If you look at the article, there are more than a few points where he talks about the environments, heaping inordinate amounts of praise on one relative to the others, but then ranks them in a different order. In other words, the one he gives the highest praise is not always ranked the highest.
Um... what gives? What metric is he using to rank these environments, if the best one (by his definitions anyway) does not come out on top?
I'm not a relational-zealot like the sorts found at dbdebunk.com; I don't worship the table and the join, but neither do I worship the DTD and the entity. If you're just starting a project, think long and hard about your options. Maybe an XML database will be the best tool for the job, or maybe a relational database will, or maybe an OODBMS will work better, or maybe you'd be better off with an object-persistence system such as Prevayler.
I can't know the answer, and neither can anyone else here, since you haven't supplied (and probably wouldn't be allowed to supply) enough data on which to base a decision. So just think about it. You have an opportunity to do it right the first time, so make sure you know what that is before doing anything.
Enough of this. The "x funds terrorism" crap is getting just stupid. In fact, now I'm thinking of making a Six-Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon type game: "Everything Funds Terrorism".
Basically, the user searches on an industry or activity, and -ideally in six steps or less- it's put into a chain of other industries or activities, leading back to terrorism.
I'm only half-joking; this would make an interesting project, and I hope it would get the point across: that terrorism must not be allowed to significantly impact our lives. Because that really is how they win, by dominating us through fear.
For all the good that comes of weaning ourselves off of oil, there is a price, and it's one that isn't mentioned very often.
Take a look at where we get our oil from. I'm not talking in terms of politics or culture: I'm talking in terms of economics. For many of the oil-producing nations of the world, oil is the only natural resource they have. The influx of money to those nations has allowed great things to be done in some of these nations. It has, admittedly, also fueled some dictatorships, but even in these cases, the standard of living has risen somewhat.
Take away that inflow of cash, and you utterly decimate the economies of these nations. That's what people forget: it's not just the oil companies that benefit from oil. What do you intend to do when you've plunged some rather large nations back into the poverty that oil had finally allowed them to escape? What do you think they will do? Will terrorism decrease, as the groups see themselves as being finally left alone, or will it increase, in revenge for ruining their economies?
It's a delicate game, politics. Each decision leads to others, and has consequences far greater than can usually be seen at the time the decision is made. This is one of them.
This is essentially voter fraud. Not because it changes the number of the votes -it doesn't- but because it changes the placement of the votes. A regional election, which is what "the election" really is, no longer accurately represents the wishes of that region. That perverts the entire electoral process, and undermines the entire concept of representative democracy.
Free speech? Perhaps, but free speech does not shield you from the law, it only states that such speech cannot be banned. This is the real issue behind shouting "Fire!" in a theater: it is your right, but if you incite a panic, the fact that you had the right to say it won't shield you from the consequences of your actions. This should have been treated the same way; political speech is fine, but it shouldn't save people from the consequences of defrauding the electoral process.
Apple dropped the floppy five years ago. The whole industry predicted that either it would kill Apple, or they'd have floppy drives back in the very next generation of machines.
Neither happened. Life went on, because the floppy really was archaic and outdated; alternatives really did exist.
Now, granted, these were Macs, which have just about always had much better hardware/software integration than five years previous. As a Mac user myself, this argument of "but what about machines which don't boot off of USB or Firewire?" looks utterly absurd, because, well, why the hell aren't these machines capable of booting off of it? Or this bit about "How can the average user make bootable CD's?"; why the hell should making bootable CD's be so difficult that the average user can't do it?
Maybe it's just that I come from a Mac background, where things Just Work. But honestly, it sounds like the only reasons to keep the floppy around on the PC would be dealing with fundamental flaws in the PC's architecture. Then again, it's rather ironic that Dell uses a "you wouldn't use a processor that was 15 years old" when they use an outdated architecture that's even older, so maybe there's something to that. A blind insistence on pack-ratting old technologies, maybe, at the expense of advancement?
