"Print Preview" isn't part of what most folks consider WYSIWYG. The commonly-used definition of WYSIWYG is a situation where the normal rendering of a document onscreen - that is, the one you see when you're interacting with the document - closely matches that of the printed output. There's no real need for a separate "print preview" function, because there's no significant difference between what that function would display, and what's already being displayed.
HTML isn't WYSIWYG. Browsers can and do render pages differently for display vs. printing. If a separate style sheet is supplied for printing, the difference can be drastic.
A dialog box pops up where you can select the printer that you want to use under Name:. so wtf r u talking about?
Perhaps if you spent more time reading standard English and less time using "cute" messaging baby-talk, you'd understand. The OP didn't say he has a problem selecting a printer. He said he has a problem printing the current selection. That is, the currently selected text.
Hand-optimized asm went the way of the dinosaur years ago. Any games *that* old would run fine in emulation anyway. The biggest obstacle to porting games to the Mac is a C++ API - DirectX.
I remember that one, although the ones I recall used bad tracks. I had an Atari 130XE, and wired in a potentiometer to the drive motor, so I could vary the rotation speed. Then I used a special formatting program I downloaded from a BBS that could format a specific track. Crank the dial down to about a third of the normal speed and format a track, the result was a track that wasn't readable when the drive was running at normal speed.
I made some (legitimate) money putting drive number switches in Commodore 1541 drives, too. Life was fun back then, so long as you were handy with a soldering iron.
Not in every last little nit-picky detail, of course not. In the sense the person who made the comparison intended - that obviously both of them work, otherwise those who create them would stop doing so - yes, they are comparable.
They did make a movie out of [the Avengers]. Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman, I think.
Different Avengers. The movie you're talking about was based on the BBC television show. They *did* make a comic adaptation of that, but because there was already an existing Avengers comic it was called "Steed and Mrs. Peel". There was also an American knock-off TV show called "Scarecrow and Mrs. King".
I think you're overreacting. Goosefood (great nick) isn't saying that these projects are only valuable because Apple is using them - he's saying that Apple's use of them shows how valuable they are.
Because the apple ships with a single mouse button any program which expects to have beginning users cannot make use of multiple mouse buttons.
Minor nit - an app like that can make use of multiple buttons, but it cannot *depend* on having multiple buttons available. Nothing prevents including various conveniences for experts, such as keyboard shortcuts and context menus - you simply can't require their use. They're strictly optional.
If the speed at which you're doing something is limited by the number of mice button you have, you're not working - you're playing an action game. I'd bet that, if you'd slow down with all that frenzied high-speed clicking and put more thought into what you're doing, your overall productivity would increase no matter *what* kind of mouse you're using.
It makes sense if you separate the mechanism from the policy. DRM should be about the mechanism - a means of enforcing whatever terms the artist chooses, nothing more. The term is "management", not "restriction" or "protection".
Think of your example of iTunes in a positive light. What if GarageBand allowed an artist to sign his work with a DRM key he generated for himself (no *AA approval needed), and attach a "share this freely" flag to it along with his public key. Now suppose that iTunes would automatically connect to a file-sharing network and freely share any media that was flagged this way, and provided a "tip jar" button so that anyone who liked it could send $0.99 to the artist by way of iTMS.
Good DRM could be just as much about sharing as it is about restriction. Good DRM would leave it up to the artist to decide their own distribution terms, and simply provide a mechanism for the artist to make those terms known.
Basically, the DRM is not intended to protect user-created content, it's intended to prevent that content from ever being distributed in the first place.
The conglomerates make a healthy profit by being the gatekeepers. For decades now, they've done that by owning the means of production and distribution, but that monopoly is disappearing.
Now they want to hang on to that monopoly for a while longer, and they're trying to do that by mandating DRM. Publishers will need to license the private encryption keys needed to publish content that will play back on consumer devices, and hardware makers will need to license the means of playback as well.
The piracy issue is just a smokescreen. It's a shame the crowd here is too busy defending their "right" to "share" the latest Metallica CD to even notice that they're playing right into the *AA's greedy little hands. (They're also too busy to notice that all of the songwriting talent in Metallica died in a bus crash a long time ago... but that's another story.)
