I don't know anyone who bought their Mac just for iTunes
I did.
I bought an iPod when they were still Mac-only, so I ended up buying the eMac to go with it. After using iTunes once on a friend's iBook, I was hooked. Doing ID3 tags on a Windows platform is like looking forward to a root canal when you're talking about 5,000+ songs. Of course, I don't mind a lot of the other features of OS X, but iTunes and the iPod were a killer combination. Frankly, I still prefer Win2K over OS X, not least because a number of programs I use are still Windows-only and have no decent OS X equivalents. It kind of pisses me off that had I waited a year, I could have saved myself a massive ($3000+) investment in Apple hardware. I suppose that's the price for being an early adopter -- but I'm still pissed, and I hope Apple makes the iTunes for Windows client a shadow of the real thing.
Like hell it does. Must we resort to bashing other image editors to make our own look better?
I'm a professional designer, and I prefer PSP to any other editor merely for its near-flawless integration of vector and bitmap tools. Yes, I've used them all... CorelDRAW, Canvas, Photoshop, Fireworks, and even the GIMP. They've all got their markets. But to state unequivocally that an application sucks (without any reasons, besides!) is just bloody stupid.
XML does allow for ambiguity. However, it also allows for a lot of control -- it's just that many users don't make use of it.
If you wanted to, you could write an XML document without any sort of DTD or schema. It validates, because there's nothing to validate it against. Similarly, many companies create XML files without bothering to create schemas, and so they run into problems because they didn't define their own document structures first.
XML has its own standard, but that standard isn't meant to extend to the content. It's just a few simple rules on syntax, not a tag structure. You are left to do that on your own. Similarly, the tools out there can validate XML documents against schemas or DTDs (ever tried Xalan?) but they can't do a dang thing if you don't have a schema to go with your file.
You seem to be blaming the W3C and an open file standard for your own problems with document structure. It appears you're not using the right tools.
Most of those "modern web techniques" cause more trouble than they're worth. They tend to work consistently only with Internet Explorer, which is their real reason for their existence and the reason Microsoft promotes them.
You, sir, are mistaken. The original poster was talking about using modern web standards in place of kludgy code, and Microsoft is notorious for not supporting OR promoting those "real" standards. Their home page doesn't validate. I've yet to see any of their applications produce clean HTML or CSS. In fact, the only things that DO work consistently in Internet Explorer are things that break the W3C standards -- the flashy, IE-only effects that few people use but many people deride. Besides which, Mozilla supports those "modern web standards" much better than IE ever has. It boasts full CSS compatibility for Level 1 and most of Level 2; IE doesn't even support a subset of Level 1 correctly. I won't get into DOM support here, but Mozilla and other browsers beat the hell out of IE there, too.
CSS is in a wierd niche - unneeded for simple pages, and too weak to do what Flash can do. Most of what CSS is usually used for can be done on the authoring side, with Dreamweaver templates or something similar. CSS also interacts badly with firewalls and proxy servers that edit out hostile content. If you really need exciting animated graphical effects (and you usually don't), Flash has far better capabilities.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. CSS dramatically reduces coding time, bandwidth usage, and maintenance problems to the point that stylistic changes are no longer a headache. Most browsers now support the majority of CSS L1 -- including IE 5.0+ -- and the sheer savings of selectors versus font tags is incredible. Even on "simple" pages, CSS is more efficient. I've never seen it interact badly with firewalls and/or a proxy server, since when it's done right it's linked as an external file just like an external script.
You're also wrong to compare it to Flash. CSS is about styling content, not "exciting animated graphical effects." That's what SVG is for, and I suggest you read up on that. CSS has nothing to do with vector animation.
Almost nobody uses XML as originally envisioned - as a way to send structured data from a web site to the user's client. I built Downside [downside.com] to do just that for SEC filings, but apart from one obscure client program nobody uses, nobody downloads data that way. We're not seeing XML-tagged price and part number info on sites to allow price-oriented search engines to find the best deal for consumers, now are we? When you buy something online, you don't get back an XML-tagged receipt that goes into your own database. XML is mostly used for in-house and business-to-business applications, typically in situations where no human looks at the content.
False. XML is not intended to be the de facto standard for web communication. It's intended to be a standard data format that multiple, different applications can understand (including human readers.) If XML were the be-all, end-all of a user's browsing experience, the W3C wouldn't be working on another version of XHTML. Moreover, just because you're not seeing XML data doesn't mean it's not useful. Sometimes, companies don't want consumers (or their competitors!) to have access to their inventories and prices. As for XML receipts, I've yet to see a program that does what you're talking about, to say nothing of one that a consumer could use without requesting help from a geek friend.
I think that the iCommune peeps should have given up while they were only marginally behind. They produced some extension to Apple's product, and Apple deemed it to be illegal so they sent a C+D and asked for their SDK back.
There's a rather large difference between something that's illegal and a violation of a contract (which is civil, BTW). However, you've missed that difference. Apple was right to take away his SDK, because he was producing software that they deemed violated his license agreement -- and they had every right to do so. However, they have no say in the legality of a developer's software.
So the iCommune peeps decide that they're going to rewrite some software to do the same thing (give or take some added extras), release it under the same name only this time it'll be GPL'd. So the headlines in the popular techpress go from Apple tells author of small software plug-in to stop distributing to GNU Public software breaks Apple copyright, violates trademark.
Wrong again. As long as the software doesn't use copyrighted code (which I assume is the case, otherwise he'd have to be an idiot to be publicizing this), he's not violated anything. It also does not violate a trademark -- or do you think iApple igets irights ito ieverything ithat ibegins iwith ithe iletter i'I'? Moreover, he is not breaking the terms of his SDK any longer, as the contract is broken and no longer has any binding force on him. Apple doesn't have any legal say in what people develop independently (though they can make their lives difficult, of course.)
This won't be good for FS/OSS publicity as the public will perceive GPL authors (they read:entire OSS lot) as a group of lawbreaking Communist zealots who flout C+D notices issued by hard-working companies just trynig to make a buck in today's world.
Actually, your post does less good, because you're spreading a lot of unnecessary FUD. Your painted picture of 'Communist zealots' versus 'hard-working companies' is touching, but hardly appropriate (and generally untrue, from my experience.) And for crying out loud, have you forgotten that this plugin has potential LEGAL uses for users, like sharing files on a home network without digging through shared folders and bothering with re-importing?
Remember: the clueless person on the street doesn't see the problem with laws like the DMCA; they think it's just protection (try and explain to someone that it nearly made the marker pen an illegal tool).
Remember: the clueless poster that equates innovation with infringement doesn't see the problem with the entertainment industry's rhetoric; they think it's just protection (try and explain to someone that it's illegal to share MP3s, yet companies encouraged us to share audio tapes ten years ago.)
Emulating a system is legal. Playing and possessing ROM versions of the games is also legal, provided you own a copy of that game. Despite what Nintendo says on its site -- that emulating its systems is illegal -- precedent exists in the form of Sony vs. Connectix. That case established that you are free to use another method of accessing the content you paid for. Do Sony and Nintendo like the fact that you can use an emulator and a ROM to play their games? No. But can they do anything about it if you've bought the games legitimately? No.