Garry Kasparov was beaten by Deep Blue. This means one of several possibilities:
1) Computers are more intelligent than humans. 2) Computers can be made to play better chess than humans. 3) Computers can be programmed to beat Garry Kasparov. 4) Chess can be reduced to a set of mathematical computations, which a computer can then perform faster than a human.
So what is it? And how do you know which one (or ones) are correct? Just a thought, since I think a lot of people are being overly alarmist.
OK. This sounds reasonable, with the following additions:
0) Corporate copyrights are set to 14-year terms, renewable once. Copyrights held by natural persons remain in force for the lifetime of the author or 28 years (nonrenewable), whichever is greater.
1) After the original period of 14 years, a copyright may be renewed once, unless no editions of the work have been released for sale in the past three years and plans have not been formally announced to release it within the following year. In other words, if you haven't been actually making money off the copyright then you shouldn't be able to hold it "defensively".
2) Copyrights apply to specific versions or editions of works, rather than the work in general. To give an example, Version 2.0 of a piece of software is protected by a different copyright than Version 1.0 was.
3) All copyright-protection mechanisms must stop working when the copyright expires. While this need not necessarily be automatic, if it isn't then the mechanism to disable the protection must be made available to the public, free of charge, at that time.
4) All copyright-protection mechanisms must allow for the fair-use rights of all users. To aid in this, a minimal, non-exhaustive list of fair use rights may be drawn up; at the absolute least this must include both time-shifting and space-shifting rights.
5) Content creators may not specify how a product may be used (also known as End-User License Agreements). Standard copyright law will forbid illegal redistribution, public performance without permission, etc. and this may not be modified by content creators except to grant permission there the law dows not automatically do so.
6) Computer code is to be considered a written work, protected by copyright but not patent. Copyrights will, as noted in Point 2 above, apply to specific versions of the software, rather than the software in general. When copyright on a specific version expires, the source code for that version is to be released into the public domain.
7) When and if this goes into effect, all corporate copyrights still in force will be set to expire in 14 years. Some old copyrights will be extended by this, and some will be truncated. Oh well; we can't pick and choose. This will be the last time copyrights can retroactively extended or shortened; see Point 8 below.
8) Congress may, at its option, pass laws extending these terms, by no more than five years at a time. Further, these laws may apply only to copyrights on works created after said extension was put into force.
OK. Build these into the law -thus putting binding restrictions on content creators to make their copy-protection mechanisms fair- and I'll let them have their little legal restrictions on DRM-circumvention (modified to take these into account, of course). If they want this, fine, but only if they agree to restore the balance between creator and user first.
...for people to be using Web standards and writing sites in such a way that promotes accessibility, to use graphics where needed and to not use them where not needed, and so on.
And above all, to be using Flash for animation and vector graphics and other appropriate things, not entire Websites.
The problem is, computers are a tool but they're being used as a crutch.
Computers are not cost-cutting measures, as far as education is concerned. You will spend money on them. Lots of it. And if you spend it wisely, then there will be great benefit. But do not think you can replace teachers, or librarians, or libraries for that matter. You will not save money by putting computers in the classroom; if you are, then you're doing something wrong.
The main problem is that computers are absolutely wonderful tools. They do very well in terms of augmenting people's existing abilities. However, schools are not teaching students to use computers this way; they're teaching students to essentially replace their own abilities with those of computers. And then we wonder why little Billy can't add, never mind that he's never had to because his teacher always told him to use a calculator instead.
Technology is good. But we're using it inappropriately, and we're teaching it too young. Calculators should be strictly forbidden in math classes, at least up through basic algebra. Basic four-function calculators might be allowed in other classes where math is important but secondary to the overall concepts, but even there it shouldn't be permissible right away. At least through grade school papers should be required to be handwritten, and there's something to be said for requiring them all the way up through high school, with intermediate drafts turned in as well. No better way exists to encourage a clear, concise writing style than making wordiness an inconvenience; any writer can tell you that. Internet-based research, while it should not be forbidden (it's an important resource), should be severely restricted up through middle school. Kids can't be allowed to forget that while a great deal of information can be found on the Net, there is a great deal for which one must continue to look elsewhere.
