Interesting to note that in this case the police watched the whole scenario degenerate into violence from a safe distance of 600 yards, yet chose to prosecute the intended victim.
Also interesting is the judges acceptance of her excuse that she was attempting to "save herself and the young persons from a genuine risk", before convicting her anyway.
Parent post is blatant plagiarism. Scroll towards the bottom of this page for the original post, or if you're too lazy to actually RTF comments before moderating, just click here and check the timestamps.
Backwards compatibility with all the crappy proprietary behaviours of older versions of Internet Explorer is pretty important to Microsoft, which is why they are still using their older rendering engine instead of replacing it with something better. They can't make big changes because they are afraid they'll break things.
Fuck off, this is FUD, pure and simple. The fact remains that web authors _right_now_ need to create hacks to an otherwise standard html document to get it to display correctly in IE6. Due to half arsed standard suport in IE7, authors will be forced to invent yet more IE specific hacks. Backwards compatibility is not one of MS goals, and it never has been (witness the Office formats through the years).
Imagine that IE7 came out with 100% support for w3c specifications - the worst that would happen is that websites written to the standards would display as intended in IE7, and sites written to accomodate IE<7 would need rewriting to follow the standards. Who loses?
Internet Explorer 8 is where you're likely to see a change like this. From what they've been saying, I think it's likely that they'll not add a further doctype switch, but implement a new rendering engine for XHTML only. Everybody using text/html will be stuck with Internet Explorer 7-level support for CSS, and everybody using application/xhtml+xml will get the new rendering engine. This has the added advantage of zero regressions - so Microsoft won't have to worry about backwards bug-for-bug compatibility.
Unfortunately, to do this, they actually need to implement XHTML...
But this is 100% speculation on your part, unless you happen to be privy to the plans of the IE dev team. In other words, vapourware. If every other browser maker on the planet can do this NOW, why the fuck can't MS?..
MS has specifically stated that IE7 will not support the application/xml+xhtml mime type. This is a simple thing that most people overlook the importance of.
No, it's not. I know it looks quite similar when you are writing it, but supporting XHTML isn't just a case of adding "application/xhtml+xml" to the list of media types that get chucked through the HTML rendering engine. Apart from the obvious fatal-error-on-malformed-documents behaviour, there are changes to the DOM, changes to CSS, changes to page structure, and so on.
xhtml code sent as "application xhtml+xml" should be interpreted as xml, using the xml parser (well, according to the doctype - 1.0=xml+html, 1.1=xml). Only a fool would try to parse xml with an html parser. Oh, wait...
There's all kinds of subtle ways in which XHTML differs from HTML, and if Microsoft don't get it right, it's going to cause a whole load of problems further down the line. XHTML is a golden opportunity to leave cruft like doctype switching and stupid CSS bugs behind once and for all, and if Internet Explorer 7 includes premature broken support for XHTML, it will be a squandered opportunity, and it will cause all kinds of problems further down the line.
They've had _years_ since the release of IE6 to get this right. There is _no_ excuse for not "getting it right" now. Especially when the standards have been widely published since well before the release of IE6. Suffice to say they deliberately ignored their "golden opportunity".
They didn't say "no". They simply asked for more evidence before they act. They also set out the terms under which they would accept that evidence, based on previous successful legal challenges.
"Give us this, that, and the other and we'll play along."
Essentially they just pumped the ball back into the BPIs court, now we get to wait for their return volley.
I get the impression the BPI just shot out a standard letter from their legal dept., but the accusation's not sufficient evidence for the ISP to act against its customers. If they can provide the evidence the ISP is asking for we'll see a continuation of this story.
If not, the BPI will probably just try another tack.
(apologies for the mixed sporting metaphors. I know, as geeks, we try to avoid getting involved in physical activities...)
Really? You mean you actually went through the bother of signing up for an account here so you could post this?
Thanks so much. Your devotion to duty is heartwarming.
ffs, what a luddite, head in the sand, "that's the way it's always been, bub", braindead attitude. 10 mins in a 10C environment is all it'll take to let you know EXACTLY how it feels outside.
