Actually, I think you're confusing the semantic content of the element (the former says 'This is a division of a page in the article class', the latter says 'This is an article') with the actual intended content of the element. This is really of particular interest to Semantic Web and RSS technologies, as it gives an actual semantic context to the content inside the element, rather than an implied one that is dependent on human-interpretation to understand.
The idea of HTML+CSS was to separate semantic markup from styling markup. HTML5 doesn't change this fact. What it does change is the underlying semantic INTERPRETATION of the content. In particular, one example will prove the usefulness of an article tag (ignoring, just for a moment, the equal validity of RSS to solve it):
It is a given that more and more internet denizens reside in many different countries speaking many different languages. HTML already exists to support all of these languages, and what's to stop a Spanish developer from using
<div class="articulo">
instead of what you mention? The inherent meaning is the same, but to English speakers, and to the browser itself, it's now just a "subdivision of the page of class 'articulo'" which, strictly within the context of English, means absolutely nothing. The <article> tag, in contrast, actually imparts a semantic meaning to the content that is invariant by language, and is the same worldwide. Unless you support setting aside specific classes to impart to them specific semantic content (e.g. Microformats) which will almost certainly NEVER be able to be standardized to the point that it becomes a W3C standard (and thus practically a prerequisite to implementing a standards-compliant browser), the semantic content that HTML5 provides renders it a useful, if not necessary, change.
TLDR: HTML5 isn't about new ways to style, it's about additional semantic markup.
Reductio ad Absurdum: Why keep the <p> tag? It could just as easily be marked up with <div class="paragraph">, by your interpretation of HTML semantics.
Yes he is, actually. OnTheIssues.org has some of his stances on Technology, including voting against net neutrality. Between that and his desire to abolish the Fed, I only have a handful of things I disagree with him on.
I've been picking up Emacs lately, and the xml-mode standardly used (nxml-mode) uses RELAX over XML Schema. I suspect that probably says a lot for RELAX's parseability. I've had just a little bit of experience playing around with Schemas and they seem about as navigable as DTDs, which is to say not very. I haven't tried RELAX though.
If we can have Pro-Life instead of Anti-Choice and Pro-Choice instead of Anti-Life, it shouldn't be hard to have Network Neutrality and Information Equality...
I mean, I wish I could get away with this. I'd totally sue Sony for a Playstation 3 for me and others to analyze the possibility for fun to be had while playing it.
After all, that's the only way anyone could get one...
Not quite. Especially considering that, in the long run, while services like Ruckus are offering 'free' trials right NOW, student life fees are almost guaranteed to go up to pay for it (this has already been discussed at my school, RPI, though fortunately we ended up having it paid from some non-student-life funds to cover next years subscription fees at least).
So yes, the students WILL be paying something in the long run. They just won't notice it unless the fee goes up to cover it while they're there.
Remember, NOTHING is free. It might not be obvious how you're paying, but you are.
That's not so much the problem as much as the fact that the 'gratis' service actually lures students into a subscription service after college that they can't easily get out of without losing their music.
Some people may remember RPI for its consistent involvement in the RIAA college lawsuits.
Needless to say, as soon as the first group of 30 were sued for using i2hub, the student council inexplicably gets an offer from the otherwise unknown music service known as Ruckus. The student council was at least nice enough to give us a chance to respond to a survey regarding our acceptance of a music service on campus, but despite an underwhelming response of 23%, RPI inexplicably chooses Ruckus to be its provider, despite the fact that 2/3rds of poll respondants wanted MP3 downloads, 90% wanted to burn CDs, and 85% wanted to download and own the music, and Ruckus is, of course, none of these, supporting only Microsoft DRM.
I haven't seen any long-term reviews of it either though, but I'm not particularly a fan of it. Too bad we students will have to pay for it in the end even if we don't want it.
Apple's already got enough problems with Apple Corps. v. Apple Computers.
You think they'd risk delving even further into violating that settlement? (Disney owns the Buena Vista Music Group. Granted, they don't distribute their own music, but it'd still be even closer to an open-and-shut-case against Apple if this happened.
