Also some weirdness in the toolbar buttons with vertical alignment. (Back & Forward buttons 'valigned' to the top, whilst Reload & Stop buttons are on the bottom). Bizarro.
I've seen stuff like this happen when you install a new version of Mozilla on top of an old version, or you install a new version and still continue to use your old profile.
Try wiping out your old profile after backing up your bookmarks and mail (rm -r ~/.mozilla/ or delete Mozilla under Application Data in Windows), and let Mozilla 1.4 generate a new one for you. After that, you may find that all your problems have disappeared!
Um, dude...you can mail order a dual-CPU Itanium-2 workstation running XP64 on it from HP immediately.
Re:You're missing the real issue here...
on
802.11g Slows Down
·
· Score: 1
Think about it this way, when the FCC gave the OK for 900mhz cordless phones, they worked great *UNTIL* AT&T got the OK to use the same frequency range for cell phones. Then all of those home cordless phones became static-ridden junk.
Maybe you're buying cheap 900MHz phones; mine work great still.
In Europe, the cellular band is 900MHz and the PCS band 1800MHz. But in the United States, believe it or not, cellular runs on 800MHz and PCS on 1900MHz. Yes, it's true. I dare you to Google it!:-)
Um...read the article again. The $0.0007/song/listener is the old and unfair rate (started out as $0.0014/song/listener). As the Yahoo/Reuters story point out at the end, that was the rate set by Billington (the Librarian of Congress) last spring. Although it doesn't sound like much on the surface, think about it: 24 hours * 60 min/hr = 1440 minutes in a day; assuming an average tune length of 5 minutes, you would be broadcasting 288 songs in a given 24 hour period. Now, remember, we have to pay a royalty per listener tuned in (even if they don't stay connected and only listen to a few seconds of the song!), so let's assume an average listenership of 1,000 listeners at any given time, then multiply that times the rate (288 * 1000 * 0.0007) and you arrive at a figure of $201.60 per day, and if you extend that through the month (~30 days), you discover that you owe the RIAA a whopping $6,048 per month in royalties ($72,576 per year).
As the Yahoo article explicity stated, the new "compromise" introduces a royalty rate for the "small" webcasters which is based on revenue rather than listenership, which is what webcasters have been pushing for all along.
Don't mean to flame or be overly critical; I just want the facts straight.
AIIEEEE!! Do NOT use Windex. Ammonia-based solutions will YELLOW the surface of the LCD over a period of time.
I do as IBM suggests for my ThinkPad: a 50/50 solution of water and isopropyl alcohol on a soft, lint-free cloth (I use a clean, old T-shirt). Works great.
Um, dude...it's obvious that you are not that familiar with OS/2.
There were two versions of OS/2 that one could buy: OS/2 and OS/2 "for Windows". Initially, you are correct: IBM included a licensed copy of Windows with every purchase of OS/2. But then they released OS/2 "for Windows" (version 2.1; when "OS/2 Warp" version 3 came out, the "for Windows" version became known as "red spine" and the "full" version as "blue spine" because of the color of the boxes that they shipped in) which did NOT include any Windows 3.1 code. If you wanted to use WinOS/2, you *had* to own a licensed copy of Windows 3.1 and have the disks availible during installation. It worked remarkably well. It was just as useable as the "old" way of doing things (take that as you will).
I think IBM got tired of paying royalties for Windows 3.1 with every copy of OS/2 shipped. They still continued to sell a "full" copy of OS/2 that included all the Windows code, but it was more expensive than the "for Windows" version by a good deal. I remember when OS/2 "for Windows" version 2.1 was released, and I saw it being advertised in the Egghead Software catalog for $49.95!