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: Geeks should *support* DRM, embrace and extend it to ensure that it protects everyone's rights, not just the *AA's. DRM that was about mechanism, not policy, would not necessarily be a bad thing.
Supply issues have been rumored to be bad enough to cause this sort of massive switch.
Supply issues have been bad enough to cause a switch... in suppliers. A contract where Intel produced the next generation of PPC chips for Apple would be a massive business deal, but that's all. No migration problems, no emulation, no fat binaries, etc. Just faster PPC chips, made by a company that has fab capacity to burn.
You missed an important part: As a professional software developer, a great deal of your time will be spent getting paid to support, fix, and document code written by someone else.
This circuitry is also present in humans, and it is the same way that a baby's random babbling eventually becomes the proficient speech of adults.
Does it also explain why that said adults immediately regress back to random babbling the minute they're confronted with a keyboard and a net connection?
The Civil War here was also known as the war of states' rights. It's also when the slogan "These United States" actually shifted to "The United States".
This post was brought to you by Ken Burns - and viewers like you.
Seems thay have the means and the opportunity and choose to follow a different path.
Sure, some do. Just like some large companies (IBM, Apple) choose to follow a relatively benevolent path. Nothing is 100% certain where human nature is concerned, but I believe that humans are mostly selfish by nature. Some are able to overcome that basic nature, and do so for various reasons, but those are the exceptional ones, not the majority.
I do notice that you chose not to address some of the points I made such as this one:
I think they're really two sides of the same coin: Some folks support copyright when it suits their own personal agenda to do so, and ignore it when it doesn't. The details of their agenda don't really change the core fact that there's a certain amount of hypocrisy in that.
What I want people to do is recognize that hypocrisy for what it is, which doesn't preclude the possibility of deciding to view it as the lesser of evils. RMS has done this - he dislikes the GPL's use of copyright to further his agenda, but at the same time he considers the use of it in that manner to be preferable to taking no action at all.
Like I said though, I don't have much faith in human nature. I don't really believe that most "sharers" have thought things through to the extent that RMS has, and seriously arrived at the conclusion that their actions are individually wrong but justified as a means of promoting the greater good. Most of them aren't indulging in a deliberate, calculated act of civil disobedience, they're just saying "gimme".
The GPL isn't about consistent copyright law, it's about fair copyright law.
The GPL is about dictating a specific set of terms and conditions that RMS believes is fair. For what it's worth, I agree with him and I've released my own work under the LGPL - but that's not relevant here, other than to demonstrate that I'm in no way a shill for the *AAs.
However, even the GPL uses the copyright law to give RMSs terms and conditions teeth. And if you defend RMSs right to use the law to protect his own right as a copyright holder, then you have to defend Metallica's same right. Defending one person's right to protection under copyright, while ignoring another person's right to the same, is nothing but hypocrisy.
Copyright, etc. exist to serve the purposes of society as a whole, not just content producers.
In the larger sense, yes. But it does so by serving, for a time, the purpose of the content producer. Society as a whole benefits by giving producers the means by which they can be rewarded for what they do.
But regardless, that's just a red herring. The DRM and other laws the *AA's are promoting aren't about protection from piracy, etc. or the good of society - they're about protecting the *AA members from outside competition. As it stands, the *AA's are the gatekeepers; they decide who gets published and who doesn't. They decide who can make legal DVD players, and who can't. It's their privileged position they're trying to protect, not the rights of the artists or of society.
If we understand this, we can use the *AA's own legislation against them. Let Hatch & Co. pass stronger copyright laws - so long as they apply equally well to *all* copyright holders, not just a select few members of the *AA. That will give the *AA's what they've asked for, while at the same time denying them what they really want.
You do understand that the GPL is a "copyleft" copyright license, right?
Of course I understand it - I read it very carefully before choosing it for my own work. Copyright law prohibits unauthorized distribution of a covered work, and allows the legal owner of the copyright to dictate the terms under which authorization may be granted.
