Agreed. Before you can call something censored, you had better have proof that it was actively blocked.
Otherwise, this is not censorship. I have no problem with people trying to bring underreported stories to light, so long as they hold off on accusing censorship until they can prove censorship.
Although this is an interesting idea, an all-relationsl filesystem would prove to be a usability nightmare.
The relational zealots are quick to point out that a relational system can model any sort of data. Indeed, it can do this. This does not, however, mean that it's always good at doing this. Sometimes it's the right tool for the job, and sometimes it's not. In this case, it is very much not a good tool for sole access to files on the system (though it can make an excellent tool for complementary methods of access).
The reason that hierarchical filesystems have survived for so long is due to one thing: navigability. It's relatively easy for any user to browse what's on the system and get a good idea of how it is organized.
You can't navigate a relational system, which will prove to be the downfall of any all-relational system which comes into being. You can, of course, do a SELECT * FROM volume if you really want to, but that does exactly that: it gives you all the data, with no particular organization. Examining the entire "sea of data" suddenly becomes cumbersome in the extreme. So while User A might be able to set up an all-relational filesystem completely according to his own tastes, User B will be totally lost on that same system. This is, to say the least, a nightmare for anyone working in a shared environment.
This is not to say that the relational model isn't necessarily a useful thing for filesystems. On the contrary, it can be very useful for certain kinds of searches. As time goes on, I believe we'll see more relational-style searching technology incorporated into file managers and search tools. However, there also needs to be a means of hierarchical navigation. Humans tend to think of things in terms of locus, and a means of providing that kind of reference point have to be maintained.
Luckily, this can actually still be emulated using relational-style tables, even though it's somewhat less efficient than classical storage techniques. Some filesystems already do something similar to this, and the results are promising. Look at Be's filesystem for an example of that.
The best way to go, moving forward, is something not unlike what BeOS did, with both hierarchical and relational methods of examining data. This allowed for the best of both worlds. The default method of getting at data is still the hierarchical paradigm, but relational searches can be applied to create what some have called "smart folders" (perhaps "boxes" might be a better term?) Systems like this "Storage" should be focusing on complementing traditional systems in this way, rather than replacing them.
Hand-counts should be avoided except as a last resort, due to the inherent vulnerabilities of that system to error, bias, and fraud. However, as a last resort, they really are valuable. Therefore, there does need to be some sort of human-readable paper trail.
As the 2000 elections showed us, however, some people are unable to follow even clear directions, and thus we cannot count on all voters having the physical (or, more often, mental) capacity to fill out a ballot. The California recall elections will almost certainly throw this into the spotlight, with the absurd number of candidates on the ballot.
Therefore, I propose the following system:
Each machine is totally independent of all others, and -this is important- not connected to any network. Each machine has a unique serial number, and is equipped with a touch screen, speakers, and a microphone, a button, and a printer.
The first thing the user encounters is a choice of languages. This is pretty self-explanatory.
The user is then presented with the list of candidates. Each candidate is presented in sequence, with the presentation consisting of the following:
A picture of the candidate.
The candidate's name onscreen, rendered however best fits the language the user chose.
An audio clip of the candidate saying his or her name.
The idea behind this whole spiel is to present as many ways as possible for a voter to recognize the desired candidate. In this case, the user has text, visual, and aural cues.
A voter can select the candidate by touching the screen, pressing the button, or giving a voice command while the candidate is onscreen. Each candidate will be onscreen for six seconds, or the time it takes for the candidate with the longest name to say it plus a second of padding on each side, whichever is greater. This should give ample time to recognize a candidate.
The user is given a chance to confirm the vote. All their votes are read sequentially, and the user may confirm that this is in fact what they want to do.
The ballot is printed. It carries a barcode stating what machine it came from, but no information which can be used to identify the voter. This way, if a machine is found to be malfunctioning or compromised, the votes which came from it can be tracked and examined further, but the vote itself remains anonymous.
