Great. All the sleaze you want, but one of the premier search engines is off limits.
If you allow access to a website that caches copies of arbitrary web pages for retrieval and viewing, then it sort of defeats the purpose of blocking those arbitrary sites in the first place.
It would be good if software companies here in the US provide alternative prices for developing countries. It's really unrealistic to expect people to pay for software at such prices. Maybe they already do that, but I don't know.. I use Linux.:)
The main problem is that people from other countries can now buy the cheaper version through the internet.
A subset of this is parallel importing, where a vendor imports from a cheaper market rather than from the vendor themselves. In some countries this is illegal and in some it isn't. In those that it isn't illegal in, the vendors could compete against the other non-parallel importing vendors by offering the product at a price the others aren't able to source the product at from the developer.
However, with the upcoming Palladium from microsoft, we could probably expect region coding on software and other funky rights restrictions. Which means you might be restricted from installing and running versions which weren't produced for your part of the world.
Ignoring your generalisations and considering the point - use of copyrighted goods not necessarily being illegal when done for solely educational purposes, this isn't exactly something new. At least not in my country. You're allowed to reproduce and use literature for the purposes of learning - which is why the photocopiers in my university library always had queues of people lined up to use them. To extend this to software is entirely reasonable.
blah blah blah
insert lame generalisations blah I use linux blah insert lame generalisations blah blah blah insert corporate rhetoric
Did you actually play Alice, or just look at the screenshots?
Alice was just your typical repetitive 3D shoot em up, it was even worse for the fact that it had this great story, yet all it used it for was a backdrop and to weakly link in a purpose. Sure, the level with the floating leaf looked great, but apart from that it was one of the most disinteresting, boring and repetitious games I ever played - and I played it through from start to finish.
I don't know what other games American McGee has made, but Alice was not *FUN* It was repetitive crap, with a modicum of creativity that didn't make it properly into the game.
It has a couple of annoying issues that my workmates and I experience. If possible avoid this - although it is a great editor, if you know you can avoid these problems.
1. Occasionally something sets Textpad into a state where the cursor goes missing, the only way to see where you are typing is to alt-tab out of the program and back again or something similar. When Textpad starts doing this, it does it often - several times a day for a week or so.
2. If you open files in textpad from shares on your LAN, its pretty much guaranteed to completely lock up. I open readme files from one share and it happens - and it also happens if I have Textpad as the application for a given type of file and I view that file in source safe.
You can work around the second with some effort by using something else in that case, but the first is the worst.
Spare me the advertisements/lame excuse for review
on
Movie Review: Gigantic
·
· Score: 1
I don't read this site to read quick advertisements for .
The big failure of the subscription model of sites that I like reading in
appealing to me is that I have no real stake in helping them survive. There
is always this blank facade that gives no real sense of the importance of my
subscription to them, or their need.
I was thinking that if they publicised their costs and their income and
showed exactly how subscription was making a difference, then I would be
encouraged to subscribe myself. Even if they weren't in need of the
subscription, I feel that I would still subscribe with this information -
given the level of my interest in the site.
Re:Will Google's philosophy survive the merger?
on
Google Acquires Deja
·
· Score: 1
You IMO.
I'm with whats-his-name in that it was a catz-esque rant. And half the points were moot. At least his substance was letting the original poster know how much their lengthy post was worth, whereas yours is unclear and ambigious to read.
So what if Google and Deja have incompatible philosophies.. any supposition on that is pointless.
What has Google got to do with open source?
And as for the question on whether Google will stay the same, given that its going to be changing with the Deja content, obviously it won't be.
Maybe its all supposed to be thought provoking, but given that the thoughts are all invalid for the most part, the complete style of the post falls flat. Maybe its not a troll, but its indicative of how crap the moderation system is.
If it was possible to find out who moderated a given post in a unwarranted way, it would be nice to set the system to ignore their input.
cshotton:
First, it's safe to assume that sites deployed to support a single browser are a result of a conscious choice. And that choice was likely driven by a technical inability on the developers' part to create a site that was functional across multiple platforms. If it was my site, I'd get new developers because there's no technical excuse of any substance to argue for single browser support.
Hmm, I create a site in compliant HTML.
Its compliant HTML, it works fine in IE always.
Test it in Netscape 3
Test it in Netscape 4
Test it in later versions of Netscape and sub-versions of 3 and 4.
Repeat the above steps until the change you made to get the site to display as you want it works in all the different versions of Netscape
Enjoy your feeling of deja-vu that you have done this for each site you have been contracted to build.
"single browser support" is really a misnomer anyway, its more in my case about the site having been written properly, working in most every other browser except for Netscape - until the Netscape hacks are put in.
