Some versions of 32 bit Windows support PAE, which is an Intel extension for addressing more 4GB of RAM. You're still restricted to 4GB of virtual memory per process, though.
See, you're a liar. I do this for a living as well, and I make a lot of money at it. There is no way to get 100% feature parity between IE and Firefox. If you're willing to spend a fair amount of time on IE behaviors, DHTML, and maybe some ActiveX controls, you can get pretty close, but then we're far beyond the realm of what you can with CSS (and you'd have spent a lot less time on a Flash site), and that doesn't address the stuff that Firefox does wrong that IE does right (although I can only think of one example off the top of my head).
If your site renders identically on IE and Firefox (to the pixel, no less!), and you're not using any browser specific markup or sniffing tricks, then you are using a minimal subset of CSS. Anyone who claims anything else is lying. Here's a short list, inspired by what I've been doing in my own work in the last couple days, that you are not using:
position: fixed
input type="file" with styling. Firefox applies styles poorly/not at all to this control.
the table-layout attribute and the related display attributes, like table-cell and table-row
The fieldset tag, sort of - you can't get Firefox to mimic the IE default display, but you could change them both to some third value. Which reminds me, I should file a bug for anti-aliasing of rounded borders.
The overflow element applied to a TBODY. So annoying!
And then of course theres the various IE extensions, as well. So you aren't using overflow-x or overflow-y, either.
All this presumes you're only supporting IE 6, too. If you're supporting earlier versions, like IE 5 and 5.5, then theres a lot more things you aren't doing. This all comes under option A.
Dumb. I can type several times faster than I can write, and more accurately. I bet you can too. Even skilled transcribers rapidly become faster and more accurate typists with relatively little practice. The keyboard is a *far* superior interface to the pencil.
There's been a *lot* of reasearch into new interface devices. One of the problems is that they universally suck, at least in the general case. Google for haptics if you're interested. The mouse is actually astonishingly powerful and flexible, and unless you can point to specific issues with it, complaints about it sound like people whining that there's been no serious research in new light switches.
Thats only because you're using the wrong command. If you were to select the files you want, and then use the context menu to unzip them, it would operate how you want.
Just for completness sake, you could use the corners of the screen to activate stuff (the screensaver, by default, but there were desktop plugins that could do other things) at *least* as far back as System 6.
In Windows, the file dialog *is* an instance of Explorer. It's an embedded shell in a dialog. Too many apps (especially older ones, but some newer ones too - fuck you, Office, and why the hell do you always have to write your own goddamn UI instead of using the native Windows one?) write thier own file dialogs. Filtering in explorer would be nice. I seem to recall that the ancient file manager in Windows 3.1 worked that way.
The definition of optimal market absolutely matters. Personally, I think that defining a market by the number of goods and services available is a pretty useless metric. The *quality* of the goods and services provided, as well as the price-quality ratio, is far more important. Standard capitalist theory states that, a free market will produce the best products at the best price. This is clearly false. In fact, I doubt theres any economic policy that could actually consistently create the best products at the best price - controlled markets regularly fail, but in some areas have beat out commercial alternatives (municipal broadband, for example).
Now, personally, I'm a liberal, I don't think theres any point in having an economy (or a society for that matter) that doesn't provide for the needs of it's participents. So I consider things like the number of people below the poverty line, or who can't afford essentials, and the difference between the top 5% and bottom 5% as being important indicators as well. A "free" market clearly fails to reach the optimum given those standards. Capitalist economies tend to concentrate wealth.
A *totally* free market, however, doesn't meet *anyones* standards. Even the most rabid of free marketers think that the goverment needs to enforce contracts and agreements.
That's great. I'm happy for you. THE FACT REMAINS: If your site works in IE, it works because either a) you ignore large parts of CSS 1 and 2 which IE does not implement or b) you browser sniff (either literally or via stuff like the CSS parser hacks) to present browser specific CSS. Period. Also, if you think that floating and absolute positioning are both good and unusual CSS, then you need a whack from the cluebat.
By the way, your site is not pixel identical in Firefox & IE. I bet its different in Safari, too, although I can't check right now. It was a silly thing to claim anyway, as the only way to create pixel-identical sites is to not use any of the elements or CSS attributes that aren't rendered pixel identical across all browsers, which only supports my point.
And here's why your analogy is wrong, and why what Fudruckers did wasn't trespassing at all: if you buy land, and it's not fenced in, and more importantly, if the common perception of that land is that it's public (this is pretty common in rural areas), then you *can't* charge people with trespassing. The web, by it's very design, is based around the linking of documents. Now, the guy was within his rights to do what he did (although I think it makes him a dick), but would not have been within his rights to sue. If Fudruckers had inlined the game (but still hotlinked) that would have been a different story.