A receipt is also printed. This does not carry the vote information, but does carry the barcode for the machine it came from, in case there is need for proof that a voter used a specific machine.
The voter takes the ballot to the ballot box and casts it.
The idea behind this system is to both maximize security and minimize damage potential. Not networking the machines, for example, does not do terribly much for the security, but does ensure that a hacker could only exploit one machine at a time; to manipulate many machines would take a huge effort. Likewise, the fact that ballots are both machine- and human-readable ensures that the more secure machine counting can be used as a primary system, but hand counts can be used as a fallback mechanism.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that 99.85% of the world's population was in favor of the war in Iraq.
Oh, certainly not. I was merely pointing out that in this case, there were people who considered 0.15% of the population to be a mandate of the kind usually reserved for 50% or more.
When ten million people worldwide protested the war in Iraq, it was taken by a fair number of people as a global mandate that The War Must Stop Now. That protewst involved about 0.15% of the world's population.
So when 3% of a population -keep in mind, proportionally that is twenty times greater- wants a recall, suddenly it's "the minority" "buying another election"? This seems rather hypocritical.
...on one hand, OE was quite possibly the single most effective vector for worms ever, and this alone makes its demise cause for rejoicing.
However, as others here have mentioned, read between the lines. This is yet another attempt by Microsoft to Own The Net, this time by undermining IMAP. In fact, this time they're not even trying to disguise that fact, having been emboldened by successfully buying their way out of the DOJ suit. Forgive me if I fail to see that as a Good Thing.
It is rare that I find myself taking Microsoft's side. But deserve to get smacked down hard though they may, this is very much not cool. The precedent is a terrible one, and will haunt us for many years to come.
Why, oh why can't people understand that thought isn't a device to be patented? Copyrights are sufficient to protect any proprietary software (plus they're cheaper and last longer) without the side effect of allowing companies to run roughshod over any competition in any way other than honest, you know, competing
"Apple hardware is for real computer lovers." "It's no hassle to use a plethora of keyboard combos to make up for the patronising one-button mouse. Despite the fact that my hands have FIVE fingers, and multiple-buttons make Web browsing so much more pleasant, I prefer my computer to be treat me like a special-needs child."
Anyone who uses vi or emacs has no right whatsoever to complain about a plethora of keyboard combos (DISCLAIMER: At various points in my career, I have used both vi and emacs on a day-to-day basis, and it is not my intent to complain about the many useful keyboard shortcuts).
Meanwhile, if you want a multibutton mouse, go get one. I use a four-button trackball myself, and I enjoy complete support for it in OSX. The multibutton mouse, while useful, has been proven time and time again to be a confusing interface for novice users; OSX gives you the option of having such an interface without forcing it on everyone. What, pray tell, is the matter with that?
There is someone working on a port, actually. However, he is still trying to get permission from the author's parents to release the port. I hope he succeeds, though; StuntCopter rocks.
So in other words, a person shouldn't be allowed to use something they bought and paid for because someone else doesn't want them using it there?
Most game companies nowadays do their own localization work when they bring games across national borders. End result, it makes no difference whether the game is purchased in Japan or the US: they get their money all the same. There is no market manipulation.
The PS and PS/2 modchips basically allow pirated game discs to be played, without any other real use. The XBox case might be handled differently.
Actually, there was a perfectly-legal, totally-legitimate use. Namely, the ability to play imported games from another region, where that game might not have been released in your own area. Many anime fans ended up doing this, because most anime-based video games never make it to the US, so this is the only way to play Japanese games.
Indeed, there were some modchips made for the PSX which did only this, and did not bypass any other copy-protection methods (such that you still could not play backups). Are those also to be made illegal?
...the idiots who played their iPods too loud in the first place?
Seriously, do you actually like this paternalistic, babysitter mentality coming from most governments nowadays? Whatever happened to being responsible for your own actions?
This is not intended as flamebait; this is an honest question.
Untrue. Both Cocoa and Carbon are built "on top" of a layer called "Core Foundation" - that's the "CF" in CFUserDefaults, CFString, CFDictionary, and many other low-level constructs.
