Actually it's the merchants that foot the bill, (i would know, i'm a merchant with an account with Moneris).
If i get a chargeback and i don't have a signature to proove the transaction, i get charged $35 + the amount of money charged. Not only that, but if i get enough chargebacks, i lose my account.
Which is pretty much why i stay away from Paypal like the plague.
Paypal is trying to be a bank without having ANY of the federal regulations set forth to banks. You have no insurrance on any of the money in your paypal account, which could be 'fozen' at any time. It's a total wonder to me why anyone trusts paypal enough to give them their banking information..
What most people don't realize is this, if your card number is stolen and someone uses it.. you aren't liable for the charge.
Unless a merchant has proof that you made the transaction on your credit card, you can always refute any charge on your credit card statement and you wont have to pay it.
How does a 30% cut for distribution "seem high"? Distribution is very costly when compaired to the production of music. Anyone can produce a high quality album today with a $1000 worth of equipment (and maybe intruments).
Yeah, but the difference is when the corp does something unethical, it's the corp's fault, not those who run the company since they're not liable (thus the idea behind the corporation). If you could get away with doing bad things that would end up making you rich, many not all, but a lot of people would do it.
see, now that's just half of it there.. i'm sure you could reduce a page from tables to css by about 1/3, but if you reduce the page to 1/5 it's original size, then you are not making good use of the tables..
the other side of the problem is that css is riddled with incompatibilities. a table will look the same in EVERY browser on the planet dating back to the oldest existing version of netscape.. i'm sure css will be great once it's ready, but it's not ready yet.
I'm fairly certain that this will be read by a number of people who think that corporations and corporate behavior are inherently "evil", and that the larger a company or business interest is, the more "evil" it is and indeed must be by definition, which is an awfully one-sided and half-blind way to look at corporations.
While i agree with most of what you said, it's not unreasonable to think that a corporation has but one goal, to make money. It doesn't care how it does this, if it can do it legally or even ethically, then great. If it can't, then it'll do it anyway.. Making money will always come first no matter what, and you know why? Because even though a corportation is a legal person, it does not have feelings or any reason to care about those people it hurts since it's not a real person.
once it recieves a it will render that cell.. the same way it doesn't wait to get the or tag to start rendering, it simply waits for a completed tag, in this case a and it renders it.
Whether or not tables are a better (I think you mean easier) layout tool, they are not meant to be used for anything other than (gasp) tabular data. Using a table for anything else is bad semantics, page bloat, and, let's face it, primitive.
Explain to me how
<table><tr><td></td></tr></table>
is "bloat", trying to get CSS to do the same thing ends up with 4x the code.. THAT's bloat.
what's the actual advantage to the CSS layout? not enough gain to justify it's bloat/complexity, not only that, but the amount of hacks it requires to get proper rendering under all browsers is beyond rediculous (yes, that's not css' fault, but it's still a big problem with css when doing layout).
IMO, css is great for styling stuff, but it's terrible for layouts and isn't ready for production use (yet).
because browsers can't render the table until the entire thing is downloaded
What browsers have you been using? Every browser i've used renders tables before completing the page download.
I have seen some website that don't come up for quite sometime because their entire 226kb layout is contained within a single outer table, so it doesn't show up on the screen until the whole page is downloaded.
Sorry dude, but if you're viewing html websites that are that fat, it's not because of html (unless the web designer is horribly incompetent), it's because it's got too much content on one page. besides, rendering 235k of html doesn't take more than a few seconds, quit being so impatient.
It goes even further than that.. google tracks you even when you're not on their site, ever see google adsense? Every ad they display makes a call to: http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_a ds.js and guess what, burried in that, i can bet you they not only track how long you're looking at that page (with AJAX), but they're tracking where your mouse is, and what you type.
Bah, that's like saying Bill Gates doesn't have any friends. Then who i ask you are all those people grovelling at his feet jumping whenever he makes some asinine statement regarding the future of computing?
That's what you get for registering with a crappy registrar. I registered with godaddy, they nearly took my domain away when someone filed a compaint against me. Yeah, ONE person filed a complaint.
If you're telling me that the government will be allowed to outlaw encryption, then you've got to be kidding. No one will bend over and take in the in ass like that. *pause* then again, they've been listening in on everyone's phone calls..
but realisitically, no one's going to allow them to snoop if they can stop them from snooping. Strong encryption will always prevail since it's up to me to release the passwords and keys, if i choose not to (along with everyone else refusing too) what are they going to do? arrest everyone?
Meh, this will simply mean internet users are going to get more serious about security.
It's sort of like the **AA shutting down p2p sites, all it does is make users become more cunning when coming up with new technology.
If the government starts snooping on what people are doing online, then everyone will start using SSL for everything. If they request the keys, then users will start using stuff like EFF's Tor http://tor.eff.org/
What then? The government will outlaw privacy? no, there's no way they will ever be snooping on what I'm doing without me putting up a fight first.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the credit card company (if they descide you did make the transaction) will often provide you with the 'proof'..
Nope, it's up to the merchant who applied the charge to prove that the card holder did make the purchase (normally in form of a signature on a bill).
If the merchant cannot prove that they approved the charge, the card holder gets refunded without any hassle.
