Re:So what happens when Rush Lambaugh gets flaged?
on
Google Reacts to Splogs
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
I'm sure you'd love nothing more than to see Limbaugh and other conservative radio personalities silenced.
But wait, I thought free speech was good, and censorship bad!
I had exactly that thought when I read this article. People are going to start reporting blogs with which they disagree as spam in an attempt to have it shut down. I'm surprised (ok, not reallt) to see this kind of sentiment show up here.
1. "It would certianly look good on a mayors resume to say that he provided the whole city with internet access, but..."
...it would be patenly false. The mayor isn't giving anything. Taxpayers are.
2. "the people who would benefit most from this are the upper middle class who already have wireless enable commputers. I don't see this doing a lot for those who can't already aford access themsleves."
Hence defeating the original intent of the mayor's generosity.
So what this really comes down to is a taxpayer-funded campaign for the mayor.
Just so I'm sure I'm understanding you, are you saying that a country's access (as in physical access, not whether or not people can afford it) to broadband Internet is a good measure of that country's prosperity?
Around these parts, this might be debatable, but broadband Internet is NOT a necessity. It is a luxury. People don't NEED it. Why the hell is this "news" every few months on Slashdot?? Why is boradband access considered as some kind of poverty measurement?
There's plenty of people here (in the U.S.) who can't afford to pay for necessities like rent, utilities, food, and medicine. Let's fix that before we take on the plight of people who are forced to download pr0n at 56K.
No middle ground will be realized until both sides of this issue grow the hell up.
The RIAA uses unprecidented strongarm tactics to essentially preserve their outdated business model in law. They charge very high prices for CDs, restrict their usage, and then wonder why their customers aren't happy. Grow up.
On the other hand, you have a multitude of excuses for piracy. The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite, as it in no way justifies breaking of the law. I also hear that music sucks these days, and it's not worth buying. Yet the same people fill their hard drives with this "crap". That's hypocritical. Grow up.
So where's the middle ground? One side wants too much money, and the other side doesn't want to pay anything. Good luck with that!
Developers need to keep in mind that (X)HTML should be used to establish structure, and CSS for display.
When you've used HTML for display your whole career (at the expense of structure), it's hard to think of a good page as two necessarily separate parts.
It doesn't help that browsers support bad code either.
I'm reading that book too, but I have a different take on why it took three CSS "experts" to re-code that page.
It's not CSS' fault; it's the noncompliant browsers. Zeldman's book is basically about using CSS to build a standards-compliant web site that renders properly on a variety of non-compliant browsers.
Given the differing level of support among the browsers out there, it's no wonder that one has to jump through some hoops to get a consistent display.
For not I'm sticking with CSS1 until there is better browser support for CSS2. It's great to be standards-compliant, but it's kind of pointless if the majority of browsers can't read it properly. Just my $0.02.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure you'd love nothing more than to see Limbaugh and other conservative radio personalities silenced.
But wait, I thought free speech was good, and censorship bad!
I had exactly that thought when I read this article. People are going to start reporting blogs with which they disagree as spam in an attempt to have it shut down. I'm surprised (ok, not reallt) to see this kind of sentiment show up here.
I wonder what the definition of "low cost" becomes when the taxpayer subsidy is included in the cost figures.
...it would be patenly false. The mayor isn't giving anything. Taxpayers are.
2. "the people who would benefit most from this are the upper middle class who already have wireless enable commputers. I don't see this doing a lot for those who can't already aford access themsleves."
Hence defeating the original intent of the mayor's generosity.
So what this really comes down to is a taxpayer-funded campaign for the mayor.
How do I connect to Blizzard's servers so they can validate that I am running a legally-purchased copy of their card game?
And every byte is in legal, bought-and-paid-for music, right?
Just so I'm sure I'm understanding you, are you saying that a country's access (as in physical access, not whether or not people can afford it) to broadband Internet is a good measure of that country's prosperity?
By Embracing and Extending!
*ducks*
I wasn't aware that access to telephone service was a problem here.
Not to mention mathematics, reading comprehension, history, civics, science. Once upon a time, those were taught in schools.
Yes, that is a pain in the ass. However that isn't same as not having access to the Internet.
Anybody who has a phone can get dialup access.
Why is this a Big Deal (tm)?
Around these parts, this might be debatable, but broadband Internet is NOT a necessity. It is a luxury. People don't NEED it. Why the hell is this "news" every few months on Slashdot?? Why is boradband access considered as some kind of poverty measurement?
There's plenty of people here (in the U.S.) who can't afford to pay for necessities like rent, utilities, food, and medicine. Let's fix that before we take on the plight of people who are forced to download pr0n at 56K.
Let's talk about that. I'd bet at this point that scientists can make a nutritional paste that provides 100% of a person's nutritional needs.
Why then should we continue destroying the earth with crop farming? Pesticides, fuel, wasted water... how immoral!!
Taking your statement to its logical conclusion, taste = waste.
But that's what makes it so DAMNED DELICIOUS!!
And I think by "fun" you meant "food".
The merits of this patent aside, you have an odd take on "obvious".
Buttered bread = obvious
I don't think that a compact device with tiny complex electronic components that stores and plays back audio files quite fits that same definition.
Where in fair use rights is permission to make unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted works?
Fair use is fine and dandy. Copyright infringement is not.
I never understood that argument. If they are so willing to pay for music, why are they copying in the first place?
Not a troll; I honestly don't get it...
No middle ground will be realized until both sides of this issue grow the hell up.
The RIAA uses unprecidented strongarm tactics to essentially preserve their outdated business model in law. They charge very high prices for CDs, restrict their usage, and then wonder why their customers aren't happy. Grow up.
On the other hand, you have a multitude of excuses for piracy. The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite, as it in no way justifies breaking of the law. I also hear that music sucks these days, and it's not worth buying. Yet the same people fill their hard drives with this "crap". That's hypocritical. Grow up.
So where's the middle ground? One side wants too much money, and the other side doesn't want to pay anything. Good luck with that!
Is that in America's near future?
For starters, a MUCH larger market.
Are there any plans for a player hall of (f/sh)ame?
Developers need to keep in mind that (X)HTML should be used to establish structure, and CSS for display.
When you've used HTML for display your whole career (at the expense of structure), it's hard to think of a good page as two necessarily separate parts.
It doesn't help that browsers support bad code either.
1. You don't have to modify every .html file when it comes time to re-design.
2. Accessibility - your site will be readable by screen-readers and PDAs.
3. You can use standalone CSS to control the overall dosplay, and in-line CSS to control page-specific elements.
I wouldn't call myself a CSS "expert", but I am a recent convert.
I'm reading that book too, but I have a different take on why it took three CSS "experts" to re-code that page.
It's not CSS' fault; it's the noncompliant browsers. Zeldman's book is basically about using CSS to build a standards-compliant web site that renders properly on a variety of non-compliant browsers.
Given the differing level of support among the browsers out there, it's no wonder that one has to jump through some hoops to get a consistent display.
For not I'm sticking with CSS1 until there is better browser support for CSS2. It's great to be standards-compliant, but it's kind of pointless if the majority of browsers can't read it properly. Just my $0.02.