Microsoft co-marketing funds are a substantial portion of the profit margins for many large PC retailers. Tweaking the nose of the giant might be fun but it's risky. If Microsoft reduces the per-PC marketing contribution it makes for a particular reseller, that puts them at a huge financial disadvantage relative to their competitors.
It's not the costs of the OS that are the issue, it's the fact that Microsoft may take their ball and go home. Once that happens, you could be stuck with narrower margins, even if you're saving on the OS.
Leaving aside solving your problems with making robust layouts with CSS . . .
It's good css practice (not professional practice, educational FOR LEARNING practice) to write a site completely in div or spans, but most these other tags are not going anywhere soon, and provide context for your document, for example, in a layout I'm working on now, I use styled ol to achieve the same effect that I would traditionally get from a table. I could also achieve the same effect using a series of divs or with styled tables. Although the ol makes the most sense when viewing the source because the nature of the content in it is a list, a series of divs or a table would make it a lot harder to immediately distinguish this list.
Not at all! It's not in any way good practice to use divs and spans except where there's no more appropriate element! What you're talking about here is HTML development, not CSS development. You can't do CSS without HTML to hang it on (well OK XML, but let's not get into that).
One of my pet hates is sites which have source code consisting entirely of divs with no semantic markup whatsoever. If you can point to any educational resources which advocate the use of semantically null elements over decent markup, then please post them here so they can be educated!
Absolutely. However, the part that I find most interesting is this:
> They will also be permitted incorporate material from those videos > into their own clips, which are then uploaded to YouTube.
It looks like they'll be allowing people to remix videos, and presumably by extension the songs. This is a very big deal indeed, although I'm not sure from the content-free story whether there's some limitation saying that the results can *only* be uploaded to YouTube.
I absolutely agree that the intersection between "white Muslims" and "willing suicide bombers" is small. However your argument seems to be based on assuming that the population of actual suicide bombers will be evenly distributed amongst the population of willing suicide bombers. What other people are arguing is that precisely *because* of the perceived criteria for search, the population of actual suicide bombers will be skewed toward the population of white Muslims.
Your only argument against this assertion seems to be that there isn't a "queue of white guys a mile long just itching to get onto a plane and blow it up". The point is that there doesn't need to be. All you need is one or two, and it's already been shown that these people can be found. Therefore any profiling based on external appearance is flawed.
I'm only going to address one of your points, since the others don't annoy me as much
> Joe Poorboy, who would otherwise buy a $1 incandescent, buys a $3 swirlie > instead because he gets $2 back from the government. Joe also enjoys a $20 > reduction in his electricity costs over the life of the bulb (which you'd > think would be enough to get him to buy the bulb directly, but I guess > we're assuming poor people are irrational here)
Of course we're not, and it's a ridiculous assertion. The choice is not deciding whether the extra $2 outlay is worth the $20 saving, it's whether it's possible to make the extra $2 outlay at all. When you've living at (or below) subsistence level, $2 can make a hell of a lot of difference as to what goes in your shopping basket. If you want to encourage people with lower incomes to use anything with higher upfront cost but good long-term gains, then you have to offer cost incentives.
Whether or not you actually want to encourage people to use them is a different debate, but you're missing the point by saying that "Joe Poorboy" is irrational.
Firstly, the two aren't mutually exclusive. It's a very satisfying experience to use JS as it was designed, making a site which works perfectly without using JS at all, then layering over the JS to add gloss and shininess. Progressive enhancement is what it's all about:)
I agree with you about screen readers, to an extent. Screen reader developers are simply not keeping up-to-date with movements in web accessibility. You could argue that this makes sense, since a sizable proportion of sites (probably the majority) are still developed with mid-nineties attitudes towards these issues, so it's more useful to try and make sense of crappy sites. However a browser which properly uses the DOM and takes full advantage of the additional features that many developers are putting in just doesn't exist at the moment.
There's a problem with interface design though. Someone developing a browser which can announce these changes in the DOM has difficult decisions to make. Should they announce every change of a news ticker, interrupting the user reading the site? What if one user action triggers several DOM changes? How can we tell which of these is the valuable content?
I agree though that these questions should be asked, rather than just being ignored as they are at present. Unfortunately there's still plenty of users stuck with JAWS etc who need a usable site.
1998 called. They want their web back (or whatever cliche you want today)
The reason for separating content and presentation is precisely to make content *more* accessible for *everyone*. If you want that content displayed in *exactly* the same way to all users, then you're destined to fail regardless of the technology you use, but you're *definitely* going to fail on the web.
