I have written out a response to your post 4 times... the problem being I could not condense what I wanted to say into a short enough block that was worthwhile to post.
Like it or not, IE and the code it supports is the de-facto standard, people use it because it works, period. If Firefox or any alternative browser(s) want(s) to dethrone IE, they, along with their fans cannot cry every time IE does something that violates the standard, they need to be able to adapt to it and work around it.
Blaming IE and Microsoft standards because Firefox cannot properly render a page is pointless to the average web user who just wants the damn thing to work.
Face it, IE works and that's the way most people like it, until you change that, Firefox and the others will not win.
Just today a co-worker asked me about why many pages weren't looking right in Firefox, and I explained to him the whole issue of most web designers optimizing their pages for IE which doesn't follow the standards too well, as well as how no matter how standards compliant another browser is, if it gets garbage for data, it probably isn't going to look pretty.
I ended with "... and that's why I run IE".
His response, "Sounds good to me".
He was converted to Firefox for a time by an in-house OSS zealot.. but I'm proud to say that I've converted him back.
They are, take a look at the main page of SCO, they've got a news item captioned:
SCO Ranked #1 Corporate Query Site by Google. Based on billions of searches conducted by Google users around the world, the 2004 Year-End Zeitgeist ranks SCO's corporate Website as the most searched site for the year. Find Out More Here >
You only need to sign on once normaly. I can unplug my PC right now and play all of my Steam games in offline mode with no problem... not that I need to because it seems I can log in without problem.
So... if you don't commit the crime but only assist you are completely innocent? I think not. Is a get away driver not guilty of the same crimes committed by those they are driving? Nope. Courts have ruled on this many times.
It's the same reason in the war on drugs they don't just go after the producers, but also the smugglers, distributors, dealers and end users. Why? Because by going after the entire system they are able to make it less attractive to be associated with (in theory).
At least in the US, the courts have ruled that with this kind of logic in the 2600 case when they were linking to DeCSS source code that was not on their own servers.
As a foolish investor in Microsoft, I am quite the content fool. I'm hoping for another $3 per share dividend again this year... unlikely yes, but it was a nice bump around the holidays last year.
Ultimately, they do not need popular support, because in large part, they are in the right. If you are in a country that recognizes their copyright, they have every right to protect their investments in said copyrights, and if they don't protect them, it's unlikely anyone else will.
The issue is how do you identify those files which are 100% positively illegal? An online hashing system would be one of the only ways to go.
Also I agree that both mp3 and Xvid, along with Divx and a dozen other formats are legal. Chances are, if someone has ill gotten video or audio files, they will be of a.mp3, or.avi or.mpg (or any number of other formats), it's far easier to filter against those and say "Do you have rights to each of these files" then it is to scan each and every file on a system and check it's hash.
It's far easier to check the validity of content on a farm of servers that contain the hashes of so many files... doing so on a client machine would be... insane. Just imagine the bandwidth requirements for having thousands and thousands of home PC's send in the hash of every single potentially infringing file to have it verified against the master DB.
Do you think the MPAA and RIAA should stand idly by and not care when people download and enjoy (or hate) for free all of their products?
I'd say they understand it pretty well, there is a % of DLers who get for free what they would ordinarily buy, and they want that % paying them for the same thing (music, video, etc). If they stand around picking their rears, many will see it as an endorsement of DLing.
No, they must protect their copyrights and interests, like it or not, nice or not. It is the only way.
IE is a very minor reason for why most remain with windows.
The bigger reason people use Windows is because the software they already have works under Windows. Yes, there is WINE but it is not enough to enable the average user to run every single piece of software under Linux that they want that they can ordinarily run under Windows with no problem.
Could this be the end of lazy IE-only scripted webpages?
No.
Why? Because for many, people are comfortable with the norm and when you start changing things, there is a chance you can make it worse, and rather than risk things getting worse, you stay where you are. You keep doing what you have been doing and do not change.
For many, the blue E is the internet, not a browser and with such ingraining far too many books would have to be printed and given away (along with large cash bribes to encourage people to read them).
Last year a friend of my fathers was helping me out with a car, he was complaining about all of the popups and other crap on his computer, I offered to look at it for him, but he turned me down. Why? See the above reasons.
"No, that was not Zathras, that was Zathras. There are 10 of us, all of family Zathras, each one named Zathras. Slight differences in how you pronounce. Zathraas, Zathras, Zathras.. You are seeing now?"
