Take it one step further: mr X (who is a public figure and thus newsworthy) gets slandered by mr Y. This is reported on in the newspaper. Clearly, this is allowed.
It's all a matter of how the post was worded, I guess, which leaves it up to the judge.
Although I largely agree with what you're implying, the fact that you can run Windows on your MBP is not an example of how Apple doesn't use vendor lock-in.
Say I have a bunch of mp3s, all indexed in itunes, with ratings, playlists, etc. I also have all my photos in iphoto. All my video work is in Final Cut. I'm running OSX Tiger. On a whim, Apple decides to kill support for Tiger so people move on to Leopard, thus boosting sales. Here's the lock-in part: if I can't export my itunes & iphoto db and fcp file format to something else, I have no choice but to move up to Leopard.
Yes, Apple does that too. They just don't rely on it as much as that other software vendor.
Correct. But also, as long as you need to support IE6, you're screwed and will forever need a separate stylesheet for it. Gratefull for conditional comments, we are.
Each and every time (both times) I bring up this point, someone tells me about the JC. Perhaps that was you as well, last time, but I think it's rather typical that the one amp that is really good and SS is the Jazz Chorus. Yes, there are other examples, and yes, it's a REALLY good amplifier, but you get my point.
Maybe I'm out of the recording loop, but all the bands I know (both large/global and small/local) record tube. And then there's the tube compressors, etc. It's not required, if you think it sounds good without the hassle (and there is hassle, I've built one so I know) by all means use SS/digital. I can't seem to get the dynamics just so with solid state, personal taste, etc.
Look at some of the setups of touring bands (for example on guitargeek.com) and see what I mean. Pretty much anyone uses tube amplifiers. Even if they can be finnicky, break down, need special transportation, etc.
Bad analogy. Guns can be used in the heat of the moment, causing regret later on. Guns can be used by pretty much anyone with a hand and a grudge. Guns can be used to threaten (try waving your nmap around in the bank). The point is not to just outlaw guns, but it's a good start. This explicitly does not exclude operator accountability. In a perfect world, user responsibility is number one, but for those times that the users aren't fit to make a decent decision (drunk/angry/confused) let's also make it harder for them to kill a person by not handing out guns.
Either way, I do think we can agree that banning "hackers" (ZOMG!!!1) tools is a bad idea.
Arson is a crime and should be punished, demanding the public's attention and concern. So far we can agree. This law proposes matches to be banned, but not lighters. Both are "dual use" (who comes up with this shit) and one is made by basement hackers (the matches) while the other is made by sophisticated programmers (lighters). For a determined arsonist, how hard will it be to start a fire? And I'm ignoring the fact that with this internet thing here, the arsonist can start the fire from a far away place, where these laws don't have any impact.
Still, crackers as well as arsonists are bad people who cause damage, so we need to do something about them. You were hinting at financial incentives, which is exactly where these laws should be pointing their arrows. It's also more feasible to do something about shady investors (or whatever) even if they are abroad. Let's say the cracker is Russian, how will this new law affect him? It won't.
Then there's the economy of scale. Cracking causes "massive amounts" of damage. Spamming, yes. Cracking, I don't know. If a virus hits your big corp and takes out all the computers, that would cause damage. If we're saying copies that weren't bought by consumers because of serialzz, I call the RIAA defense (not every copied copy would be a bought copy). Still, there are more pressing matters to attend to. Healthcare, war on whatever, education, etc. These matters concern WAY more people more directly. Too bad these people aren't lobby groups or rich firms...
True, it's not human readable really. The point is that it's a standard and the standard is open and well documented, so humans (with some computer aid) can read it in the future as well as in the present. The MSOffice formats are not open, so humans cannot read it in the future as noted by TFA.
Good one. I usually solve this with a containing div (as ever), then:
div float left, width 200px contains the label, needs to be wide enough to accommodate all labels
div clear right? (I always forget, it needs to clear something or other) with a left margin that is as wide as the label div + width between.
Then perhaps you might need a clearing div, and styles that align the labels to top. This looks OK in FF, IE6 and IE7, give or take a couple of margin things that can be corrected with conditional comments.
Then again, it could be argued that this is tabular data: it's a field with label data on the left, then input data on the right... You know, I don't think it really matters either way.