If I may be so bold as to respond, I would have to say that the general unease and uncertain outcome as to who was going to be leading a coalition in the Bundestag (or if it was going to be a presumably more ineffective outcome of a grand coalition) is more than enough reason as to why an Internet coalition can be a bad thing: if people don't agree, then noone's leading. Not to mention the partisan politicking and potentially disastrous compromising potentially necessary in such a coalition.
I would hope that you'd agree that the last thing we need is a compromise between a coalition and WIPO to the effect of "We will let you send out autonomous search engines to search for copyrighted material and bring anyone who has them to court automatically wherever you are, in exchange for giving us money to our budgets."
I will concede on your point about majorities, however. On the other hand, Republican and Democratic majorities in the U.S. Congress are not often much better than the majorities you claim are in the Bundestag. Even today, with what is called the most Republican Congress in some time, in the House, they only have a 53% majority and in the Senate, they have only a 55% majority. Even in 1977, the most biased Congress since the beginning of World War II (Feel free to take a look at the party divisions in the House and Senate if you don't believe me), the Democrats only had a 67% majority in the House and a 61% majority in the Senate.
No, the sad thing is that they love to say you're all idiots when that's just as bad as saying you're either for us or against us. I smell no small amount of hypocrisy here. (For those of you who don't realize it, they're both very bad generalizations.)
Getting back to the topic at hand however, I think a lot of the fear-mongering from Americans is not as much a pro-neo-conservative bent as much as a pro-libertarian bent (which, honestly, I think is the general sentiment of a lot more people here than just the Americans who are saying "Yay, ICANN!"). The idea that the internet should be controlled by any one (or coalition of) government(s) is a rather dark and dreary idea reminiscent of 1984 or any other number of dystopian societies, and one that naturally is revolting to the thoughts of the libertarian. Hence the American (thus-far) idea that lassez-faire has done more good for the Internet than bad, and the European coalition idea would stagnate the Internet. (One need only look at Germany's recent election to get a good idea of why this can be a bad thing.)
UTADA is just a shameless attempt by Utada Hikaru to play up to her American R&B roots (which is failing of course). I was far from amazed by the CD, and find her Japanese pieces much better.
a) Don't trust the shops, unless you've got a geiger counter. ^_- b) Please don't steal the Trinitite. Why do you think they no longer have the window viewing through the filled-in-crater open? Probably because people would steal the trinitite in there. If people keep stealing the trinitite, noone would be able to see any on the ground any more...
The difference is that the Internet does not require the sort of regulation given to those as it is not liable to suffer the Tragedy of the Commons, unlike with radio spectrum (only so much spectrum is relatively free from natural effects AND non-ionizing) and satellite slots (only so many slots are available).
As cited in the article, this only compromised WinDVD. CPPM, like CSS, has player keys that are specific to the player hardware/software being used. This did not actually reclaim the player key from WinDVD, and even if it did, the player key can be deactivated in future releases, so that future DVD-Audio DVDs can still play. Hence, for true cracking, all of the player keys need to be discovered.
Furthermore, if only WinDVD is compromised, it will send a signal to content companies to support such formats as SACD, as the format's design naturally prevents playback (and hence any sort of ripping) on computers entirely (as the technology has not been licensed).
As soon as it's a rider on an appropriations bill like this, the broadcast flag is a foregone conclusion. The committee probably won't even know what they're doing.
The broadcast flag is here to stay, regardless of the EFF's "48 hours" claim.
Why embrace and extend? All they really need to do is support the evil bit.
But of course, being Microsoft, you're probably right. They'll make their own implementation of the evil bit, patent it, and charge royalties to others who want to support their new "EDDP" protocol (Evil Data Detection Protocol).
Not to mention that IIS, Exchange, IE, and Outlook will grow to require use of EDDP during transfers of data, locking Mozilla, Apple, Linux, and others from accessing much of the internet.
