While I agree with you regarding Ron Paul as president. I do not see your point on text.
Perhaps to a degree, that yes, there is a lot to be said for HTML and text. But have you checked out "Buzzword"
Or the previews for Flash Player 10? I think Adobe is aware of this deficiency and working to make Flash Player 10 the most powerful web based delivery system for text.
That's because of the same !@#$% ego that won't give me a left and a right button on a Mac laptop.
AND PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT CLICK POINTS ON TRACKPADS
Because I hate that more than anything. Pop-ups are not as annoying and stupid as a trackpad that is also your click. Constantly find myself launching all sorts of random apps and links. Hate it!
Bought a Dell with it. Told them if they didn't give me drivers that let me turn it off I was returning the $2,000 workstation.
I believe that I am smart enough to accept that we all have biases. I have always accepted that Fox News is just as fairly balanced as CNN, MSNBC, etc.
(as in, none of them are)
Fox gets attacked by liberals. The others by conservatives. And whenever someone tries to exclaim that Fox is some right-wing bent while CNN is the straight line. Or vice-versa...I realize that I am dealing with someone who does not have enough intelligence to be honest with their self.
(ie: Right now, most of the Democrats consider "talk radio" as unfairly conservatively biased. But they do not recognize the same unfair bias of most of the print media and most of the television in their favor. Until Fox News, almost every media source outside of talk radio was biased toward liberal point of view. The so called Fairness Doctrine is unlikely to be used to give equal place on those medias.
Hence, Conservatives see it as merely an attempt of censorship against the one outlet they've had more success with than the liberals.
Personally, I think radio is more successfully with conservatives as they tend to be more "working class", therefore they do not have the free time to sit around watching TV or reading the paper.
No...they just like dumb people to believe their the good guys.
They're just as evil as the Republican, what makes them worse is that they don't get credited for their evil. This is really for the most part thanks to a failing on the part of mainstream media which has mostly been liberal.
"The fairness doctrine doesn't censor anything. It allows for equal time and space of people with opposing or different views."
Except that the same is not granted in other media outlets (television and print). Sure, we now have Fox. So that balances TV out a little versus the others which will almost always feed the liberal with easy questions and hound the conservative.
Except, the matter is that these ALL have to profitable. (ie: Liberal Radio Bombed/Bankrupt/Etc)
No, because the fairness doctrine as it's usually touted is really focused toward radio. In which the conservatives have a pretty fixed control. Versus TV/print media where the liberal thought is more dominant.
However, attempts at having equal footing in those areas are often rebuttled or dismissed. So really "fairness doctrine" pretty much translates into "legislating 1/2 of conservative talk radio off the air and replacing them with liberals". And essentially forcing the conservatives radio listeners to subsidize liberals. It will likely bankrupt radio. (As the major liberal radio initiatives have repeatedly gone bankrupt even with big bankrolls backing them.) And the money will have to come from somewhere.
It's also the DUMBEST thing the Democrats could ever do. It would be seen as such an illegal affront to conservative radio listeners that nothing would re-mobilize the conservative base more.
Since WHEN have people been using the web as mere 1000 words of text. Come on...
It's 2008!
The web is more application and interaction than mere text. You're stuck on the digital printing press. About time you realize the web has also invented the digital radio and television services as well.
You'd probably say the above statement is ignorant. Likewise, yours is as well. A well designed Flash application can do things HTML just cannot do easily.
*shrugs*
Yes, a poorly designed Flash app sucks as much as the blink tag and pop-over and under ads. But that's the makers NOT the technology.
Especially with the upcoming Flash 10 which has text support features that HTML just does not have (ie: multi-language, including support for left-to-right languages, etc).
Please suggest a much better and more open standard?
OMG, so it's not open-source (oh wait, the Flex Framework is and they now have the open Flash initiative). What more do you want?
Come on...give it a break. Sorry, yes there are a few who want everything free as in Linux. But frankly, my experience with Linux has been poor. Yes, it's mostly driver support and installation issues.
I'd rather that experience not be expanded to everything.
"Suppose Flickr decided to remove any pictures of black people or catholics, do you think they would be exercising legitimate property rights?"
Yes, though I think such would be wrong. But they are allowed to do such. However, I and many others would boycott such a company.
And yes, now days, such might possibly run aground of discriminatory practices. And I will point to the fact that we still have the KKK, Nation of Islam as examples of such practices btw.
***
All that aside. You have in your argument left the case of censorship and entered a case of discriminatory practices. So I stand by my point. People decrying private businesses and citizens of censorship are standing on baseless ground, especially when referencing the Constitution. The Constitution provides protections against censorship by the government.
As for shopping malls. I believe it still stands that they can ask any patron to leave. If you do not, you can be arrested for tresspassing.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you are completely failing to notice what Flash can really do.
Go beyond the animated ads and the widgets. Go to an immersive interactivity.
While I agree with you regarding Ron Paul as president. I do not see your point on text.
Perhaps to a degree, that yes, there is a lot to be said for HTML and text. But have you checked out "Buzzword"
Or the previews for Flash Player 10? I think Adobe is aware of this deficiency and working to make Flash Player 10 the most powerful web based delivery system for text.
HTML site = terrible usability (ie: new page refresh each step)
HTML+JS+CSS or (AJAX) = improved usability, increased complexity, and just as much potential for bad coding as Flash.
PLUS increased risk of browser compatibility.
Actually you can...if the application is designed properly. Heck, you can even use the back button.
Yes, because they've release the protocols. And if they did start charging for the plug-in. It'd be their death knell and clones would appear quickly.
That's because of the same !@#$% ego that won't give me a left and a right button on a Mac laptop.
