I agree. HTML makes no sense - it's not even internally consistent.
But I'd like to make sure whatever succeeds it is a reasonable replacement - text based and very open, but also extremely consistent (and sharing the ease of navigation of the current web). With a powerful scripting system (likely just-in-time compiled) designed to do real applications. And designed to fit the needs of web delivery.
You're right, you're going to need a newer browser to do a good detail screen.
Well, people should get a new browser IF they want to have decent UI. People are going to have to get one sooner or later. And you can't do a real nice detail screen in Lynx (although you could if its scripting system was up to standard - I don't think it'll ever run Flash). And the form I end up writing will still be available in German via Babelfish.
And even if you write a screen in Flash, you're going to have to write it again for people without Flash - or am I the only one who has to serve everyone?
HTML allows you to scale gracefully with the abilities of the browser. This can be hard. But it's worth something. And if you only want to write stuff that will work with newer browsers you can (just like you can write sites that will only work with Flash).
And really, there just isn't a lot you can't do with script - as long as you're willing to go the distance. I've seen Spreadsheet type programs written in script. Again, I don't know what UI features you're looking for.
We've implemented a lot of detail screens with fancy drag-and-drop crap. Sometimes we've had a couple more round trips than we wanted, but usually it's a situation in which Flash wouldn't help anyways (situations due to lack of data on the client side/way too much to send at once).
Support for all the UI functions you need IS in the standards.
Disclosure: For most of the apps we do, the users are mostly client employees and can be forced to upgrade.
Also, right now I write applications that serve many different clients. I can put form code specific to a client into the database to be added to the form on its way out. One client can get a pretty much completely different UI than another, with no code specific to them. Good luck doing that for a hundred different clients with Flash.
Sure there's going to be times when you have to resort to Java or Flash to get a form the way you want. And HTML could be a lot better. But it has a lot to offer.
Here, here. I don't like using services like Kazaa, but right now, they're just so much better than the only alternative, which is:
1. Drive to the mall. 2. Pay $20 for 2 or 3 songs. 3. Rip to computer to play at work. 4. Ha, ha, as if anything I want is at the mall, try mail order.
Here's a really good summary of the issue HappyFunPundit
E-music has such great talent. Here's their top sellers:
1 Creedence Clearwater Revival 2 Carlin, George 3 Evans, Bill 4 Reinhardt, Django 5 Academy Of St. Martin-In-The-Fields Under Neville Marriner 6 Monk, Thelonious 7 Armstrong, Louis 8 Acosta, George 9 Bad Religion 10 They Might Be Giants (TMBG)
I'm not saying these aren't great, but you get the feeling that not everything is available on their service.
On the other hand, Stacey Kent is free on MP3.com, and is perhaps the best singer in the world - try "You are There".
You're right, MM is doing a reasonable thing - and perhaps we're all being a little harsh.
Mostly, I'm just suggesting that for most big sites, everything-via-Flash is not a good idea. That doesn't mean that Flash only doesn't have uses. For many sites (like my personal one), I really don't care if it's accessible to the disabled. I know my audience, and Flash fills are their needs
HTML forms work fine, especially as implemented in the newest set of browsers. What SPECIFIC functionality do you want? Do you want that functionality, or do you want it with no work? Of course you'll need to do things in ECMAScript if you want things to work, but ECMAScript is not that bad.
I'm a fairly experienced web developer, and we've always been able to supply what our clients needed in the way of UI. We specialize in providing end-to-end packages that replace complex desktop apps.
Could things be better, and browsers more standardized? Sure. There are times when we have to standardize on one browser (though the problem isn't form input, it's printing - printing HTML is a nightmare).
Java support could also be better, and I usually don't reccomend it. But if all you want to do is control some form input, it would certainly solve the problem (not that I can think of a lot of problems that are desperately in need of solving). And standards support is certainly good enough to support this sort of operation. Java isn't a good choice for multimedia though, and Flash is.
As far as data interaction, the only place HTML really falls is non-text data, which isn't terribly significant to most businesses (and if it is, perhaps that's another good place for some embedded Flash).
But even if you do want to use Flash to handle your UI (for whatever reason), why not still use HTML underneath and expose it as an alternative. Have a quick look at the hundreds of comments on this story to understand why this is a good idea.
Probably even simpler to do in PowerPoint, which even the managers of the world can use. Just think, they could all be web developers.
That wouldn't make for a very useful web.
I don't deny that Flash (or PowerPoint) has its uses. Maybe your prof has a good use for it.
