My personal disagreement with Flash begins when it is pushed as "content enhancement" of some description. It's clearly not and I daresay that we Flash-detractors would be a smaller group if, as you have, Flash-fans would just be honest WRT its role as pure candy instead of a "useful tool".
It really sounds like you aren't familiar with part of the "graphic designer" ethos that is that the presentation of information should not only present the information, but also contribute "beauty and art" to our everyday lives as it does so. Magazines are designed not only to present the information, but also to please the eye, something that a computer/browser won't properly do and that HTML does nothing to help. You seem to think that art and information presentation are mutually exclusive. They're not and shouldn't be.
The whole point of this argument that I disagree with is, "We should get rid of flash because it isn't accessible to everyone and doesn't add any value." I say it does. It adds visual value. It makes my page look better. It can be used to convey information in the way that the designer wanted it presented, and the designer doesn't have to hack HTML to get it to work.
Why is there a need for Flash or animated.GIFs other than in the artistic genre that we have already discussed?
See my above point about how you shouldn't have to seperate art and information presentation.
That's your problem. The original argument was that using flash makes your content inaccessable to those who run browsers and platforms that don't support it. Since yours *does* support it, I don't see how you can complain that you can't access Flash sites.
I've intentionally crippled Flash on many systems I run because I tired of bullshit flashing stuff that can't be stopped by hitting the Esc key or using the view->stop menu sequence.
So I take that you don't play any games, all your cursors don't blink and your mouse pointer never turns into a busy timer.
Rumor has it that useful content has been conveyed using Flash. I've never seen this personally though.
Why does everything on the web have to be useful? Can't it just be art?
Re:I'm sorry to say I agree with the court ruling
on
ADA Doesn't Apply to Web
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"presentation over content"
In other words, art. Does *everything* have to be useful, efficient, and informative? Can't it just be pretty?
Flash is big, slow, needless and just another excuse to dazzle your audience to a point where they neglect to notice the fact that there's no meat in the sandwich.
No, animated GIFs are big and slow. Flash is actually quite efficient in its use of bandwidth. Flash does things visually that you *can't do* with HTML. What would you like to me to use?
And, please, don't point me toward any of the "hilarious" Flash cartoon sites, because they, in more ways than just this, don't count for much.
I don't think that these are any better than you do, but since we're not talking about the value of the content here, just the transmission of that content, how good it is is irrelevant. So, um, how do you expect those folks to actually distribute their content if not with Flash?
Re:I'm sorry to say I agree with the court ruling
on
ADA Doesn't Apply to Web
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
They're not searchable.
Why not? Google searches PDFs, Word docs, etc. The text for Flash is there, you just have to parse it out. It isn't any harder to search a Flash animation than it is a PDF (which you suggested in your other post as a good way to present graphically designed web sites).
I can't view them on my system.
Again, why not? Flash players exist for almost every platform. Maybe you should get a different system. I can't view HTML on my pocket calculator. That doesn't mean that HTML isn't accessible.
They assume a given browsing paradigm.
So does HTML. They assume that you're using an HTML browser. What if I want to use a gopher browser to view their web pages?
Much of the value in the web is in information that can be categorized and operated on meaningfully by software, which flash animations cannot.
I really don't much care about whether or not people or software can categorize and operate on my web page. When folks create a web page (like any other information), it is for a certain audience and they want it presented in the way they want it presented to that audience.
It really bugs me that there are folks who seem to want to "live in the old days" when "HTML was HTML and didn't have all these fancy-ass plugins". It's called progress folks. I don't really care what "the web was meant to be used for". People are using the web in ways that were never concieved when HTML was created. It wasn't created with the disabled in mind. ALT tags were created for folks who didn't have a graphical terminal.
hyper TEXT markup language was never meant to include graphics. And what is wrong with GRAPHICS? Humans are visual creatures. A picture says a thousand words. Any decent web designer (and even the W3C zealots) will admit that HTML sucks. It's four thousand hacks layered on top of other hacks. And while you may think that graphics don't add to the web, a million other humans disagree.