<div class="labelcontainer"><label for="f1">input 1 this field contains a lot of text this field contains a lot of text this field contains a lot of text this field contains a lot of text this field contains a lot of text</label></div> <div class="inputcontainer"><input type="text" id="f1"/></div> <div class="clear"></div>
If there is a locking mechanism or some other encryption, however feeble, it will become illegal to reverse engineer, right? Or would that still be OK for compatibility purposes?
Could you provide us with an example of a website that is too hard to do in CSS? I think that would argue your case more than "yes it IS still needed."
I think people here assume you are cutting complex (non-rectangular) pics in pieces and putting them in td cells. This would be a bad way of implementing a layout, since it's easily placed in a div in its entirety, then positioned anywhere on the page. I assume you're aware of this though, and am interested in seeing a use of tables (outside of tabular data) that couldn't be solved with CSS/divs.
Typing the name, both in Vista and in OSX (spotlight or quicksilver) is nifty and quick but it's a patch. It doesn't address the underlying problem. Most Windows installs have a huge (I see people with two screen heights full of shit) start menus. There's no guideline, every vendor just puts their stuff anywhere. Sometimes they let you choose in the installer, but mostly it's just anywhere. They even resorted to highlighting newly installed programs (badly.) I like the type-to-find a lot, I use Quicksilver all the time, but especially on Windows it's just there to hide the shame that is the Start menu. Even if I know I want to start that Mysql program, what's it called? Ah, "SQL Manager for MySQL!" I still don't know (and don't really care) that it was made by EMS, so it's in the EMS folder. Last but certainly not least, most apps install with a separate folder, which contains 1) a link to the app 2) a link to the app with some weird startup param 3) a link to the uninstaller 4) a link to the readme 5) a link to the vendor's website. Are you still with me? Do we really NEED all this crap? This is what we have come to, after decades of experience, years of work, scores of highly trained people, an extensive beta program: the same shitty start menu in Vista. I think this is the main reason that people dislike Vista so much, it's just all so disappointing.
OSX is mostly a bunch of.apps in the Applications folder and are started from there or from the dock. Still not perfect, it's just a huge pile of applications, but at least there are no cryptically named submenus, not counting Utilities and any user made ones.
Ubuntu organises all the programs in its repositories in the start menu, there's probably a setting somewhere that tells it where to install in KDE/Gnome/etc's menu. Install Eclipse over apt -> it shows up under Development or something like that. Works very well. I don't know if it will still work with the odd non-repo install, but for those the menu is easily adaptable.
Exactly. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The length of the copyright can be argued about, I think a good ten years would be ample time for anyone to develop their art the way they want to. If there's no movement after that, it's flipping burgers time.
How does your artist come up with his first work of art anyway? There's no up front payment with (c), you only get money after the art sells. The artist in question made something that sells in his spare time, most likely while working a daytime job. See? It can be done. Now we like the art so much that we want to reward the artist and encourage him to make more, so there's copyright, a monopoly so he can make money and not have to work (so much) so there's more time for him to do the next piece.
I don't think we'll ever live in a world where no art (or anything else, for that matter) is blatantly commercial. If it sells, it sells.
> Are we really going to force people to produce more?
HELL YES!!!!
The entire point of copyright, a government granted monopoly, is to the artist encourage the artist to make more art. This is not so much a sit back and relax bonus, it's a keep up the good work fee.
See the difference? Now you'll also see why it's not good to make the term too long (artists will be less likely to produce more art) and why it's ridiculous to extend it after the artist is dead, as is the case now (life + 70 years?). The final point of ridiculousness is the ability to pass the copyright on to someone else and to top it all off the ability to pass it on to an organisation/corporation, an entity that is not likely to ever produce anything but bills and lawsuits.
So, yes, we're "forcing" the artist to produce more art. If he doesn't like it, there's always flipping burgers.
> Firefox can either display those IE only stuff correctly
What does "correctly" mean? No-one knows, except Microsoft and they're not telling. See, this is the entire problem with extending a standard. You may have heard of "Embrace, extend, extinguish," this is the extend part. Firefox (or Opera or any other non-IE browser) can never "correctly" display IE only stuff because it doesn't know how to do that. There are no specifications, there is no defined way. What's more, if MS decides to put out IE 7.1, all the IE only stuff will have changed and FF will have to start all over again. This is a battle that cannot be won, and a battle that we shouldn't want to win.
