Just to clarify - I believe people -should- try to settle their differences between them *first*, if possible. When all those avenues have been explored, that's where either a civil suit OR the cops come in; and crimes, I think, are the non-civil judicial system's department.. starting with cops investigating.
Shit - I didn't realize reporting crimes was supposed to be difficult.
What's next, www.stopthesnitchingtube.com to oust people who reported crimes?
As per a sibling poster - I, for one, don't care much about pot use (heck, it's legal here in your own home / at a coffeeshop, so whatever). If I see somebody setting fire to a trashcan in front of the house again, yeah I might be tempted to get a good video of them to upload if I could here. Sure beats reporting it to the cops *again* waiting for them for half an hour *again* giving them a 'good description' *again*, etc. It also beats the neighbors pondering vigilantism, but maybe that's just me.
heck, I dunno, maybe you'll risk harassment from your local corrupt cops (if any, I'll just presume the worst here) and start up your own site... www.badcoptube.com or somesuch, and accept -only- videos of cops violating laws. I'm sure you could make a mint.
I would very much simply assume that any videos they do not want to investigate - whatever the content - will simply be deleted. I also assume that they will not be posting these videos immediately after upload (after all, if you take a video of some corpse and that gets published all over the place before the family is notified, that would be some manner of suckage that the dept responsible for the site would have to answer for).
So I don't see why anybody would even bother to use -this- service to upload videos of bad cops.. or, rather, this service -exclusively-.
I thought movies taught people as much.. "if something happens to me, you should know that 3 copies were also sent to major news outlets, blabla".
I just caught an old Airwolf episode and thought "yikes.. who was that girl?".. that girl was Jill Whitlow. Huh. Let's google her.
#1: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Whitlow #2: www.geocities.com/jillwhitlowfan/index.htm #3 and all the rest: utter f'ing database-generated crap. Let's take the "tv.com" one; http://www.tv.com/jill-whitlow/person/31200/summary.html
No biography, no photos, no trivia, no quotes. The *only* actual information in there is her credits - which are leeched off of other sites(!) The same applies to pretty much all of the remaining results.
I'm gonna go archive that geocities site now - exactly as the summary suggests, as a *great* volume of information (in general, not just this Whitlow page) would be lost (presuming archive.org has failed to cache much of it / will stop serving the cached information if Yahoo decide to drop a disallowing spiders directive in there.).
...just to pass some filter, then you must think the song's very well-worth listening to.. which, to me, implies it ought to be worth buying.
If it's just some background music piece - I dunno, try another song.. plenty of royalty-free and even completely free ones (nope, they're probably not in the billboard top 100 right now - so sorry).
I'm more curious about the cases where there really IS fair use involved.. what happens in those cases.. do you get to hit a checkbox saying "I believe this is fair use, please proceed to accept my upload and continue with any potential infringement processes you believe are required."?
what do you mean, 'supposed to'? You're just as welcome to toss another provider's e-books on it (as long as THOSE don't have DRM that the Kindle doesn't support) as you are to toss MP3s from whatever source onto your iPod (not to be mistaken with the iPhone, clearly).
heh.. I had the same sentinment, but apparently.. and I'll quote the reply poster..
Bills need support to pass, regarldess of their content. People make deals to support each other's bills. Having friends in your court is crucial if you want to get anything passed. Is this right? Maybe not, but that's how it is, and it's not exactly a secret.
~ nmx
Sad that there is apparently no immediate recourse to this type of behavior other than, I suppose, not voting for them / voting for whoever got the man in that position, etc. Which amounts to so much as "that's how it is" and suck it up, I gather./nokarma, already posted before
I'm no big fan of Jack Thompson, but in addition to what you said about any CAN-SPAM bits, this (if true) caught my eye..
Senate President Michael Waddoups' statements: 'I asked you before to remove me from your mailing list. I supported your bill but because of the harassment will not again. If I am not removed,
"Stop sending me spam or I will not support your bill" sounds dangerously close to "send me $ or I will not support your bill". I realize that word on the street is that all politicians are corrupt anyway, but a public admission to in my opinion a less-than-honorable ethic? Yikes.