The idea is to mark up content so that the user agent at the other end can interpret that markup and present it to the user appropriately. You can layer on visual, audio, and behavioural presentation *hints*, but the whole point is to allow the user agent to override or ignore any part of those layers and still get at the content - which is what is important.
Yes, content producers want control over appearance, but I'd put it to you that more than that they want people to be able to perceive their content. Using inaccessible media types means that it might look prettier for the "average" user (as if there is any such thing), but if you're losing 10%, 20%, 50% of your audience, is it really worth it?
How about making them run cooler and more efficiently, and hence quieter since they wont need 3 fans pointing at them? The best chip that intel have made in recent times was the Pentium M, in large because they focussed on the needs of a mobile chip, i.e. power consumption and hence efficiency.
Also take a look at Via's new chips and boards, particularly the Epia series of boards. They're ideal for media centre applications, since the chips run very cool but quickly enough to do the necessary work.
I concur, partially. I've got an M10000 (modded fanless) which works fine for DVB but you'll need to invest in a hardware encoder. Decoding works just fine for every format I use, however:)
It was rather annoying dealing with support via email from Googlebot as they have apparently taken on the stance of "we don't care but you should put meta tags in all your files so that we don't index those pages." Umm, you are crawling MY site for YOUR profit, you do as I say, not the other way around.
Google should follow the robots.txt - definitely. But there needs to be some way on confirming on your website that you actually want the pages removing - otherwise what's to stop your competitors "accidentally" entering your URL into the removal form? Meta elements would seem to be the natural choice.
You don't think Mozilla and Firefox get heated feedback? You were obviously hiding under a rock for the debates over content type guessing, the download manager, even the new theme in 0.9 . ..
If anything, the open development process gives even more of an opportunity for feedback, frequently heated. With a closed program like IE, what you're seeing isn't so much feedback as frustration at the obvious flaws which could have been so easily fixed . ..
Oh, and how can you say FireFox is clunky. I honestly find it faster and generally a joy to use - IE's really showing its age these days . ..
Slashdot Mirror
Check out http://cockeyed.com/incredible/solardish/dish01.shtml
That's a 12 foot dish covered with mirrors. It gets HOT
From TFA:
It's not the costs of the OS that are the issue, it's the fact that Microsoft may take their ball and go home. Once that happens, you could be stuck with narrower margins, even if you're saving on the OS.
Not at all! It's not in any way good practice to use divs and spans except where there's no more appropriate element! What you're talking about here is HTML development, not CSS development. You can't do CSS without HTML to hang it on (well OK XML, but let's not get into that).
One of my pet hates is sites which have source code consisting entirely of divs with no semantic markup whatsoever. If you can point to any educational resources which advocate the use of semantically null elements over decent markup, then please post them here so they can be educated!
P
Absolutely. However, the part that I find most interesting is this:
> They will also be permitted incorporate material from those videos
> into their own clips, which are then uploaded to YouTube.
It looks like they'll be allowing people to remix videos, and presumably by extension the songs. This is a very big deal indeed, although I'm not sure from the content-free story whether there's some limitation saying that the results can *only* be uploaded to YouTube.
P
> definitely not a must have. Well, maybe if you're stuck on Pink Floyd.
Or the Beatles. Or RadioHead. Or pretty much any classical or electronic music, ever. Or any DJ mixes.
In fact, it's only if you listen to pop, rock, or country that you *wont* care about gapless
P
I absolutely agree that the intersection between "white Muslims" and "willing suicide bombers" is small. However your argument seems to be based on assuming that the population of actual suicide bombers will be evenly distributed amongst the population of willing suicide bombers. What other people are arguing is that precisely *because* of the perceived criteria for search, the population of actual suicide bombers will be skewed toward the population of white Muslims.
Your only argument against this assertion seems to be that there isn't a "queue of white guys a mile long just itching to get onto a plane and blow it up". The point is that there doesn't need to be. All you need is one or two, and it's already been shown that these people can be found. Therefore any profiling based on external appearance is flawed.
P
I'm only going to address one of your points, since the others don't annoy me as much
> Joe Poorboy, who would otherwise buy a $1 incandescent, buys a $3 swirlie
> instead because he gets $2 back from the government. Joe also enjoys a $20
> reduction in his electricity costs over the life of the bulb (which you'd
> think would be enough to get him to buy the bulb directly, but I guess
> we're assuming poor people are irrational here)
Of course we're not, and it's a ridiculous assertion. The choice is not deciding whether the extra $2 outlay is worth the $20 saving, it's whether it's possible to make the extra $2 outlay at all. When you've living at (or below) subsistence level, $2 can make a hell of a lot of difference as to what goes in your shopping basket. If you want to encourage people with lower incomes to use anything with higher upfront cost but good long-term gains, then you have to offer cost incentives.