Fortunately, in today's world it is possible to use standards AND design for all (modern) browsers at the same time!
Well - no. Not unless what you actually mean is "use a small subset of CSS 1". And even then there are minor incosistencies and differences that can end up biting you (although they often won't). If you want your site to work in IE, and you do, then you either need to stick with minimal CSS support, or have forked or otherwise hacked up CSS. Period. Additionally, if you want to support IE 5 (not nearly as rare as Netscape 4), you have to be aware of the broken box model and work around it via hacks. IEs behavior prior to IE 6 (with the right doctype) is just plain wrong and CSS written for it will *not* work in other browsers.
This is the single most common response to people pointing out MySQLs data validation issues, and I think it pretty much sums up both the attitude of the typical MySQL developer as well as the reason for MySQLs popularity: People who totally misunderstand both the theory and importance of databases. Amusingly, this same sector of people (because this argument essentially becomes "don't write buggy code, every") have produced some of the most atrociously written and flawed applications to ever be used on the Internet. Except for sendmail.
Does anyone but me get exasperated at how fucking *stupid* it is that we need to do shit like write our own query language because no database vendor will conform to the standardized one, and even if they did the standard is woefully inadequate for many tasks? This is exactly the sort of shit standards are supposed to address.
The primary obstacle for almost every desktop OS, and almost every office suit, is not "how good is it", or "how much does it cost", but "how well does it interoperate with Microsoft", and "how closely does it mimic Microsofts products". And you don't think Microsoft has a monopoly to leverage? Of course there are alternatives. There were always alternatives to Standard Oil, too. And even to the Bells. But,just like non-Microsoft OSes, they all work at a signifigant disadvantage and with an enormous uphill battle.
Theres no such thing as a free marketer (maybe some crackpot in a shack somewhere). Nobody really wants to live in a society where there are no market restrictions. The only argument is how much and what rules should be implemented. "Let the free market decide" is invariably the cry of people with no more compelling argument to show why things shouldn't be regulated. It's demonstrable fact that a "free market" doesn't always produce an optimal market, not in an abstract economic sense and certainly not in a more humanist moral sense. Therefore, anyone who supports a "free" market over a regulated one should be prepared to show how and why normal competition forces would be superior to artificial ones, and they should also be prepared to define the limits of what they consider "normal" competition.
It's true that the barrier to entry for writing an OS is very small. But this is economics we're talking about, so we don't care about people writing OSes. We care about people *marketing* OSes, and selling them. And Microsofts monopoly clearly creates an enormous barrier to entry there. This, of course, is the basic failure of the free market - the most successfull player in any market will always have the ability to control the market. How is buying up land so other people can't build pipelines any different than bribing distributors to only sell your product?
The only reason it applies to those prebate cartridges is because those are the ones that happen to have the words printed on them. If this ruling supports the legality of those pseudo-contracts, there is *no reason whatsoever* that any other pseudo-contracts would not also be binding. Even if offering another alternative was required, it would be trivial for Lexmark to make the alternative almost unavailable and probitively expensive when it was.
This trend of licensing by just printing some stuff on the box *must* stop. If companies want to license rather than sell products, they need to be pro-active about it. That includes requiring retailers to present contracts at the time of sale.
The way it *actually* works with beer cans is that you get the money back when you actually deposit them. See those "2c deposit" markers on bottles and cans? Thats a fee thats added (by law, in the states indicated) to the price of that can or bottle. You get it back when you recycle it. Lexmark could just as easily do that, except then it's a hassle and people don't want to do it. Personally, I say tough shit. If you want to embed non-standard conditions on your sales, it's your obligation to ensure that the act doesn't look like a standard sale - have a form at the counter that you're required to sign, or make it a rebate and not a prebate or whatever.
I think the second option is ridiculous, by the way - in a fairly important case against EULAs, the judge relied on the fact that EULAs were "the norm" when he determined that you're bound by it even if you haven't read (or even seen) it. You're supposed to know it's there, so you should look for it if it's not presented. Bullshit.
If paying a 1000% markup on a product is acceptable, then sending them $1 in exchange for $10 should be fine. But you'd never win anyway. Courts hate people who try to be clever like that, and love companies who can beat thier breast and wail about how they just want to compete fairly.