AND PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT CLICK POINTS ON TRACKPADS
Because I hate that more than anything. Pop-ups are not as annoying and stupid as a trackpad that is also your click. Constantly find myself launching all sorts of random apps and links. Hate it!
Bought a Dell with it. Told them if they didn't give me drivers that let me turn it off I was returning the $2,000 workstation.
See, this is where you and I differ...
I believe that I am smart enough to accept that we all have biases. I have always accepted that Fox News is just as fairly balanced as CNN, MSNBC, etc.
(as in, none of them are)
Fox gets attacked by liberals. The others by conservatives. And whenever someone tries to exclaim that Fox is some right-wing bent while CNN is the straight line. Or vice-versa...I realize that I am dealing with someone who does not have enough intelligence to be honest with their self.
Nope...rather the "Nancy State"
However, liberals == tax freely and without inhibition.
Don't forget, the Donkey's are also trying to get rid of the 2nd Amendment as well.
So if we lose the 1st, 2nd, and 4th. That leaves us the 3rd and 5th-10th. Um, just what does that leave us anyways?
Yes, the problem was enforcement...
(ie: Right now, most of the Democrats consider "talk radio" as unfairly conservatively biased. But they do not recognize the same unfair bias of most of the print media and most of the television in their favor. Until Fox News, almost every media source outside of talk radio was biased toward liberal point of view. The so called Fairness Doctrine is unlikely to be used to give equal place on those medias.
Hence, Conservatives see it as merely an attempt of censorship against the one outlet they've had more success with than the liberals.
Personally, I think radio is more successfully with conservatives as they tend to be more "working class", therefore they do not have the free time to sit around watching TV or reading the paper.
argh, replace "their" with "they're" I hate making bad typos.
Makes me appear as stupid as they are!
(FYI, Democrats = Evil, Republicans = Evil)
No...they just like dumb people to believe their the good guys.
They're just as evil as the Republican, what makes them worse is that they don't get credited for their evil. This is really for the most part thanks to a failing on the part of mainstream media which has mostly been liberal.
"The fairness doctrine doesn't censor anything. It allows for equal time and space of people with opposing or different views."
Except that the same is not granted in other media outlets (television and print). Sure, we now have Fox. So that balances TV out a little versus the others which will almost always feed the liberal with easy questions and hound the conservative.
Except, the matter is that these ALL have to profitable. (ie: Liberal Radio Bombed/Bankrupt/Etc)
No, because the fairness doctrine as it's usually touted is really focused toward radio. In which the conservatives have a pretty fixed control. Versus TV/print media where the liberal thought is more dominant.
However, attempts at having equal footing in those areas are often rebuttled or dismissed. So really "fairness doctrine" pretty much translates into "legislating 1/2 of conservative talk radio off the air and replacing them with liberals". And essentially forcing the conservatives radio listeners to subsidize liberals. It will likely bankrupt radio. (As the major liberal radio initiatives have repeatedly gone bankrupt even with big bankrolls backing them.) And the money will have to come from somewhere.
It's also the DUMBEST thing the Democrats could ever do. It would be seen as such an illegal affront to conservative radio listeners that nothing would re-mobilize the conservative base more.
Here it is the government attempting to censor and limit free speech on political matters.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CONSTITUTION FORBADE
(not Blockbuster censoring what videos they'd rent)
You are confusing a deficiency of your cell phone with a deficiency of Flash.
So the fact that thousands of cell phones are incapable of reading HTML or XHTML make both of those mark-up languages deficient?
Since WHEN have people been using the web as mere 1000 words of text. Come on...
It's 2008!
The web is more application and interaction than mere text. You're stuck on the digital printing press. About time you realize the web has also invented the digital radio and television services as well.
"No content worth indexing should be in HTML."
You'd probably say the above statement is ignorant. Likewise, yours is as well. A well designed Flash application can do things HTML just cannot do easily.
*shrugs*
Yes, a poorly designed Flash app sucks as much as the blink tag and pop-over and under ads. But that's the makers NOT the technology.
Really, sorry, I don't see how that is the case?
Especially with the upcoming Flash 10 which has text support features that HTML just does not have (ie: multi-language, including support for left-to-right languages, etc).
Sorry, I'll stick with Flash.
Please suggest a much better and more open standard?
OMG, so it's not open-source (oh wait, the Flex Framework is and they now have the open Flash initiative). What more do you want?
Come on...give it a break. Sorry, yes there are a few who want everything free as in Linux. But frankly, my experience with Linux has been poor. Yes, it's mostly driver support and installation issues.
I'd rather that experience not be expanded to everything.
"Suppose Flickr decided to remove any pictures of black people or catholics, do you think they would be exercising legitimate property rights?"
Yes, though I think such would be wrong. But they are allowed to do such. However, I and many others would boycott such a company.
And yes, now days, such might possibly run aground of discriminatory practices. And I will point to the fact that we still have the KKK, Nation of Islam as examples of such practices btw.
***
All that aside. You have in your argument left the case of censorship and entered a case of discriminatory practices. So I stand by my point. People decrying private businesses and citizens of censorship are standing on baseless ground, especially when referencing the Constitution. The Constitution provides protections against censorship by the government.
As for shopping malls. I believe it still stands that they can ask any patron to leave. If you do not, you can be arrested for tresspassing.
Is also quite good. And I believe pretty pre-teen friendly. Also quite enjoyable.
- The Saj
Perhaps my favorite of his youth novellas. I think it also stands up to the test of time quite well.
Who challenged and converted C.S. Lewis. They were part of a writer's group that met at a tavern and enjoyed a few bourbons if I recall correctly.