My question: when is Sony going to own up to the three-year-old and counting issue with their LCDs that are also used in most major digital cameras and camcorders? The crystal substrate spontaneously cracks, and presto! unusable LCD.
Sony has sucked for years, and this is no surprise. Their TVs also have, by far, the highest failure rate in the industry (speaking as someone who did repairs and installations for years). Boycott them. They're going down the tubes and they deserve to, they've been living off their reputation for two decades.
GMail messages sent with a different email address still show the GMail address in the "sender" field
That is good behavior. A webmail client shouldn't make it *that* easy to spoof the originator (which is what you're actually talking about). Playing loose with originators is a huge contributor to spam and phishing. Most professional and academic institutions have already or are moving to requiring authentication to use SMTP, and rejecting (or overwriting) sender and/or originator headers that don't match the logged-in user (and requiring some face-to-face or at least shared-secret verification before issuing accounts).
In the rare (but legitimate) cases when you need to send anonymous email, there are always ways of doing it--hell, just sign up for a Hotmail account with fake info, that's good enough for most uses. But (in my opinion) it shouldn't be provided by major everyday mail services.
do a comparison and please don't bring up Dell. they are ridiculed even in the pc world for being shit.
Please read this again and note how it destroys your own point. Dells are shit, and yet, even they (just about the bottom of the barrel of PCs) are more expensive at a given configuration than a Mac. The closest Dell to that Mac Mini that you talked about is nearly $300 more expensive than the mac, and any other brand worth mentioning (ie, not eMachines) is far worse.
Yes, you can build your own PC for cheap. That's fine. But that is totally irrelevant to a "Macs are expensive" argument, as you're not talking about an off-the-shelf machine. In the big scheme of things, very, very few people and almost zero companies build their own computers. That's a red herring for nearly anyone but the hobbyist.
no one can upgrade a mac piece by piece, which means every 2 years, instead of spending 500-600 bucks, you have to buy a brand new mac. that is assuming you do upgrade ever.
What are you talking about? They generally have fewer open slots, but you can absolutely keep upgrading them piece-by-piece for nearly as long as you want (there are serious limitations on iMacs and eMacs, but that is no different for equivalent all-in-ones from PC manufacturers).
In short, the "macs are expensive" has is, was, and always will be a complete myth. Some machines are more expensive, many are less (sometimes far less), and that's the truth of the matter.
I think the obvious meaning of his statement was "The default is to permit any[executable] on your machine to execute if you click on it..."
This is obvious thanks to the rest of the sentence, where he makes an exception for execution being blocked in some circumstances which don't include "it's not an executable". Of COURSE you can't execute a non-executable file by clicking on it.
You're either ignorant or a liar if you truly believe things like "the only way to get cvs is an unstable branch through fink".
Seriously. You're totally nuts.
First of all, CVS is one of the many tools INCLUDED on the devkit. Tuned specifically for OS X.
Second, you can compile the usual stable branch from source, exactly the same as you can on Linux.
Third, I'd like a concrete example about OS calls failing in a headless environment. I think you're full of it.
You're almost right, except for the double jeopardy part. A voiding of a verdict by the appeals court, or a return of the case to the lower court for reconsideration, does not carry the weight of a not-guilty finding. Charges or suits can be refiled; double jeopardy does not apply.
Though in practice, it's often the end of the matter. Retrials are fairly uncommon simply because the combination of the expense and the fact that if something silly enough to get the verdict tossed was done the first time around, it's unlikely that there's good enough evidence to try it cleanly and win on the second go.
Your car analogy, like most analogies (seriously, people, stop it) fails. The number of people who leave their cars unlocked and intend for people to joyride in them approaches zero. Everyone knows that car is not for joyriding.
The number of INTENTIONALLY open wireless access points is undoubtedly in the millions, and there is no way for the end user to distinguish between this and one that someone left open on purpose not intending people to use it (which gets my Asinine Award for the year).
