Yes, you were wrong. It's pretty much completely unheard of at home or at work. MS utterly dominates. At work we've got one Linux server now (as in: within the last year), cos I helped push towards use of an OSS CMS (plone as it happens), but apart from that, it's all MS. If I went around the office I doubt more than a couple of people would have even heard of Linux. MS having an uphill battle to get in?!? Absolutely not. (Disclaimer: I don't really know anything about the super big Enterprisey systems. I doubt it's much different to the US tbh - there's Linux adoption but the Linux installs are probably replacing Unix more than anything else.)
That's really not fair. neuro.slug is absolutely right in saying that with a remotely decent set of speakers, it is very easy to spot the difference on instruments like cymbals when encoded at 128. Noticing something as obvious as that doesn't make you an audiophile who's forgotten how to enjoy music.
The intruder that was trespassing had a object that appeared to be a gun pointing at me, and threatened me verbally. I shot in self defence. Prove me wrong. ( dead men dont talk, if you were not aware of that )
Pointing the court to this post would probably muddy the waters at the very least...
You what? No "pro(fessional|ject) audio" users are running Creative cards with EAX, or any other sort of "effects bundled with their soundcard" stuff come to that. Pro audio users might have their effects as native, hardware, Powercore... but either way, their effects will be, er, unaffected by this. And their pro audio software & sound card / audio interface is more likely to be based on ASIO or TDM drivers, not DirectSound.
However, I agree that the project studio world will probably give Vista a wide berth. I'm certainly not planning to upgrade from XP. Why would I? XP is extremely stable and supports all my tools. Vista uses more system resources than XP (I assume) so I'd need an upgrade to do the same amount of stuff. I have XP set to the 2000-alike GUI, so the Aero eye candy is irrelevant, again, it would just be switched off. And just for fun there's a bunch of DRM crap in there which may be in MS's and Disney's interests to have on my computer, but absolutely isn't in mine. So, yeah, really, I don't see the "Cubase scene" rushing for Vista.
1. The camp that doesn't know about it, and buys it anyway.
2. The camp that can't stand it, won't buy it, and goes without the content.
3. The camp that doesn't like it all that much, but buys it anyway.
4. The camp that won't pay no matter what you do, and pirates the content instead.
At present I still think the vast majority of consumers are in my group 1. Let's be honest - if I didn't read slashdot I would barely know about DRM yet alone understand why it's so stupid and broken. I've seen a tiny amount of coverage in the Guardian's technology supplement, but nothing beyond that.
I think as time goes by, and DRM starts popping up in people's lives more (for example: someone's HDD dies and they can't get their iTMS purchases back off their ipod onto a new computer easily, someone buys a HD movie and it doesn't work on their early-adopter projecter, etc), the people in group 1 will split and feed into all of the other groups. I wish I could honestly say a lot turn into group 2, but I don't think most people are that principled. More likely ~75% of them will become group 3, ~25% group 4, and just a tiny % becoming ideological refuseniks.
Christophe (Don't hesitate to point out my spelling and grammar mistakes, I want to learn - Thanks).
Well, I'll take you at your word, for three reasons:
I enjoyed your post
It's a very quiet afternoon here at work
It seems appropriate given the article we're commenting on
;-)
NB: before I even begin - your English is already great, the fact I understand all of it is proof of that. My "corrections" in many places are not so much correcting something which is "wrong", but just making things slightly smoother or more elegant. My French is rubbish. It used to be quite good when I was about 17, 18 (the culimination of studies, and holidaying in France most years), but since then I haven't been to France or studied it, and now I can barely remember it at all.
France (like Germany) is a big market (60/80 millions people) to make dubbing economically feasible.
...is a big market (60/80 million people) which makes dubbing economically feasible.
Danemark for example (5 millions people)
Denmark:)
And once again - 5 "million", singular.
It is not a wonder to have very good English-speaking Danes when most of their TV speaks English.
It is not a surprise to have fluent English-speaking Danes when most of the speech on their TV is in English.
In some Eastern Europe countries exit a cheap version of dubbing, with one or two actors reading translated text without synching the lips.
I think exit was a typo for "exists"? I would probably rephrase it "Some Eastern European countries use a cheap version..."