Finally, John C. Dvorak will boldly claim that EDDP is the wave of the future, and Apple, Linux, and Mozilla are clearly inferior for not supporting what is clearly a web standard, because if Microsoft says it is, it MUST be.
Actually, New York and Texas have almost identical laws when it comes to the law that (in Texas) has been interpreted to mean that someone with 6 dildoes is committing a misdemeanor.
Texas (Texas Penal Code, Title 9)
43.21. DEFINITIONS
(7) "Obscene device" means
a device including a dildo or artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.
43.23. OBSCENITY
(c) A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and
character, he:
(1) promotes or possesses with intent to promote any obscene material or obscene device; or
(2) produces, presents, or directs an obscene performance or participates in a portion thereof that is obscene or that contributes to its obscenity.
(d) Except as provided by Subsection (h), an offense under Subsection (c) is a Class A misdemeanor....
(f) A person who possesses six or more obscene devices or identical or similar obscene articles is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same.
New York (New York Consolidated Laws, Title MA235)
235.00. Obscenity; definitions of terms.
1. "Obscene." Any material or performance is "obscene" if (a) the
average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that considered as a whole, its predominant appeal is to the prurient interest in sex, and (b) it depicts or describes in a patently offensive manner, actual or simulated: sexual intercourse, criminal sexual act, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sadism, masochism, excretion or lewd exhibition of the genitals, and (c) considered as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value. Predominant appeal shall be judged with reference to ordinary adults unless it appears from the character of the material or the circumstances of its dissemination to be designed for children or other specially susceptible audience.
2. "Material" means anything tangible which is capable of being used or adapted to arouse interest, whether through the medium of reading, observation, sound or in any other manner.
235.05 Obscenity in the third degree.
A person is guilty of obscenity in the third degree when, knowing its
content and character, he:
1. Promotes, or possesses with intent to promote, any obscene material; or
2. Produces, presents or directs an obscene performance or participates in a portion thereof which is obscene or which contributes to its obscenity. Obscenity in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.
235.10 Obscenity; presumptions.
2.
A person who possesses six or more identical or similar obscene articles is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same.
Heavy bandwidth usage tends to be a very normal occurrence on fansites at any rate. For a while now, Apple Rumors and MacNN switch to low-bandwidth versions during the keynote, and even these sites were swamped.
MacRumors was pretty much down after iWork was announced.
MacNN had a 403 between when iDVD was discussed and when the Mac Mini was mentioned.
Mac Teens performed the best, but started to get intermittent towards the end (probably due to a cascade effect of people fleeing from one working site to another)
Engadget was fairly unreliable, but a little better off than MacNN.
Companies will try harder and harder to make sure DRM exists in all these formats and is ever more restrictive ("Oh, well with our new Super-Duper Audio Discs, you can only play it 5 times on one single device.")
All the while, prices for these new formats will either stay the same, or go up, due to "increasing costs of production" and stay that way.
- A "voluntary program" of the DoJ to send copyright warning letters to ISPs regarding users they're watching. - All DoJ units dedicated to computer hacking will also have people specialized in IP Infringement added to their teams. - The Attorney General/US Government being given leeway to prosecute in civil cases in lieu of the copyright owner - Automatic removal of commercials banned (not manual skipping) - Extending rights of libraries with the Orphan Copyright Clause (amending Sec. 108(i) in Title 17 to apply to (b), (c), and (h) instead of (b) and (c))
"The vast majority of software products, including peer-to-peer technology, do not pose an inherent risk. Responsible persons making software products should be encouraged and commended for the due diligence and reasonable care they take including by providing instructions, relevant information in the documentation, disseminating patches, updates, and other appropriate modifications to the software."
"Massive volumes of illegal activity, including the distribution of child pornography, viruses, and confidential personal information, and copyright infringement occur on publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing services every day."
And of course the clincher!
"It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) responsible software developers should be commended, recognized, and encouraged for their efforts to protect consumers;
(2) currently the level of ongoing and persistent illegal and dangerous activity on publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing services is harmful to consumers, minors, and the economy; and
(3) therefore, Congress and the executive branch should consider all appropriate measures to protect consumers and children, and prevent such illegal activity."
