Gravitons here are virtual particles. That makes it much more complicated... (Ask me for details after I've had another couple of years of grad school. ^_^)
Well, Javascript 2 is being developed. ^_^ Note that the blog post is Brendan Eich by the guy who designed javascript initially.
Whether anything will come of it I don't know. (And I think python "support" for Firefox isin the long range plans, but for use in XULRunner apps, not webpages.)
I don't think you really understand the CSS standard. CSS2.1 replaces 2.0, in the process getting rid of some properties which proved too problematic. There are parts of the CSS2 spec which are contradictory. Should Firefox implement that too? ^_^ It doesn't matter whether 2.1 has "draft" status or not; it's the superior standard, and one the w3 advocates adhering to.
I've noticed Americans can have a nasty habit of assuming the constitution is perfect, so if a court upholds a bad law it must be the court's fault.
At least in america, a federal court can't just find a law unjust. They have to find it goes against the constituion. If it doesn't, I don't think there's much they can do. (Although of course there are varying interpretations of how broadly some articles of the constituion apply; like the interstate commerce stuff.)
Exactly my sentiments. The courts are there to interpret the law, not create it. If the law itself is unjust, don't blame the courts for affirming this fact. Blame the people who have the power to change the law, but don't. Or better yet, don't worry about blame, and work on fixing the problem. ^_^
Hopefully someone will write a good, gecko/xulrunner based BT client. There was one in progress (part of Google's summer of code), but last time i checked it wasn't very far along.
Well, since I am, it is. ^_^ And it's still the one I use, but since other people have mentioned clients with a smaller footprint, I'll definately try them out.
In fact, the site even includes this as a type of copyright notices, linking to an article about the case. ^_^ It kind of makes sense; all photographs of a 2-d work are going to be essentially the same, especially if they strive to replicate the work as perfectly as possible.
No, look at this blog post about the issue. It's from a while ago, and describes the behavior people are discussing. It's not a recent fix, it's been this way all along! (In other words, the "controversy" here is completely bogus.)
I'm not sure a Jesuit schools can be considered typical academia. ^_^ I'm also not sure what corporal punishment has to do with being conservative... If you have some sort of argument here, better to present it yourself rather than link to a blog unrelated to the discussion at hand.
I just don't get the massive amounts of these jokes that appear on slashdot. Almost everyone I know uses LJ, and none of them use it to post goth poetry. They just use it as a blog...
Google's logs can't prove what they want to prove. They can show that innocent seeming searches can return adult content, but they cannot show that filters don't block that content by using those logs.
Well, obviously they'd be aware of that. It would part of some strategy, not the entire case in and of itself.
They're not requesting search logs to find out where these sites are. They're attempting to prove in court something that most of us take for granted: that you can find "harmful to minor" sites by using a search engine, even if you weren't actively searching for anything "bad." (For example, my friend once found interesting results searching for info on grizzly bears...)
And they want to argue that, because it's so easy to find such material, that content filters won't screen it all out, thus requiring legal countermeasures. (For the sake of the children!) I don't agree with such laws, and I think the goverment is wasting money and time here, but you have to look at these things for what they actually are. There's false info scattered all about the web on this issue, and it just hurts the real debate.
While I personally don't like what the US goverment has done in the name of "security" , this has nothing to do with this particular case.
The request wasn't for any personal information. None. There's no association with IP address or individual profiles or anything like that.
Google didn't necessarily turn it down out of privacy concerns (as there really aren't any.) Rather, they just didn't think they should have to worry about gathering the logs...
Yes, in the US it would take at least a nipple. ^_^ The US has, all around, the best freedom of speech laws, but there's plenty of room for improvement.
If they were given the show for "free" it wouldn't matter what ratings it would get. They could still release it to DVD (or maybe even to iTunes first) and rake in the cash...
This isn't a browser dev team creation. It's a standard specified by the WhatWG. It's not extensions to HTML which are a problem, it's nonstandardized, poorly thought out extensions which are bad. The W3C isn't some divine entity, you know. ^_^
The book of evil darkness contains a "mature only" sticker because of the graphic nature of the content. (Drugs, sex, etc...)