On the other side, our educational system needs to seriously improve the way foreign languages are teached
Teached --> Taught.
And we won't make ourselves understood by speaking so badly foreign languages.
"...by speaking foreign languages so badly"
I'm astonished that so many countries accept so easily to throw all their own identity
I'm not sure how to rephrase this elegantly whilst sticking closely to your words. If I wanted to keep the concept (verb) of "accept", I would probably say "I'm astonished that so many countries (so easily) accept the loss of their own identity..." On the other hand, if I wanted to keep the concept/verb of "throw", I would say "I'm astonished that so many countries (so easily) throw away all of their own identity". Offhand, I can't think of a smooth way of keeping both concepts in the sentence.
Was I the only one to think it wouldn't have hurt to have spelled out what MOND is the first time it is used?
Before you say, "Well, anyone who knows ANYTHING about physics knows that, you retard, this book is not for you..." - well, I did think this was supposed to be a layperson's book. So, I clicked to read this review despite having an effectively non-existent knowledge of physics.
Well, anyway, here's your answer, at least according to Wikipedia (obviously, not being my field, I can't vouch for its accuracy):
In physics, Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) is a theory that explains the galaxy rotation problem without assuming the existence of dark matter. Currently, the most widely accepted galactic rotation theory assumes that a halo of dark matter surrounds each galaxy, causing all the stars in the galaxy disc to orbit with the same velocity. When this uniform velocity was first observed it was unexpected because the Newtonian theory of gravity predicted that objects that are farther out will have lower velocities. For example, planets in our Solar System orbit with velocities that decrease as their distance from the Sun increases.
MOND was proposed by Mordehai Milgrom in 1981 to model the observed uniform velocity data without the dark matter assumption. His key insight was that Newton's Second Law ( F = ma ) for gravitational force has only been verified when gravitational acceleration is large.
1 It's an exceptionally well designed phone. [...] fairly simple to use but powerful
3 It has the best text messaging system
When did you use one? As far as I was aware it had only been waved about on a conference stage. Then again, I don't know who you are, for all I know you work for Apple, or you're a journalist who was at the launch and got to play with one, or whatever.
On the other hand, if you haven't used one, and you're saying it's brilliantly designed, easy to use and best-of-breed interface, based only on a little quicktime video of a speech by the CEO who's trying to flog it... I will have to laugh. A lot.
you are still depriving someone of their rightful income
Rubbish. You are arguably/potentially depriving someone of their rightful income - since we do not and can never know whether <any/some/most/all> of the people who pirated the <software/music/movie/etc> would have bought it if pirate channels did not exist.
You can dismiss that admittedly subtle distinction as "mumbojumbo" or "newspeak" as well if you like. No skin off my nose; those of us who realise that the real world IS full of subtle distinctions can continue to have an appropriate nuanced debate, you can carry on boiling things down to oversimplified soundbites that sound better when chanted by a lynch mob;-)
GP post is absolutely correct. The two things (theft of physical objects vs copyright infringement of non-physical content) are very different; they may very well both be wrong, but if so they are wrong in different ways, and a proper adult discussion on the subject will necessarily make this distinction and treat them accordingly.
Maybe you should try to create and make money of some content yourself?
FWIW, I'm heavily involved in music of many forms. I've sold my music via record labels; I've also sold stuff without labels, selling direct from artist to fans; I've produced music on commission. I've given away music as a form of promotion in order to earn money from live gigs; I've done live gigs for free in order to earn money from CD sales. I'm confident I've done most any permutation of "create content" and "make money" you can care to name.
[Minidiscs]... did "win" vs a little thing called DAT, if you recall.
I don't recall. In fact, as I recall, they weren't even competing in the same space. Minidiscs were in the "Walkman, but the media has a few advantages over cassette tapes" space. I can't remember anyone walking around with a portable DAT player and in-ear headphones - as far as I remember such a product was never offered. DAT machines, on the other hand, were ubiquitous (and probably still are) in the professional recording studio sector, where the Minidisc (being a lossily compressed format) would never be considered for a split second.
-(albeit not allofmp3.com itself, AFAIK, but other similar sites)- I say, for the love of god stop defending allofmp3.com.
