Having and using are two entirely different things. No one in my, perhaps overly brief (and half sarcastic), scenerio told the client to ignore those users, the client chose to based on how many of those users would actually use them browse their site.
You would be lying to tell them that more than 1% of their traffic would be from mobile devices (depending on the content they're offering of course, but in most cases...). This may not be true in a couple of years, but who can say?
In reality, it really is a relatively insignificant number of users. I'm not saying that people should just ignore them, I'm just pointing out that that's how it works most of the time.
The mentality of the "client" is that it's an acceptable loss to alienate 3% of users if I can "wow" 97% them. This applies to all forms of advertisement, not just webpages. In advertising, you don't have to reach all the people, just enough people.
Many TV commercials, for example, "alienate" the hearing impaired because they aren't closed captioned. It's not hard to add the captions, but many companies don't do it. I'm sure if somebody at the advertising agency told them that adding the captions would help get more customers for only a little bit more money, they'd do it in a heartbeat. Why don't they?
I think clients would back down on Flash if they were told it meant that all the cell phone users of the world wouldn't be able to navigate their website
Client:...and I want this neato [flash thing].
You: But that would lock out your mobile customers!
Client: How many people would that be?
You: Well, less than 1%, but...
Client: Uh huh, anyway, I want this neato [flash thing].
Or, you could just hover over the logo with your mouse and see that it's "World Water Day"... whatever that is. But then you could click on it and see the results of a search for 'World Water Day 2005' and find out.
Obviously, if you were born in Germany 80 years ago, YOU WOULD NOT BE YOU! Therefore, you could be anybody: Jew, communist, farmboy, or fag.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of people will just go along with whatever is happening (this is proven by history), but that does not make it "moral." Service to one's country is NOT an absolute moral.
I'm quite fond of hypotheticals. I want to put forth one more. Suppose that you were born in 1840. You say that you are from Virginia, so lets extend that to this situation. Now fast-forward to the 60's and the government it trampling your state's rights and your state has seceded from the union. Do you a) be "moral" and support your country (the union)? Or b) be "moral" and support your state?
Morals are never, ever absolute. You said as much yourself (except when you said the opposite).
Anyway, unless you say something astounding, I'm not going to continue this thread. We are not debating, we are arguing, and I find little use for agruing. One more quote:
Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.
I suppose there is a reason they say to not feed the trolls.
I'm Catholic. No one in my family has ever been Jewish.
Are you really that dense? It was a hypothetical situation. Are you really incapable of seeing things from a perspective other than your own? Or maybe you're just fucking with me?
Had I been born in 1920s Germany, I would have fought for Germany.
Suppose that you were born in 1920's Germany and were Jewish. By the mid-30's, you'd be singing a different tune about democracy and liberty. But you didn't care about what the government was or did, so it was too late. You would die in the 40's because the government found you their enemy.
There are more important things than Liberty or Safety.
Such as? You said what matters to you is your home, friends, and family. That sounds like you value safety very much. You value it so much that you are willing to die to keep those you love safe. There is more to your safety than just you.
This is just my opinion, but I believe that liberty is even more important than safety. You are very safe within a jail cell, but what good is it without your freedom?
I will not die for my country out of some jingoistic pride. I will die to protect my Liberty. Whether the enemy is from within or without. I will sacrifice my (and your) safety for our Liberty. Another quote from a true patriot:
Give me Liberty or give me death! --Patrick Henry
I do not think that we are too far off in our views (except "democracy is stupid"). I think that you just haven't thought about the real meaning to Liberty and Saftey. Otherwise, why would you fight for ideals which you profess not to care about?
That is a setting in IE. It can be made to automatically install signed ActiveX controls. I believe the default is to prompt though.
As far as java is concerned, I believe that the JVM decides (an identical java-ish looking dialog is displayed for both IE and firefox). For me (in an unrelated applet), a dialog is displayed indicating that the applet is signed by a trusted authority, would I like to trust it: Yes/No/Always. It may be that other versions of the JVM automatically run applets signed by a trusted authority, or that it's configurable, I can't really say.
This is the saddest statement I've heard all day.
It brings to mind a quote from someone who, IMHO, is one of the greatest patriots our country has ever seen.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin
I just skimmed over the spec, but this looks like it just handles serialization of a DOM document to XML and vice versa. It doesn't seem to deal with where the document came from.
The XMLHttpRequest object makes an HTTP request to a server to retrieve an XML document. Any valid XML document will do (except in IE, which will take just about anything).
This is just hearsay (and I didn't RTFA), but I've heard that the "job" you get when you get busted hacking is not something you want.
Basically, it's equivalent to stamping license plates, but not "technically" in jail. You live under their thumb, and don't get any pay. It's more like severe house arrest where they force you to work than a job.
OK, so now that you've shown the "Americans were not terrorists" viewpoint, would you provide an authoritative link to the "Americans were terrorists" viewpoint?
Wow, the history books must really be bad if they somehow left out the bloodbath that would have left the colonies with less than half their pre-war populations.
A good portion (at least half) of the population of the colonies where loyalists.
Comparisons between the American Revolution and modern day terrorists are rediculous at best.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to poke a little fun at your article (in the context of the discussion): The number one city, Washington DC, doesn't have a death penalty.
In other words, you really do mean ActiveX, the scripting language used is irrelevant.
copy into text file, call it 'eject.js' or something, and double-click.