Even worse than this, however, is that we're not teaching kids what they need to know about computers. We're teaching them essentially all the wrong stuff. A little basic programming should be mandatory. Nothing major, just a few lines of Logo or Python or Cocoa (the kid-based programming environment, not the object-oriented API in Mac OS X) or something else that's something suitably kid-friendly. A little of this, particularly in conjunction with a class in logic and problem-solving skills, could go a very long way. But even before that, where are the gradeschool-level courses in basic computer literacy? Not that we should be handing little Billy a bash prompt in kindergarten, but by fifth grade someone should at least know their way around the basics of a machine; enough to turn it on, turn it off, launch a program, and some basic troubleshooting.
Computers can enhance the mind, and in this they have the potential to do great good. But we're teaching kids in such a way that they replace the mind. The consequences of that will be disastrous.
What really ticks me off is the sites which sniff for NEtscape 6+, but don't include Mozilla, Chimera, Phoenix, or any of the other Gecko-based browsers.
Fear not; the fix is trivial. Rather than sniffing for Netscape, sniff for Gecko instead. All Gecko-based browsers, by convention, have "Gecko" plud a number indicating the Gecko version in their User-Agent string. Use this, and you'll catch all Gecko-based browsers, which, since they all use the same rendering engine, will all work correctly unless you're doing something really esoteric, to the point where you'd already know it wouldn't work right.
Of course, ideally you shouldn't be coding to need UA sniffing at all. But if you must, then pleast, stop sniffing for Netscape and start sniffing for Gecko.
Schadenfreude, schadenfreude Isn't it so sweet? Billy's such an asshole It's so great to see him beat, oh!
Schadenfreude, schadenfreude Will this show to them Why our rights must not be Bitchslapped down by DRM?
Sadly, it probably won't; M$ isn't known for being cowed by a taste of their own medicine. Nevertheless, maybe we'll actually see something good come out of this...
So, instead of doing the ethical thing and developing a nonlethal technique for harvesting embryonic stem cells -a move which would quell all current opposition to research- they decide to create entirely new human beings, simply for the purposes of killing them in order to get their stem cells.
When are people ever going to learn that free speech must be absolute and sacrosanct, no matter how reprehensible the beliefs being espoused?
All viewpoints have something to offer, and none is totally correct; as humans, we are incapable of perceiving absolute Truth. That truth lies somewhere between the viewpoints, and by censoring any viewpoint -any viewpoint- we permanently cripple our ability to get closer to that Truth, whatever it may be.
Thoughts do not go away sinply because we forbid people to speak of them. The only valid way to stop hate has always been, and will always be, education, not legislation.
Are you sure about that? There are several ways around this:
1) Use the table's summary attribute (the one Tidy always warns you about). This will allow you to put in a description of the table without having it shown to sighted users. Of course, you could also put in some text and use CSS to hide it from sighted users.
2) Use proper headers (TH elements with scope attributes) where appropriate. You might be surprised at just how far this will go for increasing accessibility with most aural browsers or Braille readers.
There are a few others as well. Basically, it's just using more of the language for its intended purpose.
No one is trying to regulate how a page looks. These laws are not intended for that. What they are trying to regulate is how the page is coded, so that it can be easily (and automatically) converted to other formats by accessibility software.
This does not have the slightest impact on the ability to design a page. There is no page out there which could not be coded in an accessible manner. It's just a matter of getting people to do it.
And incidentally, you may find that coding your page in an accessible manner opens up new possibilities, if you're willing to look at them. Everyone knows, for example, about the visual styling properties of CSS. Not many know about the aural styling properties; you can set voice, tone, speed, even apparent position. And there's even some interesting stuff you can do with Braille in CSS, if you really want to. Or don't; as long as the information gets through that's the important thing, so you don't have to design this part of it if you don't want to. But the possibilities... oh, the possibilities...