Well if we're going to make everyone who can vote have a card that is a national standard, why not make it a mandatory national ID card?
It'd save the government so much money over having to tattoo a number on your arm, and it would make it so much easier for the administration to eliminate those pesky Kerry voters!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think you're confusing the semantic content of the element (the former says 'This is a division of a page in the article class', the latter says 'This is an article') with the actual intended content of the element. This is really of particular interest to Semantic Web and RSS technologies, as it gives an actual semantic context to the content inside the element, rather than an implied one that is dependent on human-interpretation to understand.
The idea of HTML+CSS was to separate semantic markup from styling markup. HTML5 doesn't change this fact. What it does change is the underlying semantic INTERPRETATION of the content. In particular, one example will prove the usefulness of an article tag (ignoring, just for a moment, the equal validity of RSS to solve it):
It is a given that more and more internet denizens reside in many different countries speaking many different languages. HTML already exists to support all of these languages, and what's to stop a Spanish developer from using
<div class="articulo">
instead of what you mention? The inherent meaning is the same, but to English speakers, and to the browser itself, it's now just a "subdivision of the page of class 'articulo'" which, strictly within the context of English, means absolutely nothing. The <article> tag, in contrast, actually imparts a semantic meaning to the content that is invariant by language, and is the same worldwide. Unless you support setting aside specific classes to impart to them specific semantic content (e.g. Microformats) which will almost certainly NEVER be able to be standardized to the point that it becomes a W3C standard (and thus practically a prerequisite to implementing a standards-compliant browser), the semantic content that HTML5 provides renders it a useful, if not necessary, change.
TLDR: HTML5 isn't about new ways to style, it's about additional semantic markup.
Reductio ad Absurdum: Why keep the <p> tag? It could just as easily be marked up with <div class="paragraph">, by your interpretation of HTML semantics.
Yes he is, actually. OnTheIssues.org has some of his stances on Technology, including voting against net neutrality. Between that and his desire to abolish the Fed, I only have a handful of things I disagree with him on.
I've been picking up Emacs lately, and the xml-mode standardly used (nxml-mode) uses RELAX over XML Schema. I suspect that probably says a lot for RELAX's parseability. I've had just a little bit of experience playing around with Schemas and they seem about as navigable as DTDs, which is to say not very. I haven't tried RELAX though.
If we can have Pro-Life instead of Anti-Choice and Pro-Choice instead of Anti-Life, it shouldn't be hard to have Network Neutrality and Information Equality...
The EFF should get on this rephrasing, stat!
I mean, I wish I could get away with this. I'd totally sue Sony for a Playstation 3 for me and others to analyze the possibility for fun to be had while playing it. After all, that's the only way anyone could get one...
Not quite. Especially considering that, in the long run, while services like Ruckus are offering 'free' trials right NOW, student life fees are almost guaranteed to go up to pay for it (this has already been discussed at my school, RPI, though fortunately we ended up having it paid from some non-student-life funds to cover next years subscription fees at least).
So yes, the students WILL be paying something in the long run. They just won't notice it unless the fee goes up to cover it while they're there.
Remember, NOTHING is free. It might not be obvious how you're paying, but you are.
That's not so much the problem as much as the fact that the 'gratis' service actually lures students into a subscription service after college that they can't easily get out of without losing their music.
Some people may remember RPI for its consistent involvement in the RIAA college lawsuits.
Needless to say, as soon as the first group of 30 were sued for using i2hub, the student council inexplicably gets an offer from the otherwise unknown music service known as Ruckus. The student council was at least nice enough to give us a chance to respond to a survey regarding our acceptance of a music service on campus, but despite an underwhelming response of 23%, RPI inexplicably chooses Ruckus to be its provider, despite the fact that 2/3rds of poll respondants wanted MP3 downloads, 90% wanted to burn CDs, and 85% wanted to download and own the music, and Ruckus is, of course, none of these, supporting only Microsoft DRM.