That is true. But CoreFoundation only goes so far; there are still certain things, such as most UI controls, which are still implemented using two totally different codebases for Cocoa and Carbon. Apple is working on unifying these; that is what I meant when I said that Cocoa is being reimplemented on top of Carbon. In the process they're cleaning up much of the Carbon stuff too; they have to, in order to make sure that Cocoa still works as before.
As an example of this, take Carbon's new HIView system, which it now uses for implementing button controls. This is, in fact, considered part of Carbon, not CoreFoundation. Jaguar's Cocoa implementation of things like NSButton now layer on top of Carbon's HIView.
...however, it can provide CFUserDefaults, which are basically the same thing (NSUserDefaults actually layers on top of CFUserDefaults now). So that's a wash.
Cocoa is being reimplemented on top of Carbon; the work began in Jaguar, and while it probably won't be quite finished in Panther, it should be a lot closer. I see this as a Good Thing, because it gives them the opportunity to add Carbon's greater variety of controls to Cocoa, while forcing them to patch the gaping OS-integration holes currently in Carbon. Everybody wins.
If allowing The Opposition (whoever The Opposition may be) to write a response to your article, and then linking to that response, is enough to satisfy the "right of response", then frankly I'm all for it.
There is no such thing as unbiased media, no matter the medium, no matter the author. It's a simple consequence of the fact that as humans, we aren't omniscient, and so everything we perceive and express is subject to the limitations of our own viewpoints. Even a camera can only shoot in the direction that it is pointed, after all.
Because of that, the only way to mitigate the effects of media bias is to get one's media from multiple sources with differing biases. Can a step that promotes this by ensuring that readers can get easy access to The Other Side Of The Story really be a bad thing? The Web is not paper; links are incredibly simple to set up at basically zero cost, unlike the space needed to print a reply in a magazine. There are already systems in existence which completely automate the process, such as Trackback. What burden is placed on people by means of this?
...unfortunately, it's not a complete drop-in replacement, which is what I was going for. It's a partial solution -as are the other solutions out there- and so sites can be designed around it. But a complete drop-in replacement would need to work for all sites, regardless of design methodology.
A complete drop-in replacement would, therefore, have to handle img tags, object tags, and the background attributes on body, th, and td tags. This can be done easily enough using getElements ByTagName and then searching around, but a complete drop-in replacement would also need to work with CSS-specified background images on all tags, and that's where things really start to get hairy.
I wonder if Microsoft's halfhearted support of PNG is deliberate. To be honest, it probably is, in an attempt to undermine open standards.
Ahem. Anyway, PNG is a format which would be superior to GIF in every aspect. Just a few problems...
1) Photoshop's PNG support sucks. It is entirely due to Photoshop that we have this insipid misconception that PNG is larger than GIF; if Photoshop would only compress PNG's decently, people would realize that this is false. Because unfortunately, most people are too lazy to use an optimizer along the lines of pngcrush.
2) IE/Windows' PNG support is awful. As I said, I believe that this is deliberate on Microsoft's part, given that they already have good PNG-handling code (in their AlphaImageLoader filter) and they simply refuse to use it as their default. Now, it is possible to use JavaScript -the scourge of the Net normally, but this is one of those points where it can be genuinely useful- to make IE apply the AlphaImageLoader filter to PNG images, but no one's managed to make a complete drop-in replacement that will apply to all PNG images im a page yet. It can be done, but it hasn't been done yet.
3) MNG support is nonexistent. Even Mozilla, the only browser which ever supported MNG, has removed it. This is a great shame.
Now, in the meantime, there actually is one use for images which PNG is ideally suited for, and where the transparency problems of IE/Win are not an issue: screenshots. The compression is good enough that particularly when dealing with computer-generated images, the file size isn't that much greater than JPEG, but there is no loss in image quality, which is especially important when grabbing screenshots of games or video. Screenshots are not transparent, as a rule, so IE/Windows has no problems. Unfortunately, it seems that this use of PNG has yet to be discovered by the mainstream.