Look, if you don't want artists (as well as essential 'support personnel' like studio engineers and producers) to get paid for their work, then knock yourselves out and download it from p2p for free.
Buying from these sites, when none of the money goes back to the artist, seems like a double insult to me. If you're doing it because paying some ludricously tiny amount to people who had nothing to do with the creative work behind a music release, nor the financial capital required to realise it, means you can pretend to yourself that it's all above board, then you're basically just lying to yourself.
You download my or my band's stuff from kazaa/soulseek/whatever, I'll shrug and not care. You were obviously never going to pay for it anyway. So, hell, at least you heard it. But paying some random Muscovite mafia dude instead of paying the artists? To qualm your conscience? Honestly, that's pathetic. Have some fucking balls and pirate it properly, please.
I appreciate your comments, well except for the last one.
Heh, sorry. I'd had quite a few whiskys and wasn't very polite. Thanks for not being more offended by my ranting tone!:)
I also like the notion of Frames which very neatly devide up the space you are working in and also makes it easier to maintain with things like header frames for menus that are defined once in one file. I guess this could be fixed by having an include syntax without having to use something like Java Script,
I usually use php include() but ASP and the rest will have their equivalent. Failing that, there are old school server-side includes.
dont find the notion of CSS objectional at all, I find the current implementation objectional because it is confusing and muddled. Of course, everyones millage will very because lots of people look at things in different ways and there really is no single perfect way to implement things. I guess one could resolve this to the difference between i++ and i = i + 1 since they both generate the same machine code in the end and it becomes a stylistic issue
Yeah, fair play, the CSS "float" model isn't as obvious as the columns/rows model of table-based HTML. You get used to it though.
One post of almost pure jibberish...
on
CSS Turns 10 Years Old
·
· Score: 2, Informative
For example, Position Relative. Well relative to what? The preceeding DIV?
No.
The immediately preceeding line of HTML?
No.
It needs to be glued together better, objectified if you will.
No it doesn't, it's clear already.
In my opinion if something is declared relative, it should be a requirement that it be declared what it is relative to, instead realying on simply the preceeding line,
"Relying on the preceding line"? It does no such thing.
"Well relative to what" - simple answer - the closest parent element / DOM node with absolute position.
If no elements have had position:absolute explictly declared, the overall canvas (body element) is assumed instead.
Ok and then there is the whole EM -v- PX debate, and the CSS people can't even make up their own minds about the best usage of it.
The fact you see both doesnt (necessarily) mean they "can't make up their own minds", it means they (we) know there is a time when either might be best, and use them accordingly.
Now this is not quite the same as a discussion about using i++ -v- i = i + 1. This is about fundamental behavior of the user agent in its interaction with the content! Should padding around an object be some relative to the size of the font as in this example which shows a padding: 1.5em??
It depends. Is the padding on the element something which should grow and shrink with user text resizing, or is the element something which is of a fixed pixel size, (eg) something designed as 'chrome' like a rounded corner or combination of background images which have to line up pixel accurately to maintain the illusion of the overall interface.
Something like line-height is better specified in ems, since you want it to remain proportionate to text size. Arguably, something like column width is too. Although this a grey area of compromise between demands of the client, purism of the designer, legal requirements of accessibility, practical requirements of browser support, etc. Hence, using both depending on where the compromise line is made.
I was under the impression that pixels are used to deal with the placement of an object within the browser window,
See above; your impression is simplistic, sometimes pixels are used, other times ems are a more appropriate unit (to create liquid layouts which can adapt to user text resizing - which people may set to remain comfortable reading on small/huge monitors, if they have vision impairment, etc. Still other times percentages of parent elements are appropriate.
.content which is shorthand for document.content ( once again everthing being relative ) and the statements that beging with pound symbols (#) or not as the case may be, again non intuitive useage.
You seem to be talking about.classes and #ids. Albeit you get it a bit mixed up: document.whatever looks like javascript DOM speak, but there is no document element in CSS; you use elementname.classname hence div.newsitem or a.external or ul.shaded li.odd. Non-intuitive? All you've got to remember is "." means class and "#" means ID. How hard is that? Of course it's not intuitive but what is? The dozens of reserved symbols and tokens in any markup or programming language from HTML to C far outstrip the "confusion" of.class vs #id.