I'm with the above commenter: the change starts with you and your colleagues. If you develop against FF, your sites will display correctly in most major browsers. Then if IE has some CSS problems, use conditional comments. This is the best solution for the time being. As for JavaScript, for most simple stuff it's easy to create code that works in all the browsers, and when you're doing fancy things, use a layer like YUI to make your code work everywhere.
You're right and I agree, but you don't have a free market. IANAE so I don't know the definition of Free Market, but Wikipedia does:
"A free market is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual non-coerced consent of sellers and buyers, determined generally by the natural law of supply and demand."
As a matter of fact, they can. They will have to package for debian/ubuntu and maintain a repository though. Before you start about that, it's an easy package making command and a repository is basically a website. With stuff. Downside is you have to do something similar for Redhat. Either way, for a decent developer it's no big deal. Anything installed via apt is centrally administered.
Slashdot Mirror
Take it one step further: mr X (who is a public figure and thus newsworthy) gets slandered by mr Y. This is reported on in the newspaper. Clearly, this is allowed.
It's all a matter of how the post was worded, I guess, which leaves it up to the judge.
> Niro, Jabba, Hutt & Niro
Thank you. Really, thank you.
NYE? Perhaps that is because people use their cellphones to call other people up as well? You know, to wish them a happy new year? It happens.
Although I largely agree with what you're implying, the fact that you can run Windows on your MBP is not an example of how Apple doesn't use vendor lock-in.
Say I have a bunch of mp3s, all indexed in itunes, with ratings, playlists, etc. I also have all my photos in iphoto. All my video work is in Final Cut. I'm running OSX Tiger.
On a whim, Apple decides to kill support for Tiger so people move on to Leopard, thus boosting sales.
Here's the lock-in part: if I can't export my itunes & iphoto db and fcp file format to something else, I have no choice but to move up to Leopard.
Yes, Apple does that too. They just don't rely on it as much as that other software vendor.
Correct. But also, as long as you need to support IE6, you're screwed and will forever need a separate stylesheet for it. Gratefull for conditional comments, we are.
Interesting how their own Embrace & Extend (& Extinguish) comes back and bites them in the ass.
Even more interesting is that they're still not giving up and going fully compatible... Sad.
Two points then.
Each and every time (both times) I bring up this point, someone tells me about the JC. Perhaps that was you as well, last time, but I think it's rather typical that the one amp that is really good and SS is the Jazz Chorus. Yes, there are other examples, and yes, it's a REALLY good amplifier, but you get my point.
Maybe I'm out of the recording loop, but all the bands I know (both large/global and small/local) record tube. And then there's the tube compressors, etc. It's not required, if you think it sounds good without the hassle (and there is hassle, I've built one so I know) by all means use SS/digital. I can't seem to get the dynamics just so with solid state, personal taste, etc.
Look at some of the setups of touring bands (for example on guitargeek.com) and see what I mean. Pretty much anyone uses tube amplifiers. Even if they can be finnicky, break down, need special transportation, etc.
>> The retro trends of listening to record albums and tube amps.
> Er, I don't think more than a tiny, tiny fraction of people engage in those activities.
I'm sure you are aware that pretty much any recorded electric guitar is played through a tube amp?
Bad analogy. Guns can be used in the heat of the moment, causing regret later on. Guns can be used by pretty much anyone with a hand and a grudge. Guns can be used to threaten (try waving your nmap around in the bank).
The point is not to just outlaw guns, but it's a good start. This explicitly does not exclude operator accountability. In a perfect world, user responsibility is number one, but for those times that the users aren't fit to make a decent decision (drunk/angry/confused) let's also make it harder for them to kill a person by not handing out guns.
Either way, I do think we can agree that banning "hackers" (ZOMG!!!1) tools is a bad idea.
>They may be corrupted or arrogant, ignorant of tech issues, but not stupid.
Doesn't that make it worse?
Analogy time.
