I can think of one right now. Say this machine is damn fast. Also say you are Joe Sixpack businessman, who hadly knows how to use Google let alone burn a CD, who just payed some WebTwerp 200 bucks to make you a flashy presentation for your big meeting. You decide you want to give each of the 20 execs a copy of the CD, and you need it within the hour. What do you do? run ove rto the machine, amde a quick 20 copys (I assume these things are fast). You can liken it to OfficeDepot's copying service. Sure, most large companies have photocopiers at their disposal. And alot of people have CD burners at their disposal. but whne you need a bunch of copys fast, you go to the copy place. That's how it works. Who ever needs a bunch of CD copys fast? I sure as hell I'd never use one of these things to copy a CD. Like I even use CD players anymore anyways.
The "character" of the photocopy cannot be used as a defense, since it is effectively identical to the original.
The "nature of the copyrighted work" cannot be used as a defense, since we are almost invariably talking about for-profit, commercially produced books (no one who could create their own original printed material would need this machine to help them make copies.)
The "relative amount" cannot be used as a defense, since the printed material can be copied in its entirety.
And the "effect on the market" cannot be used as a defense, since even legitimate backup copies of books take sales away from the industry.
What is the difference between this and photocopiers? I see none. And I am a university student. I cannot even count the number of people I personally know who photocopy their entire textbook collection from the library. And they bring these copies to class. It is not hidden. It is common practice.
You don't see the publishing industry going bankrupt because Xerox came into play. Nor did you see laws come into play regarding the use of photocopiers - the same old copyright laws still held. The USER is responsible, not the manufacturer.
I agree with what you're saying, and I understand fully that the Open Source community is a dynamic one that is largely based both on developers scratching an itch, and developers learning new skills. But the number of large-scale community driven projects that are there to serve a specific goal are growing rapidly. Look at OpenOffice, Mozilla, KOffice, Evolution, Apache for examples. All of these are fairly large, complex pieces of software. While some might have initially started out scratching an itch, they are now vital pieces of software we all depend on.
These are the kinds of projects that can and should benefit the most from code reuse and collaboration, but in my experience utilize it the least. Take my example about MSOffice filters. Or the fact that the Mozilla project wrote a whole new GUI system when several excellent cross platform toolkits already existed.
As per the first comment, any HTML elements written to the page either using document.write or using W3C's element.innerHTML = "" will be parsed immediatly, and any onmouseover="" attributes you have in your tag will as well. There is no need in IE or any other browser to use AttachEvent, unless you like making things complicated for yourself.
As per the scrollbar bug, this doesn't affect DHTML menus at all. And since that was the only comment I made to begin with, I don't see how this supports the arguement.
Finally someone who doesn't want to re-invent the wheel! For all the inherent benefits to Open Source and code reuse, the amount of code-duplication (and therefore time and effort wasted) in the Open Source world amazes (and disappoints) me.
And no I am not talking about Gnome vs. KDE. I am talking about things like having 10 different ICQ clients, all with different implimentations of the protocol. Sure, a different GUI and different features is worth making a new program for. But why not borrow the code for the network stack from someone else who already has that part tackled? Same with filters for MS Office. What is the big deal about KOffice, Abiword, and OpenOffice coming together and making some nice libs that translate.DOC into an XML format they can all interchange?
Simmilar things can be said about other softwares as well. Let's work together people! No need to re-invent the wheel!
An even better way to fold it into your company's codebase if you are too lazy to do it yourself is to go get one of the many free (like totally free, do whatever you want with them) DHTML menu scripts from DynamicDrive, many of which I have seen have many more features than this one.
A div/span/layer/table being revealed and hidden is the only way to do hierarchial menus. If you look at the code for this you will see that is all this code is doing. You move a menu to a position, and reveal it. Then on mouse out it is hidden again. All there is too it. It's a joke.
Er, DHTML menus are very simple to do. One small section of code will make a DHTML menu that will work in any version of IE since 4.0, and any version of Mozilla / Gecko based browser, and any version of Opera or Konqueror. It is very simple CSS. IE's imcompatabilitys are a misconstrued legend. As long as you siwch with the W3C DOM, most script written cleanly will work.
And adding a compatability layer for Netscape 4.x is trivial on top of that, that is the only area you'd spend your time, in Netscape 4 compliance. And even that would take no more than 15 mins. Are you saying it isn't worth 30 dollars (actualy alot more if you have more than 5 web pages) to spend 15 mins writing some code? If you're paying your web guy 130 dollars an hour maybe, by my calculations, it may not be worth it. But then again, you'd be bankrupt already for overpaying your employees so it wouldn't be a problem.
I went to that site in the latest Konq CVS, and the menus worked great. But then I went on to read about this company.. 29.95 for the use of some simple DHTML menus on only 5 pages?!@?!? Higher license fees for mroe pages??!?! I could code my own implimentation of this in 5-10 mins! These guys are seriously whacko.
