What do you mean "once it's OK"? It's been "ok" to go around the Constitution ever since it was decided that it was legal just to ban drugs without worrying about that pesky Bill of Rights (after all, prohibition of alcohol required an amendment because it happened in a time when the Constitution was much more respected). Also, don't forget the curtailing of free speech in certain situations by separating those who wish to legally and non-violently protest into "free speech zones". The Constitution has been ignored for decades, what makes you think the 2nd will be any different?
You're lucky that WU even still works on XP. Few years down the road, XP will be where 98/ME have been for some time now, unable to download any updates at all. Then, you're practically stuck with the base RTM install, and all of the vulns that comes with.
RTM just means "Release to Manufacturing" and has been around since the Windows 95 days (and probably even earlier internally, but I first encountered the terminology referencing the retail version of Win95 as opposed to any OSRs).
I'm not referring to that, however (although that is a separate debate). I'm referring to those who produce original content and at least make an attempt not to use infringing material outside of a fair use context. The post I was replying to seemed to imply that "consumers" shouldn't have access to high upload speed, claiming that the only reason for "consumers" to need such a pipe would be to infringe on copyright. I also offered a valid use case that doesn't even require one to be a "content provider" - no court in the United States (nor elsewhere that I'm aware of, but would welcome knowledge of such) has ever held that a private individual would be considered to be "making available" copyrighted works if they are accessible on a personal, password-protected machine. I regularly stream audio from my personal machine to my iPod when I'm elsewhere with access to Wifi, and the only reason I don't do it for video is because my upstream restricts the effective enjoyable bitrate to something like 3 to 3.5 Mbps (I just now tested using the Speakeasy speed test at 4.18Mbps upstream and I would not want to attempt to stream video from my computer at 4Mbps). This may be fine for 480p or smaller video but I'd prefer to be able to stream 720p video when possible.
Let me guess, you've never attempted to stream your personal media collection on the road using something like Air Video or Air Playit? That's entirely legal, especially if you password-protect your setup (meaning that only you can access it, thus you're not "making available" as the copyright holders like to call it, but rather just accessing your personal machine remotely). It also sucks when you have low upload speed.
Plus, many more people are "content providers" than ever before. If you upload videos of your own creation to YouTube or other streaming video sites, or if you stream on UStream/Livestream/Twitch.tv, then you are a "content provider". It's your short-sighted "people are not content providers" mindset that perpetuates the fact that our culture is not in our control, but is under the control of large corporations.
The world will be better off when your mindset dies off and everyone has the capability to be a "content provider", no longer having to choose between taking a few hours to upload a high-quality 1080p video or upload a crappy sub-SDTV quality file in 30 minutes.
If you write to the standards you don't need to test in IE any more than any other browser.
Clients don't care if a site is standards-compliant, they care if their potential customers will look at their site and see a hot mess. If you can give them something attractive and standards-compliant, so much the better.
They do care if one delivers a site that isn't 100% in IE, however (or any other browser for that matter). That's why I don't get the mentality of those who actively block IE just for being IE. I remember a site a few years back that had loads of info about the 6581 SID chip, and what struck me as odd was that it actively blocked IE users. Now, at the time, that could reasonably be explained by saying "IE isn't standards compliant", but nowadays that argument doesn't hold much water with me. Even though I use Chrome primarily at the moment, if I find out that a site actively blocks any standards compliant version of IE, I will refuse to visit that site even though I don't use IE for daily browsing. Code to the standards, test in all major browsers (or at least all major rendering engines, I personally test under Trident, Gecko, and Webkit - including Safari on Windows, to get an idea of how the site will render on Safari for Mac, even though I know the font rendering is slightly different and not quite as good as on a Mac), and fix your bugs. Simple as that.
Sure they do. They don't have the majority numbers they used to have back in the old Netscape days, but they still have market share. Any web developer worth their salt will at least use IE for testing purposes (if you're developing websites, not testing in IE for whatever reason, then you suck as a developer). I also know several people personally who use IE because it's what they're used to, and they're not power users (they have difficulty learning unfamiliar programs on their own). Even after I've spoken to them and advocated the use of Firefox (or of late, I'd advocate Chrome), they chose to continue using IE.
I'm not saying that IE is the best browser out there (although they have made great strides in standards compliance and security since the days of IE6), but to state "no one uses IE anymore" with no facts to back it up is simply short-sighted and borderline zealous.