What my question is, is why isn't everyone who is complaining about Flash working to create an accessible alternative? Why don't they create an alternative to HTML that makes it easy to create a well-designed (visually) site that is accesible to all users?
Let's try to improve the system, instead of trying to force people to stick to the old, inflexible way of doing it. Ban Flash, ban HTML, do something better.
Re:I'm sorry to say I agree with the court ruling
on
ADA Doesn't Apply to Web
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
HTML is not the web. Much of the web is made up of flash animations, which I think are PERFECTLY FINE and can do a lot more than simple HTML.
Disclaimer: I don't agree with gene patents or most patents for that matter.
Now if the patent is for a specific test to check for that gene, as opposed to the gene itself, that would make sense, but the articles seam not to point it that way.
The test itself probably includes the gene or some part of the gene. That's how they do it.
He refers to "Linux development" not "GNU/Linux". That in itself gives me reason to suspect that it's a forgery.
That's actually a point towards showing that it isn't a forgery. A forger, in an attempt to sound as much like RMS as possible, would probably use GNU/Linux all over the place, and in the wrong place. RMS is quite adamant about the *correct* usage of "Linux", which is the kernel, and that's it. So his use of the term, "Linux development", in reference to kernel development, would be quite correct and much like RMS.
There is an entire world of hardware hacking out there made possible by the open architecture of the PC. Go down to your local electronics jobber ( or Radio Shack if that's all your town has) and you will find everything you need to make your own interface cards from scratch.
I guess it's a difference in opinion on what "hardware hacking" means. I see hardware hacking as taking an existing piece of hardware and doing something to it, with a minimal amount of original creation, to make it do something that it was never designed to do. But creating your own card doesn't really fall into that category for me.
It isn't if you're trying to make a quiet machine, like one in your living room. Or if you're just tired of yelling to your coworkers over the sound on your harddrive.
I think that the PC folks tend to overrate the amount of hardware tweaking they can actually do that makes any difference, other than putting some new video card in. Tweaking the BIOS sounds neat, but the truth is that you can't do that much to make your computer "do magic things" by just hacking around the BIOS or moving jumpers around. You can't double your RAM, you can't make your video card become a sound card, without the software that is actually doing the hack.
A car is not a copyrighted work. Your analogy is poor and misleading.
Actually, it is. The car itself isn't copyrighted, but the design certainly is. Same with books, the paper, glue, and binding isn't copyrighted, the words are. Of course you can't copyright "stuff", copyright is for information.
If he decides to change the design of the car, then fine, he can do what he wants. Haven't ever heard of custom vans? Can he build a car that copies the design of a Audi? No, he would be violating Audi's copyright.
Now, they might not care since the nature of the industry doesn't make this type of behavior very profitable, but they could if they felt like it.
but Linux machines can read/write FAT and read NTFS
Um, yes. That is what he said. I guess I have to spell it out to you. He said that Linux machines can read/write FAT and can read NTFS. He only said read NTFS. He didn't say read/write NTFS like he said read/write FAT
When an artist (whatever kind of artist) sells some of his work, he hasn't given up the right to distribute it the way he wants.
Every heard of limited edition prints? The artist wants to keep the value of his artwork high and so only releases a select number of prints of his work. You're saying that just because you were a lind a copy because they're SOLD OUT, you should be able to make your own copy for free? WRONG.
Just because you "want to use it", doesn't mean that I have to give you a copy or you have the right to get one. If an artist sells me ONE copy of his work, that doesn't give me the right distribute it all over the place if the original artist decides not to sell any more copies.
Now, of course, if for historical reasons, you want to keep a copy, and the copyright holder isn't telling you not to and ignoring copyright violations, then fine. The copyright holder has basically said, "I don't really care what you do with this stuff, and I'm not planning on do anything with." But this is not the case with NES roms, which this annoucement clearly shows. They are still deriving value from the work they did those many years ago, which is what copyright does and should be doing.
And guess what, no matter how much they charge for it, if they're still publishing it, then it is unethical to copy it. I don't care if they're selling pong for $5000 a pop. If you don't want to pay that much, then TOO BAD. You don't get it.