Where do you get the dea that Microsoft has a "copyright" on.Net? They do own soe patents on the way the technologies work, but that is nowhere near a copyright..Net has been submitted to the ECMA, and if M$ has it copyrighted projects like Mono, which already has a working C# compiler, wouldn't be able to exist.
The most interesting thing I find about all this is the Business Software Alliance is opposed to this bill. For those who don't know, the BSA is the alliance of companices like Microsoft and Adobe that audit random companys, extorting money from them for failed license compliance. Basiclly, if the BSA is opposed that must mean MS is opposed as well. I am curious why they are not more vocal about this issue? And perhaps we will see some more favorable press towards it on MSNBC? Interesting indeed.
This guy is complainng about bloat and performance of Ximian Gnome and KDE, then goes on to reveal he has been using Mosfets Liquid theme and other eyecandy goodies. Well OF COURSE it's going to be going slow. He also seems to blame StarOffice's slow laucnhing on KDE. He doesn't seem to have a clue what he is talking about.
If you want a fast desktop on low end hardware, use WMaker ir FVWM or something simmilar. If you want eyecandy, use KDE/Enlightenment/Gnome. There is no news here, everyone has known this for a very long time.
How to spam the web with links
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Write a perl script using an automatic comment generator to post comments to all your favoirte weblogs and blogs (Not as hard to generate seemingly relavant comments as you think!)
Add Script to crontab
Wait.
As you can see, it's not that hard to spam the web with links to your site. Don't even count automated newsgroup posting, whch all gets indexed because of google groups.
I disagree. Not when you can download STAR_WARS_AOTC_SCREENER.avi literally 3 hours after it has been released. I saw Menace before most of my friends did in the theatre.
Alot of people are pointing out that MS's licensing could turn out to be really bad for Mono should they say that Mono stole their source. But don't forget, Mono itself is written in C#, not C. That is why it is taking so long to get the compiler self-hosting. I am pretty sure this MS compiler is written in C, so Mono should be OK. That says nothing od DotGNU however, and I do agree that MS is probably trying to pull a fast one with this.
Man, that's a pretty lame scam you're friend fell for. People who fall for things like that deserve what they get, IMO. Who in their right mind gives their CreditCard number to some anonymous nobody for a deposit???
...or at least the equivalent of it. See the copyright reform process at Heretige Canada website for more details, although the deadline for comments has already expired. (700 were posted!)
Slashdot Mirror
Try scrolling down a page. Every single link you posted was mentioned yesterday.
This is my desktop.
You can see my screenshot, showing off KDE3's built in translucent menus here. Warning, it is a bit over 600k (big).
I can think of one right now. Say this machine is damn fast. Also say you are Joe Sixpack businessman, who hadly knows how to use Google let alone burn a CD, who just payed some WebTwerp 200 bucks to make you a flashy presentation for your big meeting. You decide you want to give each of the 20 execs a copy of the CD, and you need it within the hour. What do you do? run ove rto the machine, amde a quick 20 copys (I assume these things are fast). You can liken it to OfficeDepot's copying service. Sure, most large companies have photocopiers at their disposal. And alot of people have CD burners at their disposal. but whne you need a bunch of copys fast, you go to the copy place. That's how it works. Who ever needs a bunch of CD copys fast? I sure as hell I'd never use one of these things to copy a CD. Like I even use CD players anymore anyways.
Indeed, let's continue it:
What is the difference between this and photocopiers? I see none. And I am a university student. I cannot even count the number of people I personally know who photocopy their entire textbook collection from the library. And they bring these copies to class. It is not hidden. It is common practice.
You don't see the publishing industry going bankrupt because Xerox came into play. Nor did you see laws come into play regarding the use of photocopiers - the same old copyright laws still held. The USER is responsible, not the manufacturer.
I agree with what you're saying, and I understand fully that the Open Source community is a dynamic one that is largely based both on developers scratching an itch, and developers learning new skills. But the number of large-scale community driven projects that are there to serve a specific goal are growing rapidly. Look at OpenOffice, Mozilla, KOffice, Evolution, Apache for examples. All of these are fairly large, complex pieces of software. While some might have initially started out scratching an itch, they are now vital pieces of software we all depend on.
These are the kinds of projects that can and should benefit the most from code reuse and collaboration, but in my experience utilize it the least. Take my example about MSOffice filters. Or the fact that the Mozilla project wrote a whole new GUI system when several excellent cross platform toolkits already existed.
Indeed, I fully agree.
Wrong. IE since version 4.0 (yes, any version that has DHTML) has had document.getElementById. Toss document.all out the window.
As per the first comment, any HTML elements written to the page either using document.write or using W3C's element.innerHTML = "" will be parsed immediatly, and any onmouseover="" attributes you have in your tag will as well. There is no need in IE or any other browser to use AttachEvent, unless you like making things complicated for yourself.