I'd agree with Zeldman on this one. They need to rename it to something else, and do some sort of forking, because switching terminology in midstream (for no appreciably visible reason) is simply not a good idea. I can see that it makes a certain amount of logical sense to convert images to objects, etc.... but getting rid of H* tags and, as Mark mentioned, CITE? There isn't really anything to replace that kind of semantic markup, which is unfortunate.
I do remember reading some other stuff by IBM on this, and it was a fairly cogent explanation of the reasoning, but I still don't agree with the theories behind the changes.
I wouldn't mind most of the changes myself, but it will take decades for this standard to replace the current version if they drop compatibility. I'm sure that a few days afterwards Mozilla will have support for it, but the massive numbers of people who haven't yet upgraded to CSS-capable browsers tell me that we might see a few sites using XHTML 2 in, say, 2010.
Phoenix, the Win32 equivalent of Safari, is 6.2 MB. Presumably, they'll remove some more bloat before it reaches 1.0. Somehow I don't see Mozilla as being "mammoth," when it also includes IRC connectivity, a mail and news reader, and far more debugging tools than Safari.
Y'know, it really makes me sick to watch people giving up their rights for really stupid reasons.
First off, BnetD is NOT a cheating tool. It is a program that allows the user to run their own Battle.net server, and connect to it with the standard clients. It violates no portion of any existing software license, and besides, reverse engineering is a perfectly legitimate reason to make such a program. Don't forget that Sony sued Connectix for basically doing the same thing -- allowing gamers to use their PCs rather than a PlayStation console -- and lost, miserably. Your association of it with ShowEQ, and your last sentence's insinuation, are both fallacious and totally incorrect (not to mention misguided.) I use BnetD so that I can play on my own server, with my friends, and not have to deal with the pathetic losers that clog Battle.net with Pindabots and other hacks.
Your suggestion that the DMCA be 'upgraded' is totally off base for something of this magnitude. So there are cheaters. So what? Do we really need another law to explicitly define (for the umpteenth time) that cheating is wrong? Let the companies deal with the cheaters on their own time, with their own money, and according to their own rules. It is not the government's responsibility to play mediator for every dispute, especially when it's about a simple breach of contract.
2. Square ended the love affair with Nintendo primarily because Nintendo refused to move away from a cartridge based system. Square wanted to move towards games with astounding amounts of high resolution graphics. This began with the N64, but it is still relevant. The GameCube uses optical disks with 1.5GB storage capacity. The PS2 uses DVD's with 4.7GB capacity.
Judging from the graphics in Metroid Prime, Mario Sunshine, or even Starfox versus Final Fantasy X and Kingdom Hearts, I somehow don't think that it's the storage limitation that has anything to do with having 'great graphics.' Moreover, the idea of having Metroid Prime as multiplayer makes anyone forget Halo almost instantaneously -- it's that good. Granted, I love both of them, but the PS2 didn't seem to be all that much of an upgrade versus the PS1 graphically -- whereas the Gamecube is miles above the N64.
I also think that many people are forgetting that Square has already started development on Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, which is a Nintendo-exclusive title, and they have not released any plans for Xbox development.
This argument makes me ill. Arguably you have rights to play DVDs that you bought before the whole DVD brouhaha on an open-source OS. But now that it's clear what the license holders are demanding, I find it crazy to demand that you have a "right" to play, say, next-year's DVDs on a given OS.
Please, show me where the license holders have "demanded" these terms. I've yet to see an EULA attached to any of my DVDs, but I can assure you that any movies I buy will get returned if they have one included. It is my media -- and my right to use that legally purchased media in the way that I choose, whenever I choose, and for what purposes I see fit. And it pisses me off when I hear people giving up their rights in ignorance.
Similarly, I shed no tears for people who "demand" their "rights" to play the latest DVD on platform X. If you don't like the conditions that are being attached to a product - say the latest Star Wars DVD, or the latest Metallica CD - don't buy it, don't go to the theater, don't listen to their songs on the radio, and don't hype it on your website. That is the surest, best, and most honest way to get the MPAA, RIAA, etc. to listen to your demands.
Show me where, on either of those pieces of media, the user is obligated to agree before purchase that they will only consume those products as the manufacturers intended. Can't find it? No? Well, then stuff your argument. I'm not going to stop exercising my rights of fair use to 'set an example' when doing so would almost certainly be counterproductive.
Another anology: I might not like the terms of some GPL'ed product, thinking it "really" should be under a BSD license. Does that give me the RIGHT to use it under a BSD license ?
The user must view AND accept or reject the terms of use for the software before using it, source code included. You are free to discuss the licensing terms with the author, but you are not free to change the license; you do not own the copyright. However, there is no license for watching a DVD and thus your analogy fails.
This article is not well written, its vastly slanted towards law-breakers.
Neither is your comment. It's vastly slanted towards self-righteous reactionism.
Exhibit #1: For the record, uncapping ( hacking your modem in order to gain access to untapped bandwidth) is not legal. Not legal? It's called ILLEGAL. Uncapping your modem is ILLEGAL. "Not legal" is trying to cover it up.
No, the proper term for a breach of contract is not legal. There are laws about breaching contracts, true, but the offense is civil. Not criminal.
Exhibit #2: As such, their control over the political system in the area is considerable No examples, no proof, just innuendo and slander.
Since when is an observation in a column that's non-inflammatory and obviously editorial in nature slander? Get a dictionary and look up the word, man. It doesn't mean what you wish it did.
Exhibit #3: a fact that may under-ride the horrifying journey several individuals are taking through the area's legal gauntlet because they uncapped their cable modems. More speculation and innuendo. "Legal gauntlet" - what they are the victims now? Oppressed? They broke the law and must now fact the music.
Again, this is independent observation in an editorial piece. Even if it were not, observation that slants the facts to fit one's argument isn't merely "speculation." Do you have some sort of agenda against the poster? THAT's speculation. Moreover, excessive use of force can constitute oppression, and I suggest you read the article more closely instead of replying in a fit of anger.
Exhibit #4: discovered that twenty three of his subscribers were getting more juice from their connections than they paid for. Getting more juice. What a joke. They were stealing bandwidth from other customers. And not paying for it.
Bandwidth may be a finite resource, but the company in question has failed to demonstrate a consistent record of customer complaints; that other customers were injured is, actually, speculation on your part. Uncapping doesn't necessarily affect people if you do it at 2AM (not that I'm supporting the act, just raising a point.) They have also failed to demonstrate or prove that the uncapped modems were stealing significant amounts of bandwidth--anyone with half a brain can see that their numbers are massively inflated--and thus the author is raising a valid question: Why haven't we seen proof of this "gravely injurious act" that would make this proverbial boulder necessary to crush the ants?
Exhibit #5: According to an interview in a recent Cable World article, Shyrock noted that one subscriber had "altered his modem to handle 100 megabits per second, up and downstream", though the company could never realistically even obtain such speeds. So the fact that there wasn't enough bandwidth makes this better? Okay? They basically modded it to use as much bandwidth as possible, to the detriment of others.