Whether or not you actually want to encourage people to use them is a different debate, but you're missing the point by saying that "Joe Poorboy" is irrational.
P
Firstly, the two aren't mutually exclusive. It's a very satisfying experience to use JS as it was designed, making a site which works perfectly without using JS at all, then layering over the JS to add gloss and shininess. Progressive enhancement is what it's all about :)
I agree with you about screen readers, to an extent. Screen reader developers are simply not keeping up-to-date with movements in web accessibility. You could argue that this makes sense, since a sizable proportion of sites (probably the majority) are still developed with mid-nineties attitudes towards these issues, so it's more useful to try and make sense of crappy sites. However a browser which properly uses the DOM and takes full advantage of the additional features that many developers are putting in just doesn't exist at the moment.
There's a problem with interface design though. Someone developing a browser which can announce these changes in the DOM has difficult decisions to make. Should they announce every change of a news ticker, interrupting the user reading the site? What if one user action triggers several DOM changes? How can we tell which of these is the valuable content?
I agree though that these questions should be asked, rather than just being ignored as they are at present. Unfortunately there's still plenty of users stuck with JAWS etc who need a usable site.
Disabled users? Blind users? Screw 'em. If they want to be cripples, that is their business. Why should everyone else suffer?
Ever think that it's not always someone's *choice* whether they can use JavaScript enhancements?
P
1998 called. They want their web back (or whatever cliche you want today)
The reason for separating content and presentation is precisely to make content *more* accessible for *everyone*. If you want that content displayed in *exactly* the same way to all users, then you're destined to fail regardless of the technology you use, but you're *definitely* going to fail on the web.
The idea is to mark up content so that the user agent at the other end can interpret that markup and present it to the user appropriately. You can layer on visual, audio, and behavioural presentation *hints*, but the whole point is to allow the user agent to override or ignore any part of those layers and still get at the content - which is what is important.
Yes, content producers want control over appearance, but I'd put it to you that more than that they want people to be able to perceive their content. Using inaccessible media types means that it might look prettier for the "average" user (as if there is any such thing), but if you're losing 10%, 20%, 50% of your audience, is it really worth it?
P
How about making them run cooler and more efficiently, and hence quieter since they wont need 3 fans pointing at them? The best chip that intel have made in recent times was the Pentium M, in large because they focussed on the needs of a mobile chip, i.e. power consumption and hence efficiency.
Also take a look at Via's new chips and boards, particularly the Epia series of boards. They're ideal for media centre applications, since the chips run very cool but quickly enough to do the necessary work.
P
I concur, partially. I've got an M10000 (modded fanless) which works fine for DVB but you'll need to invest in a hardware encoder. Decoding works just fine for every format I use, however :)
P
YES! A thousand times over
:)
I still have happy memories of finally getting to the gems round in Cuthbert in Space . . .
Plus there's no other Welsh computers I could name
P
Unfortunately it's only the Windows Genuine Advantage registration which has been updated to work with Firefox - Windows Update still needs IE.
Still a way to go before MS's addiction to IE is gone . . .
P
I'm UK based, so had to google for BSA
.
It took a good couple of seconds to work out that the Boy Scouts Association of America was unlikely to have armed marshalls . .
P
You are Archimedes, and I claim my five pounds!
You're new here, aren't you?
;)
Google should follow the robots.txt - definitely. But there needs to be some way on confirming on your website that you actually want the pages removing - otherwise what's to stop your competitors "accidentally" entering your URL into the removal form? Meta elements would seem to be the natural choice.
P
So request support for indexing Firefox and Thunderbird files at their suggestions page - here
Flood 'em out!
P
A neutron walks into a bar and orders a pint. He takes out his wallet and asks "how much will that be?"
.
To which the barman of course replies "to you, no charge!"
Thankyou, here all week, veal, etc etc . .
P
You don't think Mozilla and Firefox get heated feedback? You were obviously hiding under a rock for the debates over content type guessing, the download manager, even the new theme in 0.9 . . .
.
.
If anything, the open development process gives even more of an opportunity for feedback, frequently heated. With a closed program like IE, what you're seeing isn't so much feedback as frustration at the obvious flaws which could have been so easily fixed . .
Oh, and how can you say FireFox is clunky. I honestly find it faster and generally a joy to use - IE's really showing its age these days . .
P
http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/hitchblog/blog.ht m Should get you where you want to be. Not that there's much up at the moment, and you'll need JavaScript, but hey . . . ;)
P
And a pony!
They're not very smart karma whores then, because funny posts earn you no karma . . . :)
P
I think somebody just got dumped :)
P