Except now Nintendo won't be able to sell as many games since a certain portion of potential buyers will say, "Why should I buy this thing when I can get an NES emulator for my GB advance?" I agree with abandonware, when it is really abandonware. If you're giving away something as abandonware, and the company isn't complaining, then it's abandonware, but Nintendo has made it clear that they don't want folks distributing their games, even the old ones. NES roms aren't abandonware.
Difference is that the Japanese refused to surrender or negotiate. They wanted to take over our nation, they wanted to conquer us. They attacked us first. They refused to surrender even after the first bombing. That shows me that they didn't even care enough about their own people to surrender after that attack. They decided to sacrifice more of their own people because they thought that they could still win. I think any government that condones kamikaze attacks has shown that extreme measures are required to defeat them.
And remember, the most important thing: They wanted to take over the United States.
Maybe we should have a category, +1: Important. Because his post is important exactly because the whole damn article is about him. I certainly think that any of his posts are important to the discussion.
I'm betting that the folks that you call Christians who call themselves Christians but really aren't, are the folks that don't agree with *your* interpretation of Christs teachings. I'm a Mormon (who *are* Christian, contrary to what your preacher told you) and routinely hear this silliness from born-agains and other myopic new testament believers, and frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing it. May I ask, what do you think the word means? Where do you think it comes from? If we ignore doctrine altogether, then all it means is someone who follows Christ in some fashion. That's it. No more is required. You don't have to believe most of what he said, or even believe that he existed. You just have to follow his teachings in some way. Just because I don't follow your interpretation of things, doesn't mean that I am not a Christian. And saying that I give Christians a bad name because of it is so insulting and rude, as to be a non-Christian act in itself.
Christ himself said, take my name upon you. That is what I've done, and I am Christian, no matter what you say.
And maybe you missed something in the Old Testament (which is part of the Bible, and not just Psalms and Proverbs, the whole thing), but Judaism is true in many ways. Jesus came and corrected some people who were nitpicking too much, but they weren't wrong in every way. The Old Testament is as much a part of the Bible as the New.
Although you may think that the "faith" side of the faith vs works debate is the obvious and correct side, many folks around the world don't agree with you, but that doesn't make them non-Christian.
When we die we are judged and this is it.
Judged based on what? I thought there weren't any rules? How can we be judged if everything is okay? In a court, when there is no law, the judge cannot make a decision.
Not for me. It's an opinion, how can it be the "correct one"? It may be the most important reason to you, but not to everyone else. The nature of what you're saying makes it impossible to be the "correct one".
Do you realize that all four reasons you gave for using Linux only exist because it's Free?
Wrong again bucko. Linus didn't release Linux for free to make some sort of statement about Free software. He released it that way because it was useless in the beginning. He couldn't sell it (not that he even tried or thought to do so), so he just gave it away because he thought others might find it useful.
And sorry, software doesn't have to be Free to be flexible and allow for innovative uses. The source code to most of the original versions of the beloved GNU tools were all closed source. UNIX started out at proprietary as any other software. And lots of people found it very useful. My entire distro could be closed source and I would still find it useful.
Well, and at the end of the day, I do like the fact that using Free software forces, in a small way, the folks like Microsoft to keep their act together, but it certainly isn't the most compelling/important/whatever reason for me using it.
It's called Freedom. It's always been the most compelling reason to use Free Software, although it's usually overlooked.
I don't think that proprietary software is the most important problem facing humanity. I think it's fine, I still buy it after all. But I also think that the existence of Free Software is a good thing and a very valid reason for using Linux.
First of all, I was using sarcasm to make a point. But your first post states "Freedom" is the "most compelling reason to use Free software" like it is some natural law (sarcasm again, get it?). The reality is that your view is the minority one.
Slashdot Mirror
I was commenting that Flash is crap
Oh! How wonderfully eloquent this rebuttal is! I must bow to the, admit my failings, and declare to the world that indeed, "Flash is crap".
BTW, do you have a *good* reason for your insightful opinion?
