That bit was supposed to be funny. The rest was also supposed to be a funny conspiracy theory parody with possibly some truth for those trying to find some.
I don't think I'd go quite so far (e.g.: girls do kill).
However, I think you do have a point about the law being misandrist on this--especially given the fact that if two 15 year-olds have consentual heterosexual intercourse, the boy goes to prison for raping the girl who has no action taken (in most jurisdictions--e.g.: US, UK).
In fact, even if a 15-year-old girl seduces a 13-year-old boy, the same thing happens (as sex-crime legislation assumes that the male always commits the `crime').
Get an OS which comes with a built-in text editor that can create compliant ASCII (or even better, Unicode) text files (or download one--like vi or emacs).
I think that the assembly analogy is invalid as there exist non-WYSIWYG, semantic ways (equivalent to high level programming languages) to make HTML code more quickly (without having to enter the verbartim code in a text editor). It is more like a WYSIWYG programming language (although that doesn't really fit either especially as HTML is, by definition, semantic).
but I think Adobe and Dreamweaver make a good match
...or maybe a bad match (or a good match for bad, if you see what I mean). They could be a` good' WWW-destroying partnership.
Look at the main assets of the two companies:
Macromedia:
Flash: the (closed, proprietary, non-semantic, visual) interactive `movie' format for the WWW along with various (proprietary) design software packages (Flash, FreeHand, Generator)
Shockwave: another proprietary format similar to Macromedia Flash produced by their Director design package
Dreamweaver: the non-(X)HTML/CSS-compliant so-called `WYSIWYG' `webpage' design software
Adobe:
Acrobat Reader, Acrobat Standard and Acrobat Pro: software to read and write Adobe's (partly) proprietary, non-transparent, visual, non-semantic Portable Document Format for documents on the WWW with built-in, DRM and `security' (see Skylarov, &c)
E-book format: see PDF but worse as it is more `secure' with built-in time-limits &c and I think it won't allow authors to make their works transparent (as well as its being an attempt to take over the book market)
Photoshop: proprietary graphics design softwarenot really directly relevant to the WWW although it does, I believe produce proprietary image formats which might be used on the WWW (Also see Macromedia's Fireworks that I forgot to mention earlier which uses proprietary extensions ot open formats and is a similar product.)
They obviously believe they can be a better force to destroy the WWW and HTML (and the W3C) with their proprietary, untransparent formats and "plugins" if they work together (possibly making their WWW-destroying formats work better together or even merge).
What I meant by visual was so-called `WYSIWYG'--obviously nearly all software is usually used visually.
I agree that it is possible to create something more efficient and graphical than just a text editor for WWW design work and there are good attempts to create such standards-compliant editors out there.
However, the best way to create pages that are too large for designing by hands is probably pre-server or server-side scripts or an interim format (e.g.: mediawiki, XML).
Your point here is I assume that a technology being what you call "cool" is much better than it doing the job it is supposed to do (well)? How do you define "cool"?
Flash: the (closed, proprietary, non-semantic, visual) interactive `movie' format for the WWW along with various (proprietary) design software packages (Flash, FreeHand, Generator)
Shockwave: another proprietary format similar to Macromedia Flash produced by their Director design package
Dreamweaver: the non-(X)HTML/CSS-compliant so-called `WYSIWYG' `webpage' design software
Adobe:
Acrobat Reader, Acrobat Standard and Acrobat Pro: software to read and write Adobe's (partly) proprietary, non-transparent, visual, non-semantic Portable Document Format for documents on the WWW with built-in, DRM and `security' (see Skylarov, &c)
E-book format: see PDF but worse as it is more `secure' with built-in time-limits &c and I think it won't allow authors to make their works transparent (as well as its being an attempt to take over the book market)
Photoshop: proprietary graphics design softwarenot really directly relevant to the WWW although it does, I believe produce proprietary image formats which might be used on the WWW (Also see Macromedia's Fireworks that I forgot to mention earlier which uses proprietary extensions ot open formats and is a similar product.)