If Thompson's bill was worth supporting before, then his bill should still be worth supporting after annoying e-mails, spam or for all I care: murder. If it was only worth supporting because he liked the guy, then it was never worth supporting to begin with. Either way, Senator President Michael Waddoups needs to take a real close look at what he said.
We're not writing off ReiserFS just because Hans Reiser was convicted of murder - this should be no different. ( ReiserFS is being written off for technical reasons in many situations, but that's a different story on a different website. )
Any serious and professional effort should respect the wishes of the voters - even if those voters were swayed by media coverage and the name voted most for is Kjella's Left Nut./sarcasm
The only unprofessional part here is that NASA were so naive as to think that 'the public' whom they serve actually knows what's best. The only non-serious part here IS that very same public who just voted for teh lulz. Colbert (dur), Serenity (hi firefly), Myyearbook (what the..? oh I just googled. I guess a more vocal bunch than the mySpace kids, eh?), or Gaia (err.. Earth? Or that other not-mySpace thing, Gaia online? Boxxy is rocks, btw.)? Those were *serious* suggestions?
I may not agree with what the choice eventually became, but I, for one, am glad they exercised their right to completely ignore the poll. I just hope they've learned to not hold one quite so publicly again.
I'm not sure where you're getting the.NET from. TFS reads "Firefox.next" - not "Firefox.NET" or somesuch. TFAs certainly don't mention any.NET.
At least they give some manner of justification - Microsoft themselves dropping support for Windows XP SP2 and anything older than that. fair 'nuff, I suppose - it's not like Firefox will magically stop working once they drop support and if somebody really, really wants to contribute patches to deal with older OS's, there's nothing really stopping them from doing so (or forking if the Mozilla peeps would actively block such patches from being included ).
"If you want chapters, menus and all that why would you use a 700 - 1400MB file size? You're better to go with a full DVD rip at around 5+ GB and get an exact copy of the disc." Hear, hear - I was thinking the exact same thing: just make an ISO of the DVD and mount that whenever you want to play it.
The only criteria that this doesn't meet is the file size... big deal, get another 1TB drive... they're stupid-cheap now. On the up side, you're not re-encoding anything and if something better comes along down the line, you can still transcode from that ISO to that format without any further quality loss.
But I guess GP was talking about downloads (torrents/otherwise), in which case he probably doesn't have the original (DVD) media to begin with; in which case, sure, you may prefer the high quality MKV over a low-ish quality DiVX.. if you can't find the ISO anyway.
parent poster replied to a post that also dealt with (private citizen) response to somebody criticizing Obama; that poster arguing that criticizing Bush never led to e.g. the plethora of comments deriding a person's (negative) opinion of Obama (the person, his actions, ideas, or even the government under him). parent poster, in turn, pointed out that we all too soon forget that there were -plenty- of public derisions toward those who were critical of Bush - *especially* just before, during, and shortly after the invasion of Iraq. The Dixie Chicks thing being a prime example because it was in the media -far more- than just some 'nobody' disagreeing with the war and their neighbors labeling them a terrorist sympathizer and yelling at them "if you're not with us, you're against us", "UN-AMERICAN!", etc.
so yeah, no difference in terms of this particular comment thread branch.
You missed the GP poster who was referring to the act of people effectively abducting humans for the sole purpose of harvesting their organs. In the case of kidneys they could take 1, leave the remaining one be, and send the poor sod on their way, but more likely the person would simply be killed and their organs sold to the highest bidder.
The only reason that doesn't happen so much now (except potentially in China, to an extent) is due to the whole organ rejection thing. No good putting 'Type X' kidneys on the market if all your prospective clients within a reasonable distance need 'Type Y'.. and short of getting medical records on everybody, you can't see on the outside what type organ the person has.