Despite some quiet rancor about the deal, and its possible relationship to a 'blackmail' deal with the RIAA, the student council twisted the facts and approved Ruckus anyway, intending to keep it through the 06-07 year, despite some qualms about its quality of service.
I haven't seen any long-term reviews of it either though, but I'm not particularly a fan of it. Too bad we students will have to pay for it in the end even if we don't want it.
Apple's already got enough problems with Apple Corps. v. Apple Computers.
You think they'd risk delving even further into violating that settlement? (Disney owns the Buena Vista Music Group. Granted, they don't distribute their own music, but it'd still be even closer to an open-and-shut-case against Apple if this happened.
If I may be so bold as to respond, I would have to say that the general unease and uncertain outcome as to who was going to be leading a coalition in the Bundestag (or if it was going to be a presumably more ineffective outcome of a grand coalition) is more than enough reason as to why an Internet coalition can be a bad thing: if people don't agree, then noone's leading. Not to mention the partisan politicking and potentially disastrous compromising potentially necessary in such a coalition.
I would hope that you'd agree that the last thing we need is a compromise between a coalition and WIPO to the effect of "We will let you send out autonomous search engines to search for copyrighted material and bring anyone who has them to court automatically wherever you are, in exchange for giving us money to our budgets."
I will concede on your point about majorities, however. On the other hand, Republican and Democratic majorities in the U.S. Congress are not often much better than the majorities you claim are in the Bundestag. Even today, with what is called the most Republican Congress in some time, in the House, they only have a 53% majority and in the Senate, they have only a 55% majority. Even in 1977, the most biased Congress since the beginning of World War II (Feel free to take a look at the party divisions in the House and Senate if you don't believe me), the Democrats only had a 67% majority in the House and a 61% majority in the Senate.
No, the sad thing is that they love to say you're all idiots when that's just as bad as saying you're either for us or against us. I smell no small amount of hypocrisy here. (For those of you who don't realize it, they're both very bad generalizations.)
Getting back to the topic at hand however, I think a lot of the fear-mongering from Americans is not as much a pro-neo-conservative bent as much as a pro-libertarian bent (which, honestly, I think is the general sentiment of a lot more people here than just the Americans who are saying "Yay, ICANN!"). The idea that the internet should be controlled by any one (or coalition of) government(s) is a rather dark and dreary idea reminiscent of 1984 or any other number of dystopian societies, and one that naturally is revolting to the thoughts of the libertarian. Hence the American (thus-far) idea that lassez-faire has done more good for the Internet than bad, and the European coalition idea would stagnate the Internet. (One need only look at Germany's recent election to get a good idea of why this can be a bad thing.)
UTADA is just a shameless attempt by Utada Hikaru to play up to her American R&B roots (which is failing of course). I was far from amazed by the CD, and find her Japanese pieces much better.
Nope. You can still only buy Ayumi Hamasaki and Utada Hikaru if you live in Japan.
I visited today.
As for Trinitite, several issues:
a) Don't trust the shops, unless you've got a geiger counter. ^_-
b) Please don't steal the Trinitite. Why do you think they no longer have the window viewing through the filled-in-crater open? Probably because people would steal the trinitite in there. If people keep stealing the trinitite, noone would be able to see any on the ground any more...
4 and 5 are absolutely true.
The difference is that the Internet does not require the sort of regulation given to those as it is not liable to suffer the Tragedy of the Commons, unlike with radio spectrum (only so much spectrum is relatively free from natural effects AND non-ionizing) and satellite slots (only so many slots are available).
Here's why:
As cited in the article, this only compromised WinDVD. CPPM, like CSS, has player keys that are specific to the player hardware/software being used. This did not actually reclaim the player key from WinDVD, and even if it did, the player key can be deactivated in future releases, so that future DVD-Audio DVDs can still play. Hence, for true cracking, all of the player keys need to be discovered.
Furthermore, if only WinDVD is compromised, it will send a signal to content companies to support such formats as SACD, as the format's design naturally prevents playback (and hence any sort of ripping) on computers entirely (as the technology has not been licensed).