Interestingly enough, with the release of OS/2 Warp version 4 ("Merlin"), they actually dropped the "for Windows" version and ONLY sold the full version with all the Windows code included. A lot of people don't know this, but IBM actually did release a "for Windows" version of Warp 4, but it was never sold retail; they gave some copies away as part of their Developer Connection program. I suspect that IBM figured that if they were giving away free copies of Warp 4 that they didn't want to have to pay for the Windows licenses, and thus was born OS/2 Warp 4: Special Developer Connection Edition.
I always thought that Silver's pie-menus were rather intuitive to use...
I didn't care for those sample JavaScript pie-menus from the piemenu.com website linked to in this article. They were kinda frustrating to use since it wasn't visually obvious where the border for one option ended and the other began.
foobar104, I missed the discussion that took place under that story until a few days after it occurred. I posted a reply to one of your own many replies, but seeing how that story had long since moved off the front page, my post elicited no responses. So, at the risk of being modded down for "redundancy", I will repost it (slightly modified) now under this thread. The original post is here.
I first begin by quoting a portion of your reply.
-----
My point is just that it's kind of disappointing that people would spend their time and energy working on an audio codec that's not necessary and that doesn't offer significant advantages over existing codecs. They could have been working to improve MP3 instead, or on something new that we don't have yet. Instead, they just decided to reproduce work that's already been done. That's disappointing, because it smacks of wasted opportunity.
You may be happy with the corporately paid-for and supplied iTunes, and all the more power to ya. Apple of course must have some sort of license agreement with Fraunhofer in order to supply its users with a program that can encode and decode MP3s. Apple is not stupid, and is not going to trample over other companies' IP rights, at least not so overtly. As you pointed out, it is not likely that they would supply their users with software that the mere fact of owning and using would make them criminals.
At the same time, however, you must need to recognize that Ogg Vorbis scratches an itch, and a fairly large one at that. An itch for a higher-quality codec with features not availible in the MP3 world (such as have been pointed out to you by others in this thread at different times). Now, you may not care about these features, but surely others do.
It's obvious from the above quote of yours that you recognize the need to continually advance media compression technology, and lament the fact that the resources that were dumped into the Ogg Vorbis project weren't put to better use, such as "working to improve MP3 instead". What you fail to realize is that, as I said earlier, Ogg Vorbis is an attempt to scratch an itch, and it is an attempt to scratch an itch in a legal manner. My dear boy, if they could avoid re-inventing the wheel and instead build their improvements to audio compression technology on top of other people's work, don't you think they would do it? Because of the patents on MP3 technology, though, "underground" projects such as the LAME encoder (which is, seemingly, now the most widely used MP3 encoder engine, bar-none, and which is a project that does exactly as you suggested -- throw resources at improving MP3) are essentially illegal (not that they seem to care, and all the more power to 'em). LAME did not pay Fraunhofer a license, and they don't pay Fraunhofer licenses for every copy they distribute. People who are using LAME are technically lawbreakers.
So, you see, they had no choice but to "reproduce work". And, once that was done, they were left with an open standard that they could then begin to work on improving, without legal blockades and restrictions. In addition, because of its openness (used in both the un-patent-encumbered-ness and the open-sourceness senses), anyone can build improvements on top of it without fear. Thus, it lays the foundation for a truly promising future codec.
In the future, I would not be surprised to see a version of iTunes released by Apple which supported Ogg. At that point, it will no doubt have accumulated a great many desireable features which it does not even contain now, all as a result of its openness, and then it probably won't seem like such a "wasted opportunity" to you, will it?
My point is just that it's kind of disappointing that people would spend their time and energy working on an audio codec that's not necessary and that doesn't offer significant advantages over existing codecs. They could have been working to improve MP3 instead, or on something new that we don't have yet. Instead, they just decided to reproduce work that's already been done. That's disappointing, because it smacks of wasted opportunity.
You may be happy with the corporately paid-for and supplied iTunes, and all the more power to ya. Apple of course must have some sort of license agreement with Fraunhofer in order to supply its users with a program that can encode and decode MP3s. Apple is not stupid, and is not going to trample over other companies' IP rights, at least not so overtly. As you pointed out, it is not likely that they would supply their users with software that the mere fact of owning and using would make them criminals.