With that out of the way, let the random killings and organ harvests begin.
No, anyone still thinking 'cell phone' is just realizing they're already carrying an electronic device with them 95% of the time and don't want to have to deal with special shoes or having to move the thing + HUD (HUD? Should that be FUD - foots-up-display?) over to their new set of shoes or whatever.
Now.. if you're suggesting that the government sneak these into the soles of every shoe so they can track their citizens...' shoes..
Yeah, no, I'm still thinking 'cell phone' in this particular case - sorry. But maybe the cell phone can collect some of that energy you generate when you move, anyway - like the wristwatches.
A designer says a container should be 20 pixels wide, the renderer best give the designer 20 pixels wide. Not 19. Not 21. Not some fuzzy number based on whatever the heck else surrounds that DIV. 20 pixels is 20 pixels. It's NOT that difficult to deal with. If it means the site doesn't scale well - screw it.. the designer should think of that when he specifies pixel values - it is NOT the browser's task to interpret what the designer 'meant to do' and change things around.
But this wasn't about different devices, resolutions, whatevertheheck. I even said as much. But if you absolutely must - very well. Let's define all positions and sizes as floating point percentages. Yes, on a 1600x1200 display, 25% width means 400 pixels and on a 800x600 machines it means 200 pixels. And that's fine - heck, that's awesome. But at least, for the love of technical specifications, let TWO 1600x1200 displays using two different renderers BOTH give 400 pixels.. and not one 400 pixels, and the other 399. The 399 is simply *wrong* no matter how much irrelevant crap an apologist throws at it. But how can you tell it's wrong if, for example, the specifications merely say that a renderer 'may' render it as 400 pixels, but that if it so desires, it 'may' render it as 1 pixel, 31298 pixels, whatever?
If you've ever messed with some of the more intricate web design bits and pieces, you'll quickly notice there can be vast differences between how engines render things, even when ignoring IE (and not counting non-graphical renderers)./nokarma
The Region 1 DVDs - which are, well, DVDs... they're discs. With data.. video and audio and some other bits and pieces to define chapters, menu selections, etc. but data - require a television and a power converter?
Presuming you meant the DVD player... wouldn't Brown -have- a player that works on the UK electric system?
Presuming you meant that Obama *included* a DVD player... ever looked at the backs of those things to find the power specs? By and large, electronic devices are 110V/240V compatible out of the box. The only place I've not seen the compatibility out of the box recently was on an old computer (PS/2 keyboard/mouse, running Windows 98).. and even that had a switch on the PSU to toggle between the two voltages. It's just cheaper for manufacturers to buy the dual-voltage modules as those are pumped out by the bajillions vs the millions for voltage-specific ones and having to deal with including a different one in each package. At worst, he'd have to get a different *plug* for the machine. Those are $1.50 at your nearest Best Buy-style store. Even that may not be necessary, however; I just bought a Western Digital external drive.. it came with plugs for the EU and UK included. Personally I'm not fond of that as it's just waste (I'll end up tossing one of them), but there ya go.
On to NTSC/PAL - you'd have to buy a pretty shitty DVD player if it doesn't know what to do with an 'NTSC' stream playing back to a PAL device, or vice versa. That's nothing special about the streams on the disc, btw.. those are just MPEG2 video data streams that match an NTSC or PAL spec (i.e. pixel dimensions, frame rate). The part of the DVD player that matters is the part that converts the dimensions and FPS to the proper output for the device you're displaying on, and that tends to be a menu option (NTSC/PAL/SECAM). But he certainly doesn't need an NTSC television.
Of course they have 'the right' to protect their secrets - as in this case, their identity. However, do they have a legal leg to stand on in trying to fight somebody who has made that secret public? I'd say they don't.
So, yes, anybody - politician or otherwise - should be perfectly allowed to blow somebody's 'anonymity' if there was no agreement between the two parties to maintain that anonymity (as in some court proceedings, witness protection program, etc. etc.).
