In principle, at least, you may also be underestimating the incompetence of the forces against which the middle east armed insurrection is. Of course, it is precisely the same force against which an armed insurrection against the US government by the People would be, so it does not matter much.
His point is that a line has to be drawn. He notes that no one sanely argues that the US constitution secures the citizen right to bear nuclear arms. Therefore, he concludes, the right secured by the constitution is not absolute and, in consequence, there are both arms which citizens can bear and arms which they cannot. Now, the constitution does not specify where the line is to be drawn, so, as the GP clearly concluded, a line needs to be drawn.
But unless you are an expert in some particular field, and have a lot of time to study a variety of factors, we need some simple way of comparing like things.
You seem to be willing to use a `simple way' to do the comparison which is in fact consistently regarded as useless by the experts in the field. Is that OK with you?
Maybe Vista does not include alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the apps that come with, say,Red Hat? Have you ever been able to do something productive with a plain Vista install?
But that means that IE8 has to have a bug-for-bug compatibility layer for IE6 (and IE7). How, otherwise, are you going to achieve that?
And of course IE9 will have to have such a thing for IE8, IE7 and IE6. And so on. So IE10 will have 5 implementations, say, CSS1, a standard published in 1997 and never changed since.
Saying that ACID should test IE8's non-standards compliant rendering is just retarded. We already know that IE8's non-standards compliant rendering will not render ACID correctly. ACID needs to test the standards-compliant rendering.
You are missing the important fact that part of complying with the standard is following the standard.
What problem does it solve, exactly? What are browsers not listed in the content attribute of that tag supposed to do, exactly? Are you seriously proposing that all browsers keep all their legacy engines frozen and ship them with their latest versions? Does the tag imply that to be properly rendered the page also depends on the presence of whatever security bugs were present in, say, IE8?
This idea is so absurd and against the idea itself of having standards (a non-standard tag to opt-in for standards support!) that it really makes me dizzy.
The basic issue here is between the "open source software" people and the "free software" people. Superficially, the two groups want the same thing: access to the source code.
That is not true. At least one of the two groups does not want that: only sees that as a way to reach its objective. Quite, quite different.
[snip]
By contrast, the "free" software folks are in revolt against the very concept of proprietary software. Their consider its very existence an abrogation of their rights.
No they do not. They choose not to use proprietary software, and try to get this position more widely accepted, but except fringe subgroups, I really think you will find anyone in the free software camp objecting to the existence of proprietary software. For example, I use free software when possible, but I absolutely do not care whatever it is that you use, and I find absolutely no problem that, say, Microsoft sells proprietary software or that people buy it.
I've always considered the whole "free software" concept to be just a little naive. No, make that dumb. Its arguments are convoluted and not very compelling, and ignore inconvenient ethical precedents and economic realities. To me, the only good thing about the "free" software movement is that it unintentionally gave birth to the open source software movement.
What you are considering dumb is dumb. It is not the actual "free software position", though.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure there are much cheaper alternatives out there, which, if nuclear arms are OK, would surely be OK too.
In principle, at least, you may also be underestimating the incompetence of the forces against which the middle east armed insurrection is. Of course, it is precisely the same force against which an armed insurrection against the US government by the People would be, so it does not matter much.
So you are proposing to legalize the possession of nuclear arms?
His point is that a line has to be drawn. He notes that no one sanely argues that the US constitution secures the citizen right to bear nuclear arms. Therefore, he concludes, the right secured by the constitution is not absolute and, in consequence, there are both arms which citizens can bear and arms which they cannot. Now, the constitution does not specify where the line is to be drawn, so, as the GP clearly concluded, a line needs to be drawn.
His logic is perfect.
On a pretty default linux box, with absolutely nothing installed but packages from in the install CD, and absolutely nowhere close to a full install:
/usr/bin/ /usr/sbin/ /sbin/ /lib/ /usr/lib | wc -l
$ ls -l
5103
I cannot remember the last time my computer died. `Only' two BSOD? Your standards are quite low...
You seem to be willing to use a `simple way' to do the comparison which is in fact consistently regarded as useless by the experts in the field. Is that OK with you?
Maybe Vista does not include alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the apps that come with, say,Red Hat? Have you ever been able to do something productive with a plain Vista install?
But that means that IE8 has to have a bug-for-bug compatibility layer for IE6 (and IE7). How, otherwise, are you going to achieve that? And of course IE9 will have to have such a thing for IE8, IE7 and IE6. And so on. So IE10 will have 5 implementations, say, CSS1, a standard published in 1997 and never changed since.
Apart from the OS, of course.
So what you are saying is the only way to correctly implement the standard is to provide compatibility layers for all versions of all browsers.
The root of the problem is the way Microsoft handled fixing bugs in their browser for years.
A static DOCTYPE cannot work but making pages permanently dependent on bugs in specific versions of browsers can?
You are missing the important fact that part of complying with the standard is following the standard.
Well, the DOCTYPE was supposed to mean "yes, I really do mean it," and look where it got them. Maybe the whole idea is broken?
So, inwhat way is this new scheme less corruptible than the previous one, pray tell?
What problem does it solve, exactly? What are browsers not listed in the content attribute of that tag supposed to do, exactly? Are you seriously proposing that all browsers keep all their legacy engines frozen and ship them with their latest versions? Does the tag imply that to be properly rendered the page also depends on the presence of whatever security bugs were present in, say, IE8?
This idea is so absurd and against the idea itself of having standards (a non-standard tag to opt-in for standards support!) that it really makes me dizzy.
That is not true. At least one of the two groups does not want that: only sees that as a way to reach its objective. Quite, quite different.
[snip] By contrast, the "free" software folks are in revolt against the very concept of proprietary software. Their consider its very existence an abrogation of their rights.No they do not. They choose not to use proprietary software, and try to get this position more widely accepted, but except fringe subgroups, I really think you will find anyone in the free software camp objecting to the existence of proprietary software. For example, I use free software when possible, but I absolutely do not care whatever it is that you use, and I find absolutely no problem that, say, Microsoft sells proprietary software or that people buy it.
I've always considered the whole "free software" concept to be just a little naive. No, make that dumb. Its arguments are convoluted and not very compelling, and ignore inconvenient ethical precedents and economic realities. To me, the only good thing about the "free" software movement is that it unintentionally gave birth to the open source software movement.What you are considering dumb is dumb. It is not the actual "free software position", though.
wooooooosh
XHTML is not case-sensitive about the content of attributes... In fact, that statement makes very little sense.
X-UA-Compatible: IE=edge
To always get the most recent rendering engine.
To do that and to ensure that they'llneed to come up with some other great idea (TM) when IE9 is out...
And yet the other browsers seem to do quite fine without any idiotic tags linking pages to specific rendering engines, no?
The meta tag should be renamed X-WeRecognizeWeAreIncapableOfDoingThisCorrectly.
Wow. Great contribution to the debate!
Will whoever is in Gates' old position marry the Vista project manager, then?
You must have some inside information. I for one have not read not heard that Redhat had complained...