At the same time, however, you must need to recognize that Ogg Vorbis scratches an itch, and a fairly large one at that. An itch for a higher-quality codec with features not availible in the MP3 world (such as have been pointed out to you by others in this thread at different times). Now, you may not care about these features, but surely others do.
It's obvious from the above quote of yours that you recognize the need to continually advance media compression technology, and lament the fact that the resources that were dumped into the Ogg Vorbis project weren't put to better use, such as "working to improve MP3 instead". What you fail to realize is that, as I said earlier, Ogg Vorbis is an attempt to scratch an itch, and it is an attempt to scratch an itch in a legal manner. My dear boy, if they could avoid re-inventing the wheel and instead build their improvements to audio compression technology on top of other people's work, don't you think they would do it? Because of the patents on MP3 technology, though, "underground" projects such as the LAME encoder (which is, seemingly, now the most widely used MP3 encoder engine, bar-none, and which is a project that does exactly as you suggested -- throw resources at improving MP3) are essentially illegal. LAME did not pay Fraunhofer a license, and they don't pay Fraunhofer licenses for every copy they distribute. People who are using LAME are technically lawbreakers.
So, you see, they had no choice but to "reproduce work". And, once that was done, they had an open standard that they could then work on improving, without legal blockades and restrictions. In addition, because of its openness (used in both the un-patent-encumbered-ness and the open-sourceness sense), anyone can build improvements on top of it without fear. Thus, it lays the foundation for a truly promising future codec.
In the future, I would not be surprised to see a version of iTunes released by Apple which supported Ogg. At that point, it probably won't seem like such a "wasted opportunity" to you, will it?
Since when is IBM ViaVoice speaker independent? If they were touting it as such, they were either lying, or I am out of the loop with regard to advances in ViaVoice (very possible), or their software which interfaces with ViaVoice is somehow able to do "speaker independent voice recognition". Well, if that's the case, where has IBM been?! Their labs have always been on the cutting-edge of the technology (or they give that impression; I know that they have been actively researching it for a *long* time now), so how is it possible that someone beat them to "speaker independent recognition" technology, even based on their engine?
Even the cellular phones that I've tried which contain voice-controlled speed-dial are speaker dependent.
Yeah...well, although you raise a valid point, the point of the parent post that I was responding to was that Gateway should have a video stream that can be watched across multiple platforms. It was not about the suckiness of WMP, it was about it's non-cross-platform-ness (is that a word?;-)). I was merely countering that with a link to a video stream which is easily viewed under Linux using the free RealPlayer 8 and RealOne ALPHA for Linux players.
Also, either version is easily "downloadable"; you just need the right tools. Word on the street is that there is a utility out there called VCR by StreamBox which can "brute-force" download and save either Real or Windows Media streams...but you didn't hear that from me.;-)
...and although it doesn't appear to be listed on Gateway, web site, there was a link to it in the Wired article that appeared in the body of the story here on Slashdot.
For those who have tried both, how does the Treo compare to, say, the Kyocera series of PalmOS-based smartphones, or even the old Qualcomm pdQ series?
(BTW, I think the Kyocera is your only option currently if you want Palm + phone in one unit and you are on a CDMA-based wireless network, such as Sprint or Verizon.)
The eBook Processor doesn't work with newer versions of Adobe eBook Reader, though, as the web site mentions (latest version is 2.2 build 203.2 from October 25th, 2001).
Are they going to do the same thing google is doing, and let companies pay to have their pages come up in results more frequently than others?
Gaaaah! How many #$@#!$-ing times is this particular piece of FUD going to be spread?? Google DOESN'T do this. Google does allow companies to pay to have their text ads rated higher for given keyword searches, but this doesn't influence the stupid search results!
