And just how pray tell do you explain to a user that the fact that their browser (which renders their favorite porn page correctly) is infact broken because it doesn't render something which adheres to different standards correctly. Remember, as far as the user is concerned if it does what they want it to do correctly (FROM THEIR STANDPOINT) then it's right. It doesn't matter how many coding faux pas it makes behind the scenes.
But again, the question was, whose standards do you align to? If one way of doing X conforms with IE and it's standards, and another way complies with W3C, which way is the standard if IE doesn't conform to W3C? W3C may call it a standard, but IE is the browser people are using and as far as the users are concerned, if it doesn't work with IE, it's broken. Not the other way arround.
But just what are standards? Since IE is the standard broswer for computers, isn't being compatable with IE the defacto standard for websites? Therefore shouldn't other browsers conform to MS standards? Just because you declare something a standard doesn't make it so. Sometimes standards come about from common usage.
Has anyone (even Opera) managed to create a browser that does what all the web designers want it to do? Does the web designer community have a consensus of what they want the browsers to do?
If you use or build on the domain, no it doesn't. But consider this guy registerd the domain after Apple applied for the iTunes patent and years after they registered iTunes.com Furthermore, there's nothing at the domain name except redirects. He's clearly sitting on the name, using it's likeness to generate traffic.
Then we should be voting all the congress people out of office. It's insane that we should allow congressmen to remain in office when they aren't reading the laws they pass. The fact that people make up excses for them (it was political suicide, no one can read all those laws) is the flaw in our system. Hold them accountable and the names won't mean shit and the length won't mean shit. They'll make it so it can be read or it won't be pased.
Well, given that the PATRIOT act was an act whic MODIFIED existing US laws rather than established new laws, it would be rather difficult to prosecute someone under the PATRIOT act. Furthermore, most of the patriot act has little to do with making XY or Z illegal and more to do with bringing old surveilence and investigation laws into the modern age.
But silly me, I'm assuming people on slashdot would actualy read the laws they critisize so.
1) Notice the word AND at the end of point 2. All of those conditions must be met for notification to be delayed.
2) There is judicial oversite as all of this has to be proven to the court AND all cases such must be reported to congress every year (later in the text).
And Charges do have to be levied, go read the US code. This is a modification to prexisting code, not a new warrant entirely.
Bankruptcy is different from defaulting on a loan, if you default without declaring bankruptcy I guarantee they will go after you. They'll just use a collection agency or some other method
Just because you factor it in to your prices doesn't mean you eat it and ignore the criminals. Just because banks factor defaults into their rates doesn't mean they won't go after you when you do default. Likewise, just because stores build shoplifting into their pricing schemes doesn't mean they don't go after shop lifters. Simply put, businesses have the right to protect their property.
You really need to read up on law and case history to realize that it is routine to compel journalists to reveal their sources. In fact, it's routine to compel anyone to reveal their sources. It hasn't had a chilling effect yet. Why? Because we have whistle blower laws in place, and in this case, it was decided those laws don't apply.
Nice strawman, ignoring of course that if your analogy were to be applicable, you would be publishing pictures of this persons meth lab to the net, and thus the government would have reason to believe that you are connected to this person.
So if you sign a contract for a loan repayment and then fail to make payments, it's the bank's fault for not policing their borrowers better? There's only so much policing you can do before you're locking people in cages for the entire time they work for you.
And ruling the other way establishes a dangerous precident that you can break any contract you want, for any reason, as long as you do it through a journalist.
No, the ban forbids executing people that comitted the crime while 18. If you kill someone 5 hours before you turn 18, when you get tried, you could be tried as an adult, you'll be convicted while an adult, and normaly you might get executed while an adult. The ban doesn't allow for this anymore.
In most of the states, the person in question had to be tried as an adult before they could be given the death penalty, so they were leglay established as an adult.
Unfortunately, the new ban says if they were younger than 18, they can't be executed.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, even complying with standards docs have their issues, and sometimes interpretation is because things aren't clear:
0 05 _01.html
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2
And just how pray tell do you explain to a user that the fact that their browser (which renders their favorite porn page correctly) is infact broken because it doesn't render something which adheres to different standards correctly. Remember, as far as the user is concerned if it does what they want it to do correctly (FROM THEIR STANDPOINT) then it's right. It doesn't matter how many coding faux pas it makes behind the scenes.
But again, the question was, whose standards do you align to? If one way of doing X conforms with IE and it's standards, and another way complies with W3C, which way is the standard if IE doesn't conform to W3C? W3C may call it a standard, but IE is the browser people are using and as far as the users are concerned, if it doesn't work with IE, it's broken. Not the other way arround.