There is a very vocal group on this site - I won't call them "average" or "the majority" because I have no idea what the actual numbers are - that want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to ignore Sony's terms and conditions, while at the same time they're demanding that Sony et al respect the GPLs terms and conditions. It's hypocrisy, nothing else.
Somehow, the GPL proponents don't seem to use these tactics now do they?
Given the opportunity and means to do so, do you honestly believe that they wouldn't? I don't.
Not all copyright holders are demanding "equal protection".
Maybe we should be. Maybe instead of fighting things like mandatory DRM, we should be lobbying for forms of it that are just as effective at enforcing our terms as they are at enforcing the *AA's terms. Put a different spin on it - we could portray ourselves as "fighting to help ensure equal protection for the rights of the little guy", instead of "fighting the evil corporations."
The rights the entertainment industry is demanding is the right to control the use of their "software", not just the distribution.
Yes, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that, so long as it's applied to all copyright holders. If the same rights are given to GPL authors, and DRM is mandated that can enforce the terms of the GPL just as effectively as it can enforce Sony's terms for its movies and CDs, then we have a playing field that's just as level (or perhaps more so) than it would be in the absence of any copyright at all.
You don't have to support everything someone regards as a right: you don't accept the right to drink-and-drive, do you? How about the right to torture?
Those are actually good examples of what I'm talking about - fair and equal protection across the board. Drunk driving is a crime, that's true - but it's a crime for *everyone*. There aren't a special class of people for whom it's explicitly allowed. It's consistent.
You might argue that because of the immunity afforded to foreign diplomats, they're such a class of people, but even in that case there is a level of consistency. Diplomats are immune from any prosecution, and equal protection is provided to any diplomat from any country, large or small. It's consistent.
I'm not arguing for nor against strong copyright law - I'm arguing for *consistent* copyright law.
Slashdot Mirror
"Print Preview" isn't part of what most folks consider WYSIWYG. The commonly-used definition of WYSIWYG is a situation where the normal rendering of a document onscreen - that is, the one you see when you're interacting with the document - closely matches that of the printed output. There's no real need for a separate "print preview" function, because there's no significant difference between what that function would display, and what's already being displayed.
HTML isn't WYSIWYG. Browsers can and do render pages differently for display vs. printing. If a separate style sheet is supplied for printing, the difference can be drastic.
A dialog box pops up where you can select the printer that you want to use under Name:. so wtf r u talking about?
Perhaps if you spent more time reading standard English and less time using "cute" messaging baby-talk, you'd understand. The OP didn't say he has a problem selecting a printer. He said he has a problem printing the current selection. That is, the currently selected text.
Games that use optimized x86 assembly
Hand-optimized asm went the way of the dinosaur years ago. Any games *that* old would run fine in emulation anyway. The biggest obstacle to porting games to the Mac is a C++ API - DirectX.
I remember that one, although the ones I recall used bad tracks. I had an Atari 130XE, and wired in a potentiometer to the drive motor, so I could vary the rotation speed. Then I used a special formatting program I downloaded from a BBS that could format a specific track. Crank the dial down to about a third of the normal speed and format a track, the result was a track that wasn't readable when the drive was running at normal speed.
I made some (legitimate) money putting drive number switches in Commodore 1541 drives, too. Life was fun back then, so long as you were handy with a soldering iron.
Sequels to video games are not like spam.
Not in every last little nit-picky detail, of course not. In the sense the person who made the comparison intended - that obviously both of them work, otherwise those who create them would stop doing so - yes, they are comparable.
Who cares what they demand then?
Anyone who wants to make a living meeting their demands.
Well, duh...
3. Profit!!!
They did make a movie out of [the Avengers]. Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman, I think.
Different Avengers. The movie you're talking about was based on the BBC television show. They *did* make a comic adaptation of that, but because there was already an existing Avengers comic it was called "Steed and Mrs. Peel". There was also an American knock-off TV show called "Scarecrow and Mrs. King".
