I've found that there is a growing demand for web designers who can use DHTML as an alternative to Flash, especially considering most of today's web-browsers have become considerable more compatible in the last few years.
You should also note the increasing growing market of selling JavaScript components like Dynamic Menus, Calendar Pickers, Tables, and other goodies.
Obviously DHTML is only half the solution for most problems, so we find that most DHTML programmers usually use DHTML in conjunction with ASP, PHP, JSP or some other server-side technology.
Not to mention the learning curve from something like JavaScript to PHP is fairly short. So the incentive to isolate oneself in a DHTML-only world is probably slim.
While Dynamic HTML can be simplified as JavaScript + HTML + CSS, I can think of many instances where these technologies are use and it still can't be considered dynamic HTML.
Ex: Using JavaScript to validate a form is not DHTML.
DHTML - My definition
Dynamic HTML - Any HTML content that is either dynamically created or altered by a client-side scripting language such as JavaScipt or VBScript.
To put it simply: If you're changing the page layout on the fly, then you're doing Dynamic HTML.
First of all, why are you pretending you know ANYTHING about the procedures of this type of lawsuit?
SCO is a professional organization with a good litigation team with a very good track record.
You're just throwing out assumptions like they were the gospel without bothering to consider that maybe 1 or ALL of your assumptions are wrong!
In layman's terms, Rule 11 is used by a judge to say "You have the nerve to bring that piece of shit argument into my courtroom?"
Do you really think SCO's lawyers are so enept that they're going to break Rule 11?
During the initial stages of litigation, they would have to introduce more evidence or the judge would eventually dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. To get scheduled for a trial they would have to show code.
What makes you think they WON'T show code in court? What makes you think they have to show ALL of the infringing code? Lastly, What makes you think they can't convince the judge to protect their "Trade Secret" from being dissemenated beyond the court?
Have you ever bothered to consider SCO is really fucking with our heads?
Consider Sun Tzu:
All warfare is based on deception.
Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
Rather than spouting conjecture about something you seemingly know very little about, maybe you should consider asserting fewer "facts" and asking more questions.
Re:Tell that to your fiancee... :0)
on
The Diamond Age
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
And be ready to suffer the consequences
I know you're joking, but I think that a lot of guys would really be surprised as to how reasonable a lot of women are these days about this issue.
Fortunately, The government is smarter than you.
on
Linking Dangerously
·
· Score: 1
First of all, advocating voilence against anybody and providing links to bombs instructions is not a crime. Slashdot would like you to think it is, but the missing element of truth to this story is the kid got caught HACKING. (See prior slashdot stories)
Despite all its invasive provisions, EVEN the PATRIOT Act doesn't criminalize advocating violence and bomb making instructions.
Sometimes I'm glad that people are disenfranchised from their governments, because people like you would run this country into pure tyranny at every knee jerk reaction.
So far, we've done a great job building a free and prosperous society WITHOUT interfering with free speach and due process.
Somehow, we've manage to control the KKK, Neo-Nazi's, Militias and other crazies without resorting trampling on everybody's bill of rights, so why the sudden urgency now?
The kid was hacking websites (and attempted to hack military computers according to logs on his computer) JUST AFTER congress passed the PATRIOT act which equated:
He felt like he was putting his job in jeopardy with his anti-PATRIOT ACT rant, which is hardly a controversial opinion.
Have you considered he might be forever blacklisted by congress if he came out saying, "Yes, Congressmen take bribes. My job is to bribe Congressmen."
However, I do agree with him on a couple points:
If a congressman's decision means losing enough votes to jeopardize re-elected or receiving an nice contribution, he's going to appease his voters over the lobbyists.
Issues are broken up into three major categories for congressmen:
* Those that support lobbyists
* Those that support constituents
* Those derived from personal beliefs
Regardless of you thinking im a troll, im not. Im just tired of discussing this when its going nowhere. Im biased, your biased... so its a waste of effort to continue. ( even off line )
I don't know about you, but I've always allowed others the opportunity to make their case and committed myself to accepting valid arguments whether I like them or not.
You do understand that neither your nor my point has validity unless we back our points up with supporting arguments, and more importantly accurate numerical data. In other words, we both have a burden of evidence to back up our assertions and opinions.
Lastly, I understand that both of us are biased, but you don't seem to understand that the interference of that bias can be minimized to the point of productive discourse.
Having said all that, I'm still very interested in hearing your supporting arguments.
We now have higher prices, poorer service and more hassles..
I'm paying $50 a month for unlimited long distance for the entire US and Canada plus local service with Verizon. I can't think of ANY region where they actually pay more for long distance.
Wait a minute, I just figured it out. You're a troll. I bit. I'll have to accept I like to bite.