If the grandparent had done as he had suggested, and read the whole of Title 35, it rapidly would have been clear that the whole title pertains to all patents, and is not specifically reduced to commercial use. I just finished reading most of it, and while there are some non-commercial use exemptions, they only apply to food and drugs. And it's only excemption from monentary damages, you can still be injucted(is that a word?) and be required to pay attorneys fees.
This is a mischaracterization at best. It's like saying that it's legal to speed as long as a cop can't see you.
Yes, it's unlikely that Lexmark will go after individual users, and it would certainly be difficult for them to figure out how even if they could (maybe phone-home printer drivers). Damages are "to be determined by the court", but never less than "a reasonably royalty". This essentially translates into "whatever Lexmark can get away with", and may include attorney fees (although thats said to be for "exceptional cases", which hopefully wouldn't extent to personal use).
Because support for OpenDocument gives customers a pain-free migration path off of Office.
However, I suspect we may see a reversal soon. Because the traditional MS response to this sort of thing is either to claim support, but embedd MS extensions in it (which is more or less what they did with the last version of Office and it's suposed XML support), or to write support but make it really suck. Watch for the next version of Office to have OpenDocument support, but for the support to be poor and buggy.
Before you write any more stupid ass defenses of Paypal, you should spend a little time comparing what real banks and legitimate money processors do in the same circumstances, with what Paypal does, who has none of the same legal obligations and takes a great deal of advantage of that fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Some versions of 32 bit Windows support PAE, which is an Intel extension for addressing more 4GB of RAM. You're still restricted to 4GB of virtual memory per process, though.
If your site renders identically on IE and Firefox (to the pixel, no less!), and you're not using any browser specific markup or sniffing tricks, then you are using a minimal subset of CSS. Anyone who claims anything else is lying. Here's a short list, inspired by what I've been doing in my own work in the last couple days, that you are not using:
- position: fixed
- input type="file" with styling. Firefox applies styles poorly/not at all to this control.
- the table-layout attribute and the related display attributes, like table-cell and table-row
- The fieldset tag, sort of - you can't get Firefox to mimic the IE default display, but you could change them both to some third value. Which reminds me, I should file a bug for anti-aliasing of rounded borders.
- The overflow element applied to a TBODY. So annoying!
And then of course theres the various IE extensions, as well. So you aren't using overflow-x or overflow-y, either.All this presumes you're only supporting IE 6, too. If you're supporting earlier versions, like IE 5 and 5.5, then theres a lot more things you aren't doing. This all comes under option A.
It may be related to your version of WinZip(unregistered, maybe?). I have an "Extract to here" command which extracts silently.
There's been a *lot* of reasearch into new interface devices. One of the problems is that they universally suck, at least in the general case. Google for haptics if you're interested. The mouse is actually astonishingly powerful and flexible, and unless you can point to specific issues with it, complaints about it sound like people whining that there's been no serious research in new light switches.
As for what you want... it's already here. You can get a Wacom tablet with a screen on it. http://www.wacom.com/lcdtablets/index.cfm
Thats only because you're using the wrong command. If you were to select the files you want, and then use the context menu to unzip them, it would operate how you want.
Just for completness sake, you could use the corners of the screen to activate stuff (the screensaver, by default, but there were desktop plugins that could do other things) at *least* as far back as System 6.
In Windows, the file dialog *is* an instance of Explorer. It's an embedded shell in a dialog. Too many apps (especially older ones, but some newer ones too - fuck you, Office, and why the hell do you always have to write your own goddamn UI instead of using the native Windows one?) write thier own file dialogs. Filtering in explorer would be nice. I seem to recall that the ancient file manager in Windows 3.1 worked that way.
Now, personally, I'm a liberal, I don't think theres any point in having an economy (or a society for that matter) that doesn't provide for the needs of it's participents. So I consider things like the number of people below the poverty line, or who can't afford essentials, and the difference between the top 5% and bottom 5% as being important indicators as well. A "free" market clearly fails to reach the optimum given those standards. Capitalist economies tend to concentrate wealth.
A *totally* free market, however, doesn't meet *anyones* standards. Even the most rabid of free marketers think that the goverment needs to enforce contracts and agreements.
By the way, your site is not pixel identical in Firefox & IE. I bet its different in Safari, too, although I can't check right now. It was a silly thing to claim anyway, as the only way to create pixel-identical sites is to not use any of the elements or CSS attributes that aren't rendered pixel identical across all browsers, which only supports my point.
And here's why your analogy is wrong, and why what Fudruckers did wasn't trespassing at all: if you buy land, and it's not fenced in, and more importantly, if the common perception of that land is that it's public (this is pretty common in rural areas), then you *can't* charge people with trespassing. The web, by it's very design, is based around the linking of documents. Now, the guy was within his rights to do what he did (although I think it makes him a dick), but would not have been within his rights to sue. If Fudruckers had inlined the game (but still hotlinked) that would have been a different story.