The most important thing to have in your toolbox is a large, stuffed, pink bunny.
Carry it around everywhere at work. Converse with it regularly. Get its opinion on other peoples' technical problems. Make your co-workers greet the rabbit whenever they greet you.
This should keep people from calling you unless it's REALLY an emergency.
As I understand it, Phoenix is one part of an experiment in modularizing Mozilla. As others have pointed out, a Mail/News app called Minotaur is in the works. We might ses spinoffs for Composer and ChatZilla as well, but I don't know if anything's set up for them yet.
In that light, Phoenix is actually the first step in the very process you're describing.
Truth be told, if the browser makers and page designers would get off their collective rears and support the standards right, there wouldn't even be a need for screen readers. You'd be surprised at just what HTML and CSS can do for layout; they far surpass anything tables can do, in a browser that actually knows what it's doing. And yet, if you structure your text in a sane, structural manner, an aural browser won't even need to read the screen; it can just speak the text outright. There's even a section of CSS which can be used to alter voice, position, and other aspects of sound.
Luckily, the browser makers are finally starting to get things right, even if they're four years late. Perhaps eventually the Web will recover from the bastardization of HTML that came with the advent of 4.x browsers and table-based layouts. The sooner this happens, the better for designers, users, and everyone else.
...in other words, you broke the AVI standard to make it do what you want. Similar to DivX (AVI doesn't allow VBR audio tracks).
The fact is, AVI is a piece of junk as a container format, and the DivX folks should be strung up for ever using it. Going with a superior format wouldn't have been hard for them; several existed at the time, the only one worse being perhaps.FLC. The sooner.AVI dies as a file format, the better for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
If you look at the article, there are more than a few points where he talks about the environments, heaping inordinate amounts of praise on one relative to the others, but then ranks them in a different order. In other words, the one he gives the highest praise is not always ranked the highest.
Um... what gives? What metric is he using to rank these environments, if the best one (by his definitions anyway) does not come out on top?
Is an XML database the right tool for the job?
I'm not a relational-zealot like the sorts found at dbdebunk.com; I don't worship the table and the join, but neither do I worship the DTD and the entity. If you're just starting a project, think long and hard about your options. Maybe an XML database will be the best tool for the job, or maybe a relational database will, or maybe an OODBMS will work better, or maybe you'd be better off with an object-persistence system such as Prevayler.
I can't know the answer, and neither can anyone else here, since you haven't supplied (and probably wouldn't be allowed to supply) enough data on which to base a decision. So just think about it. You have an opportunity to do it right the first time, so make sure you know what that is before doing anything.
...Projectile Diarrhea.
In other words, nearly as bad as that certain Website which claims to be about goats.
Enough of this. The "x funds terrorism" crap is getting just stupid. In fact, now I'm thinking of making a Six-Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon type game: "Everything Funds Terrorism".
Basically, the user searches on an industry or activity, and -ideally in six steps or less- it's put into a chain of other industries or activities, leading back to terrorism.
I'm only half-joking; this would make an interesting project, and I hope it would get the point across: that terrorism must not be allowed to significantly impact our lives. Because that really is how they win, by dominating us through fear.
For all the good that comes of weaning ourselves off of oil, there is a price, and it's one that isn't mentioned very often.
Take a look at where we get our oil from. I'm not talking in terms of politics or culture: I'm talking in terms of economics. For many of the oil-producing nations of the world, oil is the only natural resource they have. The influx of money to those nations has allowed great things to be done in some of these nations. It has, admittedly, also fueled some dictatorships, but even in these cases, the standard of living has risen somewhat.
Take away that inflow of cash, and you utterly decimate the economies of these nations. That's what people forget: it's not just the oil companies that benefit from oil. What do you intend to do when you've plunged some rather large nations back into the poverty that oil had finally allowed them to escape? What do you think they will do? Will terrorism decrease, as the groups see themselves as being finally left alone, or will it increase, in revenge for ruining their economies?