People complain about IE and Microsoft and i do as well, but you must give creedence to the way they did things for their browser.
If I had any remaining suspicions that you worked in the professional web design field (which I didn't), you'd have just shattered them for good. Even forgetting any co
Sony would have no defense if they were to charge the European consumer more than in other regions as there are no extra costs on digital distribution as apposed to a product with packaging etc. So expect a $15.00 download to cost people in the UK around £6.50.
I always wondered this about iTMS.
Now, I dont have (or want) a Mac, an ipod, or DRM'd music, so I may well be talking out of my arse, in which case please correct me politely. But, I have the vague idea that we pay £1 per track, and you guys in the States pay $1 per track. I always wondered how on earth they:
a) justified that, morally
b) got away with it, legally
c) enforced it, technologically
Seems to me a classic case of corporations enjoying globalisation (eg. Apple shopping out their building-the-ipods labour to cheaper Asian locations) but refusing to let consumers enjoy globalisation the same way (eg. shopping out the cheapest price for the same product, and paying £0.65 (or whatever the exchange rate is) to download the track from the US iTMS instead of £1 in the UK store).
Where am I wrong?
PS. Not flaming on Apple particularly here, they're just a very high profile example of this same syndrome, electronic "goods" in a worldwide marketplace. Any gripe I have is with the system as a whole, not with one example of it.
Heh, yes, agreed. Hell, I had to read it about three times just to begin to understand it. "Via Kotaku, a post on the forums at the selectbutton site that may interest you" - still, I suppose it puts you in the right 'Engrish' frame of mind.
So the problem is not that London regulates its black cabs. The problem is that it doesn't regulate the minicabs.
No, it does regulate the minicabs. See: here. It's just difficult/impossible to actually enforce it to the point of having zero unlicensed minicabs in a city that's upwards of 7 million people over 600 square miles...
minicabs and their drivers are illegal by the very definition.
As nogginthenog has pointed out, not so. They are just licensed under a different set of rules. Essentially the biggest difference being that you phone and order them, you can't wave them down in the street. (Although in practice many minicab drivers will let themselves be waved over in this way, so long as nobody is looking - it's a fare, and furthermore, a fare that HQ doesn't know about, so they don't have to split it, it can go straight in their pocket.)
I guess your confusion might lay in the fact that there is currently quite a big campaign against illegal / unlicensed minicabs, which (sadly) have provided many cases of rape/assault/robbery. The problem is that since, unlike black cabs, they are just standard cars, it's pretty much impossible to tell at a glance which are licensed and which aren't.
(Bizarrely enough, I used to rent digs at a minicab office, and would occasionally answer man the phone (take bookings, ring the drivers to allocate the jobs) when my landlord / company owner had to nip out shopping or whatever, which is why I know this stuff)
Hell, I can copy a Britney Spears CD and call it fair use
No, you almost certainly can't. "Fair use" is not a slashdotter's carte blanche for copying complete music albums at will, much as you'd think it was after reading this place for a while. It has a specific meaning defined in law.
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.... In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include... the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole...
I would be surprised if you could successfully argue in court that your criticism/scholarship/comment use justified copying the entire CD, and not a portion thereof.
Once again a Web 2.0 Javascript framework that doesn't gracefully fail for those who disable JavaScript.
If you just searched for <NOSCRIPT> and didn't find it, and assume this means it won't gracefully fail with js off - you could be wrong.
You can do graceful degradation that way. OR, you can output a page that works without javascript, all the links being traditional serverside "do_something.php?action=foo&id=foo" stuff. And then, the body onload() goes through your DOM and replaces all the links with javascript hooks to do things via the AJAXy method. So, if js is switched off, onload() doesn't happen, nothing gets replaced.
This latter method (often termed "progressive enhancement" - basically looking at things backwards to "graceful degradation" - defaulting to the basic version and dynamically improving it where possible, as opposed to defaulting to the flashiest version and having a basic fallback) seems to be the more fashionable "best practice" among your 'standardista' web developers these days.
So it's possible that's how this framework handles graceful degradation - workable without js and not a <NOSCRIPT> in sight.
