Well, if their spyware redirects people all over the world through their servers, I'd expect they'd be able to handle a slashdotting. Probably wouldn't even notice it'd happened.
The MPAA is basically arguing that my movie-watching sequence should be like the "therapy" in "A Clockwork Orange" -- I must see it exactly as the director intended, so I must have my eyelids forcibly held open so I can't possibly miss a single second.
"For every time you blink your eyes, I shall sue you!" -- Stewey Griffin, MPAA spokesbaby
Nevermind the brakes; will the sudden tightening of the seat belts give you temporary abdominal paralysis (i.e. knock the wind out of you)?
Seriously though, it sounds like the system is more designed to alert a drowsy driver with tactile stimulation and give a physical assist with tired limbs rather than respond suddenly with an "impact imminent" alert and a taking over of the car.
Though a quick taser shot to the accelerator foot/calf should be enough to wake the driver and get the adrenaline going.
If you are careful to stick to APIs supported by both browsers
"What kind of music do you usually have here?" "Oh, we got both kinds. We got country and western!"
The important thing to remember about dynamic HTML websites is that there are more than two browsers out there, some of them support none of your dynamic effects, and some of those are used by people with very large, disposable incomes whom you should not alienate.
You can design a page which is dynamic for most users and still accessible to the rest. You may have to forego some tricks like anchors with javascript URIs in their HREFs and null-links like <a href="#"> and instead use return false; to make onClick scripts abort following the HREF destination.
And certainly, you must design your pages to give useful results for the least dynamic of all browsers: the web crawlers of search engines. If they can't access your pages, no one will be able to find them, and you'll be relying on word of mouth and domain name recognition alone to get your pages known. That's a lot more expensive than just designing for accessibility from the start.
Accessible != static. I've seen static pages that failed accessiblity and accessible pages that were highly dynamic.
If you try a different validator site, you find there are over a hundred errors on the front page.
Have you really looked at and understood the errors it found? Most cascade from putting TABLE inside FONT and serving a page as HTML 3.2 while using 4.x options. If you inserted FONT after BODY in practically any page you'd get a ton of errors too, even though they arise from a single mistake.
And I was shocked that that validator failed to recognize that the SCRIPT tag contains CDATA markup and tried to interpret "<a " as an anchor inside the SCRIPT when the SCRIPT hadn't been terminated by a sequence of "</" followed by an alphabetic character. The use of <!-- HTML comments --> around script contents isn't required for compliance.
And lastly, you can't expect full compliance at all times from a page that sources HTML from elsewhere, such as advertisements which require ads be run without any modification to the markup provided, or contain other content that hasn't been vetted for compliance like story submissions.
The browser is fully within its rights to render the HTML any way it pleases, even if it means TH is rendered as grey raised cells, TD as white recessed cells, and TABLE with a groove border around it.
The user has the right to use a different browser if he doesn't like that browser's rendering and, where possible, override that browser's rendering with his own client-side stylesheet.
And your right as author is to override whatever rendering with stylesheets.
And then the user's to override or ignore your stylesheet with his own "! important;" rules.
Unless you specify a specific rendering for the table, the browser is free to present its own rendering in that absence. What you assume to be the only way a table should be rendered provided only HTML attributes can (and is) quite different from another page author's idea.
The only other reasonable method for rendering a table would be to refuse to render it until you've provided every minute detail yourself. And if you can't leave it up to the browser to render as it sees fit, you must be explicit and provide the necessary details.
Different browsers render differently. This is reality. If that is not enough of a reason why you must provide your own stylesheet specifying the rendering style and why it is necessary, then I suggest you have a problem dealing with reality and should consult with an appropriate professional.
Either that, or give up this obsession over the need to have things render a specific way. If you can just accept that browsers render things differently and mark up your pages such that such differences won't matter, you'll have a much less stressful time marking up web pages.
This is why I hoard old technology. If I need access to a 5.25" Apple DOS 3.2 disk, I can boot up an Apple IIgs to copy the data to a 5.25" DOS 3.3 disk, then to a 3.5" HFS disk, boot up my PowerMac 7500/100 to read the 3.5" disk and transfer it over TCP/IP to whatever machine I need it on.
Of course, there is the worry about maintaining a viable supply of blank DSDD 3.5" disks and SSDD 5.25" disks. Unfortunately AOL no longer provides me with free resupply by mail.
So, even if you hoard the old technology, you're going to need to hoard the technology and media for all interim technology for 50 years as well, and hope they survive.