"The Unix programmer," ESR writes, "is likely to see defaulting away from expressiveness as a sort of cop-out or even betrayal of future users, who will know their own requirements better than the present implementer.
The only time this would apply: your theoretical "future user" is a system coder working on a system tool, or is someone who's willing to pay the money for a coder to come in and do extensive modifications to the app.
The fact that he's missing, as do so many Unix (and especially Linux) zealots, is that people don't want to modify the source at a later date. The typical end user wants something that works for their needs now, and when it doesn't work anymore, they'll find another tool. The typical end user, yes even in the Unix world, is *not* a coder.
Additionally, he's basically advocating code bloat, creeping featurism, rather than discrete tools for discrete functions, which he claims as a virtue. Inconsistency--it's an ESR hallmark.
Ironically, though the Unix attitude is often construed as a sort of programmer arrogance, it is actually a form of humility -- one often acquired along with years of battle scars" (p.304, "Interfaces,")
There's nothing to say to this but: Bullshit. The types he's trying to defend here are invariably the ones that are insufferable snots, and never comment their ugly, flea-ridden, hacked-together code. You can't make any case that their attitude is some sort of deference to the "future user". There's no humility to the behavior at all.
I quote:
"The Unix programmer," ESR writes, "is likely to see defaulting away from expressiveness as a sort of cop-out or even betrayal of future users, who will know their own requirements better than the present implementer.
The only time this would apply: your theoretical "future user" is a system coder working on a system tool, or is someone who's willing to pay the money for a coder to come in and do extensive modifications to the app.
The fact that he's missing, as do so many Unix (and especially Linux) zealots, is that people don't want to modify the source at a later date. The typical end user wants something that works for their needs now, and when it doesn't work anymore, they'll find another tool. The typical end user, yes even in the Unix world, is *not* a coder.
Additionally, he's basically advocating code bloat, creeping featurism, rather than discrete tools for discrete functions, which he claims as a virtue. Inconsistency--it's an ESR hallmark.
Ironically, though the Unix attitude is often construed as a sort of programmer arrogance, it is actually a form of humility -- one often acquired along with years of battle scars" (p.304, "Interfaces,")
There's nothing to say to this but: Bullshit. The types he's trying to defend here are invariably the ones that are insufferable snots, and never comment their ugly, flea-ridden, hacked-together code. You can't make any case that their attitude is some sort of deference to the "future user". There's no humility to the behavior at all.
Totally absurd.
Apple *very specifically* didn't say it wouldn't be legal. They said, mumbo-jumbo aside, "if you want to do it, we're not going to facilitate it, and it'd be idiotic, but you go right on ahead and sell that; after all, you bought it!" They're letting this slide so as to not look bad to consumers, and at the same time putting on a little frowny-face to show the RIAA that they really do care about copyright.
And all the while, they're sitting there laughing to themselves because they look good to nearly everyone on every side and, to boot, THIS IS A MEANINGLESS "TEST" of first sale! Jesus, people, use your energy on something that's worth it! It's not a useful "test" of the doctrine, if nobody is going to oppose it. Why won't Apple oppose it?
Because as somebody else mentioned, it's nigh on impossible for them to be undersold. Sure, go ahead and buy a song for 99 cents and then turn around and sell it for less! You won't do that, because you're not an idiot. Sell it for a profit? Pretty tough to do, when a buyer can get it from Apple for the originall 99 pence! Eh?
So to sum: this is a pointless "test," and anyone who thinks it says *anything* substantive about *anything* is completely, completely fscking brain-dead. Thank you.
Uh, bullshit. As an experienced hunter and marksman, I highly doubt that ever happened. Anyone who hits a coyote (or most anything else) at one mile got extremely lucky. Especially with an AK.
You'd have to aim about 7 feet over your target and pray for no wind, or strong moose farts, on the way. And, at one mile, a round from an AK would take long enough to hit it's target that there's little chance that the coyote wouldn't have at least cocked its head at the sound (thereby making a neck shot, the position of which has now changed, complete luck).
