An appeals process does at least exist. Before a "mitigation measure" is taken, users can request an independent review of the accusation, but not from a judge; it remains unclear who exactly will handle the appeal. To keep everyone from using the system every time, there's a $35 filing fee (which can be waived by the independent reviewer).
But notably absent is any mention of a filing fee copyright holders need to pay to prevent them from abusing the accusation process.
Existing users who recieved automatic updates never recieved an updated EULA or any kind of notice of this addition and it was not even mentioned in the changelog.
Just to be clear, reaching 100/100 is not equal to passing Acid 3.
To pass the test,a browser must use its default settings, the animation has to be smooth, the score has to end on 100/100, and the final page has to look exactly, pixel for pixel, like this reference rendering.
Opera has not currently made any claims about the animation smoothness that i have seen, and the screenshot is still missing a space after the first comma. Obviously reaching the 100/100 goal is great progress but they are not quite across the finish line yet.
Cool. Something interesting is that your test case doesn't work so well in IE6 either. Actually IE6 seems to have problems with innerHtml on SELECT elements as well. Of course according to Microsoft's definition of innerHtml it's a bug for them too, so I'm not trying to justify it in Opera by saying it's compatible to how IE implements it. But I thought that maybe some of the workarounds for IE mentioned in the knowledge base article might come in handy for you if you are running into this problem a lot.
Will the DRM that holds the files down enable me to put the video file on my 2 TB storage server in the basement and stream it to my media player of choice?
Once it's cracked it will. Just like the DRM on DVDs.
Oh by the way, if you really spend 10 hours a week trying to figure out Opera, it might be worth your while to check out the Opera Community Forums ( http://my.opera.com/community/forums/forum.dml?id= 27 ) or their newsgroups ( http://www.opera.com/newsgroups/ ). There are lots of clever people in both places, many of whom are very experienced in coding Opera-compatible pages, that would be willing to help out pretty much anyone who asks nicely.
1. InnerHTML is a proprietary IE-created feature. It is not javascript. Regardless, Opera has in fact supported it for several years now. If you are having a specific problem you might want to report it so it can be fixed: https://bugs.opera.com/wizard/
2. I just wrote a quick test generating a select with options and selecting an option with javascript and it works fine for me (innerhtml and dom methods both worked). Maybe I am misunderstanding what specifically you are having problems with?
3. What does this mean? The browser chrome has changed a couple of times since Opera has been out but I don't see how this affects web pages. Or are you talking about CSS? There have been a lot of rendering fixes over time but unless you are doing something fancy you should not notice the majority of these usually. Again, maybe I am misunderstanding.
Opera's User JavaScript was not the inspiration for Greasemonkey. (Nor vice-versa.) They were both conceived independently and developed at around the same time.
You wouldn't need to rotate the sphere if you are projecting onto it, as you can simulate roatation effectively in the image. (unless of course it is a non-perfect sphere with topographical features or something like that.)
If they're going to get that generic then why not ask 'mp3 players' or 'music' instead of 'ipods' as well?
Re:Will anyone admit that DRM isn't bad?
on
DRM and Democracy
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Basically, mainstream America is fine with DRM. Implemented properly, it's a reasonable part of a solution to a the real problem of widescale IP theft.
DRM IS widescale IP "theft". An important part of copyright is that content expires into the public domain. DRM uses a technical loophole to gain the benefits of copyright with none of the responsibilities. In preventing protections from expiring, DRM essentially "steals" content from the public domain.
This is far more akin to the legal definition of theft than unauthorized copying has ever been.
A trustworthy expiration mechanism would go a long way towards legitimizing DRM systems, yet this is seemingly never implemented.
They expect that a short term loss in registration fees and ad revenue will be offset by the long term increase in revenue from their search partners, due to an increased userbase.
Opera has done something like this for a while. The specific alert for your example in Opera would be:
| Security warning: | | You are about to go to an address containing a username. | | Username: www.citibank.com | Server: badpeople.hackedsite.ru | | Are you sure you want to go to this address?
Slashdot Mirror
The article mentions:
But notably absent is any mention of a filing fee copyright holders need to pay to prevent them from abusing the accusation process.
Existing users who recieved automatic updates never recieved an updated EULA or any kind of notice of this addition and it was not even mentioned in the changelog.
Have you actually tried? They at least claim to support a lot of versions of Linux. (unless you have Sparc machines, then nevermind.)
Just to be clear, reaching 100/100 is not equal to passing Acid 3.
Opera has not currently made any claims about the animation smoothness that i have seen, and the screenshot is still missing a space after the first comma. Obviously reaching the 100/100 goal is great progress but they are not quite across the finish line yet.
Cool. Something interesting is that your test case doesn't work so well in IE6 either. Actually IE6 seems to have problems with innerHtml on SELECT elements as well. Of course according to Microsoft's definition of innerHtml it's a bug for them too, so I'm not trying to justify it in Opera by saying it's compatible to how IE implements it. But I thought that maybe some of the workarounds for IE mentioned in the knowledge base article might come in handy for you if you are running into this problem a lot.
Oh by the way, if you really spend 10 hours a week trying to figure out Opera, it might be worth your while to check out the Opera Community Forums ( http://my.opera.com/community/forums/forum.dml?id= 27 ) or their newsgroups ( http://www.opera.com/newsgroups/ ). There are lots of clever people in both places, many of whom are very experienced in coding Opera-compatible pages, that would be willing to help out pretty much anyone who asks nicely.
1. InnerHTML is a proprietary IE-created feature. It is not javascript. Regardless, Opera has in fact supported it for several years now. If you are having a specific problem you might want to report it so it can be fixed: https://bugs.opera.com/wizard/
2. I just wrote a quick test generating a select with options and selecting an option with javascript and it works fine for me (innerhtml and dom methods both worked). Maybe I am misunderstanding what specifically you are having problems with?
3. What does this mean? The browser chrome has changed a couple of times since Opera has been out but I don't see how this affects web pages. Or are you talking about CSS? There have been a lot of rendering fixes over time but unless you are doing something fancy you should not notice the majority of these usually. Again, maybe I am misunderstanding.
Opera's User JavaScript was not the inspiration for Greasemonkey. (Nor vice-versa.) They were both conceived independently and developed at around the same time.
You wouldn't need to rotate the sphere if you are projecting onto it, as you can simulate roatation effectively in the image. (unless of course it is a non-perfect sphere with topographical features or something like that.)
If they're going to get that generic then why not ask 'mp3 players' or 'music' instead of 'ipods' as well?
DRM IS widescale IP "theft". An important part of copyright is that content expires into the public domain. DRM uses a technical loophole to gain the benefits of copyright with none of the responsibilities. In preventing protections from expiring, DRM essentially "steals" content from the public domain.
This is far more akin to the legal definition of theft than unauthorized copying has ever been.
A trustworthy expiration mechanism would go a long way towards legitimizing DRM systems, yet this is seemingly never implemented.
See Opera's Oslo Stock Exchange Announcement.
They expect that a short term loss in registration fees and ad revenue will be offset by the long term increase in revenue from their search partners, due to an increased userbase.
Opera has done something like this for a while.
The specific alert for your example in Opera would be:
| Security warning:
|
| You are about to go to an address containing a username.
|
| Username: www.citibank.com
| Server: badpeople.hackedsite.ru
|
| Are you sure you want to go to this address?