PNG may also be good for certain types of wallpapeers, such as most computer-generated graphics or hand-drawn animation. Colors in these generally aren't as complex as they are in photographs, and the lossless compression of PNG works well under those conditions. Combine this with the fact that JPEG (the current de facto standard for wallpapers) has an inexplicable and yet undeniable hatred for the color red, and you have something which can better preserve these types of images. Worth considering, anyway.
So you are arguing that people who write software that does not conform to your wishes should be fined, prohibited from selling it, and or thrown in jail (for refusing to comply with said fines/prohibitions)?
No no no, not at all. What I have suggested places no restrictions on writing software whatsoever. It only says that file formats and network protocols must be properly documented, and that this documentation must be made available to anyone who is licensed to use the software (under whatever license the software maker chooses to use).
I agree that jailing people for writing software that doesn't conform to a specific set of wishes is an abuse of the legal system. But that is not what I have suggested happen.
...though it should also extend to network protocols. We could call it the Interoperable Technologies Act or something like that. Or perhaps we could even usurp the name PATRIOT (Progressing Always Towards Real Interoperability in Our Technology) or something similarly stupid but catchy and spinny.
My basic idea would be this: data storage formats and transmission protocols are mandated to be publicly documented, available to anyone at no charge (or at cost). One might also require that a public-domain reference implementation be provided, but I think that's going a little too far.
As a result of this, one might theoretically say that the cost of the time spent to develop this documentation (and the reference implementation, if that is required) ought to be made tax-deductible; this seems fair enough, since that time doesn't generate income, but is involved in a contribution to society (by promoting interoperability, which benefits us all).
Get a laptop. And if it's a Mac, get the Omni Group's excellent OmniOutliner software; that thing is a freaking godsend when it comes to taking class notes. Best money I ever spent in school. I still use it for all kinds of other stuff, now that I'm out of school.
None of you slashdot zealots want to admit that IE6 on NT5.x (maybe because of it's integration with windows, maybe because MS favors speed over clean code and layers of abstraction) is way faster and more stable than any firebird build ever made...
Yeah, I don't want to admit it. Because from my experience, to "admit" such a thing would be lying.
Seriously. In my work, I have to use both of these browsers, very often. When you do that, you gain a new appreciation for just how inferior IE is to quite literally every single other modern browser out there. Microsoft has, through basically every sort of deception a business can possibly commit, pushed inferior products onto consumers who frankly don't know any better. And we all pay the price.
Frankly, I wish someone would step in and just utterly dissolve them. Seriously. That's not something I ordinarily would wish on businesses, because when that happens a lot of innocent people lose their jobs. But Microsoft is too dangerous, and nothing short of dissolution is going to stop them at this point.
This is another one of Apple's weak attempts at controlling piracy by making the methods nonobvious. Given the Unixy nature of OSX, it's almost trivial to set up a tunnel in order to get streaming from home to work. In fact, I would bet that within 24 hours someone will be offering a free utility geared to exactly this kind of usage.
I suppose this is as good as it gets, as far as DRM is concerned. Circumventable when necessary, but just inconvenient enough that Joe 31337 won't bother trying anything funny.
I suppose the analogy could be made, yes. The idea is that, by giving the Google search a name, you can give other names to other kinds of searches, and then use the addressbar for all of them.
I suppose that, if you wanted to, you could use "g" instead of "search", thus saving a few "precious" keystrokes if you're really that lazy. This is what makes keywords superior to separate searrch fields, which unfortunately debuted in Firebird and have infected other browsers ever since: near-infinite configurability.
Combining shortcuts with keywords will give you guys what you want and more.
I have a bunch of these. Now I can type "search terms" to search on Google, "nodesearch terms" to search on Everything2, "bug number" to go straight to that bug in BugZilla, and so forth. Flexible, powerful, and damn cool.