Sorry, Renraku; nothing personal. I'm sure you weren't purposefully trying to spread misinformation: you were probably misinformed yourself (most likely by the Slashdot article that started all of this paranoia). But I've seen this one enough that it's really starting to get to me...
Um, "Ender Ryan" is NOT talking about "coding in tons of hacks." He was dismissing the attitude of "if a buggy browser won't display my standards-compliant code right, prevent that browser from viewing my page at all."
Yes, absolutely: code your pages standards compliant. And if it is a bug in the browser, don't try to code around it. Just don't sweat it. But PREVENTING people who are using the buggy browser from seeing ANYTHING on your site doesn't help anyone. I'd rather the page look like crap and still be able to get information than not be able to see anything at all.
Therefore if you take a Penguin Classics copy of Plato's Republic, photocopy it and sell it you are in breach of penguin's copyright (not Plato's). You can however take the text reformat it ect and print it
Well, not exactly. Not unless Penguin published the original Greek manuscript. I believe that translations of works are protected under copyright as well, so even if you were to take the text and reformat it and such, you would still be violating the translator's copyright. IANAL though.
Yes, the same thing (comparison between CLR and SOM) hit me as I was reading the article. PM (Presentation Manager) did not use it, but the WPS (Workplace Shell) that ran on top of PM *did*. I dabbled a little bit with writing a few simple SOM classes in C a few years back. 'twas fun. A well-thought-out system IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I agree...newer versions of Mozilla really should handle upgrades and importation of old profiles more gracefully than it does.
Glad to hear that my advice helped some.
-- Nathan
Also some weirdness in the toolbar buttons with vertical alignment. (Back & Forward buttons 'valigned' to the top, whilst Reload & Stop buttons are on the bottom). Bizarro.
I've seen stuff like this happen when you install a new version of Mozilla on top of an old version, or you install a new version and still continue to use your old profile.
Try wiping out your old profile after backing up your bookmarks and mail (rm -r ~/.mozilla/ or delete Mozilla under Application Data in Windows), and let Mozilla 1.4 generate a new one for you. After that, you may find that all your problems have disappeared!
-- Nathan
Uh, just visit freshmeat.net, or enable the FreshMeat sidebar in your Slashdot preferences. :-)
-- Nathan
Touche. :-)
-- Nathan
Quoth dasmegabyte:
Simple? That's two clicks to get what I had before.
Two clicks? Big deal. It remembers your preference anyway, so it's not like you have to go through those motions everytime you open Control Panel.
When I'm on an XP machine, the first thing I do is switch Control Panel to Classic View.
-- Nathan
Um, dude...you can mail order a dual-CPU Itanium-2 workstation running XP64 on it from HP immediately.
Think about it this way, when the FCC gave the OK for 900mhz cordless phones, they worked great *UNTIL* AT&T got the OK to use the same frequency range for cell phones. Then all of those home cordless phones became static-ridden junk.
:-)
Maybe you're buying cheap 900MHz phones; mine work great still.
In Europe, the cellular band is 900MHz and the PCS band 1800MHz. But in the United States, believe it or not, cellular runs on 800MHz and PCS on 1900MHz. Yes, it's true. I dare you to Google it!
-- Nathan
Um...read the article again. The $0.0007/song/listener is the old and unfair rate (started out as $0.0014/song/listener). As the Yahoo/Reuters story point out at the end, that was the rate set by Billington (the Librarian of Congress) last spring. Although it doesn't sound like much on the surface, think about it: 24 hours * 60 min/hr = 1440 minutes in a day; assuming an average tune length of 5 minutes, you would be broadcasting 288 songs in a given 24 hour period. Now, remember, we have to pay a royalty per listener tuned in (even if they don't stay connected and only listen to a few seconds of the song!), so let's assume an average listenership of 1,000 listeners at any given time, then multiply that times the rate (288 * 1000 * 0.0007) and you arrive at a figure of $201.60 per day, and if you extend that through the month (~30 days), you discover that you owe the RIAA a whopping $6,048 per month in royalties ($72,576 per year).