I was merely rebutting your statement that it "runs on only the newest plaform atm" and "hasn't been released for Windows 7 yet". It may be a release candidate/preview, but being released after the release of Windows 8 RTM, the Release Preview for Win7 was actually a very slightly newer revision (Win8 shipped with 10.0.9200.16384, the IE10 RP in question shipped as 10.0.9200.16438, and with the "Install updates automatically" checkbox that is visible in the screenshot on Wikipedia, even though I never really use it except for when I'm doing HTML+CSS, the version on my box is build 16439). Seems to me that while it's still "release candidate", that just means that it's pretty much in final form except for minor bug fixes (which in this case makes the difference between shipping and release preview/candidate moot, as I'm likely running the majority of the same code when running IE10 that someone on Win8 is running when they run the desktop version).
Recently, IE 10 is a great browser with good HTML 5 and CSS 3 and standards support.
A great browser which runs on only the newest plaform atm, it hasn't been released for Windows 7 yet. The jury is still out on adoption rates and realistically won't become a least common denominator until Vista support is dropped and IE9 fades, which by the numbers you provided last time was ~2020. How many websites do you think will still be running in their current incarnation by that time?
"Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.0; Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; Trident/6.0)" - IE10 running on Windows 7
if Jobs were still here, he'd stop at 2k and call it "retina television".
Doubtful, considering the iPad 2048x1536 is only 10" screen.
The iPad is also used viewed from a much closer distance. For me, 1080p is almost retina at normal viewing distances, at least on my 37" and 42" TVs. Remember, retina as used by Apple just means "no discernible pixels at normal viewing distances". Hold your eye close enough to any retina display and you will still see the pixels.
Funny, if everyone who felt the way you did actually voted out these corrupt Republicrats, maybe something would change?
Nah, much easier to be a lazy ass and let others determine the future of the nation. Then you can smugly point a finger at everyone else while being ignorant that [b]you[/b] are part of the problem.
Jailbreak and install Protect My Privacy. Allows you to control access to personal data (location, contacts, device identifier, etc) on a per-app basis.
Forgive me for trying to mitigate the usage of inaccurate or incorrect terminology. If I'd been trying to make them sound stupid I would have thrown in some insults.
I suppose you'd harp on me if someone was clinging to the old "72dpi" myth and I corrected them.
The assets would be interchangeable (in that, the same code could utilize multiple collections of assets and create an entirely different game). Technically, the assets shouldn't be needed to actually build the code, but the code wouldn't do anything useful with at least one collection of assets to go with it.
The trend in computing (and outside as well, but that's offtopic) is to give increased control to the manufacturers and vendors, and less control to the owner. If things continue the way they're going now, in 20 years (if that) I foresee a future where computers (as known by the average person) are black boxes, never to be taken apart for any reason. They'd love to kill off open source too, and they're working on ways to do that (and if such machines become the dominant ones, then it will be done at least in a de facto sense). There will come a day when hobbyist computing and true hacking (as opposed to the popular definition of "illegal shit") will only be possible with "retro" computers. It might be a few years off, but it will happen if things continue on the current course.
Chrome surpassed IE in May of this year with 32.43% share versus IE's 32.12%, and for the month of October they show Chrome with just over a 2.5 point lead. This is according to StatCounter. They don't break down different versions of browsers, however, so I'm sure that the IE6 numbers are rolled in with the newer versions.
IE hasn't been the most popular browser in the world for some time. Last time I checked, Chrome was. Granted, the takeover of Chrome as #1 happened earlier this year, but still.
Nintendo's the only company from the old school that's still around making hardware. I'd say they're doing something right. Not everything, but enough to succeed.
Also, I agree about the exclusive franchises. Back in the early days of Nintendo video games, this was not the case - all of the most popular early Nintendo arcade games got ported to numerous systems. Donkey Kong, DK Jr, Mario Bros, even Popeye. Once Nintendo found true success in the home market with Super Mario Bros, they abandoned that strategy (for the most part, although they did release an SMB game for a couple of obscure-in-the-West Japanese home computers).
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean "once it's OK"? It's been "ok" to go around the Constitution ever since it was decided that it was legal just to ban drugs without worrying about that pesky Bill of Rights (after all, prohibition of alcohol required an amendment because it happened in a time when the Constitution was much more respected). Also, don't forget the curtailing of free speech in certain situations by separating those who wish to legally and non-violently protest into "free speech zones". The Constitution has been ignored for decades, what makes you think the 2nd will be any different?