Meanwhile it is insane that the paper tray covers at fast food restaurants that are useful for their printed purpose for less than a month also get copyright protection for lifetime plus 70 years. It would be my great-grandchildren who'd be able to reproduce the "THE WHOPPER SAYS..." placemats with only the slight alteration of adding the word, "Moo!" legally.
IMO, works on disposable media should not enjoy the full period of copyright protection, whether it is a fast food placemat or a self-destructing DVD. Copyright should not exceed (nor equal!) the work's own lifetime!
I'm waiting for my IT department to upgrade my RH6.2 system. Since the hardware is too old to run RH9 (and there will be no interim software upgrades here), I must wait until my current hardware dies and is replaced before I get upgraded. (Hopefully the wedging to immobility of a noisy fan will hasten the replacement schedule.)
OmniWeb isn't all that nagging. An occasional nag on startup and a big Unregistered appearing across the window if it is idle too long. Not that big of a deal.
OmniWeb won me over for one particular feature: the ability to edit a remote web page and then redisplay the edited version as if it were served instead. This feature alone allowed me to repair a broken form that was essential for me to use.
If it had the ability to choose from multiple client-side style sheets on demand and on a per site basis, tabbed browsing, and improved cookie refusal support, my credit card number would be in the form.
Yes, I don't think OmniWeb's or Mozilla's handling of cookies is all that great. Sure, I can refuse all cookies from a site, but when I visit a new site for the first time, I find I have to refuse 3 to 8 cookies immediately (a cookie for the domain, a cookie for the HTML server, a cookie for the image server, a cookie for the javascript server, a cookie for the stylesheet server, a cookie for the ad server, a cookie for the hit counter server, and cookies for each advertiser).
Instead of having to refuse cookies for every web site individually, I want my browser to refuse all cookies except those I've already chosen to accept. This option is lacking in every browser I've tried. Any option that says you don't want cookies disables them all.
Couple this with little cookie icons on the status bar that you can selectively inspect and enable on your own time for those sites that truly won't let you access anything without one and that will make me very happy.
Having to constantly refuse multiple cookies from sites is far worse than the nagging OmniWeb subjects anyone to register.
Oh, and a way to refuse Javascript-generated content. The second thing that really gets me mad is a site that sources a remote script and the damn thing doesn't load, preventing the entire page from rendering. That's a big problem with Mozilla 1.3 right now. (Newer versions won't install on my work machine.) They're also a source of unblocked pop-up windows.
I know you're joking, but if I may take the concept seriously for a moment (and risk being modded off-topic myself)....
I've wondered if there was a way to implement a Second Person['s view] Shooter successfully. Imagine, where the player's POV is actually of the characters he's killing. Seeing your player from the outside such that your avatar is at the center of the screen and your camera is at range distance rotating the world around you, and your target appears between your player and the camera. As you prepare to fire, your POV jumps to that of the person you're about to shoot (second-person view).
Be a way to turn the tables on the theory that violent games turn people into killers. Put the player in the position of the characters he kills and you have a much more interesting psychological reaction to study.
This is one of the reasons why I collect old computers. I have three Apple//es, a//c, and two IIgses. I have two nieces and another niece or nephew on the way. I'm going to have to teach them AppleSoft BASIC... as soon as they learn how to count by tens.
Its my understanding that its the future hardware that won't have the features. If your unit, that you already have at your house, has that feature, i'm not sure they're planning on removing it.
I held off getting a ReplayTV because I was waiting for them to activate the Firewire ports. Not only were they never activated, but future models didn't even include them.
Even though I have and am happy with my numerous TiVos, I thought about getting a ReplayTV that still had the features, but the pruning back of features over the lifetime of the platform has me hesitant again.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be pointed out that part of the law states that the filters can be switched off for people who request such.
And what if your library is so paranoid that they believe if they did that for even one person, they'd risk losing all their federal funding?
Not all librarians are smart.
You were not hacked. You have spyware on your computer. Good lord.
So... lodge a complaint with the FTC against this Lop.company then?
Hey, someone's got to lay the smack down on these spyware companies! It has to start with complaints to appropriate authorities.
Well, if their spyware redirects people all over the world through their servers, I'd expect they'd be able to handle a slashdotting. Probably wouldn't even notice it'd happened.
Unfortunately, equal protection under the law (Amendment XIV Section 1) applies only to the states, not the federal government:Accordingly, you may have more success petitioning a state law enforcement body to investigate, even if the crime is interstate in nature.
IANAL
You are so going to be turning off your cell phone at the gas station now!
(Solo shot first ...)
(Indy wasn't a raider the lost ark...)