They obviously believe they can be a better force to destroy the WWW and HTML (and the W3C) with their proprietary, untransparent formats and "plugins" if they work together (possibly making their WWW-destroying formats work better together or even merge).
You have deprived me of it. It doesn't matter if you bring it back, you still stole it
Actually it does matter: if you do not intend to permanently deprive someone of a physical object under their possesion without their permission it is not theft. Although, at least in my jurisdiction there is a special motoring offence of taking a car that you do not own which is seperate from theft (to discourage joy riders from borrowing others' cars).
If you copy my CD, you have not deprived me of it. Period.
Thank you. And it wouldn't be theft even if you were deprived of it unless I had intent to permanently deprive you of it and it was a physical object (which it is not).
See my grandparent: "they occupy totally different niches". the iPod is not designed for people who care to much about technology, features or music quality.
here Neuros is practically screaming they can't provide what people want
This is were I have a problem with your argument. Yes, maybe Neuros and other `also-rans' as you call them should have offered this feature earlier. But you seem to be moaning that they are now trying to include the feature or "screaming they can't provide what people want" as you call it.
Interestingly I know an iPod owner who told me he wished he bought a Neuros or another brand I can't remember the name of, because they have the features he really needed (as opposed to the features of the iPod which many consider fads--podcasting probably comes under that for a lot of people).
To misquote your other post, "You[r parent post] support[s] my point. All the also-rans are trying to pretend they [use a] superior [development model]. [But] most people aren't interested [because their models don't actually produce stable] features [and software].
just because you use technology it doesn't make you smarter, quicker, or more efficient.
Correct, but if you look at my grandparent post, I was saying "just because you don't use technology it doesn't make you smarter, quicker, or more efficient.".
(Assuming these allegations are true) you have a point; however, the alternative was probably to have a big fight were all the money goes to the lawyers. Most people would prefer criminals remedied their unlawful behaviour as opposed to running them (and possibly those fighting them) into the ground.
Have you actually compared the spec of a neuros with an iPod? They are not even comparable as they occupy totally different niches. The iPod is a very basic MP3 player--I have a tiny Creative player for about £50 that does more--which is mainly an accesory to iTunes--its USP is its integration with Apple's software. The Neuros is a proffesional player/recorder/encoder/decoder/FM transmitter/receiver/&c which supports loads of encodings, &c and is basically a free-software-based portable computer.
One would assume they would already have one or buy it because they wanted one anyway, not just to win a prize. I'm sure the sort of people who would be interested already have one as AFAICC it is the most hi-tec, best quality music player on the market (though a bit pricey for my needs as I'm not really a music person).
So, as I understand it, you are suggesting that the fact that they are using a very efficient and open method to recruit developers for features to add to their free software means they must be desperate and thereby stupid. Surely, it just means that they are intelligent enough to have chosen a system which will get them the best results.
This is utter nonsense. The same clearly invalid argument could be used against software or computers (or science, technology or any attempt by humanity to do anything) in general: because one uses computers, science, &c as a tool to get things done quickly and efficiently, one must not be able to do things without using them, therefore one is stupid.
I'm not sure what point the parent is trying to make. Yes; a company is paying a developer to create software. What is wrong with that (especially when the software is free as in freedom)?
Surely the fact that the prize is open to all makes it much fairer (in copmarison to a contract) as any hacker who has the time to do this can claim the prize. The idea of bounties or prizes for producing code is quite an old one in the FLOSS community.
Slashdot Mirror
You can only use Notepad, you stupid clod! LOL!
That bit was supposed to be funny. The rest was also supposed to be a funny conspiracy theory parody with possibly some truth for those trying to find some.
See my cousin reply. I meant "(totally) WYSIWYG" when I said "visual".
>>Flash is documented<<
Not that I know. Show me the documents.
>>Dreamweaver is CSS, HTML, and XHTML compliant<<
You are joking right...It's WYSIWYG..HTML is semantic..have you looked at the code it produces?
