Before Google Suggest (and later GMail) caught everybody's attention, it languished relatively unknown to most developers for years.
I don't know about "most developers". It really was widely used in the Microsoft dev world. I personally interviewed probably a half-dozen people who had hands-on "AJAX" experience in 2002. The technique had been populalized in certain "portal" products. People just didn't like to talk about it because it was one of those uncool IE-only proprietary intranet things.
I hate to argue analogies, but it is more like the US Government declared every burger joint to be a McDonalds, and then just sat back and watched them all put up McDonalds signs. Surely you'll admit that the post-9/11 terror seen is "Al-Qaeda" in name only.
One has to realize that [Proving controled demo of WTC7] wouldn't [change the political reality], so therefore harping on this stuff is really a pointless activity.
Supposedly, the vast majority of blind surfers use some form of Internet Explorer plugin. Lynx is just an old obsolete HTML2 browser -- it wasn't designed to be an accessibility tool and shouldn't be treated as the standard for such.
Uh, South Vietnam collapsed and was taken over by the Communists, which is exactly what the US was trying to prevent. How would that ever be considered a "draw"?
I think the point is: the buildings were demolished.
My point, which you so deftly ignored, is "So What?". You have a lot more dots to connect before it means anything to anyone other than your fellow loons.
No, if you were paying attention, you would have realized I am not suggesting any theories about WTC7 at all. What I am suggesting is that you and your site is a gigantic waste of time that will amount to nothing, politically. Have fun.
HTML renderers are far too lenient when it comes to rendering markup that doesn't comply to the standard.
When HTML was introduced, "lenient" was advertised as a feature, not a fault. Therefore every browser ever made supports lenient/quirks HTML and probably will for the next 5-10 years.
web developers and programmers responsible for writing the renderers are both at fault for not promoting adoption and compliance to the HTML standards.
The HTML standards were pretty much pointless before HTML4 and CSS2 made a coherent effort to clean things up.
The HTML 3.2 standard was intended to document existing practice, but left an ton of things out that were universially supported. Therefore it never really made sense to validate a HTML3.2 site because you'd get a million errors that were defects in the spec and not the page. And since there was no real standard, "anything goes" replaced it.
So what you are seeing is the process of introducing strict standards onto an enormous system that was designed not to be overly concerned with standards. It might be frustrating to see this process take decades rather than mearly years, but that's life.
If there's no ALT tag, Lynx shows "[IMAGE]" which is probably not what you want for a spacer. That's more of a browser-reason than a spec-reason however.
WombatControl -- I didn't mean to imply that Al-Qaeda did not exist, and I'm fully aware of the "The Database" explaination. However, by positioning Al-Qaeda as something much larger than what it actually was, the US Government's propaganda effort essentially created "Al-Qaeda London", "Al-Qaeda Spain", and "Al-Qaeda Iraq" out of random disorganized groups, thus mainfesting a "worldwide" enemy were there simply was not one before.
The BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares", expounds on this theory. You may have seen it already, but I might as well recommend it for other slashdotters: http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmare s
Cyno -- read my other posts in this story, and then go have your stupid conspiracy theory argument with someone else. Your reactionary peabrain didn't even comprehend the post you replied to.
Thanks for demonstrating that WTC7 Theory==Link To Web Video and Lots of Hand Waving. Nothing more to it.
No, it doesn't change anything. Unless you can demonstrate WHO demolished WTC7 and WHY (WTC1&2 had already collapsed -- mission accomplished!), it doesn't change the official narrative one iota. It also doesn't put anything under "scrutiny" except in the paranoid conspiracy sense.
It's much like "Oswald wasn't the lone gunman"... So What? Unless you prove who put him up to it and who else was involved, it doesn't really matter. This laser-like focus on irrelvant crap is exactly why the Kennedy Conspiracy movement failed, and why the "911 Truth" movement will never get out of the UFO basement.
You see this sort of approach all the time on Slashdot + elsewhere whenever some dork thinks "HRRR. Me Don't Like That! Me Make Point-By-Point Rebuttal!!" And they just HAVE to reply to every single point, even if they've got nothing except for un-witty insults and stupid jokes. It's especially funny when someone responds like this to "*BSD is Dying" or some other blatent troll. Really the Worst Internet Argument Style Ever.
I crashed Firefox in order to download that PDF, and honestly it's worthless set of oneliners. Everything in that movie has already been debated to death, and people aren't going to successfully "rebutt" Loose Change unless they make their own snazzy flash video.