Heres the only practical reason I can think of why Netscape support should be abandoned - the amount of time it takes to get a site to display the same in (all the reasonably widely used versions of) Netscape as it does most other browsers I test in is very significant. I used to spend half an hour converting a cut up site into a working site (it displays fine in IE and other browsers as it is standards compliant). The rest of the day was typically devoted to getting it to work in Netscape versions while still working in the other browsers. And this was just to get the design to display as it should.
Its interesting that your post got moderated up. Especially considering your entire post appears based on questionable math and an inexperience in actually designing sites yourself. Like most of the posts here, yours comes across as a disillusioned Netscape user who thinks that because Netscape is a better browser to use, the only real issue is that people actually choose to ignore it because of its low market share. As a person who built beautifully laid out web sites designed by a graphic designer, I know that even if I targetted Netscape, I would still have to go through the same nightmare to get it to display as the designer wanted - a nightmare that no other reasonably popular browser presents. I wish it wasn't so, I agree that all browsers should be supported, I could do without the stress involved though.
Its not just a pain, its a repetitive inconvenience each time you build a new site.
One that wears thin.
Sandburd:
I don't think that's the way to go, either optimize your page for one browser and make sure it's at least viewable within the other most used browsers or don't optimize.
Its not about optimising most of the time for me. Its about getting the browsers to display your page the way YOU want it to look. And the one culprit that fails to do that when the site is completely valid HTML is Netscape. So, write your page in a decent way so that it is guaranteed to display in most browsers, and optionally take the effort to enter the Nightmare that is guessing the HTML in Netscape that will get around the bad implementation of HTML displaying.
I realize that this is probably impossible now, but lack of standards compliance is ultimately the fault of the people who create the unfriendly pages, not some insidious conspiracy by Microsoft/AOLTimezilla/whoever. If some e-
Huh? The lack of standards compliance is the result of bad implementation of standards support by the browser companies. It is not your right to expect all sites to be compliant with Netscape when a few core tags in multiple versions of the Netscape browser do not work in the simple way they should. Its ironic that Internet Explorer provides so many alternate ways to do the same stuff in standards compliant ways where you have to hack multiple tags in bad ways to achieve the same effect in Netscape.
I agree that commercial sites are losing out by not accounting for Netscapes broken products. But the statements made in so many posts here expecting support as a right is ludicrous. There are many different versions of Netscape, each broken in different ways - its possible to be able to achieve what you want with HTML hacks in one variant only to not be able to get it to work in both. While Netscape may be a joy to use, as someone who has extensive experience putting together sites with complex layouts, its not a joy to build a compliant site for, its a nightmare.
This is not an anti-Netscape troll. I used to prefer Netscape because of the anti-MS propaganda. After working as a web developer, I know that it is a bad product. Expecting support for something that doesn't work right is a privilege, not a right. Having the arrogance to say because someone doesn't afford me that privilege as my right, is not just their loss, it is also yours. I know if I went to a site and it was Netscape only, I would still make the effort to check it out to see if it offered something of value to me - assuming I was there for a specific reason.
I think I can assume from this that you have never developed a web site with a reasonably complex layout.
While netscape may be a very usable web browser, getting stuff to lay out the way it should can be a nightmare.
A few Netscape users seem to think that having their browser supported by every web site is their right. Its not as easy as that. Unlike you I have had to make sites browser compatible.
Richard.
Slashdot Mirror
If you allow access to a website that caches copies of arbitrary web pages for retrieval and viewing, then it sort of defeats the purpose of blocking those arbitrary sites in the first place.
The main problem is that people from other countries can now buy the cheaper version through the internet.
A subset of this is parallel importing, where a vendor imports from a cheaper market rather than from the vendor themselves. In some countries this is illegal and in some it isn't. In those that it isn't illegal in, the vendors could compete against the other non-parallel importing vendors by offering the product at a price the others aren't able to source the product at from the developer.
However, with the upcoming Palladium from microsoft, we could probably expect region coding on software and other funky rights restrictions. Which means you might be restricted from installing and running versions which weren't produced for your part of the world.
Ignoring your generalisations and considering the point - use of copyrighted goods not necessarily being illegal when done for solely educational purposes, this isn't exactly something new. At least not in my country. You're allowed to reproduce and use literature for the purposes of learning - which is why the photocopiers in my university library always had queues of people lined up to use them. To extend this to software is entirely reasonable.
Pro lunix troll = recipe for upward moderation.
Did you actually play Alice, or just look at the screenshots?
Alice was just your typical repetitive 3D shoot em up, it was even worse for the fact that it had this great story, yet all it used it for was a backdrop and to weakly link in a purpose. Sure, the level with the floating leaf looked great, but apart from that it was one of the most disinteresting, boring and repetitious games I ever played - and I played it through from start to finish.
I don't know what other games American McGee has made, but Alice was not *FUN* It was repetitive crap, with a modicum of creativity that didn't make it properly into the game.
It has a couple of annoying issues that my workmates and I experience. If possible avoid this - although it is a great editor, if you know you can avoid these problems.
