I guess what you mean is once you want to adopt new standardized protocols that differ from the ones commonly in use, upgrading will be hard. Let's not pretend that these standards have been around for decades, they represent a change.
I think an unstated implicit goal of the W3C standard was to make it as incompatible with IE as possible. The problem these days with many standardization efforts is that the members want to invent new stuff rather than play their traditional role of codifying existing practice.
You're right and the statement you reference is obviously wrong. Multiple implementations will of course diverge no matter what a standard says. IE may suck, but back in the day most web sites could be designed without worrying about other browsers. Sure, it only supported Windows and the Mac, but that was good enough to reach the vast majority of users.
Today, most sites support browsers that run on Linux and that's a good thing, but it's made the web developers job harder.
Nevertheless, it's not the first time the court has screwed up. Their latest decision with respect to the military draft was that it wasn't "involuntary servitude".
Educated people were more likely to stay in Europe than come to America in past centuries. If you are a US citizen your ancestors were probably uneducated and poor.
Since I'm such a nice guy, I'm willing to bail out these unfortunates and swap their assets and liabilities with my own. Don't tell anyone about my good deed - I want to get my reward in heaven, not on earth.
"No, I wouldn't, by definition, because anyone capable of actually adding revenue to the country is capable of immigrating legally."
The question isn't whether such a person is "capable" but whether the US immigration system is "capable". If you think that people capable of adding revenue can easily immigrate to the US, you're badly misinformed.
Right, as part of my "prior lifestyle" I had children. So I should stop feeding them in order to get a lower-paying job.
The fact is that a society can't be stable if too many people are out of work without a safety net. We could easily end up with the US looking like Mexico. Watch out EU, we may be sneaking into your countries in decade or two.
"legal" immigration is a scam, plain and simple. There is no "line" to wait in. There are by-country quotas. Cubans get a free pass (if they survive the journey) simply because we don't like Castro. Actors, Athletes, and celebrities have no problem getting in.
Unless you are a Native American you shouldn't be complaining about immigration. You wouldn't be here if your ancestors had to follow today's laws.
In such a scenario I wouldn't count on IBM being eager to become Linux's protector. No doubt IBM and MS have agreements that might make it difficult for one to sue the other, particularly over Windows.
Yes, and there are photographers on craigslist that are willing to give their models a head shot in exchange for free modeling. More often than not, it's a bad deal for the model.
If you are a good model or a good graphic designer you aren't likely to increase your chances for paid work by establishing that you are willing to work for free.
Software developers may be willing to do it out of some cultish sense of ethics, but graphic designers aren't part of the cult, so they don't get it.
"The people unworthy of minimum wage will be unemployed."
The people unworthy of minimum wage (a very small percentage I'd wager) are probably unable to perform any productive work and thus their unemployment is inevitable no matter how little they are paid.
In my youth I held several minimum wage jobs and there was absolutely no attempt to evaluate my worthiness.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a great way to network for any basement-oriented opportunities.
I think guys like RMS and Moglen misunderstand the appeal of "free" software and thus believe in a mandate that doesn't actually exist.
The primary reason that "free as in RMS's definition" software is popular is that it is "free as in RMS's lodging at MIT".
Nobody really cares what they think about social networking and in this case there's no answer to the question "what's in it for me?".
I guess what you mean is once you want to adopt new standardized protocols that differ from the ones commonly in use, upgrading will be hard. Let's not pretend that these standards have been around for decades, they represent a change.
I think an unstated implicit goal of the W3C standard was to make it as incompatible with IE as possible. The problem these days with many standardization efforts is that the members want to invent new stuff rather than play their traditional role of codifying existing practice.
You're right and the statement you reference is obviously wrong. Multiple implementations will of course diverge no matter what a standard says. IE may suck, but back in the day most web sites could be designed without worrying about other browsers. Sure, it only supported Windows and the Mac, but that was good enough to reach the vast majority of users.
Today, most sites support browsers that run on Linux and that's a good thing, but it's made the web developers job harder.
It has to do with computers. Don't fret your little mind over it.
In any case, Code is not a corporation.
Nevertheless, it's not the first time the court has screwed up. Their latest decision with respect to the military draft was that it wasn't "involuntary servitude".
You might note that the first Amendment applies to real people, not anthropomorphic lines of code.
"Let's just invite all 6 billion people to live here, even the deadbeats who have nothing to contribute."
Except for the actual number of people involved we essentially did that in the past and you and I are here because of it.
Educated people were more likely to stay in Europe than come to America in past centuries. If you are a US citizen your ancestors were probably uneducated and poor.
Since I'm such a nice guy, I'm willing to bail out these unfortunates and swap their assets and liabilities with my own. Don't tell anyone about my good deed - I want to get my reward in heaven, not on earth.
"No, I wouldn't, by definition, because anyone capable of actually adding revenue to the country is capable of immigrating legally."
The question isn't whether such a person is "capable" but whether the US immigration system is "capable". If you think that people capable of adding revenue can easily immigrate to the US, you're badly misinformed.
Right, as part of my "prior lifestyle" I had children. So I should stop feeding them in order to get a lower-paying job.
The fact is that a society can't be stable if too many people are out of work without a safety net. We could easily end up with the US looking like Mexico. Watch out EU, we may be sneaking into your countries in decade or two.
"legal" immigration is a scam, plain and simple. There is no "line" to wait in. There are by-country quotas. Cubans get a free pass (if they survive the journey) simply because we don't like Castro. Actors, Athletes, and celebrities have no problem getting in.
Unless you are a Native American you shouldn't be complaining about immigration. You wouldn't be here if your ancestors had to follow today's laws.
If you need an algorithm to identify which girls are attractive, then you don't need an attractive girl.
"IBM will do what's best for IBM."
I agree. So far they given verbal support to the idea of defending Linux against patents, but as the saying goes "talk is cheap".
In such a scenario I wouldn't count on IBM being eager to become Linux's protector. No doubt IBM and MS have agreements that might make it difficult for one to sue the other, particularly over Windows.
One of the earliest processors I used had only 256 bits of RAM (Yes, that's right 256 B I T S of memory)
It's only guys like Beck who are talking about Obama as a messiah.
"When you realize that they are all ruthless corporations out to make a buck of you, you have to admit that open source is the only non-evil option."
Open source is not the opposite of "ruthless corporations", so your logic seems a bit faulty.
Not disputing a "Finding of Fact" isn't the same as agreeing with it.
Nobody said it was about having 100% of the market.
Yes, and there are photographers on craigslist that are willing to give their models a head shot in exchange for free modeling. More often than not, it's a bad deal for the model.
If you are a good model or a good graphic designer you aren't likely to increase your chances for paid work by establishing that you are willing to work for free.
Software developers may be willing to do it out of some cultish sense of ethics, but graphic designers aren't part of the cult, so they don't get it.
we should all buy one because MS developers are so revered around here.
"The people unworthy of minimum wage will be unemployed."
The people unworthy of minimum wage (a very small percentage I'd wager) are probably unable to perform any productive work and thus their unemployment is inevitable no matter how little they are paid.
In my youth I held several minimum wage jobs and there was absolutely no attempt to evaluate my worthiness.