That's the cornerstone of the "Let it happen theory" -- Rumsfeld supposedly changed the rules so that only he personally could order an intercept of a hijacked airliner. And on 9/11 there were a large number of drills (including one where an airliner hit a building) which supposedly put most of the domestic air force out of position.
Oh, let's be friends -- there's no "sides" here. Everyone knows that Clinton and Bush Senior were partners in the CIA/Mena/Iran-Contra drug+gun smuggling operations thing, and they're all buddies down at the Illumanti Country Club.
That having been said GW Bush Administration does tend to rely on "conspiracy theory" to justify his foriegn policies, and while very partisan, Doc Ruby was rightfully pulling that out in context.
Way to demonstrate his point about Falsifiability. Also, I see you have a lot of questions, but you have no answers.
But just for arguments sake, let's pretend that Giuliani admitted that the NYFD "pulled" WTC7 and Rumsfeld admitted the Air Force shot down Flight 93, and they put out incorrect stories simply because everyone was in panic mode on 9/11.
Would that make any difference at all? Does it alter the accepted facts about Bin Laden/Mohammed Atta/Al Qaeda/Afganistan/etc? Would it change the official political narritive in the slightest? I one has to realize that it wouldn't, so therefore harping on this stuff is really a pointless activity.
Well, there's also a big difference between "The government used hologram missiles and controlled demolition to blow up WTC" and "The government used certain bureaucratic mechanisms in order to increase the likelihood of that a known terrorist plot would be successful for ultra-cynical political gain."
Of course, most people in the Conspiracy Theory world don't really understand the difference and there's very much a "ends justify the means" attitude where any crazy idea is good if it will raise doubt on the official theory, and that approach tends to cast the whole lot in tinfoil.
And it still doesn't change the fact that an official conspiracy theory was put forward, and acted on, without a whole lot of evidence. (Not just "religious extremists", but the whole "Al Qaeda==Worldwide Terrorist Network", when the reality is that the conspiracy theory created Al Qaeda rather than visa-versa.)
Anyone seriously asking any of those questions needs to have Proverb #3 pounded into their forehead with a rubber stamp mounted to the nose of 767 until they achieve illumination.
Yeah, it's funny how much effort has been put into putting government responsibility on WTC7 and Flight 93 (just to pick some plausible ones), when the correct answer is "It doesn't really matter, does it?"
The Conspiracy Crowd made a humungous effort for 30 years to debunk the Warren Commission. and now polls show that they were successful, with only ~20% of Americans believing the official narrative of the Kennedy assassination. But since they never successfully established an alternate narrative, there is really nothing to take away from it. Ultimately it doesn't matter if there was a lone gunman or not, but if there was even the slightest inkling that a 'hit' was put on Kennedy by LBJ/Nixon/George HW Bush/etc, there would be a revolution.
I hope you realize that the story about 20 or so Arab men conspiring to hijack planes and fly them into various landmarks is a conspiracy theory, as well.
Excellent point AC. Most Conspiracy Theories can be dismissed easily because there probably wasn't even a consipracy to begin with. But 911 *was* a conspiracy, so by defintion any explaination is a conspiracy theory.
Note that even the official theory has all sort of bizarre aspects (James Bond-style mastermind villian in his secret underground bunker, for example).
You tell me to "grow up", but you were unable to express a complex opinion on the topic until I basically lead you to it by the nose. "Someone flipped a switch" is retard-talk, and if you dislike having people assume that you are retard, don't post like one.
This is absolutely basic copyright law, and anyone who yells "but the GPL says..." or "but Linus says..." are missing the point
Agreed. Just because My Program calls Your Program doesn't necessarily mean there's any derviation. That's all FSF Propaganda.
The shim itself is a derivitive of the linux kernal, therefore legally speaking it must be distributed under the GPL.
There is no "shim" for the Nvidia Windows driver, but it is not dervative of the Windows kernel. The same would apply to Linux if there was a stable driver ABI. If not, I'd like to hear why. The shim itself is an implementation detail and might not even be copyrightable at all. Nvidia's Indpendant Work is still calling into Linux shim or no.
Um, in this case Apple are the imitators and Creative are the "innovators".
You obviously haven't drank the KoolAid -- Apple invented everything that ever existed in the computer industry, and everyone else just rips them off. Any facts to the contrary must be ignored and/or censored.
Anyway, I'm sure Apple has a raft of UI patents to counter-sue Creative with.
Slashdot Mirror
Before Google Suggest (and later GMail) caught everybody's attention, it languished relatively unknown to most developers for years.
I don't know about "most developers". It really was widely used in the Microsoft dev world. I personally interviewed probably a half-dozen people who had hands-on "AJAX" experience in 2002. The technique had been populalized in certain "portal" products. People just didn't like to talk about it because it was one of those uncool IE-only proprietary intranet things.