My personal disagreement with Flash begins when it is pushed as "content enhancement" of some description. It's clearly not and I daresay that we Flash-detractors would be a smaller group if, as you have, Flash-fans would just be honest WRT its role as pure candy instead of a "useful tool".
.GIFs other than in the artistic genre that we have already discussed?
It really sounds like you aren't familiar with part of the "graphic designer" ethos that is that the presentation of information should not only present the information, but also contribute "beauty and art" to our everyday lives as it does so. Magazines are designed not only to present the information, but also to please the eye, something that a computer/browser won't properly do and that HTML does nothing to help. You seem to think that art and information presentation are mutually exclusive. They're not and shouldn't be.
The whole point of this argument that I disagree with is, "We should get rid of flash because it isn't accessible to everyone and doesn't add any value." I say it does. It adds visual value. It makes my page look better. It can be used to convey information in the way that the designer wanted it presented, and the designer doesn't have to hack HTML to get it to work.
Why is there a need for Flash or animated
See my above point about how you shouldn't have to seperate art and information presentation.
I could use Flash on my system.
That's your problem. The original argument was that using flash makes your content inaccessable to those who run browsers and platforms that don't support it. Since yours *does* support it, I don't see how you can complain that you can't access Flash sites.
I've intentionally crippled Flash on many systems I run because I tired of bullshit flashing stuff that can't be stopped by hitting the Esc key or using the view->stop menu sequence.
So I take that you don't play any games, all your cursors don't blink and your mouse pointer never turns into a busy timer.
Rumor has it that useful content has been conveyed using Flash. I've never seen this personally though.
Why does everything on the web have to be useful? Can't it just be art?
"presentation over content"
In other words, art. Does *everything* have to be useful, efficient, and informative? Can't it just be pretty?
Flash is big, slow, needless and just another excuse to dazzle your audience to a point where they neglect to notice the fact that there's no meat in the sandwich.
No, animated GIFs are big and slow. Flash is actually quite efficient in its use of bandwidth. Flash does things visually that you *can't do* with HTML. What would you like to me to use?
And, please, don't point me toward any of the "hilarious" Flash cartoon sites, because they, in more ways than just this, don't count for much.
I don't think that these are any better than you do, but since we're not talking about the value of the content here, just the transmission of that content, how good it is is irrelevant. So, um, how do you expect those folks to actually distribute their content if not with Flash?
They're not searchable.
Why not? Google searches PDFs, Word docs, etc. The text for Flash is there, you just have to parse it out. It isn't any harder to search a Flash animation than it is a PDF (which you suggested in your other post as a good way to present graphically designed web sites).
I can't view them on my system.
Again, why not? Flash players exist for almost every platform. Maybe you should get a different system. I can't view HTML on my pocket calculator. That doesn't mean that HTML isn't accessible.
They assume a given browsing paradigm.
So does HTML. They assume that you're using an HTML browser. What if I want to use a gopher browser to view their web pages?
Much of the value in the web is in information that can be categorized and operated on meaningfully by software, which flash animations cannot.
I really don't much care about whether or not people or software can categorize and operate on my web page. When folks create a web page (like any other information), it is for a certain audience and they want it presented in the way they want it presented to that audience.
It really bugs me that there are folks who seem to want to "live in the old days" when "HTML was HTML and didn't have all these fancy-ass plugins". It's called progress folks. I don't really care what "the web was meant to be used for". People are using the web in ways that were never concieved when HTML was created. It wasn't created with the disabled in mind. ALT tags were created for folks who didn't have a graphical terminal.
hyper TEXT markup language was never meant to include graphics. And what is wrong with GRAPHICS? Humans are visual creatures. A picture says a thousand words. Any decent web designer (and even the W3C zealots) will admit that HTML sucks. It's four thousand hacks layered on top of other hacks. And while you may think that graphics don't add to the web, a million other humans disagree.
What my question is, is why isn't everyone who is complaining about Flash working to create an accessible alternative? Why don't they create an alternative to HTML that makes it easy to create a well-designed (visually) site that is accesible to all users?
Let's try to improve the system, instead of trying to force people to stick to the old, inflexible way of doing it. Ban Flash, ban HTML, do something better.