Who pissed in your Corn Flakes?
You're lucky that WU even still works on XP. Few years down the road, XP will be where 98/ME have been for some time now, unable to download any updates at all. Then, you're practically stuck with the base RTM install, and all of the vulns that comes with.
RTM just means "Release to Manufacturing" and has been around since the Windows 95 days (and probably even earlier internally, but I first encountered the terminology referencing the retail version of Win95 as opposed to any OSRs).
google has decided it has the right to redistribute copyrighted images in full resolution
They've done no such thing. They distribute a smaller thumbnail, and link directly to the original.
I'm not referring to that, however (although that is a separate debate). I'm referring to those who produce original content and at least make an attempt not to use infringing material outside of a fair use context. The post I was replying to seemed to imply that "consumers" shouldn't have access to high upload speed, claiming that the only reason for "consumers" to need such a pipe would be to infringe on copyright. I also offered a valid use case that doesn't even require one to be a "content provider" - no court in the United States (nor elsewhere that I'm aware of, but would welcome knowledge of such) has ever held that a private individual would be considered to be "making available" copyrighted works if they are accessible on a personal, password-protected machine. I regularly stream audio from my personal machine to my iPod when I'm elsewhere with access to Wifi, and the only reason I don't do it for video is because my upstream restricts the effective enjoyable bitrate to something like 3 to 3.5 Mbps (I just now tested using the Speakeasy speed test at 4.18Mbps upstream and I would not want to attempt to stream video from my computer at 4Mbps). This may be fine for 480p or smaller video but I'd prefer to be able to stream 720p video when possible.
Let me guess, you've never attempted to stream your personal media collection on the road using something like Air Video or Air Playit? That's entirely legal, especially if you password-protect your setup (meaning that only you can access it, thus you're not "making available" as the copyright holders like to call it, but rather just accessing your personal machine remotely). It also sucks when you have low upload speed.
Plus, many more people are "content providers" than ever before. If you upload videos of your own creation to YouTube or other streaming video sites, or if you stream on UStream/Livestream/Twitch.tv, then you are a "content provider". It's your short-sighted "people are not content providers" mindset that perpetuates the fact that our culture is not in our control, but is under the control of large corporations.
The world will be better off when your mindset dies off and everyone has the capability to be a "content provider", no longer having to choose between taking a few hours to upload a high-quality 1080p video or upload a crappy sub-SDTV quality file in 30 minutes.
Multiplayer Platformers: Mario Kart
You just made my head hurt.
If you write to the standards you don't need to test in IE any more than any other browser.
Clients don't care if a site is standards-compliant, they care if their potential customers will look at their site and see a hot mess. If you can give them something attractive and standards-compliant, so much the better.
They do care if one delivers a site that isn't 100% in IE, however (or any other browser for that matter). That's why I don't get the mentality of those who actively block IE just for being IE. I remember a site a few years back that had loads of info about the 6581 SID chip, and what struck me as odd was that it actively blocked IE users. Now, at the time, that could reasonably be explained by saying "IE isn't standards compliant", but nowadays that argument doesn't hold much water with me. Even though I use Chrome primarily at the moment, if I find out that a site actively blocks any standards compliant version of IE, I will refuse to visit that site even though I don't use IE for daily browsing. Code to the standards, test in all major browsers (or at least all major rendering engines, I personally test under Trident, Gecko, and Webkit - including Safari on Windows, to get an idea of how the site will render on Safari for Mac, even though I know the font rendering is slightly different and not quite as good as on a Mac), and fix your bugs. Simple as that.
No one use IE any more.
Sure they do. They don't have the majority numbers they used to have back in the old Netscape days, but they still have market share. Any web developer worth their salt will at least use IE for testing purposes (if you're developing websites, not testing in IE for whatever reason, then you suck as a developer). I also know several people personally who use IE because it's what they're used to, and they're not power users (they have difficulty learning unfamiliar programs on their own). Even after I've spoken to them and advocated the use of Firefox (or of late, I'd advocate Chrome), they chose to continue using IE.
I'm not saying that IE is the best browser out there (although they have made great strides in standards compliance and security since the days of IE6), but to state "no one uses IE anymore" with no facts to back it up is simply short-sighted and borderline zealous.