I hate to argue analogies, but it is more like the US Government declared every burger joint to be a McDonalds, and then just sat back and watched them all put up McDonalds signs. Surely you'll admit that the post-9/11 terror seen is "Al-Qaeda" in name only.
Sorry, delete the first "I":
One has to realize that [Proving controled demo of WTC7] wouldn't [change the political reality], so therefore harping on this stuff is really a pointless activity.
Wrong about what? That WTC7 is the "Grassy Knoll" of 9/11? No, that's already been demonstrated.
Supposedly, the vast majority of blind surfers use some form of Internet Explorer plugin. Lynx is just an old obsolete HTML2 browser -- it wasn't designed to be an accessibility tool and shouldn't be treated as the standard for such.
Uh, South Vietnam collapsed and was taken over by the Communists, which is exactly what the US was trying to prevent. How would that ever be considered a "draw"?
I think the point is: the buildings were demolished.
My point, which you so deftly ignored, is "So What?". You have a lot more dots to connect before it means anything to anyone other than your fellow loons.
No, if you were paying attention, you would have realized I am not suggesting any theories about WTC7 at all. What I am suggesting is that you and your site is a gigantic waste of time that will amount to nothing, politically. Have fun.
Sure there is: include a .js file that document.writes the Flash object.
This effectively bypasses the validator (which doesn't execute JavaScript), but it doesn't necessarily make your page more compliant.
And if the goal is to just trick the validator, why not just document.write() your whole page?
HTML renderers are far too lenient when it comes to rendering markup that doesn't comply to the standard.
When HTML was introduced, "lenient" was advertised as a feature, not a fault. Therefore every browser ever made supports lenient/quirks HTML and probably will for the next 5-10 years.
web developers and programmers responsible for writing the renderers are both at fault for not promoting adoption and compliance to the HTML standards.
The HTML standards were pretty much pointless before HTML4 and CSS2 made a coherent effort to clean things up.
The HTML 3.2 standard was intended to document existing practice, but left an ton of things out that were universially supported. Therefore it never really made sense to validate a HTML3.2 site because you'd get a million errors that were defects in the spec and not the page. And since there was no real standard, "anything goes" replaced it.
So what you are seeing is the process of introducing strict standards onto an enormous system that was designed not to be overly concerned with standards. It might be frustrating to see this process take decades rather than mearly years, but that's life.
If there's no ALT tag, Lynx shows "[IMAGE]" which is probably not what you want for a spacer. That's more of a browser-reason than a spec-reason however.
WombatControl -- I didn't mean to imply that Al-Qaeda did not exist, and I'm fully aware of the "The Database" explaination. However, by positioning Al-Qaeda as something much larger than what it actually was, the US Government's propaganda effort essentially created "Al-Qaeda London", "Al-Qaeda Spain", and "Al-Qaeda Iraq" out of random disorganized groups, thus mainfesting a "worldwide" enemy were there simply was not one before.
e s
The BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares", expounds on this theory. You may have seen it already, but I might as well recommend it for other slashdotters:
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmar
Cyno -- read my other posts in this story, and then go have your stupid conspiracy theory argument with someone else. Your reactionary peabrain didn't even comprehend the post you replied to.
Thanks for demonstrating that WTC7 Theory==Link To Web Video and Lots of Hand Waving. Nothing more to it.
No, it doesn't change anything. Unless you can demonstrate WHO demolished WTC7 and WHY (WTC1&2 had already collapsed -- mission accomplished!), it doesn't change the official narrative one iota. It also doesn't put anything under "scrutiny" except in the paranoid conspiracy sense.
It's much like "Oswald wasn't the lone gunman"... So What? Unless you prove who put him up to it and who else was involved, it doesn't really matter. This laser-like focus on irrelvant crap is exactly why the Kennedy Conspiracy movement failed, and why the "911 Truth" movement will never get out of the UFO basement.
Yeah, the term "political narritive" is really popular on Fox News. Good call, Einstein.
Well, I might not have successfully made my point, but least I have the satisfaction of causing some lame slashtroll to spaz out.
You see this sort of approach all the time on Slashdot + elsewhere whenever some dork thinks "HRRR. Me Don't Like That! Me Make Point-By-Point Rebuttal!!" And they just HAVE to reply to every single point, even if they've got nothing except for un-witty insults and stupid jokes. It's especially funny when someone responds like this to "*BSD is Dying" or some other blatent troll. Really the Worst Internet Argument Style Ever.