I just want to know what's so damn offensive about the Predator's face and ability to speak English that those are the bits that are cut out on TV!
And why similar content isn't considered equally offensive in Predator 2.
The MPAA is basically arguing that my movie-watching sequence should be like the "therapy" in "A Clockwork Orange" -- I must see it exactly as the director intended, so I must have my eyelids forcibly held open so I can't possibly miss a single second.
"For every time you blink your eyes, I shall sue you!" -- Stewey Griffin, MPAA spokesbaby
A G5 cost half as much as a G5" huh?
And in fact it is more powerful than the sum
total of all the computers on this planet including--and this is the tricky part--including itself!
(Thanks, DNA.)
Nevermind the brakes; will the sudden tightening of the seat belts give you temporary abdominal paralysis (i.e. knock the wind out of you)?
Seriously though, it sounds like the system is more designed to alert a drowsy driver with tactile stimulation and give a physical assist with tired limbs rather than respond suddenly with an "impact imminent" alert and a taking over of the car.
Though a quick taser shot to the accelerator foot/calf should be enough to wake the driver and get the adrenaline going.
"'Ere, that tomato just ejected itself!"
It sounds like whomever came up with this idea was possibly "on speed".
Or at very least saying, "Hi!" to speed. (Trixie?)
"Hi-speed USB: it's greetier than full!"
If you are careful to stick to APIs supported by both browsers
"What kind of music do you usually have here?"
"Oh, we got both kinds. We got country and western!"
The important thing to remember about dynamic HTML websites is that there are more than two browsers out there, some of them support none of your dynamic effects, and some of those are used by people with very large, disposable incomes whom you should not alienate.
You can design a page which is dynamic for most users and still accessible to the rest. You may have to forego some tricks like anchors with javascript URIs in their HREFs and null-links like <a href="#"> and instead use return false; to make onClick scripts abort following the HREF destination.
And certainly, you must design your pages to give useful results for the least dynamic of all browsers: the web crawlers of search engines. If they can't access your pages, no one will be able to find them, and you'll be relying on word of mouth and domain name recognition alone to get your pages known. That's a lot more expensive than just designing for accessibility from the start.
Accessible != static. I've seen static pages that failed accessiblity and accessible pages that were highly dynamic.
If you try a different validator site, you find there are over a hundred errors on the front page.
Have you really looked at and understood the errors it found? Most cascade from putting TABLE inside FONT and serving a page as HTML 3.2 while using 4.x options. If you inserted FONT after BODY in practically any page you'd get a ton of errors too, even though they arise from a single mistake.
And I was shocked that that validator failed to recognize that the SCRIPT tag contains CDATA markup and tried to interpret "<a " as an anchor inside the SCRIPT when the SCRIPT hadn't been terminated by a sequence of "</" followed by an alphabetic character. The use of <!-- HTML comments --> around script contents isn't required for compliance.
And lastly, you can't expect full compliance at all times from a page that sources HTML from elsewhere, such as advertisements which require ads be run without any modification to the markup provided, or contain other content that hasn't been vetted for compliance like story submissions.
The browser is fully within its rights to render the HTML any way it pleases, even if it means TH is rendered as grey raised cells, TD as white recessed cells, and TABLE with a groove border around it.
The user has the right to use a different browser if he doesn't like that browser's rendering and, where possible, override that browser's rendering with his own client-side stylesheet.
And your right as author is to override whatever rendering with stylesheets.
And then the user's to override or ignore your stylesheet with his own "! important;" rules.
Unless you specify a specific rendering for the table, the browser is free to present its own rendering in that absence. What you assume to be the only way a table should be rendered provided only HTML attributes can (and is) quite different from another page author's idea.
The only other reasonable method for rendering a table would be to refuse to render it until you've provided every minute detail yourself. And if you can't leave it up to the browser to render as it sees fit, you must be explicit and provide the necessary details.
Different browsers render differently. This is reality. If that is not enough of a reason why you must provide your own stylesheet specifying the rendering style and why it is necessary, then I suggest you have a problem dealing with reality and should consult with an appropriate professional.
Either that, or give up this obsession over the need to have things render a specific way. If you can just accept that browsers render things differently and mark up your pages such that such differences won't matter, you'll have a much less stressful time marking up web pages.
It was only after it was done that I was asked if they could use it.
So they have a verbal license for it, but not a copyright; that remains with you.
But I hope the license isn't just verbal.
This is why I hoard old technology. If I need access to a 5.25" Apple DOS 3.2 disk, I can boot up an Apple IIgs to copy the data to a 5.25" DOS 3.3 disk, then to a 3.5" HFS disk, boot up my PowerMac 7500/100 to read the 3.5" disk and transfer it over TCP/IP to whatever machine I need it on.