I think you're overreacting. Goosefood (great nick) isn't saying that these projects are only valuable because Apple is using them - he's saying that Apple's use of them shows how valuable they are.
Because the apple ships with a single mouse button any program which expects to have beginning users cannot make use of multiple mouse buttons.
Minor nit - an app like that can make use of multiple buttons, but it cannot *depend* on having multiple buttons available. Nothing prevents including various conveniences for experts, such as keyboard shortcuts and context menus - you simply can't require their use. They're strictly optional.
If the speed at which you're doing something is limited by the number of mice button you have, you're not working - you're playing an action game. I'd bet that, if you'd slow down with all that frenzied high-speed clicking and put more thought into what you're doing, your overall productivity would increase no matter *what* kind of mouse you're using.
It makes sense if you separate the mechanism from the policy. DRM should be about the mechanism - a means of enforcing whatever terms the artist chooses, nothing more. The term is "management", not "restriction" or "protection".
Think of your example of iTunes in a positive light. What if GarageBand allowed an artist to sign his work with a DRM key he generated for himself (no *AA approval needed), and attach a "share this freely" flag to it along with his public key. Now suppose that iTunes would automatically connect to a file-sharing network and freely share any media that was flagged this way, and provided a "tip jar" button so that anyone who liked it could send $0.99 to the artist by way of iTMS.
Good DRM could be just as much about sharing as it is about restriction. Good DRM would leave it up to the artist to decide their own distribution terms, and simply provide a mechanism for the artist to make those terms known.
Basically, the DRM is not intended to protect user-created content, it's intended to prevent that content from ever being distributed in the first place.
The conglomerates make a healthy profit by being the gatekeepers. For decades now, they've done that by owning the means of production and distribution, but that monopoly is disappearing.
Now they want to hang on to that monopoly for a while longer, and they're trying to do that by mandating DRM. Publishers will need to license the private encryption keys needed to publish content that will play back on consumer devices, and hardware makers will need to license the means of playback as well.
The piracy issue is just a smokescreen. It's a shame the crowd here is too busy defending their "right" to "share" the latest Metallica CD to even notice that they're playing right into the *AA's greedy little hands. (They're also too busy to notice that all of the songwriting talent in Metallica died in a bus crash a long time ago... but that's another story.)
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: Geeks should *support* DRM, embrace and extend it to ensure that it protects everyone's rights, not just the *AA's. DRM that was about mechanism, not policy, would not necessarily be a bad thing.
Supply issues have been rumored to be bad enough to cause this sort of massive switch.
Supply issues have been bad enough to cause a switch... in suppliers. A contract where Intel produced the next generation of PPC chips for Apple would be a massive business deal, but that's all. No migration problems, no emulation, no fat binaries, etc. Just faster PPC chips, made by a company that has fab capacity to burn.
You missed an important part: As a professional software developer, a great deal of your time will be spent getting paid to support, fix, and document code written by someone else.
This circuitry is also present in humans, and it is the same way that a baby's random babbling eventually becomes the proficient speech of adults.
Does it also explain why that said adults immediately regress back to random babbling the minute they're confronted with a keyboard and a net connection?
Doesn't it seem odd to accept career advice from someone whose job is to give career advice
You gotta do what you gotta do.
The Civil War here was also known as the war of states' rights. It's also when the slogan "These United States" actually shifted to "The United States".
This post was brought to you by Ken Burns - and viewers like you.
Seems thay have the means and the opportunity and choose to follow a different path.
Sure, some do. Just like some large companies (IBM, Apple) choose to follow a relatively benevolent path. Nothing is 100% certain where human nature is concerned, but I believe that humans are mostly selfish by nature. Some are able to overcome that basic nature, and do so for various reasons, but those are the exceptional ones, not the majority.
I do notice that you chose not to address some of the points I made such as this one:
I think they're really two sides of the same coin: Some folks support copyright when it suits their own personal agenda to do so, and ignore it when it doesn't. The details of their agenda don't really change the core fact that there's a certain amount of hypocrisy in that.