Yes, it does. The damages that the company quoted to the FBI cannot have possibly been true. The fact that the company is quoting similarly heavy figures to a journalistic source is not surprising, but it also shows a basic lack of technical understanding. Again, here, you're also speculating that customers were injured, which they haven't shown happened.
Instead of disconnecting service for uncapping (as is the case with nearly every provider in the U.S.) Its obviously working very well!
Wonderful. I'll refer you to the hundreds of other analogies that other posters have submitted, because they're all very excellent. It's becoming rapidly obvious that you missed the point of the article in your misguided attempt to appear on a moral high ground.
companies before his life was turned upside-down Passive voice. He's just a victim! Its not his fault! All his neighbors say he's a great guy!
A Slashdot poster who questions the article's use of grammar, yet can't seem to grasp the proper use of commas himself. Grow up.
The worst that could happen to him, he figured, was that his ISP got angry and disconnected his service. He couldn't have been more wrong. Bummer. It was just a little mistake. No problem!
That's the worst that SHOULD happen to him -- if not a fine and a settlement of some sorts. Calling in the FBI to settle one's outstanding payments on a civil case is nothing short of ludicrous.
This article can be summed as: "No fair! We weren't expecting to get caught!"
No, not really. But the summation of your comment would seem to be a giant mass of logical fallacies and emotional arguments.
Lets be real people. You can't steal bandwidth. If you modify your equipment to take more bandwidth than you are intended to have by your provider, you may end up in trouble. It doesn't look any of these people are going to jail. They got indicted, have to go to an "aversion" program, and pay some fines. The equipment - that which isn't illegal modified or containing illegal materials - will be returned. If they aren't the defendents should get lawyers.
Ah, so you did miss the point of the article. No one questions that what the users did was wrong; they're simply questioning the company's actions, and its motives.
The reprecussions suffered by the criminals is what happens when you break the law and get caught. Bummer. Don't break the law, or if you have a problem with it get it changed. Each defendent consciously knew what they were doing was wrong, and one even admits that he gambled that the consequences would be minor. Friggin' bummer. You gamble long enough and you will lose.
Keep posting long enough, and I'm sure you'll eventually write a coherent argument. What are you trying to do here -- say the same thing three times over?
If I walk into someone's store, the store is permitted to have someone follow me -- either in person, or by video camera. I'm on private property, and the property owner is entitled to watch what I am doing.
I think you'd object to them strip-searching you, though. Or would strapping motion-capture balls all over your body be less intrusive? What about, then, hiring someone to watch everything you did and report it back to someone else?
When you surf on a site, you are accessing someone elses server. They are the property owner, and they have the right to a report to see what you are doing.
Yes, they have the right -- to see what you're doing on their server. They don't automatically gain the right to see anything on your local machine other than the stuff you broadcast anyway -- screen resolution, color depth, browser, OS, etc. Just like you'd object to having a microphone planted inside your shorts (without your knowledge or explicit consent, in some cases) when you visit a store in the physical world, I object to companies trying to place things on MY computer when I visit their virtual storefront. And no, don't bring up that BS about "you consented when you loaded their site." I don't see any massive pop-up window with a click-through license agreement, and even THAT would be dubious.
There is nothing that I can see that RedSherriff becomes resident on your machine and watches you elsewhere. It just uses cookies to provide enhanced site stats to, in this case, the beeb.
Oh, I see. So if I stick a video camera up your posterior, but it only provides data feeds when you're in my store, that's OK with you then?
Complacency pisses me off, especially when it's people telling companies that MY rights don't matter.
You assumed that my argument referred solely to the backup program, and that it is only accessed by downloading software. I can tell you, right now, that when I booted my eMac for the first time one of the Applications sitting on my system was Backup, and it was designed to work with.Mac. Furthermore, even if the Backup program was only accessed via downloading, there are still plenty of other parts of.Mac that do not require a download; to make things even better, go read the license yourself and eat your post. The user is not obligated to fulfill Apple's intentions by downloading the software, and since nothing in the license explicitly prohibits using an alternate server, people are well within their rights to bypass Apple entirely.
Apple has written software to be used with their.Mac service. The cost of the software is included in the price of the service.
No, because the software in question is not delivered upon payment for its associated service. It is delivered upon payment for a different product -- it's a bundle, obviously.
When you use the software without paying for the service you are, in effect, pirating the software.
Actually, anyone who does this is simply using the software they own (it came with OS X, and they bought that, right?) in a manner inconsistent with its design. That's not illegal! Requisite analogy: A car manufacturer sells cupholders emblazoned with the Coca-Cola logo. Is it then [sarcasm]piracy[/sarcasm] to use said cupholders to hold a Dr. Pepper, or worse yet, your own no-name water bottle?
You may justify this in your own mind by claiming that the price of the hardware and the OS should entitle you to the use of the.Mac backup software but that's not how it was intended.
I don't give a flying fsck about intentions. Apple created a product and bundled it with their operating system; I bought the operating system, and thus I've purchased that product legitimately. It is not their business how I use that product; it's mine, and I don't remember reading a EULA that forbade me to use it with another service. (Even if it did, this comes pretty close to Connectix/Sony for obvious reasons.) As such, I am more than welcome to use my purchase any way I want, even if it means in a way that it's not intended to be used.
The backup software is not a part of the OS. It is not included with the computer. It is a download available to.Mac users. It has built-in safegaurds to prevent use by people who do not pay for a.Mac subscription. By circumventing these mechanisms you are pirating the software.
Yes, a.Mac subscription from Apple. But the poster is not cheating Apple; he's not accessing their servers and using their services. And because he's not using THEIR servers, there's no reason that he should pay them anything.
I'd have to disagree with a lot of this. The test seems biased towards certain personality types, and though introversion is certainly correlated with autism, it != causation.
1.) Do you find certain social situations difficult or awkward?
Yes. I'm also deeply introverted, and like it that way. My friends ask why I don't go clubbing with them, and my sole response has been that "crowds of drunken, stupid people annoy me." But I just don't enjoy the crowds.
2.) Do you feel out of place sometimes?
Again, introversion-centric questioning. 'Sometimes' is a pretty generic qualifier; without additional perspective on the frequency of that feeling or sensation, the question is pretty meaningless.
3.) Do you have bizarre certain interests that no on cares about? *computers cough cough
This is a strongly worded question that pretty much equates to, "Do you have a hobby?"
4.) Do you feel smart in certain area's but lack knowledge sometimes of other different area's?
Should it ask instead, "Are you human, or omniscient?"
5.) Do you find expressing emotions difficult even though you have them?
(Disclaimer: I'm gay myself.) "Are you a heterosexual male?" OK, laughs aside, introverts tend to be less expressive in public of their feelings. Is this now a penalty?
6.) Do you feel yourself to be somewhat clumsy ?
See #5. Social situations are difficult for introverts.
7.) As a kid did you feel more interested in complex things like science or weather rather then playing GI joe ?