1. Occasionally something sets Textpad into a state where the cursor goes missing, the only way to see where you are typing is to alt-tab out of the program and back again or something similar. When Textpad starts doing this, it does it often - several times a day for a week or so.
2. If you open files in textpad from shares on your LAN, its pretty much guaranteed to completely lock up. I open readme files from one share and it happens - and it also happens if I have Textpad as the application for a given type of file and I view that file in source safe.
You can work around the second with some effort by using something else in that case, but the first is the worst.
I don't read this site to read quick advertisements for .
The big failure of the subscription model of sites that I like reading in appealing to me is that I have no real stake in helping them survive. There is always this blank facade that gives no real sense of the importance of my subscription to them, or their need.
I was thinking that if they publicised their costs and their income and showed exactly how subscription was making a difference, then I would be encouraged to subscribe myself. Even if they weren't in need of the subscription, I feel that I would still subscribe with this information - given the level of my interest in the site.
You IMO.
I'm with whats-his-name in that it was a catz-esque rant. And half the points were moot. At least his substance was letting the original poster know how much their lengthy post was worth, whereas yours is unclear and ambigious to read.
Maybe its all supposed to be thought provoking, but given that the thoughts are all invalid for the most part, the complete style of the post falls flat. Maybe its not a troll, but its indicative of how crap the moderation system is.
If it was possible to find out who moderated a given post in a unwarranted way, it would be nice to set the system to ignore their input.
cshotton: First, it's safe to assume that sites deployed to support a single browser are a result of a conscious choice. And that choice was likely driven by a technical inability on the developers' part to create a site that was functional across multiple platforms. If it was my site, I'd get new developers because there's no technical excuse of any substance to argue for single browser support.
Hmm, I create a site in compliant HTML.
Heres the only practical reason I can think of why Netscape support should be abandoned - the amount of time it takes to get a site to display the same in (all the reasonably widely used versions of) Netscape as it does most other browsers I test in is very significant. I used to spend half an hour converting a cut up site into a working site (it displays fine in IE and other browsers as it is standards compliant). The rest of the day was typically devoted to getting it to work in Netscape versions while still working in the other browsers. And this was just to get the design to display as it should.
Its interesting that your post got moderated up. Especially considering your entire post appears based on questionable math and an inexperience in actually designing sites yourself. Like most of the posts here, yours comes across as a disillusioned Netscape user who thinks that because Netscape is a better browser to use, the only real issue is that people actually choose to ignore it because of its low market share. As a person who built beautifully laid out web sites designed by a graphic designer, I know that even if I targetted Netscape, I would still have to go through the same nightmare to get it to display as the designer wanted - a nightmare that no other reasonably popular browser presents. I wish it wasn't so, I agree that all browsers should be supported, I could do without the stress involved though.
I disagree with you.
Its not just a pain, its a repetitive inconvenience each time you build a new site. One that wears thin.
Sandburd: I don't think that's the way to go, either optimize your page for one browser and make sure it's at least viewable within the other most used browsers or don't optimize.
Its not about optimising most of the time for me. Its about getting the browsers to display your page the way YOU want it to look. And the one culprit that fails to do that when the site is completely valid HTML is Netscape. So, write your page in a decent way so that it is guaranteed to display in most browsers, and optionally take the effort to enter the Nightmare that is guessing the HTML in Netscape that will get around the bad implementation of HTML displaying.
Huh? The lack of standards compliance is the result of bad implementation of standards support by the browser companies. It is not your right to expect all sites to be compliant with Netscape when a few core tags in multiple versions of the Netscape browser do not work in the simple way they should. Its ironic that Internet Explorer provides so many alternate ways to do the same stuff in standards compliant ways where you have to hack multiple tags in bad ways to achieve the same effect in Netscape.
I agree that commercial sites are losing out by not accounting for Netscapes broken products. But the statements made in so many posts here expecting support as a right is ludicrous. There are many different versions of Netscape, each broken in different ways - its possible to be able to achieve what you want with HTML hacks in one variant only to not be able to get it to work in both. While Netscape may be a joy to use, as someone who has extensive experience putting together sites with complex layouts, its not a joy to build a compliant site for, its a nightmare.
This is not an anti-Netscape troll. I used to prefer Netscape because of the anti-MS propaganda. After working as a web developer, I know that it is a bad product. Expecting support for something that doesn't work right is a privilege, not a right. Having the arrogance to say because someone doesn't afford me that privilege as my right, is not just their loss, it is also yours. I know if I went to a site and it was Netscape only, I would still make the effort to check it out to see if it offered something of value to me - assuming I was there for a specific reason.
I think I can assume from this that you have never developed a web site with a reasonably complex layout. While netscape may be a very usable web browser, getting stuff to lay out the way it should can be a nightmare. A few Netscape users seem to think that having their browser supported by every web site is their right. Its not as easy as that. Unlike you I have had to make sites browser compatible. Richard.