I use Safari a lot nowadays, and keyword searching is the one feature I really miss. Well, that and a decent JavaScript console. I hope these things get added soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Before you can call something censored, you had better have proof that it was actively blocked.
Otherwise, this is not censorship. I have no problem with people trying to bring underreported stories to light, so long as they hold off on accusing censorship until they can prove censorship.
Although this is an interesting idea, an all-relationsl filesystem would prove to be a usability nightmare.
The relational zealots are quick to point out that a relational system can model any sort of data. Indeed, it can do this. This does not, however, mean that it's always good at doing this. Sometimes it's the right tool for the job, and sometimes it's not. In this case, it is very much not a good tool for sole access to files on the system (though it can make an excellent tool for complementary methods of access).
The reason that hierarchical filesystems have survived for so long is due to one thing: navigability. It's relatively easy for any user to browse what's on the system and get a good idea of how it is organized.
You can't navigate a relational system, which will prove to be the downfall of any all-relational system which comes into being. You can, of course, do a SELECT * FROM volume if you really want to, but that does exactly that: it gives you all the data, with no particular organization. Examining the entire "sea of data" suddenly becomes cumbersome in the extreme. So while User A might be able to set up an all-relational filesystem completely according to his own tastes, User B will be totally lost on that same system. This is, to say the least, a nightmare for anyone working in a shared environment.
This is not to say that the relational model isn't necessarily a useful thing for filesystems. On the contrary, it can be very useful for certain kinds of searches. As time goes on, I believe we'll see more relational-style searching technology incorporated into file managers and search tools. However, there also needs to be a means of hierarchical navigation. Humans tend to think of things in terms of locus, and a means of providing that kind of reference point have to be maintained.
Luckily, this can actually still be emulated using relational-style tables, even though it's somewhat less efficient than classical storage techniques. Some filesystems already do something similar to this, and the results are promising. Look at Be's filesystem for an example of that.
The best way to go, moving forward, is something not unlike what BeOS did, with both hierarchical and relational methods of examining data. This allowed for the best of both worlds. The default method of getting at data is still the hierarchical paradigm, but relational searches can be applied to create what some have called "smart folders" (perhaps "boxes" might be a better term?) Systems like this "Storage" should be focusing on complementing traditional systems in this way, rather than replacing them.
- Each machine is totally independent of all others, and -this is important- not connected to any network. Each machine has a unique serial number, and is equipped with a touch screen, speakers, and a microphone, a button, and a printer.
- The first thing the user encounters is a choice of languages. This is pretty self-explanatory.
- The user is then presented with the list of candidates. Each candidate is presented in sequence, with the presentation consisting of the following:
- A voter can select the candidate by touching the screen, pressing the button, or giving a voice command while the candidate is onscreen. Each candidate will be onscreen for six seconds, or the time it takes for the candidate with the longest name to say it plus a second of padding on each side, whichever is greater. This should give ample time to recognize a candidate.
- The user is given a chance to confirm the vote. All their votes are read sequentially, and the user may confirm that this is in fact what they want to do.
- The ballot is printed. It carries a barcode stating what machine it came from, but no information which can be used to identify the voter. This way, if a machine is found to be malfunctioning or compromised, the votes which came from it can be tracked and examined further, but the vote itself remains anonymous.
- A receipt is also printed. This does not carry the vote information, but does carry the barcode for the machine it came from, in case there is need for proof that a voter used a specific machine.
- The voter takes the ballot to the ballot box and casts it.
The idea behind this system is to both maximize security and minimize damage potential. Not networking the machines, for example, does not do terribly much for the security, but does ensure that a hacker could only exploit one machine at a time; to manipulate many machines would take a huge effort. Likewise, the fact that ballots are both machine- and human-readable ensures that the more secure machine counting can be used as a primary system, but hand counts can be used as a fallback mechanism.- A picture of the candidate.
- The candidate's name onscreen, rendered however best fits the language the user chose.
- An audio clip of the candidate saying his or her name.