OK. This one really gets me, because it uses stereotypical gender-centric behavior and focuses on the differences between a more withdrawn, introspective child and a more extroverted one. An unwillingness to play 'Army' with one's friends at age eight would, I think, be more representative of high intelligence once a kid realizes that Mummy is really going to rip into him for playing in the muddy field again.
8.) Do you find yourself to be somewhat compulsive?
Introverts with less-than-'normal' social lives tend to seem compulsive to others, since their behavior patterns are different from those of their friends.
I have both conditions that match autism and aspergers so I am unique.
Not really, you're just human.
For example I can easily handle most social situations but I am clumsy and have poor eye and hand coordination. To this day I can not play a piano with two hands. The mechanism in the brain that divides the signals to my hands does not work properly. My left hand will play the rhythm of my right and my right would play the rhythms of my left.
I can play the piano with enough skill to have been considered for a symphony. I've played at weddings and other functions before. But I can't throw a baseball worth a damn (homo jokes aside, please) and my gross motor coordination is seriously lacking beside my fine motor coordination. This is something that has more to do with one's talents than a medical condition.
In complex situations like in relationships, I can notice my difficulties. I do not do well when women are not real direct about how they feel. Why do women do this?
You must be a straight male, then.;)
As a kid I fell into the autism category but as I grew up I become less and less autistic. I use to daydream at school and go into my own world whenever the teacher wasn't looking. I no longer do this. I can do things today that I could not do a decade ago. Its weird and I can not explain it but I guess maybe my brain is re-wiring itself.
Or maybe, just maybe, you're becoming more socially conscious and learning how to interface with those that are more extroverted.
I have brilliant in some area's but falter in others. Especially anything doing with 3d-space or mathematics. However I am great with logic and programming which uses the same area's of the brain.
I'd say your difficulties are in English, what with the "have brilliant" and "area's". But as I said above, these are more to do with talents than medical conditions.
I wonder how Eric would like it if someone "modded" his article to change the conclusion and then posted it on their website?
He might not like it, but that doesn't mean he has the right to do anything about it. Unless, of course, fair use is suddenly not inclusive of commentary?
Of course, if the person neglected to properly attribute the article, then that would be copyright infringement. But that wasn't specified, so let's not beat that horse.
I actually agree with his point that encouraging a customizing fan club can be a good thing. However, we have to allow IP creators to be able to control what people are allowed to do with their IP, and definitely whether others are allowed to pirate it.
This isn't necessarily piracy. The mod chips may contain legitimately reverse-engineered code; they may contain pirated code; or they may not contain any similar code at all. Until there's a definitive answer to why Lik-Sang was taken down, don't presume that it was legal or illegal.
And no, we don't have to let IP creators control everything that happens to their work. I personally like quoting others' forum posts so that I can reply to them more accurately -- which is a very legal 'infringement' of copyright. Just because Microsoft doesn't like mod chips doesn't mean they have a legal right to shut down an operation, and until we know exactly what went on, speculating on the cause is a waste of time and bandwidth.
The purpose of an mp3 (at least for legal uses) is not to take mp3s from one machine and move them to another machine.
Oh, so even though my fair use rights allow me to make backup copies, I'm not allowed to put those backup copies on another computer that I own? That's news to me.
I regularly use my iPod to transfer my MP3 collection between my home and work computers. (We're allowed to store them on our dev machines, so long as the directories aren't shared out.) It's a substantial non-infringing use, because I am a forgetful geek on occasion and leave my iPod sitting at home.
"It's fine to say that disabled individuals are not able to use this site and are losing out. But this could set a bad precedent making all companies with graphical type sites liable."
Not as long as they use the alt attribute on their IMG tags, provide a textual description within their OBJECT tags, and finally, throw up a text-only version accessible from the front page.
All of which are things that Section 508 and the ADA cover.
"How many major sites now use flash, can the screen reader translate that?"
Some of them can translate Flash 6, yes. But Flash is notorious for bad accessibility, and while it might look nice, it doesn't belong on a site if it's being intended to carry important information. It's glitz, and I'm *sure* you can find another text-and-graphics way to say it that doesn't rely on a proprietary file format AND a plug-in.
"It would also suck if this set a precedent so that even my little site had at to conform to blind-compatible standards (I do, however, try to use text when possible for lynx compatibility etc)"
Unless you're a business, you don't have to worry about it. But it's a good thing to adhere to anyway -- all the more reason to design according to standards, too.
"The major point is, while much information is being presented in a textual format, the internet is moving towards towards a more visually stimulating form of presentation."
Um, cell phones? PDAs? Most of the mobile devices in America can't handle much past text, and even the high-tech ones in Asia and Europe are still limited by screen size. And you want to run a 350kb Flash file on that StrongARM processor and wireless modem? Ah huh.
A lot of web designers/developers seem to forget that (a) not all internet browsing is done on a computer, and that (b) said browsing is NOT done on a top-of-the-line development machine.
"People with vision impairment are going to lose out a lot from this, but not everybody will think to account for all such special cases, especially when gearing towards a more flashy and potentially better selling presentation."
So we should ignore the minority completely for a slight benefit to a majority? The benefit may or may not exist, too. You can make a compelling presentation without fabulous animation. Lots of sites do it every day.
Rethink your arguments, man, and understand that a lot of people "see" things differently.;)
"But geologist Roger Buick of the University of Washington in Seattle told the same publication..."
Somehow I think that the guy from Colorado should back off, seeing as someone from Washington would be much more familiar with rain.
Quoth Soft: "However, is this enough? The document is now XML, and therefore should have a
Your analysis of the XML standard doesn't seem to contradict the XHTML standard. Both of them say pretty much the same things:
1. If the encoding is not specified, then for the document to be valid it must be UTF-8. Therefore, no ?xml tag is necessary, because both standards say that it's optional when the encoding is UTF-8. 2. If the encoding is specified as UTF-8 or UTF-16, then no ?xml tag is necessary for the above reason. 3. If the encoding is determined, and it is NOT UTF-8 or UTF-16, then an ?xml tag is required.
Therefore, if you need to omit the XML declaration, then use UTF-8 or UTF-16 encoding.
Y'know, with Mozilla putting out another milestone release, Verizon teaming up with the EFF, and Microsoft putting new privacy "features" in WMP 9... I think it's time to invest in some subterranean cold storage ventures.
Does anyone have the terms of the actual MP3 license handy? It doesn't seem correct that Thompson can change existing license terms when the license has already been agreed to -- in other words, suddenly start charging companies that already use their codecs for something that was previously free. It makes sense that any FUTURE licenses (and licensees) will not be free, but isn't it a classic bait-and-switch when someone like, say, Nullsoft has already licensed the decoder? And isn't that illegal?
Just do it, people. Don't be inflammatory, just ask whether or not they intend to support the bill (in its current form, or with modifications.)
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Norm Dicks (Washington, 6th district) previously wrote back to one of my queries on the CBDTPA, with the response that he didn't support it. I'm hoping he's got similar views on this bill.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know anyone who bought their Mac just for iTunes
I did.