End of story. Don't bother commenting more as you are totally incorrect.
That seals it. You're either a troll or a total dolt who's too chicken shit to back up his assertions.
You're not legally bound to do shit unless you sign a contract or click on a EULA....and they can't use the DMCA on you because you're not circumventing a *copy-protection* mechanism.
No, fuck THAT. Why should all of society suffer just because a larger number of people are fucking idiots? Mob rule is retarded.
We don't need to suffer.
Mob rule is retarded, and generally we try to employ protections to safeguard society from campaigns which seek to exploit the mob.
Unfortunately, over time, a good portion of the mob usually turns apathetic creating an opportunity for some ambitious politician to swoop in and make nice little "exchange liberty for benefits" deal with the public (usually on the behalf of a special interest group).
A portion of the public is naturally cautious and if their concerns aren't addressed, the rest of the mob *may* become concerned and not vote for the representative next election cycle.
When the mob gets to the point where they're not holding their politicians accountable by not voting them out of office the next election cycle, then you start approaching the point where the safeguards aren't going to matter much as they'll be ignored, circumvented, or dismantled by the officials holding the power.
The only way out is to get people to care. Suffering is a very effective way to get people to care, but I'd rather see it used as a last resort.
Fortunately, there are other ways to get people to care. Look at the methods websites like Slashdot use to rally support and get people interested.
When was the last time you were successfully able to imprint your view on someone stupid enough to vote for a tie?
Stupid people are usually easy to influence even if they are stubborn. It's a matter figuring out what matters to them and getting them to relook at the issue using their perspective.
When was the last time you managed to convince someone to even change their mind when it came to politics?
I do it all the time. The key is not to try to subvert their ideas by challenging its authority or consistency, you'll just end up causing a lot of cognitive dissonance.
If I'm trying to convince an individual or a group that thinks similar, I have the opportunity to listen to what matters to them which gives me a window into their belief system. I can then repackage my idea so as not to cause cognitive dissonance, rather I'm aiming to gently introduce consistency and help them harmonize their ideas rather than shatter their fabric of reality.
If you're lucky, they'll shatter the fabric of their own reality with an "epiphany". (You can't force an epiphany)
No that is not her prerogative. Her responsibility is to make an informed decision.
Fuck that. If people want to be apathetic or vote foolishly, then society SHOULD be punished with corrupt officials and rampant lobbyists.
Apathy and foolishness need to have consequences.
Informed and interested voters don't grow on trees and they rarely cultivate themselves to caring about the issues.
It is *our* responsibility to cultivate each other's interest, educating each other, and debating in a productive manner. That means capturing old ladies interest who are mesmerized by Al Gore's tie by talking about issues that matter to her and helping her make an informed decision.
They might sign away 49% of their custody and send you to a Behavioral Modification Center offshore in Jamaica staffed by uneducated/uncertified people who will "restrain" you into submission.
They'll guaranteed you're kids will come back saying, "I love you mama" while giving you a pretty flower, just like the kids on Maury!
I would love to see how you would have performed under Milgram's experiment.
So the CDC and WHO are just scaring people?
on
SARS Contained
·
· Score: 1
We all know the media loves to scare people by infered exageration, using "creative editing" where it would seem like everybody in Toronto is wearing a mask when the opposite was really true.
No one (except for the media) is asking you to panic. Rather, I would expect you to spread facts about SARS rather than dismissive conjecture by disproportionately comparing it to the flu and pneumonia.
Slashdot Mirror
I've found that there is a growing demand for web designers who can use DHTML as an alternative to Flash, especially considering most of today's web-browsers have become considerable more compatible in the last few years.
You should also note the increasing growing market of selling JavaScript components like Dynamic Menus, Calendar Pickers, Tables, and other goodies.
Obviously DHTML is only half the solution for most problems, so we find that most DHTML programmers usually use DHTML in conjunction with ASP, PHP, JSP or some other server-side technology.
Not to mention the learning curve from something like JavaScript to PHP is fairly short. So the incentive to isolate oneself in a DHTML-only world is probably slim.
I don't you followed my definition:
Dynamic HTML is a real and valid term which covers:
1. Dynamically creating HTML on the client.
2. Dynamically altering HTML on the client.
You *ARE* doing Dynamic HTML if you are using JavaScript and CSS to *DYNAMICALLY* create/alter HTML on a page.
You *AREN'T* doing Dynamic HTML if your use of JavaScript and CSS neither creates or alters the HTML on a page.
In conclusion: Dynamic HTML is the process of dynamically creating and altering HTML in a web page.
(Sorry for being super-redundant)
What DHTML is not
While Dynamic HTML can be simplified as JavaScript + HTML + CSS, I can think of many instances where these technologies are use and it still can't be considered dynamic HTML.