Of course, there is the worry about maintaining a viable supply of blank DSDD 3.5" disks and SSDD 5.25" disks. Unfortunately AOL no longer provides me with free resupply by mail.
So, even if you hoard the old technology, you're going to need to hoard the technology and media for all interim technology for 50 years as well, and hope they survive.
Meanwhile it is insane that the paper tray covers at fast food restaurants that are useful for their printed purpose for less than a month also get copyright protection for lifetime plus 70 years. It would be my great-grandchildren who'd be able to reproduce the "THE WHOPPER SAYS..." placemats with only the slight alteration of adding the word, "Moo!" legally.
IMO, works on disposable media should not enjoy the full period of copyright protection, whether it is a fast food placemat or a self-destructing DVD. Copyright should not exceed (nor equal!) the work's own lifetime!
I'm waiting for my IT department to upgrade my RH6.2 system. Since the hardware is too old to run RH9 (and there will be no interim software upgrades here), I must wait until my current hardware dies and is replaced before I get upgraded. (Hopefully the wedging to immobility of a noisy fan will hasten the replacement schedule.)
I'm also unable to install Mozilla 1.3.1.
OmniWeb isn't all that nagging. An occasional nag on startup and a big Unregistered appearing across the window if it is idle too long. Not that big of a deal.
OmniWeb won me over for one particular feature: the ability to edit a remote web page and then redisplay the edited version as if it were served instead. This feature alone allowed me to repair a broken form that was essential for me to use.
If it had the ability to choose from multiple client-side style sheets on demand and on a per site basis, tabbed browsing, and improved cookie refusal support, my credit card number would be in the form.
Yes, I don't think OmniWeb's or Mozilla's handling of cookies is all that great. Sure, I can refuse all cookies from a site, but when I visit a new site for the first time, I find I have to refuse 3 to 8 cookies immediately (a cookie for the domain, a cookie for the HTML server, a cookie for the image server, a cookie for the javascript server, a cookie for the stylesheet server, a cookie for the ad server, a cookie for the hit counter server, and cookies for each advertiser).
Instead of having to refuse cookies for every web site individually, I want my browser to refuse all cookies except those I've already chosen to accept. This option is lacking in every browser I've tried. Any option that says you don't want cookies disables them all.
Couple this with little cookie icons on the status bar that you can selectively inspect and enable on your own time for those sites that truly won't let you access anything without one and that will make me very happy.
Having to constantly refuse multiple cookies from sites is far worse than the nagging OmniWeb subjects anyone to register.
Oh, and a way to refuse Javascript-generated content. The second thing that really gets me mad is a site that sources a remote script and the damn thing doesn't load, preventing the entire page from rendering. That's a big problem with Mozilla 1.3 right now. (Newer versions won't install on my work machine.) They're also a source of unblocked pop-up windows.
First person shooter == shooting oneself?
I know you're joking, but if I may take the concept seriously for a moment (and risk being modded off-topic myself)....
I've wondered if there was a way to implement a Second Person['s view] Shooter successfully. Imagine, where the player's POV is actually of the characters he's killing. Seeing your player from the outside such that your avatar is at the center of the screen and your camera is at range distance rotating the world around you, and your target appears between your player and the camera. As you prepare to fire, your POV jumps to that of the person you're about to shoot (second-person view).
Be a way to turn the tables on the theory that violent games turn people into killers. Put the player in the position of the characters he kills and you have a much more interesting psychological reaction to study.
a unique new mechanic: the ability to 'possess' other characters in the game."
"Ti-i-i-ime is on my side, yes it is."
HTML IS NOT A FUCKING PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE
Well, if it's a fucking programming language you're looking for, you should try teaching the kids feckfeck (previously mentioned).
Though it might not be suitable for all children (or all adults for that matter).
This is one of the reasons why I collect old computers. I have three Apple //es, a //c, and two IIgses. I have two nieces and another niece or nephew on the way. I'm going to have to teach them AppleSoft BASIC... as soon as they learn how to count by tens.
Its my understanding that its the future hardware that won't have the features. If your unit, that you already have at your house, has that feature, i'm not sure they're planning on removing it.
I held off getting a ReplayTV because I was waiting for them to activate the Firewire ports. Not only were they never activated, but future models didn't even include them.
Even though I have and am happy with my numerous TiVos, I thought about getting a ReplayTV that still had the features, but the pruning back of features over the lifetime of the platform has me hesitant again.