HTML is not the web. Much of the web is made up of flash animations, which I think are PERFECTLY FINE and can do a lot more than simple HTML.
Disclaimer: I don't agree with gene patents or most patents for that matter.
Now if the patent is for a specific test to check for that gene, as opposed to the gene itself, that would make sense, but the articles seam not to point it that way.
The test itself probably includes the gene or some part of the gene. That's how they do it.
He refers to "Linux development" not "GNU/Linux". That in itself gives me reason to suspect that it's a forgery.
That's actually a point towards showing that it isn't a forgery. A forger, in an attempt to sound as much like RMS as possible, would probably use GNU/Linux all over the place, and in the wrong place. RMS is quite adamant about the *correct* usage of "Linux", which is the kernel, and that's it. So his use of the term, "Linux development", in reference to kernel development, would be quite correct and much like RMS.
Actually, the star trek fans might be quite upset, since trek "canon" places Vulcan in orbit around Eridani?
Also, somebody already tried naming a non-existant planet between mercury and the sun, vulcan. It would be confusing.
Then what may I ask, do they use?
There is an entire world of hardware hacking out there made possible by the open architecture of the PC. Go down to your local electronics jobber ( or Radio Shack if that's all your town has) and you will find everything you need to make your own interface cards from scratch.
I guess it's a difference in opinion on what "hardware hacking" means. I see hardware hacking as taking an existing piece of hardware and doing something to it, with a minimal amount of original creation, to make it do something that it was never designed to do. But creating your own card doesn't really fall into that category for me.
It isn't if you're trying to make a quiet machine, like one in your living room. Or if you're just tired of yelling to your coworkers over the sound on your harddrive.
I think that the PC folks tend to overrate the amount of hardware tweaking they can actually do that makes any difference, other than putting some new video card in. Tweaking the BIOS sounds neat, but the truth is that you can't do that much to make your computer "do magic things" by just hacking around the BIOS or moving jumpers around. You can't double your RAM, you can't make your video card become a sound card, without the software that is actually doing the hack.
Most cool hacks are software, not hardware.
On a more Darwinistic note, I was at the book store a while back and saw "Sex for Dummies" and "Parenting for Dummies."
If you expand the title to "Sex for Dummies about Sex", then the book should be a big seller among slashdotites.
A car is not a copyrighted work. Your analogy is poor and misleading.
Actually, it is. The car itself isn't copyrighted, but the design certainly is. Same with books, the paper, glue, and binding isn't copyrighted, the words are. Of course you can't copyright "stuff", copyright is for information.
If he decides to change the design of the car, then fine, he can do what he wants. Haven't ever heard of custom vans? Can he build a car that copies the design of a Audi? No, he would be violating Audi's copyright.
Now, they might not care since the nature of the industry doesn't make this type of behavior very profitable, but they could if they felt like it.
but Linux machines can read/write FAT and read NTFS
Um, yes. That is what he said. I guess I have to spell it out to you. He said that Linux machines can read/write FAT and can read NTFS. He only said read NTFS. He didn't say read/write NTFS like he said read/write FAT
Read the post before replying next time.
No it isn't ethical. Sorry.
When an artist (whatever kind of artist) sells some of his work, he hasn't given up the right to distribute it the way he wants.
Every heard of limited edition prints? The artist wants to keep the value of his artwork high and so only releases a select number of prints of his work. You're saying that just because you were a lind a copy because they're SOLD OUT, you should be able to make your own copy for free? WRONG.
Just because you "want to use it", doesn't mean that I have to give you a copy or you have the right to get one. If an artist sells me ONE copy of his work, that doesn't give me the right distribute it all over the place if the original artist decides not to sell any more copies.
Now, of course, if for historical reasons, you want to keep a copy, and the copyright holder isn't telling you not to and ignoring copyright violations, then fine. The copyright holder has basically said, "I don't really care what you do with this stuff, and I'm not planning on do anything with." But this is not the case with NES roms, which this annoucement clearly shows. They are still deriving value from the work they did those many years ago, which is what copyright does and should be doing.
