if someone comes and wants to say something against the establishment, they will ridicule you
Quite the opposite, I think you'll find. Walk into a bar and say "politicians suck, they are all in it for what they can get, they don;t care about real people" and you will recieve a general murmur of approval. Add that many of them are corrupt and cover up their misdemeanors and heads will nod".
It is only when you get as far as "and they are hiding the truth about for alien cattle mutilation" that people will actually raise an eyebrow.
it's called fear. conformism. stupidity. Keep believing that the government is out to get you, they're always evil. If someone dares to question the evil nature of the government call them stupid. it's cool to be a conspiracy theorist!
Some politicians are stupid but very few are malevolent. For the most part, in my experience they are people who wanted to get involved to actually help people. Shocking, I know.
I think you missed the original poster's point. I think (s)he was likening it to being famous for being an advocate of, oh I don't know - electricity, or gravity.
So, if you think that a failure to drop everything else we're working on (to improve the Open standards-based Web) and start tap dancing for Ian Hickson and his Acid3 test
Yes, that's exactly what I was calling for - for you to drop everything. Not.
Actually, I think it this kind of intemperate posting that does more harm to your credibilit. But as you've said - you've stopped listening.
The Acid 3 test is not a test for Web standards. It's a test for a particular (and rather small) subset of Web standards
That's right it is a test for compliance for a subset of Web standards.
I think it is great that you have a clear roadmap of things that you want to get fixed before ACID 3. But claiming that compliance with any particular set of standards is not particularly meaningful sets you up for exactly the same type of "they don't take standards seriously" flak as the IE team always used to get.
ACID 3 is symbolic, and it is important to recognize that and not to simply sound grumpy about it.
At the risk of splitting hairs, all you have to do to use the latest build of Webkit is download it and use it as your Web browser. No special measures required. Not terribly onerous.
Oh excellent. A story from the Daily Mail. The Mail thrives by to scaring middle England through sensationalist reporting. A quick Google search reveals that the Mail is the only paper to have spoken to this family, and we have absolutely no idea what the facts of the case are, other than reported to the paper by the family itself.
Still, by describing this as an act of terrorism, you show yourself as a true devotee of the Mail school of hyperbole. So well done you.
That is nothing but a transparent block toward the network specific apps
Or That is nothing but a block on puzzled consumers continuously complaining to Apple that their device has slowed to a crawl and is exhibiting apalling battery life.
If I were Apple I would be very very careful about allowing third party background apps in an initial SDK release.
Where market competition is insufficient to ensure consumers are properly served, regulation comes in. For example, here in the UK, the privatization of the UK telecoms infrastructure created BT as a virtual monopoly. The Office of Telecommunicatons (Oftel) was formed at the same time to keep BT under the same kind of pressure that a properly working market should have provided and to also help ensure that BT could not use its monopoly to snuff out nascent competitors.
It was an imperfect system, but probably the best approach in the circumstances and one that has been repeated in subsequent privatizations of national utilities.
Because when you are working for a capitalist business you are being paid for your time and in return the capitalist business expects you to carry out assigned tasks rather than browsing Facebook?
And even then, it is not strange if spun the right way: One way the government serves the people is by keeping the people safe from violent acts. It does this by imposing appropriate safeguards in the people's name.
The only disagreement really is over the value of 'appropriate'.
... and I have to say that stories like this are exactly the reason why I opted out of using the original Oyster where you have to register and hand over personal details. I use the anonymous pay as you go version. Though, thinking about it, I'm sure with a little effort they could associate the card id with the debit card payments used to top it up.
There's nothing really bizarre about the decision at all. It is clearly there to avoid people using VMs or interpreters to circumvent the Apple AppStore's monopoly on application distribution. Whether you think this is a good or bad decision, it is not a bizarre one.
Slashdot Mirror
No iLife either. I assume you meant Mac Mini when you wrote iMac, by the way.
Was your college physics professor perhaps a rather bitter man whose own book had failed to sell terribly well?