The idea behind this whole spiel is to present as many ways as possible for a voter to recognize the desired candidate. In this case, the user has text, visual, and aural cues.Two data points is an awfully small set to be drawing conclusions from. However, it's definitely worth looking into, to see if the pattern continues.
My condolences on the fact that experimentation on this regard is going to be very unpleasant, what with the migraine-class headaches.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that 99.85% of the world's population was in favor of the war in Iraq.
Oh, certainly not. I was merely pointing out that in this case, there were people who considered 0.15% of the population to be a mandate of the kind usually reserved for 50% or more.
When ten million people worldwide protested the war in Iraq, it was taken by a fair number of people as a global mandate that The War Must Stop Now. That protewst involved about 0.15% of the world's population.
So when 3% of a population -keep in mind, proportionally that is twenty times greater- wants a recall, suddenly it's "the minority" "buying another election"? This seems rather hypocritical.
...on one hand, OE was quite possibly the single most effective vector for worms ever, and this alone makes its demise cause for rejoicing.
However, as others here have mentioned, read between the lines. This is yet another attempt by Microsoft to Own The Net, this time by undermining IMAP. In fact, this time they're not even trying to disguise that fact, having been emboldened by successfully buying their way out of the DOJ suit. Forgive me if I fail to see that as a Good Thing.
It is rare that I find myself taking Microsoft's side. But deserve to get smacked down hard though they may, this is very much not cool . The precedent is a terrible one, and will haunt us for many years to come.
Why, oh why can't people understand that thought isn't a device to be patented? Copyrights are sufficient to protect any proprietary software (plus they're cheaper and last longer) without the side effect of allowing companies to run roughshod over any competition in any way other than honest, you know, competing
"Apple hardware is for real computer lovers."
"It's no hassle to use a plethora of keyboard combos to make up for the patronising one-button mouse. Despite the fact that my hands have FIVE fingers, and multiple-buttons make Web browsing so much more pleasant, I prefer my computer to be treat me like a special-needs child."
Anyone who uses vi or emacs has no right whatsoever to complain about a plethora of keyboard combos (DISCLAIMER: At various points in my career, I have used both vi and emacs on a day-to-day basis, and it is not my intent to complain about the many useful keyboard shortcuts).
Meanwhile, if you want a multibutton mouse, go get one. I use a four-button trackball myself, and I enjoy complete support for it in OSX. The multibutton mouse, while useful, has been proven time and time again to be a confusing interface for novice users; OSX gives you the option of having such an interface without forcing it on everyone. What, pray tell, is the matter with that?
There is someone working on a port, actually. However, he is still trying to get permission from the author's parents to release the port. I hope he succeeds, though; StuntCopter rocks.
So in other words, a person shouldn't be allowed to use something they bought and paid for because someone else doesn't want them using it there?
Most game companies nowadays do their own localization work when they bring games across national borders. End result, it makes no difference whether the game is purchased in Japan or the US: they get their money all the same. There is no market manipulation.
The PS and PS/2 modchips basically allow pirated game discs to be played, without any other real use. The XBox case might be handled differently.
Actually, there was a perfectly-legal, totally-legitimate use. Namely, the ability to play imported games from another region, where that game might not have been released in your own area. Many anime fans ended up doing this, because most anime-based video games never make it to the US, so this is the only way to play Japanese games.
Indeed, there were some modchips made for the PSX which did only this, and did not bypass any other copy-protection methods (such that you still could not play backups). Are those also to be made illegal?
...the idiots who played their iPods too loud in the first place?
Seriously, do you actually like this paternalistic, babysitter mentality coming from most governments nowadays? Whatever happened to being responsible for your own actions?
This is not intended as flamebait; this is an honest question.
Untrue. Both Cocoa and Carbon are built "on top" of a layer called "Core Foundation" - that's the "CF" in CFUserDefaults, CFString, CFDictionary, and many other low-level constructs.