That's no argument against the fact that presuming that, as per your example (which GP didn't give), - Arial IS available - The user IS NOT overriding the document style - The window size etc. IS the same (or the website is presented in a fixed-width format to begin with)
things still do not render the same even between browsers that supposedly use the same engines.
I lay much of the blame with the W3C. All that fuzziness with "A browser MIGHT display this as:" and "a browser MAY...". All that has no place in 'strict' documents. Either the browser renders it exactly the way as specced, or it doesn't follow the spec. Sounds simple enough, but apparently as long as you just do things 'close enough', you're standards-compliant.
Doesn't take away that IE is indeed, by far, the worst of the bunch (IE/FF/Opera/Safari/Chrome), but to dismiss the fact that there are differences between even the 'standards-compliant' engines/browsers as "well they're just minor differences" (as per your sibling poster) or "you probably just didn't design your site right" is a bit silly
Nor does English or any other 'western' language if you check out some of these manuals' translations from whatever the original language is. I'd prefer to think actual textbooks used for studies would work as a 'rosetta stone', along with dictionaries.
You're free to point out now that no.. they didn't; and as a result, we now know far less about ancient Egypt than we would like; such as definitive answers on how them pyramids were built and such
On the other hand, we don't know about Tsot's epic burp either. I'm not sure that's such a great loss.
Nor do I think it is a particularly great loss that people still don't seem to be in agreement about how the pyramids were built; after all, it has fueled an entire industry around 'Egyptian mysteries' - from actual scientific studies to entertainment.
As Cruyff would say: Every disadvantage has its advantage.
That's not to say that I believe your particular blocking of their ads is directly responsible for their downfall - but the many thousands of people blocking ads can't have helped. I'm as fond of adblock as the next guy, but if I like a free site and it hasn't thrown some full-page Flash ad at me yet, they can shovel ads in my face all they like - I get a free service in return, I have no complaints.
Slashdot Mirror
/nokarmabonus
Just to clarify - I believe people -should- try to settle their differences between them *first*, if possible. When all those avenues have been explored, that's where either a civil suit OR the cops come in; and crimes, I think, are the non-civil judicial system's department.. starting with cops investigating.
Certain laws - but the instant posting of videos, their digital nature, and the Streisand effect make it impossible to enforce those laws effectively.
Shit - I didn't realize reporting crimes was supposed to be difficult.
What's next, www.stopthesnitchingtube.com to oust people who reported crimes?
As per a sibling poster - I, for one, don't care much about pot use (heck, it's legal here in your own home / at a coffeeshop, so whatever). If I see somebody setting fire to a trashcan in front of the house again, yeah I might be tempted to get a good video of them to upload if I could here. Sure beats reporting it to the cops *again* waiting for them for half an hour *again* giving them a 'good description' *again*, etc. It also beats the neighbors pondering vigilantism, but maybe that's just me.
...youtube? wikileaks? vimeo?
heck, I dunno, maybe you'll risk harassment from your local corrupt cops (if any, I'll just presume the worst here) and start up your own site... www.badcoptube.com or somesuch, and accept -only- videos of cops violating laws. I'm sure you could make a mint.
I would very much simply assume that any videos they do not want to investigate - whatever the content - will simply be deleted. I also assume that they will not be posting these videos immediately after upload (after all, if you take a video of some corpse and that gets published all over the place before the family is notified, that would be some manner of suckage that the dept responsible for the site would have to answer for).
So I don't see why anybody would even bother to use -this- service to upload videos of bad cops.. or, rather, this service -exclusively-.
I thought movies taught people as much.. "if something happens to me, you should know that 3 copies were also sent to major news outlets, blabla".
There still is.
I just caught an old Airwolf episode and thought "yikes.. who was that girl?".. that girl was Jill Whitlow. Huh. Let's google her.
#1: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Whitlow
#2: www.geocities.com/jillwhitlowfan/index.htm
#3 and all the rest: utter f'ing database-generated crap. Let's take the "tv.com" one;
http://www.tv.com/jill-whitlow/person/31200/summary.html
No biography, no photos, no trivia, no quotes. The *only* actual information in there is her credits - which are leeched off of other sites(!)