As the Yahoo article explicity stated, the new "compromise" introduces a royalty rate for the "small" webcasters which is based on revenue rather than listenership, which is what webcasters have been pushing for all along.
Don't mean to flame or be overly critical; I just want the facts straight.
-- Nathan
AIIEEEE!! Do NOT use Windex. Ammonia-based solutions will YELLOW the surface of the LCD over a period of time.
I do as IBM suggests for my ThinkPad: a 50/50 solution of water and isopropyl alcohol on a soft, lint-free cloth (I use a clean, old T-shirt). Works great.
Um, dude...it's obvious that you are not that familiar with OS/2.
There were two versions of OS/2 that one could buy: OS/2 and OS/2 "for Windows". Initially, you are correct: IBM included a licensed copy of Windows with every purchase of OS/2. But then they released OS/2 "for Windows" (version 2.1; when "OS/2 Warp" version 3 came out, the "for Windows" version became known as "red spine" and the "full" version as "blue spine" because of the color of the boxes that they shipped in) which did NOT include any Windows 3.1 code. If you wanted to use WinOS/2, you *had* to own a licensed copy of Windows 3.1 and have the disks availible during installation. It worked remarkably well. It was just as useable as the "old" way of doing things (take that as you will).
I think IBM got tired of paying royalties for Windows 3.1 with every copy of OS/2 shipped. They still continued to sell a "full" copy of OS/2 that included all the Windows code, but it was more expensive than the "for Windows" version by a good deal. I remember when OS/2 "for Windows" version 2.1 was released, and I saw it being advertised in the Egghead Software catalog for $49.95!
Interestingly enough, with the release of OS/2 Warp version 4 ("Merlin"), they actually dropped the "for Windows" version and ONLY sold the full version with all the Windows code included. A lot of people don't know this, but IBM actually did release a "for Windows" version of Warp 4, but it was never sold retail; they gave some copies away as part of their Developer Connection program. I suspect that IBM figured that if they were giving away free copies of Warp 4 that they didn't want to have to pay for the Windows licenses, and thus was born OS/2 Warp 4: Special Developer Connection Edition.
DomainMonger rocks, period. I've been using them since 2000, and even when I have had problems they ALWAYS respond in a timely manner.
:-)
Just another happy customer.
I always thought that Silver's pie-menus were rather intuitive to use...
I didn't care for those sample JavaScript pie-menus from the piemenu.com website linked to in this article. They were kinda frustrating to use since it wasn't visually obvious where the border for one option ended and the other began.
foobar104, I missed the discussion that took place under that story until a few days after it occurred. I posted a reply to one of your own many replies, but seeing how that story had long since moved off the front page, my post elicited no responses. So, at the risk of being modded down for "redundancy", I will repost it (slightly modified) now under this thread. The original post is here.
I first begin by quoting a portion of your reply.
-----
My point is just that it's kind of disappointing that people would spend their time and energy working on an audio codec that's not necessary and that doesn't offer significant advantages over existing codecs. They could have been working to improve MP3 instead, or on something new that we don't have yet. Instead, they just decided to reproduce work that's already been done. That's disappointing, because it smacks of wasted opportunity.
You may be happy with the corporately paid-for and supplied iTunes, and all the more power to ya. Apple of course must have some sort of license agreement with Fraunhofer in order to supply its users with a program that can encode and decode MP3s. Apple is not stupid, and is not going to trample over other companies' IP rights, at least not so overtly. As you pointed out, it is not likely that they would supply their users with software that the mere fact of owning and using would make them criminals.
At the same time, however, you must need to recognize that Ogg Vorbis scratches an itch, and a fairly large one at that. An itch for a higher-quality codec with features not availible in the MP3 world (such as have been pointed out to you by others in this thread at different times). Now, you may not care about these features, but surely others do.