I bought an iPod when they were still Mac-only, so I ended up buying the eMac to go with it. After using iTunes once on a friend's iBook, I was hooked. Doing ID3 tags on a Windows platform is like looking forward to a root canal when you're talking about 5,000+ songs. Of course, I don't mind a lot of the other features of OS X, but iTunes and the iPod were a killer combination. Frankly, I still prefer Win2K over OS X, not least because a number of programs I use are still Windows-only and have no decent OS X equivalents. It kind of pisses me off that had I waited a year, I could have saved myself a massive ($3000+) investment in Apple hardware. I suppose that's the price for being an early adopter -- but I'm still pissed, and I hope Apple makes the iTunes for Windows client a shadow of the real thing.
beats the living hell out of Paint Shop Pro.
Like hell it does. Must we resort to bashing other image editors to make our own look better?
I'm a professional designer, and I prefer PSP to any other editor merely for its near-flawless integration of vector and bitmap tools. Yes, I've used them all ... CorelDRAW, Canvas, Photoshop, Fireworks, and even the GIMP. They've all got their markets. But to state unequivocally that an application sucks (without any reasons, besides!) is just bloody stupid.
XML does allow for ambiguity. However, it also allows for a lot of control -- it's just that many users don't make use of it.
If you wanted to, you could write an XML document without any sort of DTD or schema. It validates, because there's nothing to validate it against. Similarly, many companies create XML files without bothering to create schemas, and so they run into problems because they didn't define their own document structures first.
XML has its own standard, but that standard isn't meant to extend to the content. It's just a few simple rules on syntax, not a tag structure. You are left to do that on your own. Similarly, the tools out there can validate XML documents against schemas or DTDs (ever tried Xalan?) but they can't do a dang thing if you don't have a schema to go with your file.
You seem to be blaming the W3C and an open file standard for your own problems with document structure. It appears you're not using the right tools.
Most of those "modern web techniques" cause more trouble than they're worth. They tend to work consistently only with Internet Explorer, which is their real reason for their existence and the reason Microsoft promotes them.
You, sir, are mistaken. The original poster was talking about using modern web standards in place of kludgy code, and Microsoft is notorious for not supporting OR promoting those "real" standards. Their home page doesn't validate. I've yet to see any of their applications produce clean HTML or CSS. In fact, the only things that DO work consistently in Internet Explorer are things that break the W3C standards -- the flashy, IE-only effects that few people use but many people deride. Besides which, Mozilla supports those "modern web standards" much better than IE ever has. It boasts full CSS compatibility for Level 1 and most of Level 2; IE doesn't even support a subset of Level 1 correctly. I won't get into DOM support here, but Mozilla and other browsers beat the hell out of IE there, too.
CSS is in a wierd niche - unneeded for simple pages, and too weak to do what Flash can do. Most of what CSS is usually used for can be done on the authoring side, with Dreamweaver templates or something similar. CSS also interacts badly with firewalls and proxy servers that edit out hostile content. If you really need exciting animated graphical effects (and you usually don't), Flash has far better capabilities.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. CSS dramatically reduces coding time, bandwidth usage, and maintenance problems to the point that stylistic changes are no longer a headache. Most browsers now support the majority of CSS L1 -- including IE 5.0+ -- and the sheer savings of selectors versus font tags is incredible. Even on "simple" pages, CSS is more efficient. I've never seen it interact badly with firewalls and/or a proxy server, since when it's done right it's linked as an external file just like an external script.
You're also wrong to compare it to Flash. CSS is about styling content, not "exciting animated graphical effects." That's what SVG is for, and I suggest you read up on that. CSS has nothing to do with vector animation.
Almost nobody uses XML as originally envisioned - as a way to send structured data from a web site to the user's client. I built Downside [downside.com] to do just that for SEC filings, but apart from one obscure client program nobody uses, nobody downloads data that way. We're not seeing XML-tagged price and part number info on sites to allow price-oriented search engines to find the best deal for consumers, now are we? When you buy something online, you don't get back an XML-tagged receipt that goes into your own database. XML is mostly used for in-house and business-to-business applications, typically in situations where no human looks at the content.
False. XML is not intended to be the de facto standard for web communication. It's intended to be a standard data format that multiple, different applications can understand (including human readers.) If XML were the be-all, end-all of a user's browsing experience, the W3C wouldn't be working on another version of XHTML. Moreover, just because you're not seeing XML data doesn't mean it's not useful. Sometimes, companies don't want consumers (or their competitors!) to have access to their inventories and prices. As for XML receipts, I've yet to see a program that does what you're talking about, to say nothing of one that a consumer could use without requesting help from a geek friend.
Please, get your facts straight.
I think that the iCommune peeps should have given up while they were only marginally behind. They produced some extension to Apple's product, and Apple deemed it to be illegal so they sent a C+D and asked for their SDK back.
There's a rather large difference between something that's illegal and a violation of a contract (which is civil, BTW). However, you've missed that difference. Apple was right to take away his SDK, because he was producing software that they deemed violated his license agreement -- and they had every right to do so. However, they have no say in the legality of a developer's software.
So the iCommune peeps decide that they're going to rewrite some software to do the same thing (give or take some added extras), release it under the same name only this time it'll be GPL'd. So the headlines in the popular techpress go from Apple tells author of small software plug-in to stop distributing to GNU Public software breaks Apple copyright, violates trademark.
Wrong again. As long as the software doesn't use copyrighted code (which I assume is the case, otherwise he'd have to be an idiot to be publicizing this), he's not violated anything. It also does not violate a trademark -- or do you think iApple igets irights ito ieverything ithat ibegins iwith ithe iletter i'I'? Moreover, he is not breaking the terms of his SDK any longer, as the contract is broken and no longer has any binding force on him. Apple doesn't have any legal say in what people develop independently (though they can make their lives difficult, of course.)
This won't be good for FS/OSS publicity as the public will perceive GPL authors (they read:entire OSS lot) as a group of lawbreaking Communist zealots who flout C+D notices issued by hard-working companies just trynig to make a buck in today's world.
Actually, your post does less good, because you're spreading a lot of unnecessary FUD. Your painted picture of 'Communist zealots' versus 'hard-working companies' is touching, but hardly appropriate (and generally untrue, from my experience.) And for crying out loud, have you forgotten that this plugin has potential LEGAL uses for users, like sharing files on a home network without digging through shared folders and bothering with re-importing?
Remember: the clueless person on the street doesn't see the problem with laws like the DMCA; they think it's just protection (try and explain to someone that it nearly made the marker pen an illegal tool).
Remember: the clueless poster that equates innovation with infringement doesn't see the problem with the entertainment industry's rhetoric; they think it's just protection (try and explain to someone that it's illegal to share MP3s, yet companies encouraged us to share audio tapes ten years ago.)
Emulating a system is legal. Playing and possessing ROM versions of the games is also legal, provided you own a copy of that game. Despite what Nintendo says on its site -- that emulating its systems is illegal -- precedent exists in the form of Sony vs. Connectix. That case established that you are free to use another method of accessing the content you paid for. Do Sony and Nintendo like the fact that you can use an emulator and a ROM to play their games? No. But can they do anything about it if you've bought the games legitimately? No.