The same applies to pretty much all of the remaining results.
I'm gonna go archive that geocities site now - exactly as the summary suggests, as a *great* volume of information (in general, not just this Whitlow page) would be lost (presuming archive.org has failed to cache much of it / will stop serving the cached information if Yahoo decide to drop a disallowing spiders directive in there.).
...just to pass some filter, then you must think the song's very well-worth listening to.. which, to me, implies it ought to be worth buying.
If it's just some background music piece - I dunno, try another song.. plenty of royalty-free and even completely free ones (nope, they're probably not in the billboard top 100 right now - so sorry).
I'm more curious about the cases where there really IS fair use involved.. what happens in those cases.. do you get to hit a checkbox saying "I believe this is fair use, please proceed to accept my upload and continue with any potential infringement processes you believe are required."?
read up, whoever tagged this story with "!pirates"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio
piracy has widespread meanings, from the somali crazies type pirates to software/music/movie/etc. pirates to pirate radio communication.
just like hacker vs cracker, that battle was 'lost' many decades ago, probably before you were even born.
what do you mean, 'supposed to'? You're just as welcome to toss another provider's e-books on it (as long as THOSE don't have DRM that the Kindle doesn't support) as you are to toss MP3s from whatever source onto your iPod (not to be mistaken with the iPhone, clearly).
heh.. I had the same sentinment, but apparently.. and I'll quote the reply poster..
I'm no big fan of Jack Thompson, but in addition to what you said about any CAN-SPAM bits, this (if true) caught my eye..
"Stop sending me spam or I will not support your bill" sounds dangerously close to "send me $ or I will not support your bill". I realize that word on the street is that all politicians are corrupt anyway, but a public admission to in my opinion a less-than-honorable ethic? Yikes.
If Thompson's bill was worth supporting before, then his bill should still be worth supporting after annoying e-mails, spam or for all I care: murder. If it was only worth supporting because he liked the guy, then it was never worth supporting to begin with. Either way, Senator President Michael Waddoups needs to take a real close look at what he said.
We're not writing off ReiserFS just because Hans Reiser was convicted of murder - this should be no different.
( ReiserFS is being written off for technical reasons in many situations, but that's a different story on a different website. )
I wholeheartedly agree!
Any serious and professional effort should respect the wishes of the voters - even if those voters were swayed by media coverage and the name voted most for is Kjella's Left Nut. /sarcasm
The only unprofessional part here is that NASA were so naive as to think that 'the public' whom they serve actually knows what's best. The only non-serious part here IS that very same public who just voted for teh lulz. Colbert (dur), Serenity (hi firefly), Myyearbook (what the..? oh I just googled. I guess a more vocal bunch than the mySpace kids, eh?), or Gaia (err.. Earth? Or that other not-mySpace thing, Gaia online? Boxxy is rocks, btw.)? Those were *serious* suggestions?
I may not agree with what the choice eventually became, but I, for one, am glad they exercised their right to completely ignore the poll. I just hope they've learned to not hold one quite so publicly again.
I'm not sure where you're getting the .NET from. TFS reads "Firefox.next" - not "Firefox.NET" or somesuch. TFAs certainly don't mention any .NET.
At least they give some manner of justification - Microsoft themselves dropping support for Windows XP SP2 and anything older than that. fair 'nuff, I suppose - it's not like Firefox will magically stop working once they drop support and if somebody really, really wants to contribute patches to deal with older OS's, there's nothing really stopping them from doing so (or forking if the Mozilla peeps would actively block such patches from being included ).
"If you want chapters, menus and all that why would you use a 700 - 1400MB file size? You're better to go with a full DVD rip at around 5+ GB and get an exact copy of the disc."
Hear, hear - I was thinking the exact same thing: just make an ISO of the DVD and mount that whenever you want to play it.