But Flash is not a good replacement for HTML (which works very well for the things it was meant to do: navigation, and working with text/data) for most people.
HTML is getting more standardized as browsers converge on the actual, written standards. Could things have gone better? Sure. But the fact remains that things are getting better, and the task of writing a web page is getting more standard and less hairy.
How can Flash be getting more standardized? When it started out, it was from one company, one development tool, one player and (I believe) on one platform. How could things not be standardized in a case like that? Adding upgrades doesn't mean that Flash is getting more standardized. That's stupid.
But anyways, who cares? It's not like we choose the winner based on who has more standards. We choose the tool for a task based on how well it solves the problem.
HTML and Flash should not be competitors.
Flash exists and is successful because it addresses a problem with HTML - HTML isn't good with multimedia content.
Why not leave it there? Flash is perfectly well suited to the job of providing multimedia for HTML. It fills a need, and does so well.
There are other things that the HTML web is EXCEPTIONALLY good for. Like ease of navigation. Why is it so good? Because browser developers are free to implement navigation however they like. Query strings are small, independent things. They're easily machine and human readable, and easy to manipulate. They make sense, and navigation of any site should rely on them - not some machination implemented in an opaque (to the user) plugin.
The other thing that HTML is well suited to is presenting text data and forms. It works on a huge variety of platforms, and because the structure is so transparent it lends itself well to all sorts of users. Blind people can have HTML text read off, because HTML is a clear text based standard that's easy for third party developers to hack. Users can control all sorts of things about how text and data are presented to them. This sort of control is just not possible with Flash. That doesn't mean Flash is bad, or is losing the game. Flash is playing a different game.
Flash's goals are perpendicular to HTML. That means they can co-exist, and should do so (assuming you want the multimedia benefits of Flash).
I really don't care if Flash has some new feature that approximates the functionality of HTML.
My point is that it's seldom used, and is against the way the web works.
If you're going to do waypoints in a movie, it shouldn't be via some extension in the plugin. As I explained in my post, Flash authors should always have been doing their navigation by calling a new HTML page (with parameters to start the same Flash data at the navigated-to page).
This means that the plugin wouldn't have to worry about back/forward/anchoring, because that would be the browser's job. And the browser would be able to implement it however the user liked, instead of however the darn plugin liked. But I guess that's the way Flash likes it: We control everything.
With HTML (and your choice of browser), you control everything. If you want to get a browser that automatically pastes your address in form fields marked "EMail", then you get a browser that does that. If you want a browser that displays text and form fields, but not images, you get that. Whatever you want, you get. With Flash, you get what the site wants you to get, when it wants to give it to you.
Also, a correctly done Flash/HTML page could be simply defined to have an alternative, Flash free version for any given query string, thus giving the developer one tree to work on.
HTML is simple, but brilliant. And Flash has it's uses. But the idea of replacing HTML navigation with Flash is mind numbingly stupid.
The goals of Flash are pretty much perpendicular to those of html.
Is HTML perfectly well thought out? Not really. But it's there, it's open, it's getting more standardized all the time. It works reliably on a lot of different platforms.
And through extensions like Flash, it can produce whatever monstrosity of a web site that evil designers can imagine.
That said, Flash only sites are annoying to use in a regular browser. Linking to certain parts of a site doesn't work (at least not usually), and back/forward are unreliable. But the solution should come from the Flash developer. When you click a link, the browser should move to a new page, one that initializes the same Flash data with the parameters to show the new page. Unfortunately, most Flash sites don't work that way. The browser stays on the same Flash data and the poor user is forced to use the Flash navigation.
Nothing better than right clicking and getting Pause, Play, and Stop...
And what happens when a "User" moderates the comment of someone who has paid? / has humorous little moderation scandals now and again. What happens when the people involved have paid? "Yeah, I'm bitchslapped so I can't post - but I don't have to see ads".
Nothing major, but will Jamie and Michael of the sudden feel like "User" moderators have to be accountable?
Again note: I'm not being terribly serious - I just think it'll be a funny little wrinkle..
I don't know about you, but I can ignore any ad*. It's an ability that anyone who has spent much time on the internet learns.
*Except perhaps the ones that float over the text you're reading and don't have a close button. And they lead me to make a mental note about not ever buying anything from that company.
Occasionally someone's IP will change, especially if they're logging in from home. If it does, we force them enter their login again (and we have a mechanism to preserve their last work).