Smoke crack much? The early innovations were only "free" inasmuch as they were completely unavailable to any but those involved in the government-academic oligarchy which was working on said innovaations.
As soon as the Internet was opened to a wider audience, the real innovations became largely matters of non-free software.
Think about web browsers. Mozilla is the only "free as in speech" browser which is worth anything at all. Even it is inferior in many respects to non-free indie projects like Opera and iCab. And, to top it off, did Mozilla start as a open software. Nope, nope it didn't. It needed a substantial initial investment to get it off the ground--the kind of investment available only by a hope that some of the expenses could be recouped in sales. *Then* it was opened up.
Nobody has the time to sit around and write Photoshop without getting paid for it. The GIMP has taken many coders, much time, the availability of a model to copy, and is still inferior to what Photoshop was doing 8 years ago.
Your Renaissance example is deeply flawed. Without copyright, including during the Renaissance, art is for the most part produced within a patronage system. That is, a wealthy person, usually royalty of some degree, would feed and house the artist so that the artist had the time and the energy to devote to their art. Copyright was largely irrelevant at least for visual arts in this age, because those who did live off their art did not count on sales to do so.
Aural works: copyright, again, is nearly irrelevant in an age devoid of recording technology. Troubadours were paid by their audiences, composers were paid, again, by patrons.
When technology makes reproduction and distribution as easy as it does today, there has to be some limited-time financial protection for those who create. People will still write poetry and play punk music regardless of copyright, because *the initial investment is minimal*. But nobody could (forget would) make Blade Runner or Led Zep 4 without a limited monopoly right, simply because *there would be no financing*. Period. What would happen is that we'd end up with a perversion of the patronage system. Only those with money to throw away could afford to support the more expensive arts, and the only movies you'd see are the ones that stroke Donald Trump's ego. Actually, you probably wouldn't see any, because there are very few wealthy Americans who care at all about the arts.
It's simple, really. In the Renaissance the protection was lack of recording and distribution. Now, the protection is (scaled-back) regulation. The bottom line is no protection=little art.
DNA mapping: $2000. CD pressing: $1. Antique CD-ROM Drive in the Year 3286: $8935 Brand-spanking-new CD-to-Biomass converter in same year: $14,000. Connection fee for time it takes to Kazaa someone's genetic sequence: $0.03.
Having your descendants clone you and that chick who wouldn't give you the time of day in high school so that you can boink her brains out: Priceless.
Laws can be and are nullified in the US on the basis of being ambiguous or overly broad. Whether the ambiguity can lead to unconstitutional enforcement is irrelevant--the very act of being "too ambiguous" (whatever that means) is considered a violation of the Constitution.
Don't quote me on this, but I seem to remember that it's tied to the sixth amendment due process clause; a system can hardly offer due process if the citizenry cannot (that's cannot, not does not) know the law beforehand.
1. Mac users aren't "being forced to buy new machines to use OS X." Where did that come from? First, nobody has to run OS X at all, and so far the majority of mac users have chosen not to. Secondly, you don't need a new machine. I run it just fine on an old 300MHz iBook.
2. You totally miss the point. It has nothing to do with longetivity. It has to do with the fact that while PCs have a 94% market share, or whatever, many of those rarely or never touch the 'net. Think about it, how many people do you know with a bedroom or basement full of cheap PCs that they use for this and that but save their one ballsy daily use machine for most of the online work? I know quite a few.
3. Zeitgeist reports on exactly one thing: www.google.com. How do you extrapolate from those statistics to Internet use (including non-www) as a whole? Zuh? Given the cost of satellite, I doubt that many people are going to get it just to go googling around the web, so those stats are even more meaningless in the current discussion.