The only criteria that this doesn't meet is the file size... big deal, get another 1TB drive... they're stupid-cheap now. On the up side, you're not re-encoding anything and if something better comes along down the line, you can still transcode from that ISO to that format without any further quality loss.
But I guess GP was talking about downloads (torrents/otherwise), in which case he probably doesn't have the original (DVD) media to begin with; in which case, sure, you may prefer the high quality MKV over a low-ish quality DiVX.. if you can't find the ISO anyway.
no, no difference.
parent poster replied to a post that also dealt with (private citizen) response to somebody criticizing Obama; that poster arguing that criticizing Bush never led to e.g. the plethora of comments deriding a person's (negative) opinion of Obama (the person, his actions, ideas, or even the government under him).
parent poster, in turn, pointed out that we all too soon forget that there were -plenty- of public derisions toward those who were critical of Bush - *especially* just before, during, and shortly after the invasion of Iraq. The Dixie Chicks thing being a prime example because it was in the media -far more- than just some 'nobody' disagreeing with the war and their neighbors labeling them a terrorist sympathizer and yelling at them "if you're not with us, you're against us", "UN-AMERICAN!", etc.
so yeah, no difference in terms of this particular comment thread branch.
You missed the GP poster who was referring to the act of people effectively abducting humans for the sole purpose of harvesting their organs. In the case of kidneys they could take 1, leave the remaining one be, and send the poor sod on their way, but more likely the person would simply be killed and their organs sold to the highest bidder.
The only reason that doesn't happen so much now (except potentially in China, to an extent) is due to the whole organ rejection thing. No good putting 'Type X' kidneys on the market if all your prospective clients within a reasonable distance need 'Type Y'.. and short of getting medical records on everybody, you can't see on the outside what type organ the person has.
With that out of the way, let the random killings and organ harvests begin.
( 'Organlegging'.. *sigh* Niven. )
hmmm.. so if I save it to my drive, I'm in the clear? win/win!
No, anyone still thinking 'cell phone' is just realizing they're already carrying an electronic device with them 95% of the time and don't want to have to deal with special shoes or having to move the thing + HUD (HUD? Should that be FUD - foots-up-display?) over to their new set of shoes or whatever.
Now.. if you're suggesting that the government sneak these into the soles of every shoe so they can track their citizens...' shoes..
Yeah, no, I'm still thinking 'cell phone' in this particular case - sorry. But maybe the cell phone can collect some of that energy you generate when you move, anyway - like the wristwatches.
Here's how: You fricken do it.
A designer says a container should be 20 pixels wide, the renderer best give the designer 20 pixels wide. Not 19. Not 21. Not some fuzzy number based on whatever the heck else surrounds that DIV. 20 pixels is 20 pixels. It's NOT that difficult to deal with. If it means the site doesn't scale well - screw it.. the designer should think of that when he specifies pixel values - it is NOT the browser's task to interpret what the designer 'meant to do' and change things around.
But this wasn't about different devices, resolutions, whatevertheheck. I even said as much. But if you absolutely must - very well. Let's define all positions and sizes as floating point percentages. Yes, on a 1600x1200 display, 25% width means 400 pixels and on a 800x600 machines it means 200 pixels. And that's fine - heck, that's awesome.
But at least, for the love of technical specifications, let TWO 1600x1200 displays using two different renderers BOTH give 400 pixels.. and not one 400 pixels, and the other 399. The 399 is simply *wrong* no matter how much irrelevant crap an apologist throws at it. But how can you tell it's wrong if, for example, the specifications merely say that a renderer 'may' render it as 400 pixels, but that if it so desires, it 'may' render it as 1 pixel, 31298 pixels, whatever?
If you've ever messed with some of the more intricate web design bits and pieces, you'll quickly notice there can be vast differences between how engines render things, even when ignoring IE (and not counting non-graphical renderers). /nokarma
The Region 1 DVDs - which are, well, DVDs... they're discs. With data.. video and audio and some other bits and pieces to define chapters, menu selections, etc. but data - require a television and a power converter?
