simply avoid licking it.
"Snapshot" means that it isn't constantly changing.
Still, the only way they do a complete review is if they are slavishly, inanely devoted to process rather than results (because the group of people offended by Wikipedia is so small as to not be worth worrying about as customers; perhaps this isn't obvious, but I would take it as obvious).
Microsoft doesn't have a legal problem on their hands. For a somewhat concrete example, Mozilla probably didn't even have to stop using the Firebird name, they did so to get past the public complaints about the database system using the same name. The software involved here has even less similarity, and the number of people that care about the bandwidth monitor that you link is probably a great deal smaller than the number of people who cared about the database.
Besides, if that guy has any sort of reasonable claim, he should just sell the name, not go to court to try to stop Microsoft using it (I certainly wouldn't stand on principle over something like this, I mean hold out for a decent offer though).
Lots of people essentially do this using divs and spans. For a while, people were also shouting about the css code that they started each document with, usually css that reset the spacing, padding and fonts for almost every element.
It may be because I installed a bunch of ram at about the same time I switched, but Reader9 is much more responsive than 7 or 8 (it is still a bit of a pig the first time it loads, but subsequent launches are quick enough).
I had started looking for an alternative, but I needed to install 9 for the Adobe only commenting support (they use some sort of certificate system so it only works in their products) and the experience has been smooth enough that I stopped messing around with Foxit and Sumatra.
Most word processors have good support for creating structured documents. They also make it straightforward to create a giant mash of custom styled text, which most users do (this is what I do, but I see why it is stupid and I would move away from it if I had a large project in front of me).
Font support hasn't been an issue for a long time (basically since Windows 2000 for windows people, Linux is probably more complicated, but it looks like freetype2 made most fonts available, starting, at the latest, in 2002).
I'm not going to say anything dumb about typography, but high end word processors generally have pretty decent layout engines.
Do you smite them, thus sending them to hell?
If the offer was for 2x what I thought the company was worth and I were a Redhat shareholder, probably.
On the other hand, if I were a Microsoft shareholder and they took said action, I would think they were screwing up also (well probably; if they bought the company to shut it down I would be sure, IBM and other Linux services companies would benefit from that, not Microsoft).
You probably just need to set Google as the default search provider for IE (I have just tried it in IE7, the search went to Google).
You might need to add Google as a search provider before you can set it as the default.
Another way of looking at it is that the Yahoo! board completely screwed the pooch when they turned down the offer. Yahoo! currently has a market cap of $21 billion, just under 47% of the $44.6 billion that Microsoft offered for the company. Even if the deal had been entirely for Microsoft stock (much of it was for cash), Yahoo! shareholders would have something like 75 cents on the dollar today, instead of the 47 cents the board so gracefully awarded them.
It's generally applied in a way that you can't be repeatedly brought up on different charges for a single set of actions (there are jurisdictional exceptions and civil cases are treated differently).
The foundation's protection is really only worth what they are actually able to pay.
Yeah, they are actually concerned about bandwidth (Theora will take more) and encoding time (Theora will take more (especially given presently available encoders)).
This is essentially what is happening. FF3.5 shipped with support for Theora.
What do you want them to do? They are happy to implement Theora (and they already have...), but it is unlikely that they would be able to get a license for H.264 that anyone else could use (so, for instance, Debian would not be able to legally distribute the implementation in the branding fork).
If Apple, Microsoft and Google aren't playing along, it doesn't really matter what the spec says (Oh yeah, Opera and Mozilla too), no one will be able to rely on it anyway.
Tetris. Really, pretty much any puzzle game.
What do you want in a beer that you aren't getting? If you bump up the alcohol percentage, it isn't legally a beer anymore, and it seems like you should be able to find something you like given the variety available.
As far as productivity, hops are a bigger problem than yeast.
That sounds a little kinkier than necessary for the public internet.