That is true. But CoreFoundation only goes so far; there are still certain things, such as most UI controls, which are still implemented using two totally different codebases for Cocoa and Carbon. Apple is working on unifying these; that is what I meant when I said that Cocoa is being reimplemented on top of Carbon. In the process they're cleaning up much of the Carbon stuff too; they have to, in order to make sure that Cocoa still works as before.
As an example of this, take Carbon's new HIView system, which it now uses for implementing button controls. This is, in fact, considered part of Carbon, not CoreFoundation. Jaguar's Cocoa implementation of things like NSButton now layer on top of Carbon's HIView.
...however, it can provide CFUserDefaults, which are basically the same thing (NSUserDefaults actually layers on top of CFUserDefaults now). So that's a wash.
Cocoa is being reimplemented on top of Carbon; the work began in Jaguar, and while it probably won't be quite finished in Panther, it should be a lot closer. I see this as a Good Thing, because it gives them the opportunity to add Carbon's greater variety of controls to Cocoa, while forcing them to patch the gaping OS-integration holes currently in Carbon. Everybody wins.
Is linking to a response sufficient?
If allowing The Opposition (whoever The Opposition may be) to write a response to your article, and then linking to that response, is enough to satisfy the "right of response", then frankly I'm all for it.
There is no such thing as unbiased media, no matter the medium, no matter the author. It's a simple consequence of the fact that as humans, we aren't omniscient, and so everything we perceive and express is subject to the limitations of our own viewpoints. Even a camera can only shoot in the direction that it is pointed, after all.
Because of that, the only way to mitigate the effects of media bias is to get one's media from multiple sources with differing biases. Can a step that promotes this by ensuring that readers can get easy access to The Other Side Of The Story really be a bad thing? The Web is not paper; links are incredibly simple to set up at basically zero cost, unlike the space needed to print a reply in a magazine. There are already systems in existence which completely automate the process, such as Trackback. What burden is placed on people by means of this?
...unfortunately, it's not a complete drop-in replacement, which is what I was going for. It's a partial solution -as are the other solutions out there- and so sites can be designed around it. But a complete drop-in replacement would need to work for all sites, regardless of design methodology.
A complete drop-in replacement would, therefore, have to handle img tags, object tags, and the background attributes on body, th, and td tags. This can be done easily enough using getElements ByTagName and then searching around, but a complete drop-in replacement would also need to work with CSS-specified background images on all tags, and that's where things really start to get hairy.
I wonder if Microsoft's halfhearted support of PNG is deliberate. To be honest, it probably is, in an attempt to undermine open standards.
Ahem. Anyway, PNG is a format which would be superior to GIF in every aspect. Just a few problems...
1) Photoshop's PNG support sucks. It is entirely due to Photoshop that we have this insipid misconception that PNG is larger than GIF; if Photoshop would only compress PNG's decently, people would realize that this is false. Because unfortunately, most people are too lazy to use an optimizer along the lines of pngcrush.
2) IE/Windows' PNG support is awful. As I said, I believe that this is deliberate on Microsoft's part, given that they already have good PNG-handling code (in their AlphaImageLoader filter) and they simply refuse to use it as their default. Now, it is possible to use JavaScript -the scourge of the Net normally, but this is one of those points where it can be genuinely useful- to make IE apply the AlphaImageLoader filter to PNG images, but no one's managed to make a complete drop-in replacement that will apply to all PNG images im a page yet. It can be done, but it hasn't been done yet.
3) MNG support is nonexistent. Even Mozilla, the only browser which ever supported MNG, has removed it. This is a great shame.
Now, in the meantime, there actually is one use for images which PNG is ideally suited for, and where the transparency problems of IE/Win are not an issue: screenshots. The compression is good enough that particularly when dealing with computer-generated images, the file size isn't that much greater than JPEG, but there is no loss in image quality, which is especially important when grabbing screenshots of games or video. Screenshots are not transparent, as a rule, so IE/Windows has no problems. Unfortunately, it seems that this use of PNG has yet to be discovered by the mainstream.