As per the scrollbar bug, this doesn't affect DHTML menus at all. And since that was the only comment I made to begin with, I don't see how this supports the arguement.
Finally someone who doesn't want to re-invent the wheel! For all the inherent benefits to Open Source and code reuse, the amount of code-duplication (and therefore time and effort wasted) in the Open Source world amazes (and disappoints) me.
And no I am not talking about Gnome vs. KDE. I am talking about things like having 10 different ICQ clients, all with different implimentations of the protocol. Sure, a different GUI and different features is worth making a new program for. But why not borrow the code for the network stack from someone else who already has that part tackled? Same with filters for MS Office. What is the big deal about KOffice, Abiword, and OpenOffice coming together and making some nice libs that translate .DOC into an XML format they can all interchange?
Simmilar things can be said about other softwares as well. Let's work together people! No need to re-invent the wheel!
An even better way to fold it into your company's codebase if you are too lazy to do it yourself is to go get one of the many free (like totally free, do whatever you want with them) DHTML menu scripts from DynamicDrive, many of which I have seen have many more features than this one.
A div/span/layer/table being revealed and hidden is the only way to do hierarchial menus. If you look at the code for this you will see that is all this code is doing. You move a menu to a position, and reveal it. Then on mouse out it is hidden again. All there is too it. It's a joke.
Er, DHTML menus are very simple to do. One small section of code will make a DHTML menu that will work in any version of IE since 4.0, and any version of Mozilla / Gecko based browser, and any version of Opera or Konqueror. It is very simple CSS. IE's imcompatabilitys are a misconstrued legend. As long as you siwch with the W3C DOM, most script written cleanly will work.
And adding a compatability layer for Netscape 4.x is trivial on top of that, that is the only area you'd spend your time, in Netscape 4 compliance. And even that would take no more than 15 mins. Are you saying it isn't worth 30 dollars (actualy alot more if you have more than 5 web pages) to spend 15 mins writing some code? If you're paying your web guy 130 dollars an hour maybe, by my calculations, it may not be worth it. But then again, you'd be bankrupt already for overpaying your employees so it wouldn't be a problem.
I went to that site in the latest Konq CVS, and the menus worked great. But then I went on to read about this company.. 29.95 for the use of some simple DHTML menus on only 5 pages?!@?!? Higher license fees for mroe pages??!?! I could code my own implimentation of this in 5-10 mins! These guys are seriously whacko.
Fortunatley, you are wrong. .Net code runs on FreeBSD, using M$'s own implimentation. And come soon, it will run on virtually any platform, using Mono.
Where do you get the dea that Microsoft has a "copyright" on .Net? They do own soe patents on the way the technologies work, but that is nowhere near a copyright. .Net has been submitted to the ECMA, and if M$ has it copyrighted projects like Mono, which already has a working C# compiler, wouldn't be able to exist.
The most interesting thing I find about all this is the Business Software Alliance is opposed to this bill. For those who don't know, the BSA is the alliance of companices like Microsoft and Adobe that audit random companys, extorting money from them for failed license compliance. Basiclly, if the BSA is opposed that must mean MS is opposed as well. I am curious why they are not more vocal about this issue? And perhaps we will see some more favorable press towards it on MSNBC? Interesting indeed.
This guy is complainng about bloat and performance of Ximian Gnome and KDE, then goes on to reveal he has been using Mosfets Liquid theme and other eyecandy goodies. Well OF COURSE it's going to be going slow. He also seems to blame StarOffice's slow laucnhing on KDE. He doesn't seem to have a clue what he is talking about.
If you want a fast desktop on low end hardware, use WMaker ir FVWM or something simmilar. If you want eyecandy, use KDE/Enlightenment/Gnome. There is no news here, everyone has known this for a very long time.
As you can see, it's not that hard to spam the web with links to your site. Don't even count automated newsgroup posting, whch all gets indexed because of google groups.
I disagree. Not when you can download STAR_WARS_AOTC_SCREENER.avi literally 3 hours after it has been released. I saw Menace before most of my friends did in the theatre.
Alot of people are pointing out that MS's licensing could turn out to be really bad for Mono should they say that Mono stole their source. But don't forget, Mono itself is written in C#, not C. That is why it is taking so long to get the compiler self-hosting. I am pretty sure this MS compiler is written in C, so Mono should be OK. That says nothing od DotGNU however, and I do agree that MS is probably trying to pull a fast one with this.
See the little magnifying glass on your toolbar with the (+)? The one with the "Increase Font Sizes" tooltip? Click that.
Man, that's a pretty lame scam you're friend fell for. People who fall for things like that deserve what they get, IMO. Who in their right mind gives their CreditCard number to some anonymous nobody for a deposit???
...or at least the equivalent of it. See the copyright reform process at Heretige Canada website for more details, although the deadline for comments has already expired. (700 were posted!)