Ex: Using JavaScript to validate a form is not DHTML.
DHTML - My definition
Dynamic HTML - Any HTML content that is either dynamically created or altered by a client-side scripting language such as JavaScipt or VBScript.
To put it simply: If you're changing the page layout on the fly, then you're doing Dynamic HTML.
...and Communism makes EVERYBODY corrupt. Ask any former resident of a former communist country.
The key is to deligate only enough power for the government to make sure everybody is playing by the rules.
My fault: Used tags instead of brackets.
...but Blue mage can't attack Green mage. ...but Blue mage can't attack Green mage.
Slashdotter:
SCO Exec: [punches slashdotter]
Slashdotter: Oww
SCO Exec: [punches slashdotter]
Slashdotter: Hey... You're not supposed to punch in D&D
SCO Exec: giggles [punches slashdotter]
Slashdotter: Stop that!
First of all, why are you pretending you know ANYTHING about the procedures of this type of lawsuit?
SCO is a professional organization with a good litigation team with a very good track record.
You're just throwing out assumptions like they were the gospel without bothering to consider that maybe 1 or ALL of your assumptions are wrong!
In layman's terms, Rule 11 is used by a judge to say "You have the nerve to bring that piece of shit argument into my courtroom?"
Do you really think SCO's lawyers are so enept that they're going to break Rule 11?
During the initial stages of litigation, they would have to introduce more evidence or the judge would eventually dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. To get scheduled for a trial they would have to show code.
What makes you think they WON'T show code in court? What makes you think they have to show ALL of the infringing code? Lastly, What makes you think they can't convince the judge to protect their "Trade Secret" from being dissemenated beyond the court?
Have you ever bothered to consider SCO is really fucking with our heads?
Consider Sun Tzu:
All warfare is based on deception.
Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive;
when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;
when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy.
Feign disorder, and crush him.
Rather than spouting conjecture about something you seemingly know very little about, maybe you should consider asserting fewer "facts" and asking more questions.
And be ready to suffer the consequences
I know you're joking, but I think that a lot of guys would really be surprised as to how reasonable a lot of women are these days about this issue.
Fortunately, there are options to buying a DeBeers diamond.
First of all, advocating voilence against anybody and providing links to bombs instructions is not a crime. Slashdot would like you to think it is, but the missing element of truth to this story is the kid got caught HACKING. (See prior slashdot stories)
Despite all its invasive provisions, EVEN the PATRIOT Act doesn't criminalize advocating violence and bomb making instructions.
Sometimes I'm glad that people are disenfranchised from their governments, because people like you would run this country into pure tyranny at every knee jerk reaction.
So far, we've done a great job building a free and prosperous society WITHOUT interfering with free speach and due process.
Somehow, we've manage to control the KKK, Neo-Nazi's, Militias and other crazies without resorting trampling on everybody's bill of rights, so why the sudden urgency now?
Here and Here
The kid was hacking websites (and attempted to hack military computers according to logs on his computer) JUST AFTER congress passed the PATRIOT act which equated:
Politically Motivated Hacking = Terrorism
Stupid kid was asking for trouble.
He felt like he was putting his job in jeopardy with his anti-PATRIOT ACT rant, which is hardly a controversial opinion.
Have you considered he might be forever blacklisted by congress if he came out saying, "Yes, Congressmen take bribes. My job is to bribe Congressmen."
However, I do agree with him on a couple points:
If a congressman's decision means losing enough votes to jeopardize re-elected or receiving an nice contribution, he's going to appease his voters over the lobbyists.
Issues are broken up into three major categories for congressmen:
* Those that support lobbyists
* Those that support constituents
* Those derived from personal beliefs
You may have a point. If all words are automatically copyrighted, then all of the pictures I take on my camera are copyrighted by me.
Whether or not I own the copyright, I am technically circumventing a mechanism that is protecting a copyright, which just happens to be my own.
Interesting...
Regardless of you thinking im a troll, im not. Im just tired of discussing this when its going nowhere. Im biased, your biased... so its a waste of effort to continue. ( even off line )
I don't know about you, but I've always allowed others the opportunity to make their case and committed myself to accepting valid arguments whether I like them or not.
You do understand that neither your nor my point has validity unless we back our points up with supporting arguments, and more importantly accurate numerical data. In other words, we both have a burden of evidence to back up our assertions and opinions.
Lastly, I understand that both of us are biased, but you don't seem to understand that the interference of that bias can be minimized to the point of productive discourse.
Having said all that, I'm still very interested in hearing your supporting arguments.
We now have higher prices, poorer service and more hassles..
I'm paying $50 a month for unlimited long distance for the entire US and Canada plus local service with Verizon. I can't think of ANY region where they actually pay more for long distance.