I was merely rebutting your statement that it "runs on only the newest plaform atm" and "hasn't been released for Windows 7 yet". It may be a release candidate/preview, but being released after the release of Windows 8 RTM, the Release Preview for Win7 was actually a very slightly newer revision (Win8 shipped with 10.0.9200.16384, the IE10 RP in question shipped as 10.0.9200.16438, and with the "Install updates automatically" checkbox that is visible in the screenshot on Wikipedia, even though I never really use it except for when I'm doing HTML+CSS, the version on my box is build 16439). Seems to me that while it's still "release candidate", that just means that it's pretty much in final form except for minor bug fixes (which in this case makes the difference between shipping and release preview/candidate moot, as I'm likely running the majority of the same code when running IE10 that someone on Win8 is running when they run the desktop version).
Recently, IE 10 is a great browser with good HTML 5 and CSS 3 and standards support.
A great browser which runs on only the newest plaform atm, it hasn't been released for Windows 7 yet. The jury is still out on adoption rates and realistically won't become a least common denominator until Vista support is dropped and IE9 fades, which by the numbers you provided last time was ~2020. How many websites do you think will still be running in their current incarnation by that time?
"Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.0; Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; Trident/6.0)" - IE10 running on Windows 7
if Jobs were still here, he'd stop at 2k and call it "retina television".
Doubtful, considering the iPad 2048x1536 is only 10" screen.
The iPad is also used viewed from a much closer distance. For me, 1080p is almost retina at normal viewing distances, at least on my 37" and 42" TVs. Remember, retina as used by Apple just means "no discernible pixels at normal viewing distances". Hold your eye close enough to any retina display and you will still see the pixels.
It's an inverse list. The burglar would hit the homes not on the list.
Funny, if everyone who felt the way you did actually voted out these corrupt Republicrats, maybe something would change?
Nah, much easier to be a lazy ass and let others determine the future of the nation. Then you can smugly point a finger at everyone else while being ignorant that [b]you[/b] are part of the problem.
Whats worse 100,000 cases of polio or cultural eradication?
What good is cultural diversity if people are dying left and right and thus unable to enjoy or even preserve it because of ill-informed radicals?
100k cases of polio, definitely worse.
Jailbreak and install Protect My Privacy. Allows you to control access to personal data (location, contacts, device identifier, etc) on a per-app basis.
How can you assure that stronger gun laws would have kept this guy from owning a gun?
News flash: If something is outright prohibited, people who want to possess said thing will still do so.
Forgive me for trying to mitigate the usage of inaccurate or incorrect terminology. If I'd been trying to make them sound stupid I would have thrown in some insults.
I suppose you'd harp on me if someone was clinging to the old "72dpi" myth and I corrected them.
You mean higher bitrate or resolution. DPI has no meaning in the world of video, with different display devices.
The assets would be interchangeable (in that, the same code could utilize multiple collections of assets and create an entirely different game). Technically, the assets shouldn't be needed to actually build the code, but the code wouldn't do anything useful with at least one collection of assets to go with it.
The trend in computing (and outside as well, but that's offtopic) is to give increased control to the manufacturers and vendors, and less control to the owner. If things continue the way they're going now, in 20 years (if that) I foresee a future where computers (as known by the average person) are black boxes, never to be taken apart for any reason. They'd love to kill off open source too, and they're working on ways to do that (and if such machines become the dominant ones, then it will be done at least in a de facto sense). There will come a day when hobbyist computing and true hacking (as opposed to the popular definition of "illegal shit") will only be possible with "retro" computers. It might be a few years off, but it will happen if things continue on the current course.
Chrome surpassed IE in May of this year with 32.43% share versus IE's 32.12%, and for the month of October they show Chrome with just over a 2.5 point lead. This is according to StatCounter. They don't break down different versions of browsers, however, so I'm sure that the IE6 numbers are rolled in with the newer versions.
IE hasn't been the most popular browser in the world for some time. Last time I checked, Chrome was. Granted, the takeover of Chrome as #1 happened earlier this year, but still.
Nintendo's the only company from the old school that's still around making hardware. I'd say they're doing something right. Not everything, but enough to succeed.
Also, I agree about the exclusive franchises. Back in the early days of Nintendo video games, this was not the case - all of the most popular early Nintendo arcade games got ported to numerous systems. Donkey Kong, DK Jr, Mario Bros, even Popeye. Once Nintendo found true success in the home market with Super Mario Bros, they abandoned that strategy (for the most part, although they did release an SMB game for a couple of obscure-in-the-West Japanese home computers).