BetaNews ran a story about this, which says that Time Warner had considered spinning off AOL but decided that "it would be unnecessary to do so at this time."
"'Right now AOL is currently integrated into our operations,' Time Warner CEO Dick Parsons said. 'But if it gets to the point where consolidation is happening in the Internet space and, in order to play most efficiently, we need... our own currency, the possibility [of an initial public offering] is out there.'"
I forget where it was, but I recently read a claim (by some advertiser, IIRC--go figure) that these huge billboards in rural interstate and interstate-ish driving help drivers by breaking the monotony.
No, I don't really believe it... but I really just read this somewhere. Wish I could find the source now...
IE/Windows and IE/Mac are not the same browser by any stretch of imagination; about the only thing similar is the name. And what about Linux? (IE/UNIX is long gone.)
Of course XHTML+CSS has a clear advantage of HTML that contains both content and formatting, but what about HTML+CSS? HTML is still a valid standard, and in most cases I see no clear advantage of XHTML+CSS over plain HTML+CSS--especially since anyone who's using XHTML will serve it as the wrong mimetype if they want some 90% of potential viewers to see it properly, and not serving XML as XML essentially reduces it to the tag soup that is HTML...
Hixie (Ian Hickson) of Mozilla, W3C, and now Opera fame has more on the problems associated with this: http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
I'm not an XHTML fanboy, but I can tell you right now that your XHTML code is correct and your HTML is not. You're using opening <P> tags where the optional closing tag should be, but you've totally left off the opening <P>, the only part that is actually mandatory.
I think both of your examples are equally readable--and only one of them is correct. And the fact that you use emacs, if indeed you do, doesn't matter much unless you were going for bragging rights. Suit yourself, but I think the best thing that can be done for readability is a lightweight syntax-highlighting editor (like Notepad2 for win32, and there are similar tools that I presumably don't need to tell you about for Linux).
Please don't make Thunderbird any more bloated than it alread is. Why must a calendar be integrated with e-mail anyways?
Had you read the Mozilla Lightning link, you would have seen that this is a "Thunderbird extension for tightly-integrated calendar functionality." A Thunderbird extension. (That said, I could see this eventually being an optional component included with the installer so that it's more Outlook-like and doesn't require users to go somewhere to download it, assuming they even know about it in the first place.)
Secondly it does come with my box - not as a 4 Mb download I have to make afterwards.
The fact that it comes with the OS is not a reason that makes it better than other browsers.
(That said, I understand the "conveniently located" thing, and the fact that if some browser weren't included things would be worse--unless you want to distribute by CD, BBS, or FTP or something.)
"Other current open source projects are progressing to the desired product; Qemu will soon support OS X and lead the way. Or maybe I am wrong and someone else will make a fast lead.
Maybe "someone else" besides Qemu will lead the way to supporting OS X? Don't they mean something like PearPC, which they surely know about considering they stole its code? The fact that they're totally avoiding mentioning this product in their blog post says a lot.
Microsoft did release totally free XP SP 2 CDs. I'm on dial-up, and I got one. (That said, SP 1 wasn't that bad on dial-up if you're patient like me--I've downloaded a 400-some MB file before. Not pretty, but doable, so something under 100 certainly is, too.) However, with SP 2, I just decided to get the CD.
Really, it was free--even shipping. They didn't have it in any stores that I know of, but they certainly did have it on their website.
If you are in fact color blind then you should know that color should absolutely be avoided as a means of conveying information in a user interface. it becomes a problem for people who cant differentiate.... this is UI design 101 stuff.
Color should not be the only way of conveying information in a UI. Using it to enhance is fine.
I thought the icons were actually supposed to help people by being different colors with international meanings: yellow is a neutral action because you can always wake up from sleep, green is a "go" action because it'll make your computer restart, and red is a more serious action because it shuts off your computer. (And I'm partially colorblind. But I can still read the text, so I don't see how this is a problem. And if you're like a lot of geeks, the Welcome Screen is turned off, which has also happens to make it so the Shut Down dialog is like that of Windows 2000.)