Wait a minute, I just figured it out. You're a troll. I bit. I'll have to accept I like to bite.
End of story. Don't bother commenting more as you are totally incorrect.
That seals it. You're either a troll or a total dolt who's too chicken shit to back up his assertions.
...to the telecommunications industry.
Even with the current mess today, market capitalization and revenue is magnitudes better than it was 20 years ago with one monolithic phone company.
And yes I realize it was 20 years ago, I disagreed with it then, and still do.
Go to China if you want government institutionalized industry.
The rest of us will stick with deregulated industries driven by competition and market forces.
If there's no rental agreement. It's your Camera to smash or hack.
Getting pictures out of it may be the hard part...
But if you OWN the camera, why don't they give it back to you once the pictures are extracted?
Because you GAVE them your camera in exchange for pictures.
Sounds more like a rental to me...
Ever notice how you have to sign a RENTAL AGREEMENT before you rent movies, cars, or anything else?
Unless you sign a little peice of paper saying you're renting, you own it.
This is basic business/transaction law.
You're not legally bound to do shit unless you sign a contract or click on a EULA. ...and they can't use the DMCA on you because you're not circumventing a *copy-protection* mechanism.
No, fuck THAT. Why should all of society suffer just because a larger number of people are fucking idiots? Mob rule is retarded.
We don't need to suffer.
Mob rule is retarded, and generally we try to employ protections to safeguard society from campaigns which seek to exploit the mob.
Unfortunately, over time, a good portion of the mob usually turns apathetic creating an opportunity for some ambitious politician to swoop in and make nice little "exchange liberty for benefits" deal with the public (usually on the behalf of a special interest group).
A portion of the public is naturally cautious and if their concerns aren't addressed, the rest of the mob *may* become concerned and not vote for the representative next election cycle.
When the mob gets to the point where they're not holding their politicians accountable by not voting them out of office the next election cycle, then you start approaching the point where the safeguards aren't going to matter much as they'll be ignored, circumvented, or dismantled by the officials holding the power.
The only way out is to get people to care. Suffering is a very effective way to get people to care, but I'd rather see it used as a last resort.
Fortunately, there are other ways to get people to care. Look at the methods websites like Slashdot use to rally support and get people interested.
When was the last time you were successfully able to imprint your view on someone stupid enough to vote for a tie?
Stupid people are usually easy to influence even if they are stubborn. It's a matter figuring out what matters to them and getting them to relook at the issue using their perspective.
When was the last time you managed to convince someone to even change their mind when it came to politics?
I do it all the time. The key is not to try to subvert their ideas by challenging its authority or consistency, you'll just end up causing a lot of cognitive dissonance.
If I'm trying to convince an individual or a group that thinks similar, I have the opportunity to listen to what matters to them which gives me a window into their belief system. I can then repackage my idea so as not to cause cognitive dissonance, rather I'm aiming to gently introduce consistency and help them harmonize their ideas rather than shatter their fabric of reality.
If you're lucky, they'll shatter the fabric of their own reality with an "epiphany". (You can't force an epiphany)
It doesn't work all the time, but it does work.
No that is not her prerogative. Her responsibility is to make an informed decision.
Fuck that. If people want to be apathetic or vote foolishly, then society SHOULD be punished with corrupt officials and rampant lobbyists.
Apathy and foolishness need to have consequences.
Informed and interested voters don't grow on trees and they rarely cultivate themselves to caring about the issues.
It is *our* responsibility to cultivate each other's interest, educating each other, and debating in a productive manner. That means capturing old ladies interest who are mesmerized by Al Gore's tie by talking about issues that matter to her and helping her make an informed decision.
To put it bluntly, I would rather my kids develop a heroin addiction and end up in a crack house then have them end up in a place like this...
Atleast they would have a chance escaping the hell of a herion addiction.
They might sign away 49% of their custody and send you to a Behavioral Modification Center offshore in Jamaica staffed by uneducated/uncertified people who will "restrain" you into submission.
They'll guaranteed you're kids will come back saying, "I love you mama" while giving you a pretty flower, just like the kids on Maury!
1. Media coverage would be limited to occasional joke remarking the balls of the user.
2. The RIAA is ALREADY being balsy sueing users, sueing a user with a beligerent name might actually entice them as it would give them a better case.
What language/libraries do you use to develop applications? What kind of performance is typical for you?
...was the backbone of the Third Reich.
I would love to see how you would have performed under Milgram's experiment.
We all know the media loves to scare people by infered exageration, using "creative editing" where it would seem like everybody in Toronto is wearing a mask when the opposite was really true.
No one (except for the media) is asking you to panic. Rather, I would expect you to spread facts about SARS rather than dismissive conjecture by disproportionately comparing it to the flu and pneumonia.