It's obvious from the above quote of yours that you recognize the need to continually advance media compression technology, and lament the fact that the resources that were dumped into the Ogg Vorbis project weren't put to better use, such as "working to improve MP3 instead". What you fail to realize is that, as I said earlier, Ogg Vorbis is an attempt to scratch an itch, and it is an attempt to scratch an itch in a legal manner. My dear boy, if they could avoid re-inventing the wheel and instead build their improvements to audio compression technology on top of other people's work, don't you think they would do it? Because of the patents on MP3 technology, though, "underground" projects such as the LAME encoder (which is, seemingly, now the most widely used MP3 encoder engine, bar-none, and which is a project that does exactly as you suggested -- throw resources at improving MP3) are essentially illegal (not that they seem to care, and all the more power to 'em). LAME did not pay Fraunhofer a license, and they don't pay Fraunhofer licenses for every copy they distribute. People who are using LAME are technically lawbreakers.
So, you see, they had no choice but to "reproduce work". And, once that was done, they were left with an open standard that they could then begin to work on improving, without legal blockades and restrictions. In addition, because of its openness (used in both the un-patent-encumbered-ness and the open-sourceness senses), anyone can build improvements on top of it without fear. Thus, it lays the foundation for a truly promising future codec.
In the future, I would not be surprised to see a version of iTunes released by Apple which supported Ogg. At that point, it will no doubt have accumulated a great many desireable features which it does not even contain now, all as a result of its openness, and then it probably won't seem like such a "wasted opportunity" to you, will it?
My point is just that it's kind of disappointing that people would spend their time and energy working on an audio codec that's not necessary and that doesn't offer significant advantages over existing codecs. They could have been working to improve MP3 instead, or on something new that we don't have yet. Instead, they just decided to reproduce work that's already been done. That's disappointing, because it smacks of wasted opportunity.
You may be happy with the corporately paid-for and supplied iTunes, and all the more power to ya. Apple of course must have some sort of license agreement with Fraunhofer in order to supply its users with a program that can encode and decode MP3s. Apple is not stupid, and is not going to trample over other companies' IP rights, at least not so overtly. As you pointed out, it is not likely that they would supply their users with software that the mere fact of owning and using would make them criminals.
At the same time, however, you must need to recognize that Ogg Vorbis scratches an itch, and a fairly large one at that. An itch for a higher-quality codec with features not availible in the MP3 world (such as have been pointed out to you by others in this thread at different times). Now, you may not care about these features, but surely others do.
It's obvious from the above quote of yours that you recognize the need to continually advance media compression technology, and lament the fact that the resources that were dumped into the Ogg Vorbis project weren't put to better use, such as "working to improve MP3 instead". What you fail to realize is that, as I said earlier, Ogg Vorbis is an attempt to scratch an itch, and it is an attempt to scratch an itch in a legal manner. My dear boy, if they could avoid re-inventing the wheel and instead build their improvements to audio compression technology on top of other people's work, don't you think they would do it? Because of the patents on MP3 technology, though, "underground" projects such as the LAME encoder (which is, seemingly, now the most widely used MP3 encoder engine, bar-none, and which is a project that does exactly as you suggested -- throw resources at improving MP3) are essentially illegal. LAME did not pay Fraunhofer a license, and they don't pay Fraunhofer licenses for every copy they distribute. People who are using LAME are technically lawbreakers.
So, you see, they had no choice but to "reproduce work". And, once that was done, they had an open standard that they could then work on improving, without legal blockades and restrictions. In addition, because of its openness (used in both the un-patent-encumbered-ness and the open-sourceness sense), anyone can build improvements on top of it without fear. Thus, it lays the foundation for a truly promising future codec.
In the future, I would not be surprised to see a version of iTunes released by Apple which supported Ogg. At that point, it probably won't seem like such a "wasted opportunity" to you, will it?