NB: I haven't actually looked at it, so I'm not saying it does do this and hence you're wrong; just saying it's a possibility.
Perhaps if you had just said that instead of insulting reader's tastes in music by saying yours were superior, then you might have gotten a little further.
Er, where did I insult anybody or say my taste was superior to anybody elses? Nowhere.
All I said was that if you find the albums you're buying are 90% rubbish, then that would suggest the albums you're buying are, well, rubbish (by your own definition!). Which seems pretty self-evident to me, to the point of being tautological; but despite that, to be on the safe side, I still noted that I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you were wrong. It's pretty much completely unheard of at home or at work. MS utterly dominates. At work we've got one Linux server now (as in: within the last year), cos I helped push towards use of an OSS CMS (plone as it happens), but apart from that, it's all MS. If I went around the office I doubt more than a couple of people would have even heard of Linux. MS having an uphill battle to get in?!? Absolutely not. (Disclaimer: I don't really know anything about the super big Enterprisey systems. I doubt it's much different to the US tbh - there's Linux adoption but the Linux installs are probably replacing Unix more than anything else.)
That's really not fair. neuro.slug is absolutely right in saying that with a remotely decent set of speakers, it is very easy to spot the difference on instruments like cymbals when encoded at 128. Noticing something as obvious as that doesn't make you an audiophile who's forgotten how to enjoy music.
The intruder that was trespassing had a object that appeared to be a gun pointing at me, and threatened me verbally. I shot in self defence. Prove me wrong. ( dead men dont talk, if you were not aware of that )
Pointing the court to this post would probably muddy the waters at the very least...
You what? No "pro(fessional|ject) audio" users are running Creative cards with EAX, or any other sort of "effects bundled with their soundcard" stuff come to that. Pro audio users might have their effects as native, hardware, Powercore... but either way, their effects will be, er, unaffected by this. And their pro audio software & sound card / audio interface is more likely to be based on ASIO or TDM drivers, not DirectSound.
However, I agree that the project studio world will probably give Vista a wide berth. I'm certainly not planning to upgrade from XP. Why would I? XP is extremely stable and supports all my tools. Vista uses more system resources than XP (I assume) so I'd need an upgrade to do the same amount of stuff. I have XP set to the 2000-alike GUI, so the Aero eye candy is irrelevant, again, it would just be switched off. And just for fun there's a bunch of DRM crap in there which may be in MS's and Disney's interests to have on my computer, but absolutely isn't in mine. So, yeah, really, I don't see the "Cubase scene" rushing for Vista.
Broadly agreed, except I would amend to this:
At present I still think the vast majority of consumers are in my group 1. Let's be honest - if I didn't read slashdot I would barely know about DRM yet alone understand why it's so stupid and broken. I've seen a tiny amount of coverage in the Guardian's technology supplement, but nothing beyond that.I think as time goes by, and DRM starts popping up in people's lives more (for example: someone's HDD dies and they can't get their iTMS purchases back off their ipod onto a new computer easily, someone buys a HD movie and it doesn't work on their early-adopter projecter, etc), the people in group 1 will split and feed into all of the other groups. I wish I could honestly say a lot turn into group 2, but I don't think most people are that principled. More likely ~75% of them will become group 3, ~25% group 4, and just a tiny % becoming ideological refuseniks.
Well, I'll take you at your word, for three reasons:
;-)
NB: before I even begin - your English is already great, the fact I understand all of it is proof of that. My "corrections" in many places are not so much correcting something which is "wrong", but just making things slightly smoother or more elegant. My French is rubbish. It used to be quite good when I was about 17, 18 (the culimination of studies, and holidaying in France most years), but since then I haven't been to France or studied it, and now I can barely remember it at all.
...is a big market (60/80 million people) which makes dubbing economically feasible.
Denmark :)
And once again - 5 "million", singular.
It is not a surprise to have fluent English-speaking Danes when most of the speech on their TV is in English.
I think exit was a typo for "exists"? I would probably rephrase it "Some Eastern European countries use a cheap version..."
Teached --> Taught.
