I very strongly suggest listening to the Boagworld Podcast. They are from a firm in the UK and they give all kinds of advice for web developers, designers and website owners. They try to keep away from talking too techie which is good to keep in mind when explaining things to technophobes and they always always always talk about accessibility and web standards. If you dont wanna listen to the podcast atleast read the blog and checkout the forum.
http://www.boagworld.com/
I very strongly suggest listening to the Boagworld Podcast. They are from a firm in the UK and they give all kinds of advice for web developers, designers and website owners. They try to keep away from talking too techie which is good to keep in mind when explaining things to technophobes and they always always always talk about accessibility and web standards.
I was expecting a different comparison to terrorists. I have never in my life thought of engineers as a "extreme conservative and religious" group. Quite the opposite. While reading the post I was anticipating something along the lines of a rationale perhaps regarding a higher disposition to be malcontent among the educated. Think about where you see the most protesting going on, the most anti-* rallies,.. colleges and universities. If anything engineers would seem to me to more likely to have more revolutionary, change-oriented mindset that a conservative one. I think the best engineers are probably gonna the ones who can look beyond traditional methodologies and envision new ways of doing things. Thats far from conservative.
As for religion, idk, i would just have to disagree their as well but I have no really good reason for that.
This is an impossible claim they make. Think about what a website really is, is it what the browsers render? Well different browsers can render the same code in different ways, so no, its not the rendering. Is it the code? Yes, the HTML of a site IS the site. From the website owners perspective there is no way of knowing what software or device the user is accessing the code with, for all they know, its being pulled up as just text, which would be the HTML.
Since in order for the owners of the site to show you the site, they must send you the raw HTML so that the browser can do its thing (like render structure and styles and ask the server for any images the code points to). Since thats all they are doing, it makes no sense that they would try to force users to not look at it.
What im trying to say is that, in order for you to see the licensing thing, you need to see the site, in order for you to see the site, they ahve to send you the raw code first, which is then at the whim of whatever software your using to render it. Was there not recently something about EULA's not being valid if the user has to purchase the item before seeing it? The same would apply here. You cant agree to the EULA before seeing it, and you cant see it before,.. well seeing it.
At what point would this stop, would you then start suing indivuduals who use the wrong browser, because they are not correctly rendering MY website? Or what about Userscripts and Greasemonkey, oh seems like those people would get sueing for altering the code without permission. This makes no sense.. you cant make proprietary something built off of an inherantly open platform
It boils down to making a sign that says "The content of this sign is copyrighted, by reading this you are violating copyright laws"
I don't like it one bit, but with not much tweaking, it would seem to me an iPod touch could be rigged to run a service like skype. WiFi or not, it would still be an incredible thing to have, essentially it would be a WiFi iPhone.. or. WiFiPhone. That said i don't think the touch has a mic, but i heard a rumor it had hidden bluetooth capability. In any case.. i can understand why they might want to discourage too much innovation on a device that has so much potential.
Aside from the extremely high potential that people will use services other than the ones apple might have contractually agreed to enforce exclusivity on, if too much is done by Joe Hacker then they wont have much to tout for the iPhone 2.
Does the concept mean anything anymore? I often wonder, if the day we've finally given away so many of our freedoms and allow so many injustices, that we actually notice, and stand up to complain loudly enough that something might change; if perhaps that day, we will no longer have the right to stand up and complain.
Anyway, that little presidential pardon thing, never really made sense to me. What honest reason is there for the president to be allowed to pardon anyone with no regard to justice, or accountability?
Im a huge trek fan, and im not gonna say who *wink, wink*, but i know someone whos downloading all the ST and SW stuff. And thats because he is a poor starving theif, who doesnt think he should be charged up the *you know where* to own a season of DS9 for example. And as for sharing TV shows,.. i seriously doubt toomany people have canceled their cable subscribtions simply because they can download some episodes. As for entire seasons,.. thats a different story, but if they didnt charge so much for every season, people, my *friend* included, would be less inclined to download theme.
""Linux in currently unable to take advantage of Centrino's wireless networking devices, without, that is, prying $20 from your thin wallet to buy Linuxant's DriverLoader"
Not true. I'm using the open-source ndiswrapper project together with the win32 drivers, and it works, although a bit buggy. See here"
I see. I hadnt noticed that there was a free driver. But the ndiswrapper is still the same as the Linuxant's DriverLoader solution with the exception that you dont have to pay. Its still not a native linux driver, it relies on a windows DLL, and as many people have commented, its not entirely stable.