As soon as it's a rider on an appropriations bill like this, the broadcast flag is a foregone conclusion. The committee probably won't even know what they're doing.
The broadcast flag is here to stay, regardless of the EFF's "48 hours" claim.
Why embrace and extend? All they really need to do is support the evil bit.
But of course, being Microsoft, you're probably right. They'll make their own implementation of the evil bit, patent it, and charge royalties to others who want to support their new "EDDP" protocol (Evil Data Detection Protocol).
Not to mention that IIS, Exchange, IE, and Outlook will grow to require use of EDDP during transfers of data, locking Mozilla, Apple, Linux, and others from accessing much of the internet.
Finally, John C. Dvorak will boldly claim that EDDP is the wave of the future, and Apple, Linux, and Mozilla are clearly inferior for not supporting what is clearly a web standard, because if Microsoft says it is, it MUST be.
Texas (Texas Penal Code, Title 9)
43.21. DEFINITIONS
43.23. OBSCENITY
New York (New York Consolidated Laws, Title MA235)
235.00. Obscenity; definitions of terms.
235.05 Obscenity in the third degree.
235.10 Obscenity; presumptions.
RTFA. The European Parliament still has to vote on it, and have rejected it before.
Binary XML is nothing new, as I wager that many people here are already using it, albeit unknowingly.
One of the earliest projects that has tried to make a binary XML (as far as I'm aware) was the EBML (Extensible Binary Meta-Language) which is used in the Matroska media container.
Heavy bandwidth usage tends to be a very normal occurrence on fansites at any rate. For a while now, Apple Rumors and MacNN switch to low-bandwidth versions during the keynote, and even these sites were swamped.
MacRumors was pretty much down after iWork was announced.
MacNN had a 403 between when iDVD was discussed and when the Mac Mini was mentioned.
Mac Teens performed the best, but started to get intermittent towards the end (probably due to a cascade effect of people fleeing from one working site to another)
Engadget was fairly unreliable, but a little better off than MacNN.
Companies will try harder and harder to make sure DRM exists in all these formats and is ever more restrictive ("Oh, well with our new Super-Duper Audio Discs, you can only play it 5 times on one single device.")
All the while, prices for these new formats will either stay the same, or go up, due to "increasing costs of production" and stay that way.
Some of the things also provided for include:
- A "voluntary program" of the DoJ to send copyright warning letters to ISPs regarding users they're watching.
- All DoJ units dedicated to computer hacking will also have people specialized in IP Infringement added to their teams.
- The Attorney General/US Government being given leeway to prosecute in civil cases in lieu of the copyright owner
- Automatic removal of commercials banned (not manual skipping)
- Extending rights of libraries with the Orphan Copyright Clause (amending Sec. 108(i) in Title 17 to apply to (b), (c), and (h) instead of (b) and (c))
Another interesting section involves Congress's "findings" regarding P2P apps. Choice findings include:
"The vast majority of software products, including peer-to-peer technology, do not pose an inherent risk. Responsible persons making software products should be encouraged and commended for the due diligence and reasonable care they take including by providing instructions, relevant information in the documentation, disseminating patches, updates, and other appropriate modifications to the software."
"Massive volumes of illegal activity, including the distribution of child pornography, viruses, and confidential personal information, and copyright infringement occur on publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing services every day."
And of course the clincher!
"It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) responsible software developers should be commended, recognized, and encouraged for their efforts to protect consumers;
(2) currently the level of ongoing and persistent illegal and dangerous activity on publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing services is harmful to consumers, minors, and the economy; and
(3) therefore, Congress and the executive branch should consider all appropriate measures to protect consumers and children, and prevent such illegal activity."
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?!?!
Well if we're going to make everyone who can vote have a card that is a national standard, why not make it a mandatory national ID card?
It'd save the government so much money over having to tattoo a number on your arm, and it would make it so much easier for the administration to eliminate those pesky Kerry voters!