Presuming you meant the DVD player... wouldn't Brown -have- a player that works on the UK electric system?
Presuming you meant that Obama *included* a DVD player... ever looked at the backs of those things to find the power specs? By and large, electronic devices are 110V/240V compatible out of the box. The only place I've not seen the compatibility out of the box recently was on an old computer (PS/2 keyboard/mouse, running Windows 98).. and even that had a switch on the PSU to toggle between the two voltages. It's just cheaper for manufacturers to buy the dual-voltage modules as those are pumped out by the bajillions vs the millions for voltage-specific ones and having to deal with including a different one in each package.
At worst, he'd have to get a different *plug* for the machine. Those are $1.50 at your nearest Best Buy-style store. Even that may not be necessary, however; I just bought a Western Digital external drive.. it came with plugs for the EU and UK included.
Personally I'm not fond of that as it's just waste (I'll end up tossing one of them), but there ya go.
On to NTSC/PAL - you'd have to buy a pretty shitty DVD player if it doesn't know what to do with an 'NTSC' stream playing back to a PAL device, or vice versa. That's nothing special about the streams on the disc, btw.. those are just MPEG2 video data streams that match an NTSC or PAL spec (i.e. pixel dimensions, frame rate). The part of the DVD player that matters is the part that converts the dimensions and FPS to the proper output for the device you're displaying on, and that tends to be a menu option (NTSC/PAL/SECAM).
But he certainly doesn't need an NTSC television.
Of course they have 'the right' to protect their secrets - as in this case, their identity. However, do they have a legal leg to stand on in trying to fight somebody who has made that secret public? I'd say they don't.
So, yes, anybody - politician or otherwise - should be perfectly allowed to blow somebody's 'anonymity' if there was no agreement between the two parties to maintain that anonymity (as in some court proceedings, witness protection program, etc. etc.).
That's no argument against the fact that presuming that, as per your example (which GP didn't give),
- Arial IS available
- The user IS NOT overriding the document style
- The window size etc. IS the same (or the website is presented in a fixed-width format to begin with)
things still do not render the same even between browsers that supposedly use the same engines.
I lay much of the blame with the W3C. All that fuzziness with "A browser MIGHT display this as:" and "a browser MAY ...". All that has no place in 'strict' documents. Either the browser renders it exactly the way as specced, or it doesn't follow the spec. Sounds simple enough, but apparently as long as you just do things 'close enough', you're standards-compliant.
Doesn't take away that IE is indeed, by far, the worst of the bunch (IE/FF/Opera/Safari/Chrome), but to dismiss the fact that there are differences between even the 'standards-compliant' engines/browsers as "well they're just minor differences" (as per your sibling poster) or "you probably just didn't design your site right" is a bit silly
Nor does English or any other 'western' language if you check out some of these manuals' translations from whatever the original language is. I'd prefer to think actual textbooks used for studies would work as a 'rosetta stone', along with dictionaries.
What, and the Egyptians did?
You're free to point out now that no.. they didn't; and as a result, we now know far less about ancient Egypt than we would like; such as definitive answers on how them pyramids were built and such
On the other hand, we don't know about Tsot's epic burp either. I'm not sure that's such a great loss.
Nor do I think it is a particularly great loss that people still don't seem to be in agreement about how the pyramids were built; after all, it has fueled an entire industry around 'Egyptian mysteries' - from actual scientific studies to entertainment.
As Cruyff would say: Every disadvantage has its advantage.
That's right - The Netherlands are hiring again!
You didn't like them nearly enough, clearly.
That's not to say that I believe your particular blocking of their ads is directly responsible for their downfall - but the many thousands of people blocking ads can't have helped. I'm as fond of adblock as the next guy, but if I like a free site and it hasn't thrown some full-page Flash ad at me yet, they can shovel ads in my face all they like - I get a free service in return, I have no complaints.