It's a delicate game, politics. Each decision leads to others, and has consequences far greater than can usually be seen at the time the decision is made. This is one of them.
Why didn't you just get the Mac version? That would likely have worked.
This is essentially voter fraud. Not because it changes the number of the votes -it doesn't- but because it changes the placement of the votes. A regional election, which is what "the election" really is, no longer accurately represents the wishes of that region. That perverts the entire electoral process, and undermines the entire concept of representative democracy.
Free speech? Perhaps, but free speech does not shield you from the law, it only states that such speech cannot be banned. This is the real issue behind shouting "Fire!" in a theater: it is your right, but if you incite a panic, the fact that you had the right to say it won't shield you from the consequences of your actions. This should have been treated the same way; political speech is fine, but it shouldn't save people from the consequences of defrauding the electoral process.
I believe I read somewhere that the general convention is twenty lines of code. Take that much, and you've crossed the line. YMMV, of course.
Apple dropped the floppy five years ago. The whole industry predicted that either it would kill Apple, or they'd have floppy drives back in the very next generation of machines.
Neither happened. Life went on, because the floppy really was archaic and outdated; alternatives really did exist.
Now, granted, these were Macs, which have just about always had much better hardware/software integration than five years previous. As a Mac user myself, this argument of "but what about machines which don't boot off of USB or Firewire?" looks utterly absurd, because, well, why the hell aren't these machines capable of booting off of it? Or this bit about "How can the average user make bootable CD's?"; why the hell should making bootable CD's be so difficult that the average user can't do it?
Maybe it's just that I come from a Mac background, where things Just Work. But honestly, it sounds like the only reasons to keep the floppy around on the PC would be dealing with fundamental flaws in the PC's architecture. Then again, it's rather ironic that Dell uses a "you wouldn't use a processor that was 15 years old" when they use an outdated architecture that's even older, so maybe there's something to that. A blind insistence on pack-ratting old technologies, maybe, at the expense of advancement?
Make a big file image, format it, mount it via loopback, encrypt everything that goes on it.
That's what encrypted DiskCopy images essentially are, just wrapped in a nice interface. It's actually a pretty neat system.
Garry Kasparov was beaten by Deep Blue. This means one of several possibilities:
1) Computers are more intelligent than humans.
2) Computers can be made to play better chess than humans.
3) Computers can be programmed to beat Garry Kasparov.
4) Chess can be reduced to a set of mathematical computations, which a computer can then perform faster than a human.
So what is it? And how do you know which one (or ones) are correct? Just a thought, since I think a lot of people are being overly alarmist.
OK. This sounds reasonable, with the following additions:
0) Corporate copyrights are set to 14-year terms, renewable once. Copyrights held by natural persons remain in force for the lifetime of the author or 28 years (nonrenewable), whichever is greater.
1) After the original period of 14 years, a copyright may be renewed once, unless no editions of the work have been released for sale in the past three years and plans have not been formally announced to release it within the following year. In other words, if you haven't been actually making money off the copyright then you shouldn't be able to hold it "defensively".
2) Copyrights apply to specific versions or editions of works, rather than the work in general. To give an example, Version 2.0 of a piece of software is protected by a different copyright than Version 1.0 was.
3) All copyright-protection mechanisms must stop working when the copyright expires. While this need not necessarily be automatic, if it isn't then the mechanism to disable the protection must be made available to the public, free of charge, at that time.
4) All copyright-protection mechanisms must allow for the fair-use rights of all users. To aid in this, a minimal, non-exhaustive list of fair use rights may be drawn up; at the absolute least this must include both time-shifting and space-shifting rights.
5) Content creators may not specify how a product may be used (also known as End-User License Agreements). Standard copyright law will forbid illegal redistribution, public performance without permission, etc. and this may not be modified by content creators except to grant permission there the law dows not automatically do so.
6) Computer code is to be considered a written work, protected by copyright but not patent. Copyrights will, as noted in Point 2 above, apply to specific versions of the software, rather than the software in general. When copyright on a specific version expires, the source code for that version is to be released into the public domain.