Slashdot Mirror
Gmail's beta version
I very strongly suggest listening to the Boagworld Podcast. They are from a firm in the UK and they give all kinds of advice for web developers, designers and website owners. They try to keep away from talking too techie which is good to keep in mind when explaining things to technophobes and they always always always talk about accessibility and web standards. If you dont wanna listen to the podcast atleast read the blog and checkout the forum. http://www.boagworld.com/
I very strongly suggest listening to the Boagworld Podcast. They are from a firm in the UK and they give all kinds of advice for web developers, designers and website owners. They try to keep away from talking too techie which is good to keep in mind when explaining things to technophobes and they always always always talk about accessibility and web standards.
I was expecting a different comparison to terrorists. I have never in my life thought of engineers as a "extreme conservative and religious" group. Quite the opposite. While reading the post I was anticipating something along the lines of a rationale perhaps regarding a higher disposition to be malcontent among the educated. Think about where you see the most protesting going on, the most anti-* rallies,.. colleges and universities. If anything engineers would seem to me to more likely to have more revolutionary, change-oriented mindset that a conservative one. I think the best engineers are probably gonna the ones who can look beyond traditional methodologies and envision new ways of doing things. Thats far from conservative. As for religion, idk, i would just have to disagree their as well but I have no really good reason for that.
This is an impossible claim they make. Think about what a website really is, is it what the browsers render? Well different browsers can render the same code in different ways, so no, its not the rendering. Is it the code? Yes, the HTML of a site IS the site. From the website owners perspective there is no way of knowing what software or device the user is accessing the code with, for all they know, its being pulled up as just text, which would be the HTML. Since in order for the owners of the site to show you the site, they must send you the raw HTML so that the browser can do its thing (like render structure and styles and ask the server for any images the code points to). Since thats all they are doing, it makes no sense that they would try to force users to not look at it. What im trying to say is that, in order for you to see the licensing thing, you need to see the site, in order for you to see the site, they ahve to send you the raw code first, which is then at the whim of whatever software your using to render it. Was there not recently something about EULA's not being valid if the user has to purchase the item before seeing it? The same would apply here. You cant agree to the EULA before seeing it, and you cant see it before,.. well seeing it. At what point would this stop, would you then start suing indivuduals who use the wrong browser, because they are not correctly rendering MY website? Or what about Userscripts and Greasemonkey, oh seems like those people would get sueing for altering the code without permission. This makes no sense.. you cant make proprietary something built off of an inherantly open platform It boils down to making a sign that says "The content of this sign is copyrighted, by reading this you are violating copyright laws"
This is actually too funny to laugh at
I don't like it one bit, but with not much tweaking, it would seem to me an iPod touch could be rigged to run a service like skype. WiFi or not, it would still be an incredible thing to have, essentially it would be a WiFi iPhone.. or. WiFiPhone. That said i don't think the touch has a mic, but i heard a rumor it had hidden bluetooth capability. In any case.. i can understand why they might want to discourage too much innovation on a device that has so much potential.
Aside from the extremely high potential that people will use services other than the ones apple might have contractually agreed to enforce exclusivity on, if too much is done by Joe Hacker then they wont have much to tout for the iPhone 2.
Using the service you paid for to its fullest potential, or at least trying to, is not abuse of that service, its getting your money's worth.
Does the concept mean anything anymore? I often wonder, if the day we've finally given away so many of our freedoms and allow so many injustices, that we actually notice, and stand up to complain loudly enough that something might change; if perhaps that day, we will no longer have the right to stand up and complain. Anyway, that little presidential pardon thing, never really made sense to me. What honest reason is there for the president to be allowed to pardon anyone with no regard to justice, or accountability?
Im a huge trek fan, and im not gonna say who *wink, wink*, but i know someone whos downloading all the ST and SW stuff. And thats because he is a poor starving theif, who doesnt think he should be charged up the *you know where* to own a season of DS9 for example. And as for sharing TV shows,.. i seriously doubt toomany people have canceled their cable subscribtions simply because they can download some episodes. As for entire seasons,.. thats a different story, but if they didnt charge so much for every season, people, my *friend* included, would be less inclined to download theme.
""Linux in currently unable to take advantage of Centrino's wireless networking devices, without, that is, prying $20 from your thin wallet to buy Linuxant's DriverLoader"
Not true. I'm using the open-source ndiswrapper project together with the win32 drivers, and it works, although a bit buggy. See here"
I see. I hadnt noticed that there was a free driver. But the ndiswrapper is still the same as the Linuxant's DriverLoader solution with the exception that you dont have to pay. Its still not a native linux driver, it relies on a windows DLL, and as many people have commented, its not entirely stable.
We diddnt get Saddam Hussein,.. we got santa clause. Just in time for the holidays too.