I've seen the video. The crowd BOOOOED him. Tommy Mattola apparently has a good rep in the african-american community, and they didn't like Jackson's comments. I don't know what you're talking about.
You're fooling yourself. A lot of great musicians do it because they love the music, absolutely. They don't get into *for* the money, precisely, true.
But if you take away the money, most of them won't continue to do it, or the quality will fall off. If someone is having to spend 8 hours a day flipping burgers or selling cars, it's less likely that they'll put out a quality record.
I'm not sure what it is, but most./ers can't read.
You're all bunching your panties about "backwards compatibility," blah blah blah blah blah.
Meanwhile, you've completely missed the point. Knock knock!
The article doesn't say you should mindlessly employ the bleeding edge of XML or CSS instead or . It simply doesn't say that.
Let me paraphrase. Code/markup critical content based on *established* standards which work cross-platform MUCH MORE EASILY AND EFFICIENTLY than the crufty work-arounds.
Somebody running Netscape 3 on a Performa or a P200 doesn't *want* to see anything fancy, because it will fark their machine no matter how you cruft it. Using CSS, while not perfect by any means, for your fancy stuff means that older browsers will safely ignore it rather than CHOKING on it.
Back in reality... versions of Netscape past 4.73 *break* significant enterprise apps, such as the registration etc systems at many major research Universities.
Back in reality... coding for IE is a desperate, doomed flail as what you have to do to make IE read a page "properly" changes from version to version.
Mozilla is nice, I use it on my laptop with OS X... but it is not the kind of full-featured browser that average users expect. It most certainly does *not* have more features than Netscape 4.x (though whether you want/need any of those NS features is another matter heh).
Adopting the newest XHTML spec is not necessary. If you stay within the same "best practices" described for nearly a decade now, your sites will function nearly universally.
Businesses shouldn't try to make their webstore look like their catalogue. The web was not designed for that kind of layout control, period. Saying, "But customers expect it, so they have to do it" is ludicrous on two counts. First, as long as the design doesn't make things difficult, users of a commerce site don't care about the look that much. They care about prices, selection, etc, same as in the real world. People buy groceries at warehouses, not Interior Design schools.:P Concordantly, you waste more money coding to IE and keeping it functional than you would lose by creating a more basic, clean, universal site (which may even open you up to new users, including those with disabilities).
Silly boy. The point is that the W3C standard is *specifically designed* to work across platforms. It may shut out some people using Netscape 2... but who uses that? Very nearly nobody.
It won't shut out people using something like Lynx. The standard is *specifically designed* to mandate text-only support as an accessibility issue. Any decent webdesigner knows how to be compatible with Lynx-style browsers without doing an entire "text-only" version.
And that's the second main point. Let's review: 1. Standards *increase* access. 2. Standards make it *easier* to write pages.
What's the problem?
postscript: I've yet to see an IE-only "extension" which does anything useful. Not many even do anything non-harmful.
Great multitasking? I'll say right off the bat that I'm not a kernel/OS guy. Having said that...
I've really noticed no difference in multitasking between Linux (any of the flavors I've tried) and OS X. I used Linux on PPC for a year, and recently bit the bullet and switched to OS X on my laptop because, honestly, I was tired of messing with Linux. I'm a geek... but when it came down to doing day-to-day work, to coding for my own amusement, etc, etc, I wanted the *background*, the basics of the system to just work without the eternal Linux putzing.
I'll just leave with that commentary and not get into the philosophical stuff I was contemplating... let's just say that it's possible to realize how ridiculous MS is without blindly glorifying Linux (not that you're doing that--general comment).
I've been using php/mysql/apache on linux for about 18 months (I'm a Unix person at work, a Mac/Linux person at home) and I was able to get this combo running under OS X on my laptop for dev/testing purposes in under 10 minutes, whereas it took me hours and hours of dinking with compiles to get it working on any linux or BSD machine I've used.