This would, of course, get mighty tiresome if your IP changed after every request - so far it hasn't come up.
Like you say, IP spoofing does add another burden to the hacker. But is it that much of a burden to a hacker who's already managed to obtain a session key? Who knows.
We've avoided using client certificates because they're onerous to administer - but we may end up doing that soon. Security is a tough game for me - I know some of the moves, but I don't know who my opponent is and I can't see his pieces.
How do you detect intrusion? Of course you can do things like the following (in a login based web app):
1. Watching for too many password tries 2. Watching for too many page views/write attempts by a particular user - logging things 3. Blocking and logging long queries/odd characters/queries with errors
What else can I do? I try to write clean, secure code - but I don't know what the big threats are around the corner.
Should I be working harder to avoid cross-site scripting issues on pages past the login page? What's the odds of it being exploited? I use a session key, should I be changing it on every page view? Should I tie session keys to request IP (I do now), or is that pointless? Should I be extending my SSL key length?
And while I think about this, I notice some user has their password on a little sticky note on their monitor.
There's so many security threats to worry about. Does anyone have a resource that might suggest which are the first ones I should point my time at? Or a list of security failures and how they happened?
I don't think you should be able to patent "transmission of text data within a TV signal", but you should be able to patent the way you did it (and the specifics should be fairly narrow).
I think patents should be about protecting the work involved in researching and implementing a solution to a problem. You shouldn't be able to patent every solution to a problem. EG: you can patent your new photocopier that does this and this, but you can't patent the idea of making copies of paper documents. You can patent your compression algorithm. You can't patent "compressing video data using an algorithm".
Likely there's problems with this idea of patent law, I'd be obliged to hear anyone's thoughts...
Does anyone get the feeling sometimes, that MS might be employing people to try and stir up linux communitys?
Just ive noticed lots of very weird trolling type posts that even a bored, twisted person would not bother writing.
I don't consider myself a twisted person, but sometimes I write horrible flamebait. Just for fun. It's a wierd, impish desire that comes to me on boring days. For some reason, if gives me an odd joy to get Apple lovers mad. I know it's wrong, but I do it.
So no, I don't think dumb posts are a symptom of some conspiracy. There's plenty of ordinary stupid folk out there, and plenty of people who get a little joy out of stirring the pot.
I think patents should be about protecting specific ways of doing something. For example, you should be able to patent a "fork" but not "using a tool to get food to your mouth".
All the ST could do was MIDI sequencing. And the main reason people used them was they had built in MIDI ports and were cheap! Steinberg made music software for the ST and the C64 too. Most pro studios run ProTools on Macs nowadays to record, edit and mix audio. I remember two years ago when every Grammy winning CD was either recorded, edited, mixed or mastered on a Mac. I'm a musician and run a few apps, mainly Stienberg's Cubase VST on my G4 using an M-Audio Delta Audiophile 2496 sound card for both audio and MIDI.
If there wasn't idiots like me ranting about everything, just look at the information we would be lacking...
This isn't news, it's a press release. Written by Apple. An advertisement you might say. And not a very interesting one.
Far as I know, more release quality music is done on an Atari ST's than is done on a Mac. Why not give them a Mac? They were revolutionary. But oh yeah, they're not cool.
Why not give a grammy to Moog, or someone else who really advanced digital music? Hell, Roland and Creative Labs both did more for digital music than Apple.
iPod? A useful device, but it hasn't exactly changed the world. There's nothing it does that hasn't been done before (by a number of devices sometimes, but whatever).
Why not give Sony a grammy for the Clie with an integrated MP3 player? Or to the other companies that actually innovated music, digital or otherwise?
But they're not cool enough. The hundreds of important technical innovations were ignored, because their creators just weren't as kewl as Apple.
but you can't terminate it in the first to do
research that could save lives...
You can, you idiot. What Bush did was to say the federal government won't give you money to do it. The same was true during Clinton's time in office. I wonder why people didn't bitch and moan about it then
You're right for now. But I can feel a ban coming in my one knee.
In any case, I wonder why the two seem to be such different ethical issues to many people?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. HTML makes no sense - it's not even internally consistent.
But I'd like to make sure whatever succeeds it is a reasonable replacement - text based and very open, but also extremely consistent (and sharing the ease of navigation of the current web). With a powerful scripting system (likely just-in-time compiled) designed to do real applications. And designed to fit the needs of web delivery.
That'd be great.
.
You're right, you're going to need a newer browser to do a good detail screen.