That, and Microsoft is probably counting on the fact that if you're using a Spanish copy of XP, you know Spanish. The icons aren't going to do everything for you. That said, they still make sense to me.
Finally, a good explanation. Thank you. Too bad the moderators will probably never see it anymore.
Speaking of moderators, I'm still trying to figure out why my original post was "Redundant" when it hadn't even been mentioned before (you know, sort of like those people who rate posts "Overrated" before they even have a rating?)... I mean, I could understand "Flamebait" (even though it wasn't) but not "Redundant.":-) Oh, well...
They're using Java, in part, because it makes it easier to write the code. I don't think that would help. (But they are short on numbers, apparently, so feel free to join and recode it in OOo's C++ if you want.)
"The suggested retail price is $99.95 US." Isn't that a bit much, considering some other distros are free (free as in the kernel itself and the software typically built around it) or at least available for a reasonable price to cover the media, or at most the media and a reasonable support fee?
I know this is the Pro version, but still. I'll stick with Ubuntu, Fedora, and the Personal Edition, thank you.
Why is this on linux.slashdot.org? Last time I checked, this involved OS X (technically, PPC, but OS X as far as this company is concerned) and Windows/x86.
(Unless it ran under Linux, but I don't remember it doing so... and, of course, I can't check now because the rest of their website is no longer there.)
I don't know. Why don't you just read the article (you know, the pages all these stories link to in their description) and find out? I think you'll see...
Slashdot Mirror
BetaNews ran a story about this, which says that Time Warner had considered spinning off AOL but decided that "it would be unnecessary to do so at this time."
Story at: http://www.betanews.com/article/Time_Warner_Consid ered_AOL_Spinoff/1116616630
I forget where it was, but I recently read a claim (by some advertiser, IIRC--go figure) that these huge billboards in rural interstate and interstate-ish driving help drivers by breaking the monotony .
No, I don't really believe it ... but I really just read this somewhere. Wish I could find the source now...
IE/Windows and IE/Mac are not the same browser by any stretch of imagination; about the only thing similar is the name. And what about Linux? (IE/UNIX is long gone.)
Doesn't sound cross-platform to me.
Of course XHTML+CSS has a clear advantage of HTML that contains both content and formatting, but what about HTML+CSS? HTML is still a valid standard, and in most cases I see no clear advantage of XHTML+CSS over plain HTML+CSS--especially since anyone who's using XHTML will serve it as the wrong mimetype if they want some 90% of potential viewers to see it properly, and not serving XML as XML essentially reduces it to the tag soup that is HTML...
Hixie (Ian Hickson) of Mozilla, W3C, and now Opera fame has more on the problems associated with this: http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
I'm not an XHTML fanboy, but I can tell you right now that your XHTML code is correct and your HTML is not. You're using opening <P> tags where the optional closing tag should be, but you've totally left off the opening <P>, the only part that is actually mandatory.
I think both of your examples are equally readable--and only one of them is correct. And the fact that you use emacs, if indeed you do, doesn't matter much unless you were going for bragging rights. Suit yourself, but I think the best thing that can be done for readability is a lightweight syntax-highlighting editor (like Notepad2 for win32, and there are similar tools that I presumably don't need to tell you about for Linux).
Please don't make Thunderbird any more bloated than it alread is. Why must a calendar be integrated with e-mail anyways?
Had you read the Mozilla Lightning link, you would have seen that this is a "Thunderbird extension for tightly-integrated calendar functionality." A Thunderbird extension. (That said, I could see this eventually being an optional component included with the installer so that it's more Outlook-like and doesn't require users to go somewhere to download it, assuming they even know about it in the first place.)
MozillaZine is running a story, too, and it's probably a little more truthful...