As for use beyond setup, I find OS X to be a superior environment on the command line. It's quick and it's well configured out-of-the-box so that your time is productive, rather than spent on solving conflicts and dependencies.
Slashdot Mirror
My question: when is Sony going to own up to the three-year-old and counting issue with their LCDs that are also used in most major digital cameras and camcorders? The crystal substrate spontaneously cracks, and presto! unusable LCD.
Sony has sucked for years, and this is no surprise. Their TVs also have, by far, the highest failure rate in the industry (speaking as someone who did repairs and installations for years). Boycott them. They're going down the tubes and they deserve to, they've been living off their reputation for two decades.
That is good behavior. A webmail client shouldn't make it *that* easy to spoof the originator (which is what you're actually talking about). Playing loose with originators is a huge contributor to spam and phishing. Most professional and academic institutions have already or are moving to requiring authentication to use SMTP, and rejecting (or overwriting) sender and/or originator headers that don't match the logged-in user (and requiring some face-to-face or at least shared-secret verification before issuing accounts).
In the rare (but legitimate) cases when you need to send anonymous email, there are always ways of doing it--hell, just sign up for a Hotmail account with fake info, that's good enough for most uses. But (in my opinion) it shouldn't be provided by major everyday mail services.
do a comparison and please don't bring up Dell. they are ridiculed even in the pc world for being shit.
Please read this again and note how it destroys your own point. Dells are shit, and yet, even they (just about the bottom of the barrel of PCs) are more expensive at a given configuration than a Mac. The closest Dell to that Mac Mini that you talked about is nearly $300 more expensive than the mac, and any other brand worth mentioning (ie, not eMachines) is far worse.
Yes, you can build your own PC for cheap. That's fine. But that is totally irrelevant to a "Macs are expensive" argument, as you're not talking about an off-the-shelf machine. In the big scheme of things, very, very few people and almost zero companies build their own computers. That's a red herring for nearly anyone but the hobbyist.
no one can upgrade a mac piece by piece, which means every 2 years, instead of spending 500-600 bucks, you have to buy a brand new mac. that is assuming you do upgrade ever.
What are you talking about? They generally have fewer open slots, but you can absolutely keep upgrading them piece-by-piece for nearly as long as you want (there are serious limitations on iMacs and eMacs, but that is no different for equivalent all-in-ones from PC manufacturers).
In short, the "macs are expensive" has is, was, and always will be a complete myth. Some machines are more expensive, many are less (sometimes far less), and that's the truth of the matter.
I think the obvious meaning of his statement was "The default is to permit any[executable] on your machine to execute if you click on it..." This is obvious thanks to the rest of the sentence, where he makes an exception for execution being blocked in some circumstances which don't include "it's not an executable". Of COURSE you can't execute a non-executable file by clicking on it.
You're either ignorant or a liar if you truly believe things like "the only way to get cvs is an unstable branch through fink". Seriously. You're totally nuts. First of all, CVS is one of the many tools INCLUDED on the devkit. Tuned specifically for OS X. Second, you can compile the usual stable branch from source, exactly the same as you can on Linux. Third, I'd like a concrete example about OS calls failing in a headless environment. I think you're full of it.
You're almost right, except for the double jeopardy part. A voiding of a verdict by the appeals court, or a return of the case to the lower court for reconsideration, does not carry the weight of a not-guilty finding. Charges or suits can be refiled; double jeopardy does not apply.
Though in practice, it's often the end of the matter. Retrials are fairly uncommon simply because the combination of the expense and the fact that if something silly enough to get the verdict tossed was done the first time around, it's unlikely that there's good enough evidence to try it cleanly and win on the second go.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Your car analogy, like most analogies (seriously, people, stop it) fails. The number of people who leave their cars unlocked and intend for people to joyride in them approaches zero. Everyone knows that car is not for joyriding.
The number of INTENTIONALLY open wireless access points is undoubtedly in the millions, and there is no way for the end user to distinguish between this and one that someone left open on purpose not intending people to use it (which gets my Asinine Award for the year).