"...by speaking foreign languages so badly"
I'm not sure how to rephrase this elegantly whilst sticking closely to your words. If I wanted to keep the concept (verb) of "accept", I would probably say "I'm astonished that so many countries (so easily) accept the loss of their own identity..." On the other hand, if I wanted to keep the concept/verb of "throw", I would say "I'm astonished that so many countries (so easily) throw away all of their own identity". Offhand, I can't think of a smooth way of keeping both concepts in the sentence.
Offtopic: Brilliant sig :)
Before you say, "Well, anyone who knows ANYTHING about physics knows that, you retard, this book is not for you..." - well, I did think this was supposed to be a layperson's book. So, I clicked to read this review despite having an effectively non-existent knowledge of physics.
Well, anyway, here's your answer, at least according to Wikipedia (obviously, not being my field, I can't vouch for its accuracy):
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND
True. but on the bright side... at least it hasnt been getting quite as much online / slashdot hype as the Wii.
;-)
On the other hand, if you haven't used one, and you're saying it's brilliantly designed, easy to use and best-of-breed interface, based only on a little quicktime video of a speech by the CEO who's trying to flog it... I will have to laugh. A lot.
Web stats from work (20,000 visitors/week, non-technical audience) are (from memory) roughly 85% various IEs, 10% Firefox, 3% Safari, 2% the rest.
Rubbish. You are arguably/potentially depriving someone of their rightful income - since we do not and can never know whether <any/some/most/all> of the people who pirated the <software/music/movie/etc> would have bought it if pirate channels did not exist.
You can dismiss that admittedly subtle distinction as "mumbojumbo" or "newspeak" as well if you like. No skin off my nose; those of us who realise that the real world IS full of subtle distinctions can continue to have an appropriate nuanced debate, you can carry on boiling things down to oversimplified soundbites that sound better when chanted by a lynch mob ;-)
GP post is absolutely correct. The two things (theft of physical objects vs copyright infringement of non-physical content) are very different; they may very well both be wrong, but if so they are wrong in different ways, and a proper adult discussion on the subject will necessarily make this distinction and treat them accordingly.
FWIW, I'm heavily involved in music of many forms. I've sold my music via record labels; I've also sold stuff without labels, selling direct from artist to fans; I've produced music on commission. I've given away music as a form of promotion in order to earn money from live gigs; I've done live gigs for free in order to earn money from CD sales. I'm confident I've done most any permutation of "create content" and "make money" you can care to name.
-(albeit not allofmp3.com itself, AFAIK, but other similar sites)- I say, for the love of god stop defending allofmp3.com.
Look, if you don't want artists (as well as essential 'support personnel' like studio engineers and producers) to get paid for their work, then knock yourselves out and download it from p2p for free.
Buying from these sites, when none of the money goes back to the artist, seems like a double insult to me. If you're doing it because paying some ludricously tiny amount to people who had nothing to do with the creative work behind a music release, nor the financial capital required to realise it, means you can pretend to yourself that it's all above board, then you're basically just lying to yourself.
You download my or my band's stuff from kazaa/soulseek/whatever, I'll shrug and not care. You were obviously never going to pay for it anyway. So, hell, at least you heard it. But paying some random Muscovite mafia dude instead of paying the artists? To qualm your conscience? Honestly, that's pathetic. Have some fucking balls and pirate it properly, please.
I usually use php include() but ASP and the rest will have their equivalent. Failing that, there are old school server-side includes.
Yeah, fair play, the CSS "float" model isn't as obvious as the columns/rows model of table-based HTML. You get used to it though.
No.
No.
No it doesn't, it's clear already.
"Relying on the preceding line"? It does no such thing.
"Well relative to what" - simple answer - the closest parent element / DOM node with absolute position.
If no elements have had position:absolute explictly declared, the overall canvas (body element) is assumed instead.
The fact you see both doesnt (necessarily) mean they "can't make up their own minds", it means they (we) know there is a time when either might be best, and use them accordingly.
It depends. Is the padding on the element something which should grow and shrink with user text resizing, or is the element something which is of a fixed pixel size, (eg) something designed as 'chrome' like a rounded corner or combination of background images which have to line up pixel accurately to maintain the illusion of the overall interface.