I'd agree with Zeldman on this one. They need to rename it to something else, and do some sort of forking, because switching terminology in midstream (for no appreciably visible reason) is simply not a good idea. I can see that it makes a certain amount of logical sense to convert images to objects, etc. ... but getting rid of H* tags and, as Mark mentioned, CITE? There isn't really anything to replace that kind of semantic markup, which is unfortunate.
I do remember reading some other stuff by IBM on this, and it was a fairly cogent explanation of the reasoning, but I still don't agree with the theories behind the changes.
I wouldn't mind most of the changes myself, but it will take decades for this standard to replace the current version if they drop compatibility. I'm sure that a few days afterwards Mozilla will have support for it, but the massive numbers of people who haven't yet upgraded to CSS-capable browsers tell me that we might see a few sites using XHTML 2 in, say, 2010.
Phoenix, the Win32 equivalent of Safari, is 6.2 MB. Presumably, they'll remove some more bloat before it reaches 1.0. Somehow I don't see Mozilla as being "mammoth," when it also includes IRC connectivity, a mail and news reader, and far more debugging tools than Safari.
Y'know, it really makes me sick to watch people giving up their rights for really stupid reasons.
First off, BnetD is NOT a cheating tool. It is a program that allows the user to run their own Battle.net server, and connect to it with the standard clients. It violates no portion of any existing software license, and besides, reverse engineering is a perfectly legitimate reason to make such a program. Don't forget that Sony sued Connectix for basically doing the same thing -- allowing gamers to use their PCs rather than a PlayStation console -- and lost, miserably. Your association of it with ShowEQ, and your last sentence's insinuation, are both fallacious and totally incorrect (not to mention misguided.) I use BnetD so that I can play on my own server, with my friends, and not have to deal with the pathetic losers that clog Battle.net with Pindabots and other hacks.
Your suggestion that the DMCA be 'upgraded' is totally off base for something of this magnitude. So there are cheaters. So what? Do we really need another law to explicitly define (for the umpteenth time) that cheating is wrong? Let the companies deal with the cheaters on their own time, with their own money, and according to their own rules. It is not the government's responsibility to play mediator for every dispute, especially when it's about a simple breach of contract.
2. Square ended the love affair with Nintendo primarily because Nintendo refused to move away from a cartridge based system. Square wanted to move towards games with astounding amounts of high resolution graphics. This began with the N64, but it is still relevant. The GameCube uses optical disks with 1.5GB storage capacity. The PS2 uses DVD's with 4.7GB capacity.
Judging from the graphics in Metroid Prime, Mario Sunshine, or even Starfox versus Final Fantasy X and Kingdom Hearts, I somehow don't think that it's the storage limitation that has anything to do with having 'great graphics.' Moreover, the idea of having Metroid Prime as multiplayer makes anyone forget Halo almost instantaneously -- it's that good. Granted, I love both of them, but the PS2 didn't seem to be all that much of an upgrade versus the PS1 graphically -- whereas the Gamecube is miles above the N64.
I also think that many people are forgetting that Square has already started development on Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, which is a Nintendo-exclusive title, and they have not released any plans for Xbox development.
This argument makes me ill. Arguably you have rights to play DVDs that you bought before the whole DVD brouhaha on an open-source OS. But now that it's clear what the license holders are demanding, I find it crazy to demand that you have a "right" to play, say, next-year's DVDs on a given OS.
Please, show me where the license holders have "demanded" these terms. I've yet to see an EULA attached to any of my DVDs, but I can assure you that any movies I buy will get returned if they have one included. It is my media -- and my right to use that legally purchased media in the way that I choose, whenever I choose, and for what purposes I see fit. And it pisses me off when I hear people giving up their rights in ignorance.
Similarly, I shed no tears for people who "demand" their "rights" to play the latest DVD on platform X. If you don't like the conditions that are being attached to a product - say the latest Star Wars DVD, or the latest Metallica CD - don't buy it, don't go to the theater, don't listen to their songs on the radio, and don't hype it on your website. That is the surest, best, and most honest way to get the MPAA, RIAA, etc. to listen to your demands.
Show me where, on either of those pieces of media, the user is obligated to agree before purchase that they will only consume those products as the manufacturers intended. Can't find it? No? Well, then stuff your argument. I'm not going to stop exercising my rights of fair use to 'set an example' when doing so would almost certainly be counterproductive.
Another anology: I might not like the terms of some GPL'ed product, thinking it "really" should be under a BSD license. Does that give me the RIGHT to use it under a BSD license ?
The user must view AND accept or reject the terms of use for the software before using it, source code included. You are free to discuss the licensing terms with the author, but you are not free to change the license; you do not own the copyright. However, there is no license for watching a DVD and thus your analogy fails.
This article is not well written, its vastly slanted towards law-breakers.
Neither is your comment. It's vastly slanted towards self-righteous reactionism.
Exhibit #1:
For the record, uncapping ( hacking your modem in order to gain access to untapped bandwidth) is not legal.
Not legal? It's called ILLEGAL. Uncapping your modem is ILLEGAL. "Not legal" is trying to cover it up.
No, the proper term for a breach of contract is not legal. There are laws about breaching contracts, true, but the offense is civil. Not criminal.
Exhibit #2:
As such, their control over the political system in the area is considerable
No examples, no proof, just innuendo and slander.
Since when is an observation in a column that's non-inflammatory and obviously editorial in nature slander? Get a dictionary and look up the word, man. It doesn't mean what you wish it did.
Exhibit #3:
a fact that may under-ride the horrifying journey several individuals are taking through the area's legal gauntlet because they uncapped their cable modems.
More speculation and innuendo. "Legal gauntlet" - what they are the victims now? Oppressed? They broke the law and must now fact the music.
Again, this is independent observation in an editorial piece. Even if it were not, observation that slants the facts to fit one's argument isn't merely "speculation." Do you have some sort of agenda against the poster? THAT's speculation. Moreover, excessive use of force can constitute oppression, and I suggest you read the article more closely instead of replying in a fit of anger.
Exhibit #4:
discovered that twenty three of his subscribers were getting more juice from their connections than they paid for.
Getting more juice. What a joke. They were stealing bandwidth from other customers. And not paying for it.
Bandwidth may be a finite resource, but the company in question has failed to demonstrate a consistent record of customer complaints; that other customers were injured is, actually, speculation on your part. Uncapping doesn't necessarily affect people if you do it at 2AM (not that I'm supporting the act, just raising a point.) They have also failed to demonstrate or prove that the uncapped modems were stealing significant amounts of bandwidth--anyone with half a brain can see that their numbers are massively inflated--and thus the author is raising a valid question: Why haven't we seen proof of this "gravely injurious act" that would make this proverbial boulder necessary to crush the ants?
Exhibit #5:
According to an interview in a recent Cable World article, Shyrock noted that one subscriber had "altered his modem to handle 100 megabits per second, up and downstream", though the company could never realistically even obtain such speeds.
So the fact that there wasn't enough bandwidth makes this better? Okay? They basically modded it to use as much bandwidth as possible, to the detriment of others.