Understand?
I'm waiting...
... oh, I'm sorry, did I interrupt your troll?
Liar.
I quote:
The only time this would apply: your theoretical "future user" is a system coder working on a system tool, or is someone who's willing to pay the money for a coder to come in and do extensive modifications to the app.
The fact that he's missing, as do so many Unix (and especially Linux) zealots, is that people don't want to modify the source at a later date. The typical end user wants something that works for their needs now, and when it doesn't work anymore, they'll find another tool. The typical end user, yes even in the Unix world, is *not* a coder.
Additionally, he's basically advocating code bloat, creeping featurism, rather than discrete tools for discrete functions, which he claims as a virtue. Inconsistency--it's an ESR hallmark.
There's nothing to say to this but: Bullshit. The types he's trying to defend here are invariably the ones that are insufferable snots, and never comment their ugly, flea-ridden, hacked-together code. You can't make any case that their attitude is some sort of deference to the "future user". There's no humility to the behavior at all.
Totally absurd.
I quote: "The Unix programmer," ESR writes, "is likely to see defaulting away from expressiveness as a sort of cop-out or even betrayal of future users, who will know their own requirements better than the present implementer. The only time this would apply: your theoretical "future user" is a system coder working on a system tool, or is someone who's willing to pay the money for a coder to come in and do extensive modifications to the app. The fact that he's missing, as do so many Unix (and especially Linux) zealots, is that people don't want to modify the source at a later date. The typical end user wants something that works for their needs now, and when it doesn't work anymore, they'll find another tool. The typical end user, yes even in the Unix world, is *not* a coder. Additionally, he's basically advocating code bloat, creeping featurism, rather than discrete tools for discrete functions, which he claims as a virtue. Inconsistency--it's an ESR hallmark. Ironically, though the Unix attitude is often construed as a sort of programmer arrogance, it is actually a form of humility -- one often acquired along with years of battle scars" (p.304, "Interfaces,") There's nothing to say to this but: Bullshit. The types he's trying to defend here are invariably the ones that are insufferable snots, and never comment their ugly, flea-ridden, hacked-together code. You can't make any case that their attitude is some sort of deference to the "future user". There's no humility to the behavior at all. Totally absurd.
Better question: will the television be revolutionized?
Are all of you completely brain dead?
Apple *very specifically* didn't say it wouldn't be legal. They said, mumbo-jumbo aside, "if you want to do it, we're not going to facilitate it, and it'd be idiotic, but you go right on ahead and sell that; after all, you bought it!" They're letting this slide so as to not look bad to consumers, and at the same time putting on a little frowny-face to show the RIAA that they really do care about copyright.
And all the while, they're sitting there laughing to themselves because they look good to nearly everyone on every side and, to boot, THIS IS A MEANINGLESS "TEST" of first sale! Jesus, people, use your energy on something that's worth it! It's not a useful "test" of the doctrine, if nobody is going to oppose it. Why won't Apple oppose it?
Because as somebody else mentioned, it's nigh on impossible for them to be undersold. Sure, go ahead and buy a song for 99 cents and then turn around and sell it for less! You won't do that, because you're not an idiot. Sell it for a profit? Pretty tough to do, when a buyer can get it from Apple for the originall 99 pence! Eh?
So to sum: this is a pointless "test," and anyone who thinks it says *anything* substantive about *anything* is completely, completely fscking brain-dead. Thank you.
Uh, bullshit. As an experienced hunter and marksman, I highly doubt that ever happened. Anyone who hits a coyote (or most anything else) at one mile got extremely lucky. Especially with an AK.
You'd have to aim about 7 feet over your target and pray for no wind, or strong moose farts, on the way. And, at one mile, a round from an AK would take long enough to hit it's target that there's little chance that the coyote wouldn't have at least cocked its head at the sound (thereby making a neck shot, the position of which has now changed, complete luck).