The book of exalted deeds contains a "mature only" sticker because it's meant for people willing to work with the system presented, rather than those who see it as another resource to min/max their character. (Well, maybe that's not the offical reason, but it's still kind of true. ^_^)
Slashdot Mirror
Gravitons here are virtual particles. That makes it much more complicated... (Ask me for details after I've had another couple of years of grad school. ^_^)
Well, Javascript 2 is being developed. ^_^ Note that the blog post is Brendan Eich by the guy who designed javascript initially. Whether anything will come of it I don't know. (And I think python "support" for Firefox isin the long range plans, but for use in XULRunner apps, not webpages.)
Think for a second who the money they spend goes to... it doesn't just vanish into a vaccum.
I don't think you really understand the CSS standard. CSS2.1 replaces 2.0, in the process getting rid of some properties which proved too problematic. There are parts of the CSS2 spec which are contradictory. Should Firefox implement that too? ^_^ It doesn't matter whether 2.1 has "draft" status or not; it's the superior standard, and one the w3 advocates adhering to.
I've noticed Americans can have a nasty habit of assuming the constitution is perfect, so if a court upholds a bad law it must be the court's fault. At least in america, a federal court can't just find a law unjust. They have to find it goes against the constituion. If it doesn't, I don't think there's much they can do. (Although of course there are varying interpretations of how broadly some articles of the constituion apply; like the interstate commerce stuff.)
This is less and less true the more you value having a family. :(
Exactly my sentiments. The courts are there to interpret the law, not create it. If the law itself is unjust, don't blame the courts for affirming this fact. Blame the people who have the power to change the law, but don't. Or better yet, don't worry about blame, and work on fixing the problem. ^_^
That's probably why he's been modded "insightful" and not "informative." ^_^
Hopefully someone will write a good, gecko/xulrunner based BT client. There was one in progress (part of Google's summer of code), but last time i checked it wasn't very far along.
Well, since I am, it is. ^_^ And it's still the one I use, but since other people have mentioned clients with a smaller footprint, I'll definately try them out.
In fact, the site even includes this as a type of copyright notices, linking to an article about the case. ^_^ It kind of makes sense; all photographs of a 2-d work are going to be essentially the same, especially if they strive to replicate the work as perfectly as possible.
No, look at this blog post about the issue. It's from a while ago, and describes the behavior people are discussing. It's not a recent fix, it's been this way all along! (In other words, the "controversy" here is completely bogus.)
A pretty large percentage of images seem to be classic art works. You don't really have to verify the license on those. ^_^
I'm not sure a Jesuit schools can be considered typical academia. ^_^ I'm also not sure what corporal punishment has to do with being conservative... If you have some sort of argument here, better to present it yourself rather than link to a blog unrelated to the discussion at hand.
Your loss. ^_^
I just don't get the massive amounts of these jokes that appear on slashdot. Almost everyone I know uses LJ, and none of them use it to post goth poetry. They just use it as a blog...
Livejournal itself is open source, but I rarely see that mentioned.
Well, obviously they'd be aware of that. It would part of some strategy, not the entire case in and of itself.
They're not requesting search logs to find out where these sites are. They're attempting to prove in court something that most of us take for granted: that you can find "harmful to minor" sites by using a search engine, even if you weren't actively searching for anything "bad." (For example, my friend once found interesting results searching for info on grizzly bears...)
And they want to argue that, because it's so easy to find such material, that content filters won't screen it all out, thus requiring legal countermeasures. (For the sake of the children!) I don't agree with such laws, and I think the goverment is wasting money and time here, but you have to look at these things for what they actually are. There's false info scattered all about the web on this issue, and it just hurts the real debate.
While I personally don't like what the US goverment has done in the name of "security" , this has nothing to do with this particular case.
Yes, in the US it would take at least a nipple. ^_^ The US has, all around, the best freedom of speech laws, but there's plenty of room for improvement.
If they were given the show for "free" it wouldn't matter what ratings it would get. They could still release it to DVD (or maybe even to iTunes first) and rake in the cash...
This isn't a browser dev team creation. It's a standard specified by the WhatWG. It's not extensions to HTML which are a problem, it's nonstandardized, poorly thought out extensions which are bad. The W3C isn't some divine entity, you know. ^_^
The book of evil darkness contains a "mature only" sticker because of the graphic nature of the content. (Drugs, sex, etc...)
The book of exalted deeds contains a "mature only" sticker because it's meant for people willing to work with the system presented, rather than those who see it as another resource to min/max their character. (Well, maybe that's not the offical reason, but it's still kind of true. ^_^)
That's great and all, but Iron Heroes wasn't written by Monte Cook. So this is kind of off topic.