Don't deny change 'cos you're unwilling to learn it.
The problem with a situation like a 'multi-decade multi-generational war with "terror"' is that the longer it lasts the more it becomes the norm, the status quo; and that's extremely resistent to change.
And it will last indefinately. A "war on terror" is a war without a defined enemy, and without being able to identify your enemy you cannot possibly win. How do you define "terror"? What does the enemy look like? What flag do they fly? Where do they live? In reality nobody knows, because "terror" is a mental state of panic, a reaction to something "terrible". How can you fight an abstract concept with laser guided weapons?
So stay with Windows. Nobody is asking you to switch. Personally, I couldn't care less what OS you use.
But if you do ever want to learn what your system is actually doing when you click that button, chop that audio file, render that video; or if you're at all interested in customising your system so it works the way you work, I'd respectfully suggest you try out a system that enables this. Of course, a learning curve is implied. You remember how to learn, right?
By the way, you only need to set it up once.
Linux and *BSD aren't everyman systems. They were never designed to be. Much like some peoples idea of car maintenance ends with filling up with gas and emptying the ashtrays, Windows is a point and click world. These same people will happily pay a mechanic $200 for a $25 oil change.
On second thoughts; no, stay with Windows. I could use the extra income.
And it still has the shortcoming of only being watchable on a screen that, at it's best, is less than a quarter the size of the smallest laptop I've used in the last 5 years.
It's a dog (well, mine is anyway). It does what you tell it, no more, no less.
On the other hand, if you bring your cat round to my house and it shreds the furniture I'm going to sue your ass...
If it's your own content and you're not under a contract that exercises control over distribution, or you're otherwise licenced to distribute someone elses content, you can distribute it as you like. You don't have to follow anybody elses rules unless you accept them.
Bottom line: p2p (as you imagine it) is not illegal. There are those that seek to make it so, though the "those" in this case generally represent the current media distribution channels wo are naturally trying to protect their own corporate interests.
Try a variation of this as a business plan:
1. Post.torrents of your old stuff 2. gain karma. 3. sell new stuff. 4. Profit??
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that defending yourself by running away from a threat can result in you being prosecuted.
Interesting to note that in this case the police watched the whole scenario degenerate into violence from a safe distance of 600 yards, yet chose to prosecute the intended victim.
Also interesting is the judges acceptance of her excuse that she was attempting to "save herself and the young persons from a genuine risk", before convicting her anyway.
Parent post is blatant plagiarism. Scroll towards the bottom of this page for the original post, or if you're too lazy to actually RTF comments before moderating, just click here and check the timestamps.
Yeah, but not all of it though. I often need valium for YRO, and Games is far better on acid (purple tracers, yeah!).
Fuck off, this is FUD, pure and simple. The fact remains that web authors _right_now_ need to create hacks to an otherwise standard html document to get it to display correctly in IE6. Due to half arsed standard suport in IE7, authors will be forced to invent yet more IE specific hacks. Backwards compatibility is not one of MS goals, and it never has been (witness the Office formats through the years).
Imagine that IE7 came out with 100% support for w3c specifications - the worst that would happen is that websites written to the standards would display as intended in IE7, and sites written to accomodate IE<7 would need rewriting to follow the standards. Who loses?
But this is 100% speculation on your part, unless you happen to be privy to the plans of the IE dev team. In other words, vapourware. If every other browser maker on the planet can do this NOW, why the fuck can't MS?..
xhtml code sent as "application xhtml+xml" should be interpreted as xml, using the xml parser (well, according to the doctype - 1.0=xml+html, 1.1=xml). Only a fool would try to parse xml with an html parser. Oh, wait...
They've had _years_ since the release of IE6 to get this right. There is _no_ excuse for not "getting it right" now. Especially when the standards have been widely published since well before the release of IE6. Suffice to say they deliberately ignored their "golden opportunity".
Fuckers...
They didn't say "no". They simply asked for more evidence before they act. They also set out the terms under which they would accept that evidence, based on previous successful legal challenges.