I crashed Firefox in order to download that PDF, and honestly it's worthless set of oneliners. Everything in that movie has already been debated to death, and people aren't going to successfully "rebutt" Loose Change unless they make their own snazzy flash video.
That's the cornerstone of the "Let it happen theory" -- Rumsfeld supposedly changed the rules so that only he personally could order an intercept of a hijacked airliner. And on 9/11 there were a large number of drills (including one where an airliner hit a building) which supposedly put most of the domestic air force out of position.
Oh, let's be friends -- there's no "sides" here. Everyone knows that Clinton and Bush Senior were partners in the CIA/Mena/Iran-Contra drug+gun smuggling operations thing, and they're all buddies down at the Illumanti Country Club.
That having been said GW Bush Administration does tend to rely on "conspiracy theory" to justify his foriegn policies, and while very partisan, Doc Ruby was rightfully pulling that out in context.
Way to demonstrate his point about Falsifiability. Also, I see you have a lot of questions, but you have no answers.
But just for arguments sake, let's pretend that Giuliani admitted that the NYFD "pulled" WTC7 and Rumsfeld admitted the Air Force shot down Flight 93, and they put out incorrect stories simply because everyone was in panic mode on 9/11.
Would that make any difference at all? Does it alter the accepted facts about Bin Laden/Mohammed Atta/Al Qaeda/Afganistan/etc? Would it change the official political narritive in the slightest? I one has to realize that it wouldn't, so therefore harping on this stuff is really a pointless activity.
Well, there's also a big difference between "The government used hologram missiles and controlled demolition to blow up WTC" and "The government used certain bureaucratic mechanisms in order to increase the likelihood of that a known terrorist plot would be successful for ultra-cynical political gain."
Of course, most people in the Conspiracy Theory world don't really understand the difference and there's very much a "ends justify the means" attitude where any crazy idea is good if it will raise doubt on the official theory, and that approach tends to cast the whole lot in tinfoil.
And it still doesn't change the fact that an official conspiracy theory was put forward, and acted on, without a whole lot of evidence. (Not just "religious extremists", but the whole "Al Qaeda==Worldwide Terrorist Network", when the reality is that the conspiracy theory created Al Qaeda rather than visa-versa.)
Anyone seriously asking any of those questions needs to have Proverb #3 pounded into their forehead with a rubber stamp mounted to the nose of 767 until they achieve illumination.
Yeah, it's funny how much effort has been put into putting government responsibility on WTC7 and Flight 93 (just to pick some plausible ones), when the correct answer is "It doesn't really matter, does it?"
The Conspiracy Crowd made a humungous effort for 30 years to debunk the Warren Commission. and now polls show that they were successful, with only ~20% of Americans believing the official narrative of the Kennedy assassination. But since they never successfully established an alternate narrative, there is really nothing to take away from it. Ultimately it doesn't matter if there was a lone gunman or not, but if there was even the slightest inkling that a 'hit' was put on Kennedy by LBJ/Nixon/George HW Bush/etc, there would be a revolution.
I hope you realize that the story about 20 or so Arab men conspiring to hijack planes and fly them into various landmarks is a conspiracy theory, as well.
Excellent point AC. Most Conspiracy Theories can be dismissed easily because there probably wasn't even a consipracy to begin with. But 911 *was* a conspiracy, so by defintion any explaination is a conspiracy theory.
Note that even the official theory has all sort of bizarre aspects (James Bond-style mastermind villian in his secret underground bunker, for example).
You tell me to "grow up", but you were unable to express a complex opinion on the topic until I basically lead you to it by the nose. "Someone flipped a switch" is retard-talk, and if you dislike having people assume that you are retard, don't post like one.
This is absolutely basic copyright law, and anyone who yells "but the GPL says..." or "but Linus says..." are missing the point
Agreed. Just because My Program calls Your Program doesn't necessarily mean there's any derviation. That's all FSF Propaganda.
The shim itself is a derivitive of the linux kernal, therefore legally speaking it must be distributed under the GPL.
There is no "shim" for the Nvidia Windows driver, but it is not dervative of the Windows kernel. The same would apply to Linux if there was a stable driver ABI. If not, I'd like to hear why. The shim itself is an implementation detail and might not even be copyrightable at all. Nvidia's Indpendant Work is still calling into Linux shim or no.
Um, in this case Apple are the imitators and Creative are the "innovators".
You obviously haven't drank the KoolAid -- Apple invented everything that ever existed in the computer industry, and everyone else just rips them off. Any facts to the contrary must be ignored and/or censored.
Anyway, I'm sure Apple has a raft of UI patents to counter-sue Creative with.