Smoke crack much? The early innovations were only "free" inasmuch as they were completely unavailable to any but those involved in the government-academic oligarchy which was working on said innovaations.
As soon as the Internet was opened to a wider audience, the real innovations became largely matters of non-free software.
Think about web browsers. Mozilla is the only "free as in speech" browser which is worth anything at all. Even it is inferior in many respects to non-free indie projects like Opera and iCab. And, to top it off, did Mozilla start as a open software. Nope, nope it didn't. It needed a substantial initial investment to get it off the ground--the kind of investment available only by a hope that some of the expenses could be recouped in sales. *Then* it was opened up.
Nobody has the time to sit around and write Photoshop without getting paid for it. The GIMP has taken many coders, much time, the availability of a model to copy, and is still inferior to what Photoshop was doing 8 years ago.
Your Renaissance example is deeply flawed. Without copyright, including during the Renaissance, art is for the most part produced within a patronage system. That is, a wealthy person, usually royalty of some degree, would feed and house the artist so that the artist had the time and the energy to devote to their art. Copyright was largely irrelevant at least for visual arts in this age, because those who did live off their art did not count on sales to do so.
Aural works: copyright, again, is nearly irrelevant in an age devoid of recording technology. Troubadours were paid by their audiences, composers were paid, again, by patrons.
When technology makes reproduction and distribution as easy as it does today, there has to be some limited-time financial protection for those who create. People will still write poetry and play punk music regardless of copyright, because *the initial investment is minimal*. But nobody could (forget would) make Blade Runner or Led Zep 4 without a limited monopoly right, simply because *there would be no financing*. Period. What would happen is that we'd end up with a perversion of the patronage system. Only those with money to throw away could afford to support the more expensive arts, and the only movies you'd see are the ones that stroke Donald Trump's ego. Actually, you probably wouldn't see any, because there are very few wealthy Americans who care at all about the arts.
It's simple, really. In the Renaissance the protection was lack of recording and distribution. Now, the protection is (scaled-back) regulation. The bottom line is no protection=little art.
DNA mapping: $2000.
CD pressing: $1.
Antique CD-ROM Drive in the Year 3286: $8935
Brand-spanking-new CD-to-Biomass converter in same year: $14,000.
Connection fee for time it takes to Kazaa someone's genetic sequence: $0.03.
Having your descendants clone you and that chick who wouldn't give you the time of day in high school so that you can boink her brains out: Priceless.
Laws can be and are nullified in the US on the basis of being ambiguous or overly broad. Whether the ambiguity can lead to unconstitutional enforcement is irrelevant--the very act of being "too ambiguous" (whatever that means) is considered a violation of the Constitution.
Don't quote me on this, but I seem to remember that it's tied to the sixth amendment due process clause; a system can hardly offer due process if the citizenry cannot (that's cannot, not does not) know the law beforehand.
1. Mac users aren't "being forced to buy new machines to use OS X." Where did that come from? First, nobody has to run OS X at all, and so far the majority of mac users have chosen not to. Secondly, you don't need a new machine. I run it just fine on an old 300MHz iBook.
2. You totally miss the point. It has nothing to do with longetivity. It has to do with the fact that while PCs have a 94% market share, or whatever, many of those rarely or never touch the 'net. Think about it, how many people do you know with a bedroom or basement full of cheap PCs that they use for this and that but save their one ballsy daily use machine for most of the online work? I know quite a few.
3. Zeitgeist reports on exactly one thing: www.google.com. How do you extrapolate from those statistics to Internet use (including non-www) as a whole? Zuh? Given the cost of satellite, I doubt that many people are going to get it just to go googling around the web, so those stats are even more meaningless in the current discussion.
I've seen the video. The crowd BOOOOED him. Tommy Mattola apparently has a good rep in the african-american community, and they didn't like Jackson's comments. I don't know what you're talking about.