Arson is a crime and should be punished, demanding the public's attention and concern. So far we can agree. This law proposes matches to be banned, but not lighters. Both are "dual use" (who comes up with this shit) and one is made by basement hackers (the matches) while the other is made by sophisticated programmers (lighters).
For a determined arsonist, how hard will it be to start a fire?
And I'm ignoring the fact that with this internet thing here, the arsonist can start the fire from a far away place, where these laws don't have any impact.
Still, crackers as well as arsonists are bad people who cause damage, so we need to do something about them. You were hinting at financial incentives, which is exactly where these laws should be pointing their arrows. It's also more feasible to do something about shady investors (or whatever) even if they are abroad. Let's say the cracker is Russian, how will this new law affect him? It won't.
Then there's the economy of scale. Cracking causes "massive amounts" of damage. Spamming, yes. Cracking, I don't know. If a virus hits your big corp and takes out all the computers, that would cause damage. If we're saying copies that weren't bought by consumers because of serialzz, I call the RIAA defense (not every copied copy would be a bought copy).
Still, there are more pressing matters to attend to. Healthcare, war on whatever, education, etc. These matters concern WAY more people more directly. Too bad these people aren't lobby groups or rich firms...
True, it's not human readable really. The point is that it's a standard and the standard is open and well documented, so humans (with some computer aid) can read it in the future as well as in the present. The MSOffice formats are not open, so humans cannot read it in the future as noted by TFA.
Hurray for open standards.
Good one. I usually solve this with a containing div (as ever), then:
.formcontainer { .inputcontainer, .labelcontainer, .formcontainer { .inputcontainer { .labelcontainer { .clear {
/></div>
/></div>
/></div>
div float left, width 200px contains the label, needs to be wide enough to accommodate all labels
div clear right? (I always forget, it needs to clear something or other) with a left margin that is as wide as the label div + width between.
Then perhaps you might need a clearing div, and styles that align the labels to top. This looks OK in FF, IE6 and IE7, give or take a couple of margin things that can be corrected with conditional comments.
Then again, it could be argued that this is tabular data: it's a field with label data on the left, then input data on the right... You know, I don't think it really matters either way.
Like so:
<html>
<head>
<style>
width: 400px;
}
border: 1px solid black;
margin: 4px;
}
margin-left: 208px;
}
float: left;
width: 200px;
}
clear: both;
}
#f2 {
height: 200px;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="formcontainer">
<div class="labelcontainer"><label for="f1">input 1 this field contains a lot of text this field contains a lot of text this field contains a lot of text this field contains a lot of text this field contains a lot of text</label></div>
<div class="inputcontainer"><input type="text" id="f1"
<div class="clear"></div>
<div class="labelcontainer"><label for="f2">input 2</label></div>
<div class="inputcontainer"><input type="text" id="f2"
<div class="clear"></div>
<div class="labelcontainer"><label for="f3">input 3</label></div>
<div class="inputcontainer"><input type="text" id="f3"
<div class="clear"></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
If there is a locking mechanism or some other encryption, however feeble, it will become illegal to reverse engineer, right? Or would that still be OK for compatibility purposes?
Could you provide us with an example of a website that is too hard to do in CSS? I think that would argue your case more than "yes it IS still needed."
I think people here assume you are cutting complex (non-rectangular) pics in pieces and putting them in td cells. This would be a bad way of implementing a layout, since it's easily placed in a div in its entirety, then positioned anywhere on the page. I assume you're aware of this though, and am interested in seeing a use of tables (outside of tabular data) that couldn't be solved with CSS/divs.
Eh, no text apart from the question in the subject which I will repeat here:
Who will build the CMS?
Typing the name, both in Vista and in OSX (spotlight or quicksilver) is nifty and quick but it's a patch. It doesn't address the underlying problem. Most Windows installs have a huge (I see people with two screen heights full of shit) start menus. There's no guideline, every vendor just puts their stuff anywhere. Sometimes they let you choose in the installer, but mostly it's just anywhere. They even resorted to highlighting newly installed programs (badly.) I like the type-to-find a lot, I use Quicksilver all the time, but especially on Windows it's just there to hide the shame that is the Start menu.
.apps in the Applications folder and are started from there or from the dock. Still not perfect, it's just a huge pile of applications, but at least there are no cryptically named submenus, not counting Utilities and any user made ones.