Yes, it does. The damages that the company quoted to the FBI cannot have possibly been true. The fact that the company is quoting similarly heavy figures to a journalistic source is not surprising, but it also shows a basic lack of technical understanding. Again, here, you're also speculating that customers were injured, which they haven't shown happened.
Instead of disconnecting service for uncapping (as is the case with nearly every provider in the U.S.)
Its obviously working very well!
Wonderful. I'll refer you to the hundreds of other analogies that other posters have submitted, because they're all very excellent. It's becoming rapidly obvious that you missed the point of the article in your misguided attempt to appear on a moral high ground.
companies before his life was turned upside-down
Passive voice. He's just a victim! Its not his fault! All his neighbors say he's a great guy!
A Slashdot poster who questions the article's use of grammar, yet can't seem to grasp the proper use of commas himself. Grow up.
The worst that could happen to him, he figured, was that his ISP got angry and disconnected his service. He couldn't have been more wrong.
Bummer. It was just a little mistake. No problem!
That's the worst that SHOULD happen to him -- if not a fine and a settlement of some sorts. Calling in the FBI to settle one's outstanding payments on a civil case is nothing short of ludicrous.
This article can be summed as: "No fair! We weren't expecting to get caught!"
No, not really. But the summation of your comment would seem to be a giant mass of logical fallacies and emotional arguments.
Lets be real people. You can't steal bandwidth. If you modify your equipment to take more bandwidth than you are intended to have by your provider, you may end up in trouble. It doesn't look any of these people are going to jail. They got indicted, have to go to an "aversion" program, and pay some fines. The equipment - that which isn't illegal modified or containing illegal materials - will be returned. If they aren't the defendents should get lawyers.
Ah, so you did miss the point of the article. No one questions that what the users did was wrong; they're simply questioning the company's actions, and its motives.
The reprecussions suffered by the criminals is what happens when you break the law and get caught. Bummer. Don't break the law, or if you have a problem with it get it changed. Each defendent consciously knew what they were doing was wrong, and one even admits that he gambled that the consequences would be minor. Friggin' bummer. You gamble long enough and you will lose.
Keep posting long enough, and I'm sure you'll eventually write a coherent argument. What are you trying to do here -- say the same thing three times over?
If I walk into someone's store, the store is permitted to have someone follow me -- either in person, or by video camera. I'm on private property, and the property owner is entitled to watch what I am doing.
I think you'd object to them strip-searching you, though. Or would strapping motion-capture balls all over your body be less intrusive? What about, then, hiring someone to watch everything you did and report it back to someone else?
When you surf on a site, you are accessing someone elses server. They are the property owner, and they have the right to a report to see what you are doing.
Yes, they have the right -- to see what you're doing on their server. They don't automatically gain the right to see anything on your local machine other than the stuff you broadcast anyway -- screen resolution, color depth, browser, OS, etc. Just like you'd object to having a microphone planted inside your shorts (without your knowledge or explicit consent, in some cases) when you visit a store in the physical world, I object to companies trying to place things on MY computer when I visit their virtual storefront. And no, don't bring up that BS about "you consented when you loaded their site." I don't see any massive pop-up window with a click-through license agreement, and even THAT would be dubious.
There is nothing that I can see that RedSherriff becomes resident on your machine and watches you elsewhere. It just uses cookies to provide enhanced site stats to, in this case, the beeb.
Oh, I see. So if I stick a video camera up your posterior, but it only provides data feeds when you're in my store, that's OK with you then?
Complacency pisses me off, especially when it's people telling companies that MY rights don't matter.
And here's where you're wrong:
You assumed that my argument referred solely to the backup program, and that it is only accessed by downloading software. I can tell you, right now, that when I booted my eMac for the first time one of the Applications sitting on my system was Backup, and it was designed to work with .Mac. Furthermore, even if the Backup program was only accessed via downloading, there are still plenty of other parts of .Mac that do not require a download; to make things even better, go read the license yourself and eat your post. The user is not obligated to fulfill Apple's intentions by downloading the software, and since nothing in the license explicitly prohibits using an alternate server, people are well within their rights to bypass Apple entirely.
Please, tell me how that's illegal.
This is patently false.
Apple has written software to be used with their .Mac service. The cost of the software is included in the price of the service.
No, because the software in question is not delivered upon payment for its associated service. It is delivered upon payment for a different product -- it's a bundle, obviously.
When you use the software without paying for the service you are, in effect, pirating the software.
Actually, anyone who does this is simply using the software they own (it came with OS X, and they bought that, right?) in a manner inconsistent with its design. That's not illegal! Requisite analogy: A car manufacturer sells cupholders emblazoned with the Coca-Cola logo. Is it then [sarcasm]piracy[/sarcasm] to use said cupholders to hold a Dr. Pepper, or worse yet, your own no-name water bottle?
You may justify this in your own mind by claiming that the price of the hardware and the OS should entitle you to the use of the .Mac backup software but that's not how it was intended.
I don't give a flying fsck about intentions. Apple created a product and bundled it with their operating system; I bought the operating system, and thus I've purchased that product legitimately. It is not their business how I use that product; it's mine, and I don't remember reading a EULA that forbade me to use it with another service. (Even if it did, this comes pretty close to Connectix/Sony for obvious reasons.) As such, I am more than welcome to use my purchase any way I want, even if it means in a way that it's not intended to be used.
The backup software is not a part of the OS. It is not included with the computer. It is a download available to .Mac users. It has built-in safegaurds to prevent use by people who do not pay for a .Mac subscription. By circumventing these mechanisms you are pirating the software.
Yes, a .Mac subscription from Apple. But the poster is not cheating Apple; he's not accessing their servers and using their services. And because he's not using THEIR servers, there's no reason that he should pay them anything.
I'd have to disagree with a lot of this. The test seems biased towards certain personality types, and though introversion is certainly correlated with autism, it != causation.
1.) Do you find certain social situations difficult or awkward?
Yes. I'm also deeply introverted, and like it that way. My friends ask why I don't go clubbing with them, and my sole response has been that "crowds of drunken, stupid people annoy me." But I just don't enjoy the crowds.2.) Do you feel out of place sometimes?
Again, introversion-centric questioning. 'Sometimes' is a pretty generic qualifier; without additional perspective on the frequency of that feeling or sensation, the question is pretty meaningless.
3.) Do you have bizarre certain interests that no on cares about? *computers cough cough
This is a strongly worded question that pretty much equates to, "Do you have a hobby?"
4.) Do you feel smart in certain area's but lack knowledge sometimes of other different area's?
Should it ask instead, "Are you human, or omniscient?"
5.) Do you find expressing emotions difficult even though you have them?
(Disclaimer: I'm gay myself.) "Are you a heterosexual male?" OK, laughs aside, introverts tend to be less expressive in public of their feelings. Is this now a penalty?
6.) Do you feel yourself to be somewhat clumsy ?
See #5. Social situations are difficult for introverts.
7.) As a kid did you feel more interested in complex things like science or weather rather then playing GI joe ?