PNG may also be good for certain types of wallpapeers, such as most computer-generated graphics or hand-drawn animation. Colors in these generally aren't as complex as they are in photographs, and the lossless compression of PNG works well under those conditions. Combine this with the fact that JPEG (the current de facto standard for wallpapers) has an inexplicable and yet undeniable hatred for the color red, and you have something which can better preserve these types of images. Worth considering, anyway.
So you are arguing that people who write software that does not conform to your wishes should be fined, prohibited from selling it, and or thrown in jail (for refusing to comply with said fines/prohibitions)?
No no no, not at all. What I have suggested places no restrictions on writing software whatsoever. It only says that file formats and network protocols must be properly documented, and that this documentation must be made available to anyone who is licensed to use the software (under whatever license the software maker chooses to use).
I agree that jailing people for writing software that doesn't conform to a specific set of wishes is an abuse of the legal system. But that is not what I have suggested happen.
...though it should also extend to network protocols. We could call it the Interoperable Technologies Act or something like that. Or perhaps we could even usurp the name PATRIOT (Progressing Always Towards Real Interoperability in Our Technology) or something similarly stupid but catchy and spinny.
My basic idea would be this: data storage formats and transmission protocols are mandated to be publicly documented, available to anyone at no charge (or at cost). One might also require that a public-domain reference implementation be provided, but I think that's going a little too far.
As a result of this, one might theoretically say that the cost of the time spent to develop this documentation (and the reference implementation, if that is required) ought to be made tax-deductible; this seems fair enough, since that time doesn't generate income, but is involved in a contribution to society (by promoting interoperability, which benefits us all).
Get a laptop. And if it's a Mac, get the Omni Group's excellent OmniOutliner software; that thing is a freaking godsend when it comes to taking class notes. Best money I ever spent in school. I still use it for all kinds of other stuff, now that I'm out of school.
None of you slashdot zealots want to admit that IE6 on NT5.x (maybe because of it's integration with windows, maybe because MS favors speed over clean code and layers of abstraction) is way faster and more stable than any firebird build ever made...
Yeah, I don't want to admit it. Because from my experience, to "admit" such a thing would be lying.
Seriously. In my work, I have to use both of these browsers, very often. When you do that, you gain a new appreciation for just how inferior IE is to quite literally every single other modern browser out there. Microsoft has, through basically every sort of deception a business can possibly commit, pushed inferior products onto consumers who frankly don't know any better. And we all pay the price.
Frankly, I wish someone would step in and just utterly dissolve them. Seriously. That's not something I ordinarily would wish on businesses, because when that happens a lot of innocent people lose their jobs. But Microsoft is too dangerous, and nothing short of dissolution is going to stop them at this point.
This is another one of Apple's weak attempts at controlling piracy by making the methods nonobvious. Given the Unixy nature of OSX, it's almost trivial to set up a tunnel in order to get streaming from home to work. In fact, I would bet that within 24 hours someone will be offering a free utility geared to exactly this kind of usage.
I suppose this is as good as it gets, as far as DRM is concerned. Circumventable when necessary, but just inconvenient enough that Joe 31337 won't bother trying anything funny.
I suppose the analogy could be made, yes. The idea is that, by giving the Google search a name, you can give other names to other kinds of searches, and then use the addressbar for all of them.
I suppose that, if you wanted to, you could use "g" instead of "search", thus saving a few "precious" keystrokes if you're really that lazy. This is what makes keywords superior to separate searrch fields, which unfortunately debuted in Firebird and have infected other browsers ever since: near-infinite configurability.
Combining shortcuts with keywords will give you guys what you want and more.
I have a bunch of these. Now I can type "search terms" to search on Google, "nodesearch terms" to search on Everything2, "bug number" to go straight to that bug in BugZilla, and so forth. Flexible, powerful, and damn cool.
I use Safari a lot nowadays, and keyword searching is the one feature I really miss. Well, that and a decent JavaScript console. I hope these things get added soon.