7) When and if this goes into effect, all corporate copyrights still in force will be set to expire in 14 years. Some old copyrights will be extended by this, and some will be truncated. Oh well; we can't pick and choose. This will be the last time copyrights can retroactively extended or shortened; see Point 8 below.
8) Congress may, at its option, pass laws extending these terms, by no more than five years at a time. Further, these laws may apply only to copyrights on works created after said extension was put into force.
OK. Build these into the law -thus putting binding restrictions on content creators to make their copy-protection mechanisms fair- and I'll let them have their little legal restrictions on DRM-circumvention (modified to take these into account, of course). If they want this, fine, but only if they agree to restore the balance between creator and user first.
...for people to be using Web standards and writing sites in such a way that promotes accessibility, to use graphics where needed and to not use them where not needed, and so on.
And above all, to be using Flash for animation and vector graphics and other appropriate things, not entire Websites.
The problem is, computers are a tool but they're being used as a crutch.
Computers are not cost-cutting measures, as far as education is concerned. You will spend money on them. Lots of it. And if you spend it wisely, then there will be great benefit. But do not think you can replace teachers, or librarians, or libraries for that matter. You will not save money by putting computers in the classroom; if you are, then you're doing something wrong.
The main problem is that computers are absolutely wonderful tools. They do very well in terms of augmenting people's existing abilities. However, schools are not teaching students to use computers this way; they're teaching students to essentially replace their own abilities with those of computers. And then we wonder why little Billy can't add, never mind that he's never had to because his teacher always told him to use a calculator instead.
Technology is good. But we're using it inappropriately, and we're teaching it too young. Calculators should be strictly forbidden in math classes, at least up through basic algebra. Basic four-function calculators might be allowed in other classes where math is important but secondary to the overall concepts, but even there it shouldn't be permissible right away. At least through grade school papers should be required to be handwritten, and there's something to be said for requiring them all the way up through high school, with intermediate drafts turned in as well. No better way exists to encourage a clear, concise writing style than making wordiness an inconvenience; any writer can tell you that. Internet-based research, while it should not be forbidden (it's an important resource), should be severely restricted up through middle school. Kids can't be allowed to forget that while a great deal of information can be found on the Net, there is a great deal for which one must continue to look elsewhere.
Even worse than this, however, is that we're not teaching kids what they need to know about computers. We're teaching them essentially all the wrong stuff. A little basic programming should be mandatory. Nothing major, just a few lines of Logo or Python or Cocoa (the kid-based programming environment, not the object-oriented API in Mac OS X) or something else that's something suitably kid-friendly. A little of this, particularly in conjunction with a class in logic and problem-solving skills, could go a very long way. But even before that, where are the gradeschool-level courses in basic computer literacy? Not that we should be handing little Billy a bash prompt in kindergarten, but by fifth grade someone should at least know their way around the basics of a machine; enough to turn it on, turn it off, launch a program, and some basic troubleshooting.
Computers can enhance the mind, and in this they have the potential to do great good. But we're teaching kids in such a way that they replace the mind. The consequences of that will be disastrous.
What really ticks me off is the sites which sniff for NEtscape 6+, but don't include Mozilla, Chimera, Phoenix, or any of the other Gecko-based browsers.
Fear not; the fix is trivial. Rather than sniffing for Netscape, sniff for Gecko instead. All Gecko-based browsers, by convention, have "Gecko" plud a number indicating the Gecko version in their User-Agent string. Use this, and you'll catch all Gecko-based browsers, which, since they all use the same rendering engine, will all work correctly unless you're doing something really esoteric, to the point where you'd already know it wouldn't work right.
Of course, ideally you shouldn't be coding to need UA sniffing at all. But if you must, then pleast, stop sniffing for Netscape and start sniffing for Gecko.
Oh....
Schadenfreude, schadenfreude
Isn't it so sweet?
Billy's such an asshole
It's so great to see him beat, oh!