(I'm not the AC who first posted)
Well - no. Not unless what you actually mean is "use a small subset of CSS 1". And even then there are minor incosistencies and differences that can end up biting you (although they often won't). If you want your site to work in IE, and you do, then you either need to stick with minimal CSS support, or have forked or otherwise hacked up CSS. Period. Additionally, if you want to support IE 5 (not nearly as rare as Netscape 4), you have to be aware of the broken box model and work around it via hacks. IEs behavior prior to IE 6 (with the right doctype) is just plain wrong and CSS written for it will *not* work in other browsers.
This is the single most common response to people pointing out MySQLs data validation issues, and I think it pretty much sums up both the attitude of the typical MySQL developer as well as the reason for MySQLs popularity: People who totally misunderstand both the theory and importance of databases. Amusingly, this same sector of people (because this argument essentially becomes "don't write buggy code, every") have produced some of the most atrociously written and flawed applications to ever be used on the Internet. Except for sendmail.
Does anyone but me get exasperated at how fucking *stupid* it is that we need to do shit like write our own query language because no database vendor will conform to the standardized one, and even if they did the standard is woefully inadequate for many tasks? This is exactly the sort of shit standards are supposed to address.
Theres no such thing as a free marketer (maybe some crackpot in a shack somewhere). Nobody really wants to live in a society where there are no market restrictions. The only argument is how much and what rules should be implemented. "Let the free market decide" is invariably the cry of people with no more compelling argument to show why things shouldn't be regulated. It's demonstrable fact that a "free market" doesn't always produce an optimal market, not in an abstract economic sense and certainly not in a more humanist moral sense. Therefore, anyone who supports a "free" market over a regulated one should be prepared to show how and why normal competition forces would be superior to artificial ones, and they should also be prepared to define the limits of what they consider "normal" competition.
It's true that the barrier to entry for writing an OS is very small. But this is economics we're talking about, so we don't care about people writing OSes. We care about people *marketing* OSes, and selling them. And Microsofts monopoly clearly creates an enormous barrier to entry there. This, of course, is the basic failure of the free market - the most successfull player in any market will always have the ability to control the market. How is buying up land so other people can't build pipelines any different than bribing distributors to only sell your product?
FYI: This is a cut & paste troll that gets posted in every P2P/piracy related article.
Ooh. Enjoined. I knew there was a real word for that, but it was escaping me.
This trend of licensing by just printing some stuff on the box *must* stop. If companies want to license rather than sell products, they need to be pro-active about it. That includes requiring retailers to present contracts at the time of sale.
The way it *actually* works with beer cans is that you get the money back when you actually deposit them. See those "2c deposit" markers on bottles and cans? Thats a fee thats added (by law, in the states indicated) to the price of that can or bottle. You get it back when you recycle it. Lexmark could just as easily do that, except then it's a hassle and people don't want to do it. Personally, I say tough shit. If you want to embed non-standard conditions on your sales, it's your obligation to ensure that the act doesn't look like a standard sale - have a form at the counter that you're required to sign, or make it a rebate and not a prebate or whatever.
If paying a 1000% markup on a product is acceptable, then sending them $1 in exchange for $10 should be fine. But you'd never win anyway. Courts hate people who try to be clever like that, and love companies who can beat thier breast and wail about how they just want to compete fairly.
If the grandparent had done as he had suggested, and read the whole of Title 35, it rapidly would have been clear that the whole title pertains to all patents, and is not specifically reduced to commercial use. I just finished reading most of it, and while there are some non-commercial use exemptions, they only apply to food and drugs. And it's only excemption from monentary damages, you can still be injucted(is that a word?) and be required to pay attorneys fees.
Yes, it's unlikely that Lexmark will go after individual users, and it would certainly be difficult for them to figure out how even if they could (maybe phone-home printer drivers). Damages are "to be determined by the court", but never less than "a reasonably royalty". This essentially translates into "whatever Lexmark can get away with", and may include attorney fees (although thats said to be for "exceptional cases", which hopefully wouldn't extent to personal use).
However, I suspect we may see a reversal soon. Because the traditional MS response to this sort of thing is either to claim support, but embedd MS extensions in it (which is more or less what they did with the last version of Office and it's suposed XML support), or to write support but make it really suck. Watch for the next version of Office to have OpenDocument support, but for the support to be poor and buggy.