Even if I know I want to start that Mysql program, what's it called? Ah, "SQL Manager for MySQL!" I still don't know (and don't really care) that it was made by EMS, so it's in the EMS folder.
Last but certainly not least, most apps install with a separate folder, which contains 1) a link to the app 2) a link to the app with some weird startup param 3) a link to the uninstaller 4) a link to the readme 5) a link to the vendor's website. Are you still with me? Do we really NEED all this crap?
This is what we have come to, after decades of experience, years of work, scores of highly trained people, an extensive beta program: the same shitty start menu in Vista. I think this is the main reason that people dislike Vista so much, it's just all so disappointing.
OSX is mostly a bunch of
Ubuntu organises all the programs in its repositories in the start menu, there's probably a setting somewhere that tells it where to install in KDE/Gnome/etc's menu. Install Eclipse over apt -> it shows up under Development or something like that. Works very well. I don't know if it will still work with the odd non-repo install, but for those the menu is easily adaptable.
> Just because a product wasn't plug-and-play in 1997 when you last used it, doesn't mean it still sucks a decade later.
OBVIOUSLY you haven't been using Windows Vista.
Don't you know? It's a test of faith! (Or he's really fucking with us.) (Or, the earth really is that old. Hi, mr Occam!)
Exactly. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The length of the copyright can be argued about, I think a good ten years would be ample time for anyone to develop their art the way they want to. If there's no movement after that, it's flipping burgers time.
How does your artist come up with his first work of art anyway? There's no up front payment with (c), you only get money after the art sells. The artist in question made something that sells in his spare time, most likely while working a daytime job. See? It can be done. Now we like the art so much that we want to reward the artist and encourage him to make more, so there's copyright, a monopoly so he can make money and not have to work (so much) so there's more time for him to do the next piece.
I don't think we'll ever live in a world where no art (or anything else, for that matter) is blatantly commercial. If it sells, it sells.
> Are we really going to force people to produce more?
HELL YES!!!!
The entire point of copyright, a government granted monopoly, is to the artist encourage the artist to make more art. This is not so much a sit back and relax bonus, it's a keep up the good work fee.
See the difference? Now you'll also see why it's not good to make the term too long (artists will be less likely to produce more art) and why it's ridiculous to extend it after the artist is dead, as is the case now (life + 70 years?). The final point of ridiculousness is the ability to pass the copyright on to someone else and to top it all off the ability to pass it on to an organisation/corporation, an entity that is not likely to ever produce anything but bills and lawsuits.
So, yes, we're "forcing" the artist to produce more art. If he doesn't like it, there's always flipping burgers.
Yes, it would. Then again, why would Nintendo cut ads for the Wii and show DS ones instead?
http://www.dailytech.com/Nintendo+Pulls+UK+Wii+Advertising+to+Control+Demand/article9954.htm
> Firefox can either display those IE only stuff correctly
What does "correctly" mean? No-one knows, except Microsoft and they're not telling. See, this is the entire problem with extending a standard. You may have heard of "Embrace, extend, extinguish," this is the extend part. Firefox (or Opera or any other non-IE browser) can never "correctly" display IE only stuff because it doesn't know how to do that. There are no specifications, there is no defined way. What's more, if MS decides to put out IE 7.1, all the IE only stuff will have changed and FF will have to start all over again. This is a battle that cannot be won, and a battle that we shouldn't want to win.
I'm with the above commenter: the change starts with you and your colleagues. If you develop against FF, your sites will display correctly in most major browsers. Then if IE has some CSS problems, use conditional comments. This is the best solution for the time being. As for JavaScript, for most simple stuff it's easy to create code that works in all the browsers, and when you're doing fancy things, use a layer like YUI to make your code work everywhere.
You're right and I agree, but you don't have a free market. IANAE so I don't know the definition of Free Market, but Wikipedia does:
"A free market is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual non-coerced consent of sellers and buyers, determined generally by the natural law of supply and demand."
As a matter of fact, they can. They will have to package for debian/ubuntu and maintain a repository though. Before you start about that, it's an easy package making command and a repository is basically a website. With stuff. Downside is you have to do something similar for Redhat. Either way, for a decent developer it's no big deal. Anything installed via apt is centrally administered.