What I want people to do is recognize that hypocrisy for what it is, which doesn't preclude the possibility of deciding to view it as the lesser of evils. RMS has done this - he dislikes the GPL's use of copyright to further his agenda, but at the same time he considers the use of it in that manner to be preferable to taking no action at all.
Like I said though, I don't have much faith in human nature. I don't really believe that most "sharers" have thought things through to the extent that RMS has, and seriously arrived at the conclusion that their actions are individually wrong but justified as a means of promoting the greater good. Most of them aren't indulging in a deliberate, calculated act of civil disobedience, they're just saying "gimme".
The GPL isn't about consistent copyright law, it's about fair copyright law.
The GPL is about dictating a specific set of terms and conditions that RMS believes is fair. For what it's worth, I agree with him and I've released my own work under the LGPL - but that's not relevant here, other than to demonstrate that I'm in no way a shill for the *AAs.
However, even the GPL uses the copyright law to give RMSs terms and conditions teeth. And if you defend RMSs right to use the law to protect his own right as a copyright holder, then you have to defend Metallica's same right. Defending one person's right to protection under copyright, while ignoring another person's right to the same, is nothing but hypocrisy.
Copyright, etc. exist to serve the purposes of society as a whole, not just content producers.
In the larger sense, yes. But it does so by serving, for a time, the purpose of the content producer. Society as a whole benefits by giving producers the means by which they can be rewarded for what they do.
But regardless, that's just a red herring. The DRM and other laws the *AA's are promoting aren't about protection from piracy, etc. or the good of society - they're about protecting the *AA members from outside competition. As it stands, the *AA's are the gatekeepers; they decide who gets published and who doesn't. They decide who can make legal DVD players, and who can't. It's their privileged position they're trying to protect, not the rights of the artists or of society.
If we understand this, we can use the *AA's own legislation against them. Let Hatch & Co. pass stronger copyright laws - so long as they apply equally well to *all* copyright holders, not just a select few members of the *AA. That will give the *AA's what they've asked for, while at the same time denying them what they really want.
You do understand that the GPL is a "copyleft" copyright license, right?
Of course I understand it - I read it very carefully before choosing it for my own work. Copyright law prohibits unauthorized distribution of a covered work, and allows the legal owner of the copyright to dictate the terms under which authorization may be granted.
There is a very vocal group on this site - I won't call them "average" or "the majority" because I have no idea what the actual numbers are - that want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to ignore Sony's terms and conditions, while at the same time they're demanding that Sony et al respect the GPLs terms and conditions. It's hypocrisy, nothing else.
Somehow, the GPL proponents don't seem to use these tactics now do they?
Given the opportunity and means to do so, do you honestly believe that they wouldn't? I don't.
Not all copyright holders are demanding "equal protection".
Maybe we should be. Maybe instead of fighting things like mandatory DRM, we should be lobbying for forms of it that are just as effective at enforcing our terms as they are at enforcing the *AA's terms. Put a different spin on it - we could portray ourselves as "fighting to help ensure equal protection for the rights of the little guy", instead of "fighting the evil corporations."
The rights the entertainment industry is demanding is the right to control the use of their "software", not just the distribution.
Yes, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that, so long as it's applied to all copyright holders. If the same rights are given to GPL authors, and DRM is mandated that can enforce the terms of the GPL just as effectively as it can enforce Sony's terms for its movies and CDs, then we have a playing field that's just as level (or perhaps more so) than it would be in the absence of any copyright at all.
You don't have to support everything someone regards as a right: you don't accept the right to drink-and-drive, do you? How about the right to torture?
Those are actually good examples of what I'm talking about - fair and equal protection across the board. Drunk driving is a crime, that's true - but it's a crime for *everyone*. There aren't a special class of people for whom it's explicitly allowed. It's consistent.
You might argue that because of the immunity afforded to foreign diplomats, they're such a class of people, but even in that case there is a level of consistency. Diplomats are immune from any prosecution, and equal protection is provided to any diplomat from any country, large or small. It's consistent.
I'm not arguing for nor against strong copyright law - I'm arguing for *consistent* copyright law.