However, I think you do have a point about the law being misandrist on this--especially given the fact that if two 15 year-olds have consentual heterosexual intercourse, the boy goes to prison for raping the girl who has no action taken (in most jurisdictions--e.g.: US, UK).
In fact, even if a 15-year-old girl seduces a 13-year-old boy, the same thing happens (as sex-crime legislation assumes that the male always commits the `crime').
Get an OS which comes with a built-in text editor that can create compliant ASCII (or even better, Unicode) text files (or download one--like vi or emacs).
I think that the assembly analogy is invalid as there exist non-WYSIWYG, semantic ways (equivalent to high level programming languages) to make HTML code more quickly (without having to enter the verbartim code in a text editor). It is more like a WYSIWYG programming language (although that doesn't really fit either especially as HTML is, by definition, semantic).
Look at the main assets of the two companies:
They obviously believe they can be a better force to destroy the WWW and HTML (and the W3C) with their proprietary, untransparent formats and "plugins" if they work together (possibly making their WWW-destroying formats work better together or even merge).
Actually, I intentionally misspelled "Cooledit" or "Joe" as "Emacs" for the added humour value.
Macromedia, the great bastions of proprietary, WWW-destroying formats and software would allow evil free-software users to run their software? Hmm....
I agree that it is possible to create something more efficient and graphical than just a text editor for WWW design work and there are good attempts to create such standards-compliant editors out there.
However, the best way to create pages that are too large for designing by hands is probably pre-server or server-side scripts or an interim format (e.g.: mediawiki, XML).
Your point here is I assume that a technology being what you call "cool" is much better than it doing the job it is supposed to do (well)? How do you define "cool"?
Look at the main assets of the two companies:
They obviously believe they can be a better force to destroy the WWW and HTML (and the W3C) with their proprietary, untransparent formats and "plugins" if they work together (possibly making their WWW-destroying formats work better together or even merge).
You spelled "emacs" as "vi".
</flame>
XHTML and CSS that conform to W3C standards (which a visual editor can never create with (X)HTML as it is semantic).
I think if you look in a dictionary or your jurisdiction's laws you will find that theft is:
Diverting someone's money into your account is fraud BTW--not theft--not that that is what is happening here.
See my grandparent: "they occupy totally different niches". the iPod is not designed for people who care to much about technology, features or music quality.
This is were I have a problem with your argument. Yes, maybe Neuros and other `also-rans' as you call them should have offered this feature earlier. But you seem to be moaning that they are now trying to include the feature or "screaming they can't provide what people want" as you call it.Interestingly I know an iPod owner who told me he wished he bought a Neuros or another brand I can't remember the name of, because they have the features he really needed (as opposed to the features of the iPod which many consider fads--podcasting probably comes under that for a lot of people).
(Assuming these allegations are true) you have a point; however, the alternative was probably to have a big fight were all the money goes to the lawyers. Most people would prefer criminals remedied their unlawful behaviour as opposed to running them (and possibly those fighting them) into the ground.
Have you actually compared the spec of a neuros with an iPod? They are not even comparable as they occupy totally different niches. The iPod is a very basic MP3 player--I have a tiny Creative player for about £50 that does more--which is mainly an accesory to iTunes--its USP is its integration with Apple's software. The Neuros is a proffesional player/recorder/encoder/decoder/FM transmitter/receiver/&c which supports loads of encodings, &c and is basically a free-software-based portable computer.
One would assume they would already have one or buy it because they wanted one anyway, not just to win a prize. I'm sure the sort of people who would be interested already have one as AFAICC it is the most hi-tec, best quality music player on the market (though a bit pricey for my needs as I'm not really a music person).
This is utter nonsense. The same clearly invalid argument could be used against software or computers (or science, technology or any attempt by humanity to do anything) in general: because one uses computers, science, &c as a tool to get things done quickly and efficiently, one must not be able to do things without using them, therefore one is stupid.
Surely the fact that the prize is open to all makes it much fairer (in copmarison to a contract) as any hacker who has the time to do this can claim the prize. The idea of bounties or prizes for producing code is quite an old one in the FLOSS community.