Well, people should get a new browser IF they want to have decent UI. People are going to have to get one sooner or later. And you can't do a real nice detail screen in Lynx (although you could if its scripting system was up to standard - I don't think it'll ever run Flash). And the form I end up writing will still be available in German via Babelfish.
And even if you write a screen in Flash, you're going to have to write it again for people without Flash - or am I the only one who has to serve everyone?
HTML allows you to scale gracefully with the abilities of the browser. This can be hard. But it's worth something. And if you only want to write stuff that will work with newer browsers you can (just like you can write sites that will only work with Flash).
And really, there just isn't a lot you can't do with script - as long as you're willing to go the distance. I've seen Spreadsheet type programs written in script. Again, I don't know what UI features you're looking for.
We've implemented a lot of detail screens with fancy drag-and-drop crap. Sometimes we've had a couple more round trips than we wanted, but usually it's a situation in which Flash wouldn't help anyways (situations due to lack of data on the client side/way too much to send at once).
Support for all the UI functions you need IS in the standards.
Disclosure: For most of the apps we do, the users are mostly client employees and can be forced to upgrade.
Also, right now I write applications that serve many different clients. I can put form code specific to a client into the database to be added to the form on its way out. One client can get a pretty much completely different UI than another, with no code specific to them. Good luck doing that for a hundred different clients with Flash.
Sure there's going to be times when you have to resort to Java or Flash to get a form the way you want. And HTML could be a lot better. But it has a lot to offer.
.
Here, here. I don't like using services like Kazaa, but right now, they're just so much better than the only alternative, which is:
1. Drive to the mall.
2. Pay $20 for 2 or 3 songs.
3. Rip to computer to play at work.
4. Ha, ha, as if anything I want is at the mall, try mail order.
Here's a really good summary of the issue HappyFunPundit
.
E-music has such great talent. Here's their top sellers:
1 Creedence Clearwater Revival
2 Carlin, George
3 Evans, Bill
4 Reinhardt, Django
5 Academy Of St. Martin-In-The-Fields Under Neville Marriner
6 Monk, Thelonious
7 Armstrong, Louis
8 Acosta, George
9 Bad Religion
10 They Might Be Giants (TMBG)
I'm not saying these aren't great, but you get the feeling that not everything is available on their service.
On the other hand, Stacey Kent is free on MP3.com, and is perhaps the best singer in the world - try "You are There".
-
You're right, MM is doing a reasonable thing - and perhaps we're all being a little harsh.
Mostly, I'm just suggesting that for most big sites, everything-via-Flash is not a good idea. That doesn't mean that Flash only doesn't have uses. For many sites (like my personal one), I really don't care if it's accessible to the disabled. I know my audience, and Flash fills are their needs
.
HTML forms work fine, especially as implemented in the newest set of browsers. What SPECIFIC functionality do you want? Do you want that functionality, or do you want it with no work? Of course you'll need to do things in ECMAScript if you want things to work, but ECMAScript is not that bad.
I'm a fairly experienced web developer, and we've always been able to supply what our clients needed in the way of UI. We specialize in providing end-to-end packages that replace complex desktop apps.
Could things be better, and browsers more standardized? Sure. There are times when we have to standardize on one browser (though the problem isn't form input, it's printing - printing HTML is a nightmare).
Java support could also be better, and I usually don't reccomend it. But if all you want to do is control some form input, it would certainly solve the problem (not that I can think of a lot of problems that are desperately in need of solving). And standards support is certainly good enough to support this sort of operation. Java isn't a good choice for multimedia though, and Flash is.
As far as data interaction, the only place HTML really falls is non-text data, which isn't terribly significant to most businesses (and if it is, perhaps that's another good place for some embedded Flash).
But even if you do want to use Flash to handle your UI (for whatever reason), why not still use HTML underneath and expose it as an alternative. Have a quick look at the hundreds of comments on this story to understand why this is a good idea.
.
What about accessibility to people who only speak Spanish? Most of the web is accessible to them via translators.
Maybe MM will come up with a solution to this too. But this is a case of one company trying to play catch up with a standard the world has embraced.
Why not just let Flash do what it does best (multimedia, interaction with non-text data), and leave HTML to the things that it already does just fine?
.
Probably even simpler to do in PowerPoint, which even the managers of the world can use. Just think, they could all be web developers.
That wouldn't make for a very useful web.
I don't deny that Flash (or PowerPoint) has its uses. Maybe your prof has a good use for it.