You're fooling yourself. A lot of great musicians do it because they love the music, absolutely. They don't get into *for* the money, precisely, true.
But if you take away the money, most of them won't continue to do it, or the quality will fall off. If someone is having to spend 8 hours a day flipping burgers or selling cars, it's less likely that they'll put out a quality record.
I'm not sure what it is, but most ./ers can't read.
You're all bunching your panties about "backwards compatibility," blah blah blah blah blah.
Meanwhile, you've completely missed the point. Knock knock!
The article doesn't say you should mindlessly employ the bleeding edge of XML or CSS instead or . It simply doesn't say that.
Let me paraphrase. Code/markup critical content based on *established* standards which work cross-platform MUCH MORE EASILY AND EFFICIENTLY than the crufty work-arounds.
Somebody running Netscape 3 on a Performa or a P200 doesn't *want* to see anything fancy, because it will fark their machine no matter how you cruft it. Using CSS, while not perfect by any means, for your fancy stuff means that older browsers will safely ignore it rather than CHOKING on it.
Back in reality... versions of Netscape past 4.73 *break* significant enterprise apps, such as the registration etc systems at many major research Universities. Back in reality... coding for IE is a desperate, doomed flail as what you have to do to make IE read a page "properly" changes from version to version. Mozilla is nice, I use it on my laptop with OS X... but it is not the kind of full-featured browser that average users expect. It most certainly does *not* have more features than Netscape 4.x (though whether you want/need any of those NS features is another matter heh). Adopting the newest XHTML spec is not necessary. If you stay within the same "best practices" described for nearly a decade now, your sites will function nearly universally. Businesses shouldn't try to make their webstore look like their catalogue. The web was not designed for that kind of layout control, period. Saying, "But customers expect it, so they have to do it" is ludicrous on two counts. First, as long as the design doesn't make things difficult, users of a commerce site don't care about the look that much. They care about prices, selection, etc, same as in the real world. People buy groceries at warehouses, not Interior Design schools. :P Concordantly, you waste more money coding to IE and keeping it functional than you would lose by creating a more basic, clean, universal site (which may even open you up to new users, including those with disabilities).
Silly boy. The point is that the W3C standard is *specifically designed* to work across platforms. It may shut out some people using Netscape 2... but who uses that? Very nearly nobody.
It won't shut out people using something like Lynx. The standard is *specifically designed* to mandate text-only support as an accessibility issue. Any decent webdesigner knows how to be compatible with Lynx-style browsers without doing an entire "text-only" version.
And that's the second main point. Let's review:
1. Standards *increase* access.
2. Standards make it *easier* to write pages.
What's the problem?
postscript: I've yet to see an IE-only "extension" which does anything useful. Not many even do anything non-harmful.
Great multitasking? I'll say right off the bat that I'm not a kernel/OS guy. Having said that...
I've really noticed no difference in multitasking between Linux (any of the flavors I've tried) and OS X. I used Linux on PPC for a year, and recently bit the bullet and switched to OS X on my laptop because, honestly, I was tired of messing with Linux. I'm a geek... but when it came down to doing day-to-day work, to coding for my own amusement, etc, etc, I wanted the *background*, the basics of the system to just work without the eternal Linux putzing.
I'll just leave with that commentary and not get into the philosophical stuff I was contemplating... let's just say that it's possible to realize how ridiculous MS is without blindly glorifying Linux (not that you're doing that--general comment).
I've been using php/mysql/apache on linux for about 18 months (I'm a Unix person at work, a Mac/Linux person at home) and I was able to get this combo running under OS X on my laptop for dev/testing purposes in under 10 minutes, whereas it took me hours and hours of dinking with compiles to get it working on any linux or BSD machine I've used.
As for use beyond setup, I find OS X to be a superior environment on the command line. It's quick and it's well configured out-of-the-box so that your time is productive, rather than spent on solving conflicts and dependencies.
I also have not had a single crash.