But just what are standards? Since IE is the standard broswer for computers, isn't being compatable with IE the defacto standard for websites? Therefore shouldn't other browsers conform to MS standards? Just because you declare something a standard doesn't make it so. Sometimes standards come about from common usage.
Has anyone (even Opera) managed to create a browser that does what all the web designers want it to do? Does the web designer community have a consensus of what they want the browsers to do?
The menu with suggested corrections should be option-F5 IIRC.
Because anyone buying a $3000 multi processor workstation:
a) Already has a mouse they prefer
b) Has the money to spend an extra $5 and get a two button mouse.
If you use or build on the domain, no it doesn't. But consider this guy registerd the domain after Apple applied for the iTunes patent and years after they registered iTunes.com Furthermore, there's nothing at the domain name except redirects. He's clearly sitting on the name, using it's likeness to generate traffic.
Then we should be voting all the congress people out of office. It's insane that we should allow congressmen to remain in office when they aren't reading the laws they pass. The fact that people make up excses for them (it was political suicide, no one can read all those laws) is the flaw in our system. Hold them accountable and the names won't mean shit and the length won't mean shit. They'll make it so it can be read or it won't be pased.
Well, given that the PATRIOT act was an act whic MODIFIED existing US laws rather than established new laws, it would be rather difficult to prosecute someone under the PATRIOT act. Furthermore, most of the patriot act has little to do with making XY or Z illegal and more to do with bringing old surveilence and investigation laws into the modern age.
But silly me, I'm assuming people on slashdot would actualy read the laws they critisize so.
Sigh.
1) Notice the word AND at the end of point 2. All of those conditions must be met for notification to be delayed.
2) There is judicial oversite as all of this has to be proven to the court AND all cases such must be reported to congress every year (later in the text).
And Charges do have to be levied, go read the US code. This is a modification to prexisting code, not a new warrant entirely.
Bankruptcy is different from defaulting on a loan, if you default without declaring bankruptcy I guarantee they will go after you. They'll just use a collection agency or some other method
Just because you factor it in to your prices doesn't mean you eat it and ignore the criminals. Just because banks factor defaults into their rates doesn't mean they won't go after you when you do default. Likewise, just because stores build shoplifting into their pricing schemes doesn't mean they don't go after shop lifters. Simply put, businesses have the right to protect their property.
And I have yet to see a P4 or Athlon 64 laptop that fits in a 1 inch thick case and runs cool enough to be used on one's lap.
Sure:
u reau/Reporters.Face.Jail.Time.For.Refusing.To.Reve al.Sources-875899.shtml
9 5
o nID=19&ArticleID=1810 (pay close attention to the bottom of that one)
7 44-2005Feb15_2.html
/ nw1102-5.htm
1) http://www.gwhatchet.com/news/2005/02/24/UWireDcB
2) http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=10731570243
3) http://www.hspa.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSecti
4) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25
5) http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2001/november
And thats just the first 2 pages of google.
And if they check him out and he's got a clean record? Then what?
You really need to read up on law and case history to realize that it is routine to compel journalists to reveal their sources. In fact, it's routine to compel anyone to reveal their sources. It hasn't had a chilling effect yet. Why? Because we have whistle blower laws in place, and in this case, it was decided those laws don't apply.
Nice strawman, ignoring of course that if your analogy were to be applicable, you would be publishing pictures of this persons meth lab to the net, and thus the government would have reason to believe that you are connected to this person.
So if you sign a contract for a loan repayment and then fail to make payments, it's the bank's fault for not policing their borrowers better? There's only so much policing you can do before you're locking people in cages for the entire time they work for you.
if microsoft has reason to believe the source is an employee who signed an NDA and that slashdot knows who that person is, why not?
And ruling the other way establishes a dangerous precident that you can break any contract you want, for any reason, as long as you do it through a journalist.
Except they aren't just rumors. They were far to accurate for rumors, and the site in question solicits information from Apple employees.
No, the ban forbids executing people that comitted the crime while 18. If you kill someone 5 hours before you turn 18, when you get tried, you could be tried as an adult, you'll be convicted while an adult, and normaly you might get executed while an adult. The ban doesn't allow for this anymore.
Sounds to me like it does more than that:
"Quartz delivers device-independent and resolution-independent rendering of anti-aliased text, bitmap images and vector graphics. "
In most of the states, the person in question had to be tried as an adult before they could be given the death penalty, so they were leglay established as an adult.
Unfortunately, the new ban says if they were younger than 18, they can't be executed.