But Flash is not a good replacement for HTML (which works very well for the things it was meant to do: navigation, and working with text/data) for most people.
I think that's all most of us are saying.
.
HTML is getting more standardized as browsers converge on the actual, written standards. Could things have gone better? Sure. But the fact remains that things are getting better, and the task of writing a web page is getting more standard and less hairy.
How can Flash be getting more standardized? When it started out, it was from one company, one development tool, one player and (I believe) on one platform. How could things not be standardized in a case like that? Adding upgrades doesn't mean that Flash is getting more standardized. That's stupid.
But anyways, who cares? It's not like we choose the winner based on who has more standards. We choose the tool for a task based on how well it solves the problem.
HTML and Flash should not be competitors.
Flash exists and is successful because it addresses a problem with HTML - HTML isn't good with multimedia content.
Why not leave it there? Flash is perfectly well suited to the job of providing multimedia for HTML. It fills a need, and does so well.
There are other things that the HTML web is EXCEPTIONALLY good for. Like ease of navigation. Why is it so good? Because browser developers are free to implement navigation however they like. Query strings are small, independent things. They're easily machine and human readable, and easy to manipulate. They make sense, and navigation of any site should rely on them - not some machination implemented in an opaque (to the user) plugin.
The other thing that HTML is well suited to is presenting text data and forms. It works on a huge variety of platforms, and because the structure is so transparent it lends itself well to all sorts of users. Blind people can have HTML text read off, because HTML is a clear text based standard that's easy for third party developers to hack. Users can control all sorts of things about how text and data are presented to them. This sort of control is just not possible with Flash. That doesn't mean Flash is bad, or is losing the game. Flash is playing a different game.
Flash's goals are perpendicular to HTML. That means they can co-exist, and should do so (assuming you want the multimedia benefits of Flash).
.
I really don't care if Flash has some new feature that approximates the functionality of HTML.
My point is that it's seldom used, and is against the way the web works.
If you're going to do waypoints in a movie, it shouldn't be via some extension in the plugin. As I explained in my post, Flash authors should always have been doing their navigation by calling a new HTML page (with parameters to start the same Flash data at the navigated-to page).
This means that the plugin wouldn't have to worry about back/forward/anchoring, because that would be the browser's job. And the browser would be able to implement it however the user liked, instead of however the darn plugin liked. But I guess that's the way Flash likes it: We control everything.
With HTML (and your choice of browser), you control everything. If you want to get a browser that automatically pastes your address in form fields marked "EMail", then you get a browser that does that. If you want a browser that displays text and form fields, but not images, you get that. Whatever you want, you get. With Flash, you get what the site wants you to get, when it wants to give it to you.
Also, a correctly done Flash/HTML page could be simply defined to have an alternative, Flash free version for any given query string, thus giving the developer one tree to work on.
HTML is simple, but brilliant. And Flash has it's uses. But the idea of replacing HTML navigation with Flash is mind numbingly stupid.
.
The goals of Flash are pretty much perpendicular to those of html.
Is HTML perfectly well thought out? Not really. But it's there, it's open, it's getting more standardized all the time. It works reliably on a lot of different platforms.
And through extensions like Flash, it can produce whatever monstrosity of a web site that evil designers can imagine.
That said, Flash only sites are annoying to use in a regular browser. Linking to certain parts of a site doesn't work (at least not usually), and back/forward are unreliable. But the solution should come from the Flash developer. When you click a link, the browser should move to a new page, one that initializes the same Flash data with the parameters to show the new page. Unfortunately, most Flash sites don't work that way. The browser stays on the same Flash data and the poor user is forced to use the Flash navigation.
Nothing better than right clicking and getting Pause, Play, and Stop...
/.
And what happens when a "User" moderates the comment of someone who has paid? / has humorous little moderation scandals now and again. What happens when the people involved have paid? "Yeah, I'm bitchslapped so I can't post - but I don't have to see ads".
Nothing major, but will Jamie and Michael of the sudden feel like "User" moderators have to be accountable?
Again note: I'm not being terribly serious - I just think it'll be a funny little wrinkle..
.
I don't know about you, but I can ignore any ad*. It's an ability that anyone who has spent much time on the internet learns.
*Except perhaps the ones that float over the text you're reading and don't have a close button. And they lead me to make a mental note about not ever buying anything from that company.
.
Occasionally someone's IP will change, especially if they're logging in from home. If it does, we force them enter their login again (and we have a mechanism to preserve their last work).