OK. This one really gets me, because it uses stereotypical gender-centric behavior and focuses on the differences between a more withdrawn, introspective child and a more extroverted one. An unwillingness to play 'Army' with one's friends at age eight would, I think, be more representative of high intelligence once a kid realizes that Mummy is really going to rip into him for playing in the muddy field again.
8.) Do you find yourself to be somewhat compulsive?
Introverts with less-than-'normal' social lives tend to seem compulsive to others, since their behavior patterns are different from those of their friends.
I have both conditions that match autism and aspergers so I am unique.
Not really, you're just human.
For example I can easily handle most social situations but I am clumsy and have poor eye and hand coordination. To this day I can not play a piano with two hands. The mechanism in the brain that divides the signals to my hands does not work properly. My left hand will play the rhythm of my right and my right would play the rhythms of my left.
I can play the piano with enough skill to have been considered for a symphony. I've played at weddings and other functions before. But I can't throw a baseball worth a damn (homo jokes aside, please) and my gross motor coordination is seriously lacking beside my fine motor coordination. This is something that has more to do with one's talents than a medical condition.
In complex situations like in relationships, I can notice my difficulties. I do not do well when women are not real direct about how they feel. Why do women do this?
You must be a straight male, then. ;)
As a kid I fell into the autism category but as I grew up I become less and less autistic. I use to daydream at school and go into my own world whenever the teacher wasn't looking. I no longer do this. I can do things today that I could not do a decade ago. Its weird and I can not explain it but I guess maybe my brain is re-wiring itself.
Or maybe, just maybe, you're becoming more socially conscious and learning how to interface with those that are more extroverted.
I have brilliant in some area's but falter in others. Especially anything doing with 3d-space or mathematics. However I am great with logic and programming which uses the same area's of the brain.
I'd say your difficulties are in English, what with the "have brilliant" and "area's". But as I said above, these are more to do with talents than medical conditions.
I wonder how Eric would like it if someone "modded" his article to change the conclusion and then posted it on their website?
He might not like it, but that doesn't mean he has the right to do anything about it. Unless, of course, fair use is suddenly not inclusive of commentary?
Of course, if the person neglected to properly attribute the article, then that would be copyright infringement. But that wasn't specified, so let's not beat that horse.
I actually agree with his point that encouraging a customizing fan club can be a good thing. However, we have to allow IP creators to be able to control what people are allowed to do with their IP, and definitely whether others are allowed to pirate it.
This isn't necessarily piracy. The mod chips may contain legitimately reverse-engineered code; they may contain pirated code; or they may not contain any similar code at all. Until there's a definitive answer to why Lik-Sang was taken down, don't presume that it was legal or illegal.
And no, we don't have to let IP creators control everything that happens to their work. I personally like quoting others' forum posts so that I can reply to them more accurately -- which is a very legal 'infringement' of copyright. Just because Microsoft doesn't like mod chips doesn't mean they have a legal right to shut down an operation, and until we know exactly what went on, speculating on the cause is a waste of time and bandwidth.
The purpose of an mp3 (at least for legal uses) is not to take mp3s from one machine and move them to another machine.
Oh, so even though my fair use rights allow me to make backup copies, I'm not allowed to put those backup copies on another computer that I own? That's news to me.
I regularly use my iPod to transfer my MP3 collection between my home and work computers. (We're allowed to store them on our dev machines, so long as the directories aren't shared out.) It's a substantial non-infringing use, because I am a forgetful geek on occasion and leave my iPod sitting at home.
"It's fine to say that disabled individuals are not able to use this site and are losing out. But this could set a bad precedent making all companies with graphical type sites liable."
;)
Not as long as they use the alt attribute on their IMG tags, provide a textual description within their OBJECT tags, and finally, throw up a text-only version accessible from the front page.
All of which are things that Section 508 and the ADA cover.
"How many major sites now use flash, can the screen reader translate that?"
Some of them can translate Flash 6, yes. But Flash is notorious for bad accessibility, and while it might look nice, it doesn't belong on a site if it's being intended to carry important information. It's glitz, and I'm *sure* you can find another text-and-graphics way to say it that doesn't rely on a proprietary file format AND a plug-in.
"It would also suck if this set a precedent so that even my little site had at to conform to blind-compatible standards (I do, however, try to use text when possible for lynx compatibility etc)"
Unless you're a business, you don't have to worry about it. But it's a good thing to adhere to anyway -- all the more reason to design according to standards, too.
"The major point is, while much information is being presented in a textual format, the internet is moving towards towards a more visually stimulating form of presentation."
Um, cell phones? PDAs? Most of the mobile devices in America can't handle much past text, and even the high-tech ones in Asia and Europe are still limited by screen size. And you want to run a 350kb Flash file on that StrongARM processor and wireless modem? Ah huh.
A lot of web designers/developers seem to forget that (a) not all internet browsing is done on a computer, and that (b) said browsing is NOT done on a top-of-the-line development machine.
"People with vision impairment are going to lose out a lot from this, but not everybody will think to account for all such special cases, especially when gearing towards a more flashy and potentially better selling presentation."
So we should ignore the minority completely for a slight benefit to a majority? The benefit may or may not exist, too. You can make a compelling presentation without fabulous animation. Lots of sites do it every day.
Rethink your arguments, man, and understand that a lot of people "see" things differently.
"But geologist Roger Buick of the University of Washington in Seattle told the same publication ..."
Somehow I think that the guy from Colorado should back off, seeing as someone from Washington would be much more familiar with rain.
Quoth Soft:
"However, is this enough? The document is now XML, and therefore should have a
Your analysis of the XML standard doesn't seem to contradict the XHTML standard. Both of them say pretty much the same things:
1. If the encoding is not specified, then for the document to be valid it must be UTF-8. Therefore, no ?xml tag is necessary, because both standards say that it's optional when the encoding is UTF-8.
2. If the encoding is specified as UTF-8 or UTF-16, then no ?xml tag is necessary for the above reason.
3. If the encoding is determined, and it is NOT UTF-8 or UTF-16, then an ?xml tag is required.
Therefore, if you need to omit the XML declaration, then use UTF-8 or UTF-16 encoding.
... so, why isn't this on the front page with the latest Microsoft gaffe? Yeah, so what, mod me down.
Y'know, with Mozilla putting out another milestone release, Verizon teaming up with the EFF, and Microsoft putting new privacy "features" in WMP 9 ... I think it's time to invest in some subterranean cold storage ventures.
Does anyone have the terms of the actual MP3 license handy? It doesn't seem correct that Thompson can change existing license terms when the license has already been agreed to -- in other words, suddenly start charging companies that already use their codecs for something that was previously free. It makes sense that any FUTURE licenses (and licensees) will not be free, but isn't it a classic bait-and-switch when someone like, say, Nullsoft has already licensed the decoder? And isn't that illegal?
Just do it, people. Don't be inflammatory, just ask whether or not they intend to support the bill (in its current form, or with modifications.)
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Norm Dicks (Washington, 6th district) previously wrote back to one of my queries on the CBDTPA, with the response that he didn't support it. I'm hoping he's got similar views on this bill.