Having and using are two entirely different things. No one in my, perhaps overly brief (and half sarcastic), scenerio told the client to ignore those users, the client chose to based on how many of those users would actually use them browse their site.
You would be lying to tell them that more than 1% of their traffic would be from mobile devices (depending on the content they're offering of course, but in most cases...). This may not be true in a couple of years, but who can say?
...but it's not an insignificant one...
In reality, it really is a relatively insignificant number of users. I'm not saying that people should just ignore them, I'm just pointing out that that's how it works most of the time.
The mentality of the "client" is that it's an acceptable loss to alienate 3% of users if I can "wow" 97% them. This applies to all forms of advertisement, not just webpages. In advertising, you don't have to reach all the people, just enough people.
Many TV commercials, for example, "alienate" the hearing impaired because they aren't closed captioned. It's not hard to add the captions, but many companies don't do it. I'm sure if somebody at the advertising agency told them that adding the captions would help get more customers for only a little bit more money, they'd do it in a heartbeat. Why don't they?
I think clients would back down on Flash if they were told it meant that all the cell phone users of the world wouldn't be able to navigate their website
...and I want this neato [flash thing].
Client:
You: But that would lock out your mobile customers!
Client: How many people would that be?
You: Well, less than 1%, but...
Client: Uh huh, anyway, I want this neato [flash thing].
Or, you could just hover over the logo with your mouse and see that it's "World Water Day" ... whatever that is. But then you could click on it and see the results of a search for 'World Water Day 2005' and find out.
Hypotheticals are totally gay.
YOU INITIATED THE GOD-DAMNED HYPOTHETICAL!!!!
Obviously, if you were born in Germany 80 years ago, YOU WOULD NOT BE YOU! Therefore, you could be anybody: Jew, communist, farmboy, or fag.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of people will just go along with whatever is happening (this is proven by history), but that does not make it "moral." Service to one's country is NOT an absolute moral.
I'm quite fond of hypotheticals. I want to put forth one more. Suppose that you were born in 1840. You say that you are from Virginia, so lets extend that to this situation. Now fast-forward to the 60's and the government it trampling your state's rights and your state has seceded from the union. Do you a) be "moral" and support your country (the union)? Or b) be "moral" and support your state?
Morals are never, ever absolute. You said as much yourself (except when you said the opposite).
Anyway, unless you say something astounding, I'm not going to continue this thread. We are not debating, we are arguing, and I find little use for agruing. One more quote:
Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.
I suppose there is a reason they say to not feed the trolls.
I'm Catholic. No one in my family has ever been Jewish.
Are you really that dense? It was a hypothetical situation. Are you really incapable of seeing things from a perspective other than your own? Or maybe you're just fucking with me?
Had I been born in 1920s Germany, I would have fought for Germany.
Suppose that you were born in 1920's Germany and were Jewish. By the mid-30's, you'd be singing a different tune about democracy and liberty. But you didn't care about what the government was or did, so it was too late. You would die in the 40's because the government found you their enemy.
There are more important things than Liberty or Safety.
Such as? You said what matters to you is your home, friends, and family. That sounds like you value safety very much. You value it so much that you are willing to die to keep those you love safe. There is more to your safety than just you.
This is just my opinion, but I believe that liberty is even more important than safety. You are very safe within a jail cell, but what good is it without your freedom?
I will not die for my country out of some jingoistic pride. I will die to protect my Liberty. Whether the enemy is from within or without. I will sacrifice my (and your) safety for our Liberty. Another quote from a true patriot:
Give me Liberty or give me death! --Patrick Henry
I do not think that we are too far off in our views (except "democracy is stupid"). I think that you just haven't thought about the real meaning to Liberty and Saftey. Otherwise, why would you fight for ideals which you profess not to care about?
That is a setting in IE. It can be made to automatically install signed ActiveX controls. I believe the default is to prompt though.
As far as java is concerned, I believe that the JVM decides (an identical java-ish looking dialog is displayed for both IE and firefox). For me (in an unrelated applet), a dialog is displayed indicating that the applet is signed by a trusted authority, would I like to trust it: Yes/No/Always. It may be that other versions of the JVM automatically run applets signed by a trusted authority, or that it's configurable, I can't really say.
Our "way of life" is secondary.
This is the saddest statement I've heard all day.
It brings to mind a quote from someone who, IMHO, is one of the greatest patriots our country has ever seen.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin
Verisign is a trusted CA by default, so by extension, your applet is trusted.
Please inform yourself about Robert Goddard.
Yes, von Braun was the real force behind American rocketry after WWII, but guess who provided the foundations for his work?
Not the same thing.
I just skimmed over the spec, but this looks like it just handles serialization of a DOM document to XML and vice versa. It doesn't seem to deal with where the document came from.
The XMLHttpRequest object makes an HTTP request to a server to retrieve an XML document. Any valid XML document will do (except in IE, which will take just about anything).
This is just hearsay (and I didn't RTFA), but I've heard that the "job" you get when you get busted hacking is not something you want.
Basically, it's equivalent to stamping license plates, but not "technically" in jail. You live under their thumb, and don't get any pay. It's more like severe house arrest where they force you to work than a job.
OK, so now that you've shown the "Americans were not terrorists" viewpoint, would you provide an authoritative link to the "Americans were terrorists" viewpoint?
Wow, the history books must really be bad if they somehow left out the bloodbath that would have left the colonies with less than half their pre-war populations.
A good portion (at least half) of the population of the colonies where loyalists.
Comparisons between the American Revolution and modern day terrorists are rediculous at best.