This would, of course, get mighty tiresome if your IP changed after every request - so far it hasn't come up.
Like you say, IP spoofing does add another burden to the hacker. But is it that much of a burden to a hacker who's already managed to obtain a session key? Who knows.
We've avoided using client certificates because they're onerous to administer - but we may end up doing that soon. Security is a tough game for me - I know some of the moves, but I don't know who my opponent is and I can't see his pieces.
.
How do you detect intrusion? Of course you can do things like the following (in a login based web app):
1. Watching for too many password tries
2. Watching for too many page views/write attempts by a particular user - logging things
3. Blocking and logging long queries/odd characters/queries with errors
What else can I do? I try to write clean, secure code - but I don't know what the big threats are around the corner.
Should I be working harder to avoid cross-site scripting issues on pages past the login page? What's the odds of it being exploited? I use a session key, should I be changing it on every page view? Should I tie session keys to request IP (I do now), or is that pointless? Should I be extending my SSL key length?
And while I think about this, I notice some user has their password on a little sticky note on their monitor.
There's so many security threats to worry about. Does anyone have a resource that might suggest which are the first ones I should point my time at? Or a list of security failures and how they happened?
.
I don't think you should be able to patent "transmission of text data within a TV signal", but you should be able to patent the way you did it (and the specifics should be fairly narrow).
I think patents should be about protecting the work involved in researching and implementing a solution to a problem. You shouldn't be able to patent every solution to a problem. EG: you can patent your new photocopier that does this and this, but you can't patent the idea of making copies of paper documents. You can patent your compression algorithm. You can't patent "compressing video data using an algorithm".
Likely there's problems with this idea of patent law, I'd be obliged to hear anyone's thoughts...
.
I don't consider myself a twisted person, but sometimes I write horrible flamebait. Just for fun. It's a wierd, impish desire that comes to me on boring days. For some reason, if gives me an odd joy to get Apple lovers mad. I know it's wrong, but I do it.
So no, I don't think dumb posts are a symptom of some conspiracy. There's plenty of ordinary stupid folk out there, and plenty of people who get a little joy out of stirring the pot.
.
I think patents should be about protecting specific ways of doing something. For example, you should be able to patent a "fork" but not "using a tool to get food to your mouth".
This patent is very much of the latter sort.
.
If there wasn't idiots like me ranting about everything, just look at the information we would be lacking...
Have a good day.
-Dave
.
OK, I'm stupid.
Still, it seems wierd to put Apple in the same company as a Moog and Les... And even among companies, Apple still seems an odd choice.
Have a good day.
.
Fair enough. Go to Europe and see how many Atari's, Amigas, and Linux PC's you find. And analog equipment, and cheap synthesizers.
In any case I don't have any statistics (and you haven't given any, only your own little anecdote) - if anyone does I'd be interested to see.
Well of course we don't want to pay for it. But we would. I do sometimes, when I want a better quality recording than MP3 provides.
/$18 /long trip to the mall
/Slightly less guilt
The problem is that the legal alternative is so much poorer than the illegal one.
Free
Instant
vs.
Good quality/Slightly better quality
Guilt
If they narrowed the difference a little, I'd buy a lot of music.
-Dave
.
I don't know if you actually wanted an answer - but try downloading
... I did, then bought the CD. I would have paid to download it, but that choice wasn't available.
Stacey Kent - You are There
over at MP3.com
This isn't news, it's a press release. Written by Apple. An advertisement you might say. And not a very interesting one.
Far as I know, more release quality music is done on an Atari ST's than is done on a Mac. Why not give them a Mac? They were revolutionary. But oh yeah, they're not cool.
Why not give a grammy to Moog, or someone else who really advanced digital music? Hell, Roland and Creative Labs both did more for digital music than Apple.
iPod? A useful device, but it hasn't exactly changed the world. There's nothing it does that hasn't been done before (by a number of devices sometimes, but whatever).
Why not give Sony a grammy for the Clie with an integrated MP3 player? Or to the other companies that actually innovated music, digital or otherwise?
But they're not cool enough. The hundreds of important technical innovations were ignored, because their creators just weren't as kewl as Apple.
.
but you can't terminate it in the first to do
research that could save lives...
You can, you idiot. What Bush did was to say the federal government won't give you money to do it. The same was true during Clinton's time in office. I wonder why people didn't bitch and moan about it then
You're right for now. But I can feel a ban coming in my one knee.
In any case, I wonder why the two seem to be such different ethical issues to many people?