And guess what, no matter how much they charge for it, if they're still publishing it, then it is unethical to copy it. I don't care if they're selling pong for $5000 a pop. If you don't want to pay that much, then TOO BAD. You don't get it.
Except now Nintendo won't be able to sell as many games since a certain portion of potential buyers will say, "Why should I buy this thing when I can get an NES emulator for my GB advance?" I agree with abandonware, when it is really abandonware. If you're giving away something as abandonware, and the company isn't complaining, then it's abandonware, but Nintendo has made it clear that they don't want folks distributing their games, even the old ones. NES roms aren't abandonware.
Really? Isn't that what the parent poster said? read(not write) NTFS. You're a friggin' genius
Difference is that the Japanese refused to surrender or negotiate. They wanted to take over our nation, they wanted to conquer us. They attacked us first. They refused to surrender even after the first bombing. That shows me that they didn't even care enough about their own people to surrender after that attack. They decided to sacrifice more of their own people because they thought that they could still win. I think any government that condones kamikaze attacks has shown that extreme measures are required to defeat them.
And remember, the most important thing: They wanted to take over the United States.
Maybe we should have a category, +1: Important. Because his post is important exactly because the whole damn article is about him. I certainly think that any of his posts are important to the discussion.
I'm betting that the folks that you call Christians who call themselves Christians but really aren't, are the folks that don't agree with *your* interpretation of Christs teachings. I'm a Mormon (who *are* Christian, contrary to what your preacher told you) and routinely hear this silliness from born-agains and other myopic new testament believers, and frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing it. May I ask, what do you think the word means? Where do you think it comes from? If we ignore doctrine altogether, then all it means is someone who follows Christ in some fashion. That's it. No more is required. You don't have to believe most of what he said, or even believe that he existed. You just have to follow his teachings in some way. Just because I don't follow your interpretation of things, doesn't mean that I am not a Christian. And saying that I give Christians a bad name because of it is so insulting and rude, as to be a non-Christian act in itself.
Christ himself said, take my name upon you. That is what I've done, and I am Christian, no matter what you say.
And maybe you missed something in the Old Testament (which is part of the Bible, and not just Psalms and Proverbs, the whole thing), but Judaism is true in many ways. Jesus came and corrected some people who were nitpicking too much, but they weren't wrong in every way. The Old Testament is as much a part of the Bible as the New.
Although you may think that the "faith" side of the faith vs works debate is the obvious and correct side, many folks around the world don't agree with you, but that doesn't make them non-Christian.
When we die we are judged and this is it.
Judged based on what? I thought there weren't any rules? How can we be judged if everything is okay? In a court, when there is no law, the judge cannot make a decision.
10 hours? I wish I had that kind of free time.
True, but it is the correct one.
Not for me. It's an opinion, how can it be the "correct one"? It may be the most important reason to you, but not to everyone else. The nature of what you're saying makes it impossible to be the "correct one".
Do you realize that all four reasons you gave for using Linux only exist because it's Free?
Wrong again bucko. Linus didn't release Linux for free to make some sort of statement about Free software. He released it that way because it was useless in the beginning. He couldn't sell it (not that he even tried or thought to do so), so he just gave it away because he thought others might find it useful.
And sorry, software doesn't have to be Free to be flexible and allow for innovative uses. The source code to most of the original versions of the beloved GNU tools were all closed source. UNIX started out at proprietary as any other software. And lots of people found it very useful. My entire distro could be closed source and I would still find it useful.
Well, and at the end of the day, I do like the fact that using Free software forces, in a small way, the folks like Microsoft to keep their act together, but it certainly isn't the most compelling/important/whatever reason for me using it.
From your initial post:
It's called Freedom. It's always been the most compelling reason to use Free Software, although it's usually overlooked.
I don't think that proprietary software is the most important problem facing humanity. I think it's fine, I still buy it after all. But I also think that the existence of Free Software is a good thing and a very valid reason for using Linux.
First of all, I was using sarcasm to make a point. But your first post states "Freedom" is the "most compelling reason to use Free software" like it is some natural law (sarcasm again, get it?). The reality is that your view is the minority one.