I'm sure there were plenty of other posts that warranted your flame much more so than mine. Heck, none of what I said is directly applicable to what you said.
I never said the EO was a law, nor how it relates to private funding, nor embryonic stem cells, nor if it was private.
The more I read what you said and compare it to what I said... the more I see just how ill-informed you are on what I said. I was speaking of course of the issue of the contamination of the existing stem cell lines, not that the order was some how hushed up.
Or, if you cannot do that, at least stop spreading politically-motivated misinformation
If you really want to talk about politically motivated misinformation, I ask that you look in the mirror. All I said was that I was surprised this was such big news now when the issue of contamination has been well known for a number of years, period. I guess I fail to see how you see political motives in a statement such as that... but then looking at your posting history... you seem to be a well known poster of flamebait and trollish comments... so I am not surprised... this conversation ends here.
On second thought... one last thing... I think you owe me an apology for your ill-informed attempt to bite my head off with your flat out attack me for a stance I did not take... nor even hinted at.
This is something that was known, albeit not well known at the time of the executive order. Sadly this fact was not very widely publicized at the time and forces me to wonder why it is big news and such a shock now.
If I'm not mistaken, that video was clipped out of an early episode of the MSDN online TV show. Nice of them not to give credit to the source and claim it as their own.
Or they have such confidence in the product and have plans for its future domination of the market where you make it extremely attractive for everyone to use it... and then when the world is hooked... you jack up the price and they will pay. Why? Because they can't live without it!
Why should they? They still retain market dominance and will for the foreseeable future.
No matter what they might say at this stage in the game, you and others would mock them, instead, they stay quiet, biding their time and enhancing their own product for their counter attack with will no doubt come in good time.
Slashdot Mirror
I have written out a response to your post 4 times... the problem being I could not condense what I wanted to say into a short enough block that was worthwhile to post.
Like it or not, IE and the code it supports is the de-facto standard, people use it because it works, period. If Firefox or any alternative browser(s) want(s) to dethrone IE, they, along with their fans cannot cry every time IE does something that violates the standard, they need to be able to adapt to it and work around it.
Blaming IE and Microsoft standards because Firefox cannot properly render a page is pointless to the average web user who just wants the damn thing to work.
Face it, IE works and that's the way most people like it, until you change that, Firefox and the others will not win.
Nice theory, shame it doesn't work.
.. but I'm proud to say that I've converted him back.
Just today a co-worker asked me about why many pages weren't looking right in Firefox, and I explained to him the whole issue of most web designers optimizing their pages for IE which doesn't follow the standards too well, as well as how no matter how standards compliant another browser is, if it gets garbage for data, it probably isn't going to look pretty.
I ended with "... and that's why I run IE".
His response, "Sounds good to me".
He was converted to Firefox for a time by an in-house OSS zealot
Why would you want Microsoft doing anything with regards to the Linux Standards Base?
I suppose the one case compliance would be useful would be with MS Linux.
Never write anything in a letter, e-mail, diary, memo or any other quotable medium that you don't want the other guys lawyer holding up in court.
I for one welcome our new .NET toting overlords.
.NET! All Hail Whidbey!
All Hail C#! All Hail
They are, take a look at the main page of SCO, they've got a news item captioned:
SCO Ranked #1 Corporate Query Site by Google. Based on billions of searches conducted by Google users around the world, the 2004 Year-End Zeitgeist ranks SCO's corporate Website as the most searched site for the year. Find Out More Here >
Following the link to http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html/ confirms it.
That'd only work if I had a kerneltrap account. Being rather anti-linux... me having such a thing would be quite sad.
You only need to sign on once normaly. I can unplug my PC right now and play all of my Steam games in offline mode with no problem... not that I need to because it seems I can log in without problem.
Last I checked it already was.
f ee677def32a8cc4d1b858f99/ n alContent/0,289142,sid39_gci969248,00.html/
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5227102.html/
http://linuxgazette.net/107/pramode.html/
http://kerneltrap.org/node/3240?PHPSESSID=262a094
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/origi
Just to name a few
So... if you don't commit the crime but only assist you are completely innocent? I think not. Is a get away driver not guilty of the same crimes committed by those they are driving? Nope. Courts have ruled on this many times.
It's the same reason in the war on drugs they don't just go after the producers, but also the smugglers, distributors, dealers and end users. Why? Because by going after the entire system they are able to make it less attractive to be associated with (in theory).