ZDNet Tries to Get to the Bottom of the Oracle-Mozilla Relationship
Funny, I didn't realize Microsoft quit allowing developers to code in VB.
Secondly it does come with my box - not as a 4 Mb download I have to make afterwards.
The fact that it comes with the OS is not a reason that makes it better than other browsers.
(That said, I understand the "conveniently located" thing, and the fact that if some browser weren't included things would be worse--unless you want to distribute by CD, BBS, or FTP or something.)
One sentence in the blog post says:
Maybe "someone else" besides Qemu will lead the way to supporting OS X? Don't they mean something like PearPC, which they surely know about considering they stole its code? The fact that they're totally avoiding mentioning this product in their blog post says a lot.
You must have missed the "patched it well" and "[not coming] across any of these ... vunerabilities" parts.
Microsoft did release totally free XP SP 2 CDs. I'm on dial-up, and I got one. (That said, SP 1 wasn't that bad on dial-up if you're patient like me--I've downloaded a 400-some MB file before. Not pretty, but doable, so something under 100 certainly is, too.) However, with SP 2, I just decided to get the CD.
Really, it was free--even shipping. They didn't have it in any stores that I know of, but they certainly did have it on their website.
No, no, you've horribly underestimated. It's 1.9%.
If you are in fact color blind then you should know that color should absolutely be avoided as a means of conveying information in a user interface. it becomes a problem for people who cant differentiate.... this is UI design 101 stuff.
Color should not be the only way of conveying information in a UI. Using it to enhance is fine.
I thought the icons were actually supposed to help people by being different colors with international meanings: yellow is a neutral action because you can always wake up from sleep, green is a "go" action because it'll make your computer restart, and red is a more serious action because it shuts off your computer. (And I'm partially colorblind. But I can still read the text, so I don't see how this is a problem. And if you're like a lot of geeks, the Welcome Screen is turned off, which has also happens to make it so the Shut Down dialog is like that of Windows 2000.)
That, and Microsoft is probably counting on the fact that if you're using a Spanish copy of XP, you know Spanish. The icons aren't going to do everything for you. That said, they still make sense to me.
Finally, a good explanation. Thank you. Too bad the moderators will probably never see it anymore.
Speaking of moderators, I'm still trying to figure out why my original post was "Redundant" when it hadn't even been mentioned before (you know, sort of like those people who rate posts "Overrated" before they even have a rating?) ... I mean, I could understand "Flamebait" (even though it wasn't) but not "Redundant." :-) Oh, well...
What can you expect? E-mail is worse than marijuana, after all.
(Hint: If you meant "copyright infringement", say it. Don't say "steal", as that means something else.)
Copyright infringement, which is denying the companies and artists money that they deserve for your "ownership" of their property. That's stealing.
Looking at the download for 9.2, I see that the ISO (not the mini) is ... 3.2 GB?! Maybe this is something people would rather purchase.
Oh, and did I mention I was on dial-up? :)
They're using Java, in part, because it makes it easier to write the code. I don't think that would help. (But they are short on numbers, apparently, so feel free to join and recode it in OOo's C++ if you want.)
"The suggested retail price is $99.95 US." Isn't that a bit much, considering some other distros are free (free as in the kernel itself and the software typically built around it) or at least available for a reasonable price to cover the media, or at most the media and a reasonable support fee?
I know this is the Pro version, but still. I'll stick with Ubuntu, Fedora, and the Personal Edition, thank you.
And the page doesn't have a DOCTYPE? And it uses frames? :)
Moderators ... that wasn't flamebait, it was a serious question.
Why is this on linux.slashdot.org? Last time I checked, this involved OS X (technically, PPC, but OS X as far as this company is concerned) and Windows/x86.
(Unless it ran under Linux, but I don't remember it doing so ... and, of course, I can't check now because the rest of their website is no longer there.)
I don't know. Why don't you just read the article (you know, the pages all these stories link to in their description) and find out? I think you'll see...