Actually it's the merchants that foot the bill, (i would know, i'm a merchant with an account with Moneris).
If i get a chargeback and i don't have a signature to proove the transaction, i get charged $35 + the amount of money charged. Not only that, but if i get enough chargebacks, i lose my account.
Which is pretty much why i stay away from Paypal like the plague.
Paypal is trying to be a bank without having ANY of the federal regulations set forth to banks. You have no insurrance on any of the money in your paypal account, which could be 'fozen' at any time. It's a total wonder to me why anyone trusts paypal enough to give them their banking information..
What most people don't realize is this, if your card number is stolen and someone uses it.. you aren't liable for the charge.
Unless a merchant has proof that you made the transaction on your credit card, you can always refute any charge on your credit card statement and you wont have to pay it.
How does a 30% cut for distribution "seem high"? Distribution is very costly when compaired to the production of music. Anyone can produce a high quality album today with a $1000 worth of equipment (and maybe intruments).
Yeah, but the difference is when the corp does something unethical, it's the corp's fault, not those who run the company since they're not liable (thus the idea behind the corporation). If you could get away with doing bad things that would end up making you rich, many not all, but a lot of people would do it.
you can easily do:.. if you want to write inefficient code, that your thing, i never said css was crap, but css for layout is.
see, now that's just half of it there.. i'm sure you could reduce a page from tables to css by about 1/3, but if you reduce the page to 1/5 it's original size, then you are not making good use of the tables..
the other side of the problem is that css is riddled with incompatibilities. a table will look the same in EVERY browser on the planet dating back to the oldest existing version of netscape.. i'm sure css will be great once it's ready, but it's not ready yet.
I'm fairly certain that this will be read by a number of people who think that corporations and corporate behavior are inherently "evil", and that the larger a company or business interest is, the more "evil" it is and indeed must be by definition, which is an awfully one-sided and half-blind way to look at corporations.
While i agree with most of what you said, it's not unreasonable to think that a corporation has but one goal, to make money. It doesn't care how it does this, if it can do it legally or even ethically, then great. If it can't, then it'll do it anyway.. Making money will always come first no matter what, and you know why? Because even though a corportation is a legal person, it does not have feelings or any reason to care about those people it hurts since it's not a real person.
that was purely an example. add another and you've suddenly got something css can't do without tons of tags..
Firefox renders any competed tag immediately.
once it recieves a it will render that cell.. the same way it doesn't wait to get the or tag to start rendering, it simply waits for a completed tag, in this case a and it renders it.
Explain to me how is "bloat", trying to get CSS to do the same thing ends up with 4x the code.. THAT's bloat.
what's the actual advantage to the CSS layout? not enough gain to justify it's bloat/complexity, not only that, but the amount of hacks it requires to get proper rendering under all browsers is beyond rediculous (yes, that's not css' fault, but it's still a big problem with css when doing layout).
IMO, css is great for styling stuff, but it's terrible for layouts and isn't ready for production use (yet).
What browsers have you been using? Every browser i've used renders tables before completing the page download.
Sorry dude, but if you're viewing html websites that are that fat, it's not because of html (unless the web designer is horribly incompetent), it's because it's got too much content on one page. besides, rendering 235k of html doesn't take more than a few seconds, quit being so impatient.
It goes even further than that.. google tracks you even when you're not on their site, ever see google adsense? Every ad they display makes a call to: http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_a ds.js and guess what, burried in that, i can bet you they not only track how long you're looking at that page (with AJAX), but they're tracking where your mouse is, and what you type.
it's probably that they meant linux has 20% more downtime than windows..
yeah, and how many people get screwed/scammed in the process?
and you should try proof reading your comments, since what you said makes no sense.
Blizzard has always made games that created genres.
warcraft 1 caused tons of clones to come out, none every outdid them or their follow up games like wacraft 2, starcraft etc.
I'd say more importantly, if apple really wasn't interested in that "toy" appeal, why are they selling ipods to kids?
fact is, apple will make whatever they think will sell, if mac games will help sell more macs, that's what they'll do..
Bah, that's like saying Bill Gates doesn't have any friends. Then who i ask you are all those people grovelling at his feet jumping whenever he makes some asinine statement regarding the future of computing?
Drive into a tunnel.. "hey, where'd the server go?"
That's what you get for registering with a crappy registrar. I registered with godaddy, they nearly took my domain away when someone filed a compaint against me. Yeah, ONE person filed a complaint.
If you're telling me that the government will be allowed to outlaw encryption, then you've got to be kidding. No one will bend over and take in the in ass like that. *pause* then again, they've been listening in on everyone's phone calls..
but realisitically, no one's going to allow them to snoop if they can stop them from snooping. Strong encryption will always prevail since it's up to me to release the passwords and keys, if i choose not to (along with everyone else refusing too) what are they going to do? arrest everyone?
Meh, this will simply mean internet users are going to get more serious about security.
It's sort of like the **AA shutting down p2p sites, all it does is make users become more cunning when coming up with new technology.
If the government starts snooping on what people are doing online, then everyone will start using SSL for everything. If they request the keys, then users will start using stuff like EFF's Tor http://tor.eff.org/
What then? The government will outlaw privacy? no, there's no way they will ever be snooping on what I'm doing without me putting up a fight first.