Something like line-height is better specified in ems, since you want it to remain proportionate to text size. Arguably, something like column width is too. Although this a grey area of compromise between demands of the client, purism of the designer, legal requirements of accessibility, practical requirements of browser support, etc. Hence, using both depending on where the compromise line is made.
See above; your impression is simplistic, sometimes pixels are used, other times ems are a more appropriate unit (to create liquid layouts which can adapt to user text resizing - which people may set to remain comfortable reading on small/huge monitors, if they have vision impairment, etc. Still other times percentages of parent elements are appropriate.
You seem to be talking about .classes and #ids. Albeit you get it a bit mixed up: document.whatever looks like javascript DOM speak, but there is no document element in CSS; you use elementname.classname hence div.newsitem or a.external or ul.shaded li.odd. Non-intuitive? All you've got to remember is "." means class and "#" means ID. How hard is that? Of course it's not intuitive but what is? The dozens of reserved symbols and tokens in any markup or programming language from HTML to C far outstrip the "confusion" of .class vs #id.
If I had any remaining suspicions that you worked in the professional web design field (which I didn't), you'd have just shattered them for good. Even forgetting any co
Now, I dont have (or want) a Mac, an ipod, or DRM'd music, so I may well be talking out of my arse, in which case please correct me politely. But, I have the vague idea that we pay £1 per track, and you guys in the States pay $1 per track. I always wondered how on earth they:
- a) justified that, morally
- b) got away with it, legally
- c) enforced it, technologically
Seems to me a classic case of corporations enjoying globalisation (eg. Apple shopping out their building-the-ipods labour to cheaper Asian locations) but refusing to let consumers enjoy globalisation the same way (eg. shopping out the cheapest price for the same product, and paying £0.65 (or whatever the exchange rate is) to download the track from the US iTMS instead of £1 in the UK store).Where am I wrong?
PS. Not flaming on Apple particularly here, they're just a very high profile example of this same syndrome, electronic "goods" in a worldwide marketplace. Any gripe I have is with the system as a whole, not with one example of it.
Heh, yes, agreed. Hell, I had to read it about three times just to begin to understand it. "Via Kotaku, a post on the forums at the selectbutton site that may interest you" - still, I suppose it puts you in the right 'Engrish' frame of mind.
I guess your confusion might lay in the fact that there is currently quite a big campaign against illegal / unlicensed minicabs, which (sadly) have provided many cases of rape/assault/robbery. The problem is that since, unlike black cabs, they are just standard cars, it's pretty much impossible to tell at a glance which are licensed and which aren't.
(Bizarrely enough, I used to rent digs at a minicab office, and would occasionally answer man the phone (take bookings, ring the drivers to allocate the jobs) when my landlord / company owner had to nip out shopping or whatever, which is why I know this stuff)
See The Knowledge and the references from there. I think it is only required for taxicab drivers (ie "Black cabs"), not minicab drivers.
You can do graceful degradation that way. OR, you can output a page that works without javascript, all the links being traditional serverside "do_something.php?action=foo&id=foo" stuff. And then, the body onload() goes through your DOM and replaces all the links with javascript hooks to do things via the AJAXy method. So, if js is switched off, onload() doesn't happen, nothing gets replaced.
This latter method (often termed "progressive enhancement" - basically looking at things backwards to "graceful degradation" - defaulting to the basic version and dynamically improving it where possible, as opposed to defaulting to the flashiest version and having a basic fallback) seems to be the more fashionable "best practice" among your 'standardista' web developers these days.
So it's possible that's how this framework handles graceful degradation - workable without js and not a <NOSCRIPT> in sight.
NB: I haven't actually looked at it, so I'm not saying it does do this and hence you're wrong; just saying it's a possibility.
Perhaps if you had just said that instead of insulting reader's tastes in music by saying yours were superior, then you might have gotten a little further.
Er, where did I insult anybody or say my taste was superior to anybody elses? Nowhere.
All I said was that if you find the albums you're buying are 90% rubbish, then that would suggest the albums you're buying are, well, rubbish (by your own definition!). Which seems pretty self-evident to me, to the point of being tautological; but despite that, to be on the safe side, I still noted that I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek.
hehe, sorry. posting at work = sense of humour bypass :)