Since when is IBM ViaVoice speaker independent? If they were touting it as such, they were either lying, or I am out of the loop with regard to advances in ViaVoice (very possible), or their software which interfaces with ViaVoice is somehow able to do "speaker independent voice recognition". Well, if that's the case, where has IBM been?! Their labs have always been on the cutting-edge of the technology (or they give that impression; I know that they have been actively researching it for a *long* time now), so how is it possible that someone beat them to "speaker independent recognition" technology, even based on their engine?
Even the cellular phones that I've tried which contain voice-controlled speed-dial are speaker dependent.
How about the Pat Metheny Group. Doesn't anyone...anyone at all...on Slashdot like jazz fusion?
:-)
And if you don't think these guys can rock, go find The Roots of Coincidence on your favorite P2P service and give it a listen.
Yeah...well, although you raise a valid point, the point of the parent post that I was responding to was that Gateway should have a video stream that can be watched across multiple platforms. It was not about the suckiness of WMP, it was about it's non-cross-platform-ness (is that a word? ;-)). I was merely countering that with a link to a video stream which is easily viewed under Linux using the free RealPlayer 8 and RealOne ALPHA for Linux players.
;-)
Also, either version is easily "downloadable"; you just need the right tools. Word on the street is that there is a utility out there called VCR by StreamBox which can "brute-force" download and save either Real or Windows Media streams...but you didn't hear that from me.
...and although it doesn't appear to be listed on Gateway, web site, there was a link to it in the Wired article that appeared in the body of the story here on Slashdot.
Here is a link to it: http://www.filmcore.net/upload/1608/XGWA-2126.ram
Wow...that's a sweet phone!! And it's CDMA even!
For those who have tried both, how does the Treo compare to, say, the Kyocera series of PalmOS-based smartphones, or even the old Qualcomm pdQ series?
(BTW, I think the Kyocera is your only option currently if you want Palm + phone in one unit and you are on a CDMA-based wireless network, such as Sprint or Verizon.)
The eBook Processor doesn't work with newer versions of Adobe eBook Reader, though, as the web site mentions (latest version is 2.2 build 203.2 from October 25th, 2001).
Are they going to do the same thing google is doing, and let companies pay to have their pages come up in results more frequently than others?
Gaaaah! How many #$@#!$-ing times is this particular piece of FUD going to be spread?? Google DOESN'T do this. Google does allow companies to pay to have their text ads rated higher for given keyword searches, but this doesn't influence the stupid search results!
Sorry, Renraku; nothing personal. I'm sure you weren't purposefully trying to spread misinformation: you were probably misinformed yourself (most likely by the Slashdot article that started all of this paranoia). But I've seen this one enough that it's really starting to get to me...
Um, "Ender Ryan" is NOT talking about "coding in tons of hacks." He was dismissing the attitude of "if a buggy browser won't display my standards-compliant code right, prevent that browser from viewing my page at all."
Yes, absolutely: code your pages standards compliant. And if it is a bug in the browser, don't try to code around it. Just don't sweat it. But PREVENTING people who are using the buggy browser from seeing ANYTHING on your site doesn't help anyone. I'd rather the page look like crap and still be able to get information than not be able to see anything at all.
Therefore if you take a Penguin Classics copy of Plato's Republic, photocopy it and sell it you are in breach of penguin's copyright (not Plato's). You can however take the text reformat it ect and print it
Well, not exactly. Not unless Penguin published the original Greek manuscript. I believe that translations of works are protected under copyright as well, so even if you were to take the text and reformat it and such, you would still be violating the translator's copyright. IANAL though.
Yes, the same thing (comparison between CLR and SOM) hit me as I was reading the article. PM (Presentation Manager) did not use it, but the WPS (Workplace Shell) that ran on top of PM *did*. I dabbled a little bit with writing a few simple SOM classes in C a few years back. 'twas fun. A well-thought-out system IMO.