At least in the US, the courts have ruled that with this kind of logic in the 2600 case when they were linking to DeCSS source code that was not on their own servers.
As a foolish investor in Microsoft, I am quite the content fool. I'm hoping for another $3 per share dividend again this year... unlikely yes, but it was a nice bump around the holidays last year.
If they would win the support of people
How would you suggest doing that?
Ultimately, they do not need popular support, because in large part, they are in the right. If you are in a country that recognizes their copyright, they have every right to protect their investments in said copyrights, and if they don't protect them, it's unlikely anyone else will.
The issue is how do you identify those files which are 100% positively illegal? An online hashing system would be one of the only ways to go.
.mp3, or .avi or .mpg (or any number of other formats), it's far easier to filter against those and say "Do you have rights to each of these files" then it is to scan each and every file on a system and check it's hash.
Also I agree that both mp3 and Xvid, along with Divx and a dozen other formats are legal. Chances are, if someone has ill gotten video or audio files, they will be of a
It's far easier to check the validity of content on a farm of servers that contain the hashes of so many files... doing so on a client machine would be... insane. Just imagine the bandwidth requirements for having thousands and thousands of home PC's send in the hash of every single potentially infringing file to have it verified against the master DB.
What don't they get?
Do you think the MPAA and RIAA should stand idly by and not care when people download and enjoy (or hate) for free all of their products?
I'd say they understand it pretty well, there is a % of DLers who get for free what they would ordinarily buy, and they want that % paying them for the same thing (music, video, etc). If they stand around picking their rears, many will see it as an endorsement of DLing.
No, they must protect their copyrights and interests, like it or not, nice or not. It is the only way.
IE is a very minor reason for why most remain with windows.
The bigger reason people use Windows is because the software they already have works under Windows. Yes, there is WINE but it is not enough to enable the average user to run every single piece of software under Linux that they want that they can ordinarily run under Windows with no problem.
Could this be the end of lazy IE-only scripted webpages?
No.
Why? Because for many, people are comfortable with the norm and when you start changing things, there is a chance you can make it worse, and rather than risk things getting worse, you stay where you are. You keep doing what you have been doing and do not change.
For many, the blue E is the internet, not a browser and with such ingraining far too many books would have to be printed and given away (along with large cash bribes to encourage people to read them).
Last year a friend of my fathers was helping me out with a car, he was complaining about all of the popups and other crap on his computer, I offered to look at it for him, but he turned me down. Why? See the above reasons.
Which one? As I recall... there were 10 of them:
"No, that was not Zathras, that was Zathras. There are 10 of us, all of family Zathras, each one named Zathras. Slight differences in how you pronounce. Zathraas, Zathras, Zathras.. You are seeing now?"
I rather like the sound of that... and I suddenly want to see Daunte Culpepper sliding into home for a stolen base and run.
I'm sure there were plenty of other posts that warranted your flame much more so than mine. Heck, none of what I said is directly applicable to what you said.
I never said the EO was a law, nor how it relates to private funding, nor embryonic stem cells, nor if it was private.
The more I read what you said and compare it to what I said... the more I see just how ill-informed you are on what I said. I was speaking of course of the issue of the contamination of the existing stem cell lines, not that the order was some how hushed up.
Or, if you cannot do that, at least stop spreading politically-motivated misinformation
If you really want to talk about politically motivated misinformation, I ask that you look in the mirror.
All I said was that I was surprised this was such big news now when the issue of contamination has been well known for a number of years, period. I guess I fail to see how you see political motives in a statement such as that... but then looking at your posting history... you seem to be a well known poster of flamebait and trollish comments... so I am not surprised... this conversation ends here.
On second thought... one last thing... I think you owe me an apology for your ill-informed attempt to bite my head off with your flat out attack me for a stance I did not take... nor even hinted at.
This is something that was known, albeit not well known at the time of the executive order. Sadly this fact was not very widely publicized at the time and forces me to wonder why it is big news and such a shock now.
If I'm not mistaken, that video was clipped out of an early episode of the MSDN online TV show. Nice of them not to give credit to the source and claim it as their own.
Or they have such confidence in the product and have plans for its future domination of the market where you make it extremely attractive for everyone to use it... and then when the world is hooked... you jack up the price and they will pay. Why? Because they can't live without it!
Why should they? They still retain market dominance and will for the foreseeable future.
No matter what they might say at this stage in the game, you and others would mock them, instead, they stay quiet, biding their time and enhancing their own product for their counter attack with will no doubt come in good time.