Actually, the caveat should be 'screw it up we'll sort ot out for you = but and you lose the privilege in future'.
There is a difference between de facto and de jure standards.
The former would be how IE 6 rendered Web pages.
Quite the opposite, I think you'll find. Walk into a bar and say "politicians suck, they are all in it for what they can get, they don;t care about real people" and you will recieve a general murmur of approval. Add that many of them are corrupt and cover up their misdemeanors and heads will nod".
It is only when you get as far as "and they are hiding the truth about for alien cattle mutilation" that people will actually raise an eyebrow.
it's called fear. conformism. stupidity. Keep believing that the government is out to get you, they're always evil. If someone dares to question the evil nature of the government call them stupid. it's cool to be a conspiracy theorist!
Some politicians are stupid but very few are malevolent. For the most part, in my experience they are people who wanted to get involved to actually help people. Shocking, I know.
Only trying to help
... not repudiate.
That's annoying. I had that idea when I was about 8.
I think you missed the original poster's point. I think (s)he was likening it to being famous for being an advocate of, oh I don't know - electricity, or gravity.
Yes, that's exactly what I was calling for - for you to drop everything. Not.
Actually, I think it this kind of intemperate posting that does more harm to your credibilit. But as you've said - you've stopped listening.
No, I think you are confused:
That's right it is a test for compliance for a subset of Web standards.
I think it is great that you have a clear roadmap of things that you want to get fixed before ACID 3. But claiming that compliance with any particular set of standards is not particularly meaningful sets you up for exactly the same type of "they don't take standards seriously" flak as the IE team always used to get.
ACID 3 is symbolic, and it is important to recognize that and not to simply sound grumpy about it.
At the risk of splitting hairs, all you have to do to use the latest build of Webkit is download it and use it as your Web browser. No special measures required. Not terribly onerous.
He wasn't working for the company, he was working for the victims of the company's shoddy behaviour.... as you can see, from the company's response.
Oh excellent. A story from the Daily Mail. The Mail thrives by to scaring middle England through sensationalist reporting. A quick Google search reveals that the Mail is the only paper to have spoken to this family, and we have absolutely no idea what the facts of the case are, other than reported to the paper by the family itself.
Still, by describing this as an act of terrorism, you show yourself as a true devotee of the Mail school of hyperbole. So well done you.
Or That is nothing but a block on puzzled consumers continuously complaining to Apple that their device has slowed to a crawl and is exhibiting apalling battery life.
If I were Apple I would be very very careful about allowing third party background apps in an initial SDK release.
Nope, it really doesn't. It certainly raises a question, however.
Where market competition is insufficient to ensure consumers are properly served, regulation comes in. For example, here in the UK, the privatization of the UK telecoms infrastructure created BT as a virtual monopoly. The Office of Telecommunicatons (Oftel) was formed at the same time to keep BT under the same kind of pressure that a properly working market should have provided and to also help ensure that BT could not use its monopoly to snuff out nascent competitors.
It was an imperfect system, but probably the best approach in the circumstances and one that has been repeated in subsequent privatizations of national utilities.
... and get Acid 4 ready.
Because when you are working for a capitalist business you are being paid for your time and in return the capitalist business expects you to carry out assigned tasks rather than browsing Facebook?
And even then, it is not strange if spun the right way: One way the government serves the people is by keeping the people safe from violent acts. It does this by imposing appropriate safeguards in the people's name.
The only disagreement really is over the value of 'appropriate'.
... and I have to say that stories like this are exactly the reason why I opted out of using the original Oyster where you have to register and hand over personal details. I use the anonymous pay as you go version. Though, thinking about it, I'm sure with a little effort they could associate the card id with the debit card payments used to top it up.
There's nothing really bizarre about the decision at all. It is clearly there to avoid people using VMs or interpreters to circumvent the Apple AppStore's monopoly on application distribution. Whether you think this is a good or bad decision, it is not a bizarre one.
Big Endians versus Little Endians.
Actually, I suspect you'd find by many metrics it would work much better for you than going to the grocery store - so why haven't you tried it?