"Give us this, that, and the other and we'll play along."
Essentially they just pumped the ball back into the BPIs court, now we get to wait for their return volley.
I get the impression the BPI just shot out a standard letter from their legal dept., but the accusation's not sufficient evidence for the ISP to act against its customers. If they can provide the evidence the ISP is asking for we'll see a continuation of this story.
If not, the BPI will probably just try another tack.
(apologies for the mixed sporting metaphors. I know, as geeks, we try to avoid getting involved in physical activities...)
Are you serious? Windows Vista is clearly a revolutionary operating system from a company that really knows how to innovate.
The link should be mms://edge.channel4.com/theitcrowd/episode1_c4web. wmv, but it gets reformatted on posting making it un-clickable. Copy & paste...
Really? You mean you actually went through the bother of signing up for an account here so you could post this? Thanks so much. Your devotion to duty is heartwarming.
ffs, what a luddite, head in the sand, "that's the way it's always been, bub", braindead attitude. 10 mins in a 10C environment is all it'll take to let you know EXACTLY how it feels outside.
Don't deny change 'cos you're unwilling to learn it.
The problem with a situation like a 'multi-decade multi-generational war with "terror"' is that the longer it lasts the more it becomes the norm, the status quo; and that's extremely resistent to change.
And it will last indefinately. A "war on terror" is a war without a defined enemy, and without being able to identify your enemy you cannot possibly win. How do you define "terror"? What does the enemy look like? What flag do they fly? Where do they live? In reality nobody knows, because "terror" is a mental state of panic, a reaction to something "terrible". How can you fight an abstract concept with laser guided weapons?
In spite of the futility of this pursuit, Mr Bush said he would accept nothing less than "complete victory" in the war on terror, which he described as the first great war of the 21st century.
I'm starting to get a little panicky myself...
And PhotoShop.
Everyone I know that has recently acquired a digital camera suddenly needs PhotoShop.
Free, of course. Just a quick copy of my cd would do nicely, please.
Marketing at it's finest - create a demand without there being an actual need. And the people chant "PhotoShop, PhotoShop..."
So stay with Windows. Nobody is asking you to switch. Personally, I couldn't care less what OS you use.
But if you do ever want to learn what your system is actually doing when you click that button, chop that audio file, render that video; or if you're at all interested in customising your system so it works the way you work, I'd respectfully suggest you try out a system that enables this. Of course, a learning curve is implied. You remember how to learn, right?
By the way, you only need to set it up once.
Linux and *BSD aren't everyman systems. They were never designed to be. Much like some peoples idea of car maintenance ends with filling up with gas and emptying the ashtrays, Windows is a point and click world. These same people will happily pay a mechanic $200 for a $25 oil change.
On second thoughts; no, stay with Windows. I could use the extra income.
And it still has the shortcoming of only being watchable on a screen that, at it's best, is less than a quarter the size of the smallest laptop I've used in the last 5 years.
"... use an optional S-video cable with iPod to play VJ on your TV. You can perform the same big-screen feat with iPod photo slideshows. Oh, and you can do it all from across the room using the optional Universal Dock and handy new Apple remote."
It's a dog (well, mine is anyway). It does what you tell it, no more, no less. On the other hand, if you bring your cat round to my house and it shreds the furniture I'm going to sue your ass...
It's ok, we can strap them around the outside.
Only if you dissolve it in 4 gallons of water...
Old news travels fast ;)
http://drupal.org/drupal-4.6.2
What are you talking about?
.torrents of your old stuff
If it's your own content and you're not under a contract that exercises control over distribution, or you're otherwise licenced to distribute someone elses content, you can distribute it as you like. You don't have to follow anybody elses rules unless you accept them.
Bottom line: p2p (as you imagine it) is not illegal. There are those that seek to make it so, though the "those" in this case generally represent the current media distribution channels wo are naturally trying to protect their own corporate interests.
Try a variation of this as a business plan:
1. Post
2. gain karma.
3. sell new stuff.
4. Profit??