Schadenfreude, schadenfreude
Will this show to them
Why our rights must not be
Bitchslapped down by DRM?
Sadly, it probably won't; M$ isn't known for being cowed by a taste of their own medicine. Nevertheless, maybe we'll actually see something good come out of this...
So, instead of doing the ethical thing and developing a nonlethal technique for harvesting embryonic stem cells -a move which would quell all current opposition to research- they decide to create entirely new human beings, simply for the purposes of killing them in order to get their stem cells.
Whatever happened to "First, do no harm"?
The Wired talks more about bugtrack's handling of the whole thing...
Dude; since when did Lain start writing technical articles?
When are people ever going to learn that free speech must be absolute and sacrosanct, no matter how reprehensible the beliefs being espoused?
All viewpoints have something to offer, and none is totally correct; as humans, we are incapable of perceiving absolute Truth. That truth lies somewhere between the viewpoints, and by censoring any viewpoint -any viewpoint- we permanently cripple our ability to get closer to that Truth, whatever it may be.
Thoughts do not go away sinply because we forbid people to speak of them. The only valid way to stop hate has always been, and will always be, education, not legislation.
Are you sure about that? There are several ways around this:
1) Use the table's summary attribute (the one Tidy always warns you about). This will allow you to put in a description of the table without having it shown to sighted users. Of course, you could also put in some text and use CSS to hide it from sighted users.
2) Use proper headers (TH elements with scope attributes) where appropriate. You might be surprised at just how far this will go for increasing accessibility with most aural browsers or Braille readers.
There are a few others as well. Basically, it's just using more of the language for its intended purpose.
No one is trying to regulate how a page looks. These laws are not intended for that. What they are trying to regulate is how the page is coded, so that it can be easily (and automatically) converted to other formats by accessibility software.
This does not have the slightest impact on the ability to design a page. There is no page out there which could not be coded in an accessible manner. It's just a matter of getting people to do it.
And incidentally, you may find that coding your page in an accessible manner opens up new possibilities, if you're willing to look at them. Everyone knows, for example, about the visual styling properties of CSS. Not many know about the aural styling properties; you can set voice, tone, speed, even apparent position. And there's even some interesting stuff you can do with Braille in CSS, if you really want to. Or don't; as long as the information gets through that's the important thing, so you don't have to design this part of it if you don't want to. But the possibilities... oh, the possibilities...
The most important thing to have in your toolbox is a large, stuffed, pink bunny.
Carry it around everywhere at work. Converse with it regularly. Get its opinion on other peoples' technical problems. Make your co-workers greet the rabbit whenever they greet you.
This should keep people from calling you unless it's REALLY an emergency.
As I understand it, Phoenix is one part of an experiment in modularizing Mozilla. As others have pointed out, a Mail/News app called Minotaur is in the works. We might ses spinoffs for Composer and ChatZilla as well, but I don't know if anything's set up for them yet.
In that light, Phoenix is actually the first step in the very process you're describing.
That's what standards are for.
Truth be told, if the browser makers and page designers would get off their collective rears and support the standards right, there wouldn't even be a need for screen readers. You'd be surprised at just what HTML and CSS can do for layout; they far surpass anything tables can do, in a browser that actually knows what it's doing. And yet, if you structure your text in a sane, structural manner, an aural browser won't even need to read the screen; it can just speak the text outright. There's even a section of CSS which can be used to alter voice, position, and other aspects of sound.
Luckily, the browser makers are finally starting to get things right, even if they're four years late. Perhaps eventually the Web will recover from the bastardization of HTML that came with the advent of 4.x browsers and table-based layouts. The sooner this happens, the better for designers, users, and everyone else.
...in other words, you broke the AVI standard to make it do what you want. Similar to DivX (AVI doesn't allow VBR audio tracks).
.FLC. The sooner .AVI dies as a file format, the better for everyone.
The fact is, AVI is a piece of junk as a container format, and the DivX folks should be strung up for ever using it. Going with a superior format wouldn't have been hard for them; several existed at the time, the only one worse being perhaps