Does that apply to all the tribal culture that lived communally, the sort that existed peacefully for thousands of years...
No they didn't. There is no such mythical perfectly peaceful primitive tribal culture.
... before running into the white men who exterminated them to take their property?
But if property rights are subordinate to the betterment of society, taking their property to bring them the benefits of modern society should be a good thing, right? Though I do admit the extermination thing is pretty bad.
Without personal freedoms, property rights are useless.
I wholeheartedly agree with that. I would also add that without individual property rights, personal freedoms are useless. As a trivial example, without property rights, what good would be freedom of the press if you had no right to own the press?
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to be arguing from extremes. There must be at least some individual property rights, if nothing else, to own the clothes you are wearing. That's what I mean when I say that they are fundamental. I do not believe that property rights are paramount over all other considerations. I believe that reasonable people can disagree over where to draw the line. I tend to fall more towards the individual side of the spectrum, you obviously tend towards the collectivist side. There's plenty of room in the middle to come to an agreement and live amicably.
Spoken like a true communist. Other than life itself, there is no more fundamental right than the right to property.
Spoken like a true Objectivist.
If I sounded that way, it was truly not intentional. Unlike objectivists, I don't try to build a huge immoral self-justification on top of first principles. I just wanted to recognize and point out something that has been obvious to any retard ever since Ug the caveman made a cool club and whacked the first guy who tried to take it away from him.
Property rights, along with the right to defend one's self, family and property are fundamental, but they must also be tempered by moral consideration. It is the balance and tension between individual and social considerations that make for a well functioning society. Extremes to either side of the equation are unproductive and ultimately self-defeating.
If there's no incentive for people to make productive use of capital, the economy stagnates.
The incentive for people to make productive use of capital is the reward / gain they get from doing so. I'm no rabid objectivist or "big-L" libertarian, but that's just fundamental economics.
it's not fair to society to let him keep it for no/low cost when it might be put to better, more productive use for society by someone else.
Spoken like a true communist. Other than life itself, there is no more fundamental right than the right to property. From your comments I get the impression that you are not a property owner or you would not be so cavalier in taxing it away.
Reallocating property from one person to another based on "productive use of capital" for the benefit of society over the rights of the individual is always going to be a negative incentive to productivity. Why acquire property if it can just be taken away (or taxed away) at the whim of some powerful individual or group? Some property taxes are probably inevitable to pay for necessary social services (fire, police, etc.) but those taxes should never be used to penalize for some imagined lack of relative "productivity".
Unfortunately, there are others who agree with your line of reasoning, most notably some US Supreme Court justices. See Kelo v. City of New London for a real world example of the results.
Please don't invoke the fire-in-a-crowded-theater argument. It is most often inappropriate to do so. Shouting "Fire!" isn't really even speech. It is just the raising of an alarm, similar to pulling a fire alarm. Just because it is spoken does not raise it to the level of "speech" in the context of freedom of speech. Most people don't know or understand the origins of this argument and thus over-use it in inappropriate places. See this excellent analysis by Alan Dershowitz: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/89jan/dershowitz.htm
The more appropriate response is to talk about "time and place" restrictions and mitigation of "clear and present danger" caused by certain types of "speech", such as incitement to riot. But even then, one has to be very careful that the motivation is avoiding imminent, needless harm and not just suppressing speech we don't like. I personally tend to think that most hate speech laws lean more toward the latter than the former.
ISPs don't even care about users abusing access specifically, unless it affects their ability to operate and make money. The only thing any business cares about is maximizing shareholder (owner) value. If an ISP offers a paid service over their network, they have a direct financial interest to promote their service over competing services. Since they own the "last mile", they have a natural monopoly position with inordinate power over the services and their quality as they reach the user, including competing services that run over that last mile. Human nature suggests that eventually at least some of these ISPs are going to abuse their control of the wire. At that point, the most effective solution is government intervention through regulation, as is the case in most every situation involving natural monopolies.
Choice is not always good. Consistency of interface is a big help for documentation and support. I have a hard enough time trying to help someone find the Windows XP control panel over the phone, because Windows lets you customize the appearance and location of Start menu items including the Control Panel. I basically tell them to click on the Start button and look for it. I could not imagine trying phone support for an application for which the entire UI could be changed in strange and inconsistent ways,
That's funny, I do run my own business. I like to call it Me, Inc. I provide a service (my time and skills) to the highest bidder the market. Currently, the highest bidder is my employer and part of the price they pay for my services is a mutually negotiated and agreed upon balance between my time spent with them and the time I spend elsewhere.
I don't understand why, when 2 parties negotiate conditions in a relationship (contract, purchase, service, etc), if both of the parties are businesses, it's just a part of doing decent, respectable business, enlightened self-interest, free-market economics, etc. But when one of the negotiating parties is a business and the other is a worker/employee, then the worker's enlightened self-interest is characterized as entitlement (or socialism, if they do it collectively).
Why is it so hard to conceive of individuals as little self-owned businesses with valuable services to provide to employers at mutually negotiated prices? And let the market decide which way the prices go. After all, capitalism is all about free markets, right? And labor is another market. Regulated, like most markets, but still a market, nonetheless. I have seen many business people who tout free market economics when it benefits them and then with straight faces denounce the workings of the labor market when it swings in favor of the worker.
Anyone who has been to the area of the proposed bridge will agree that it needs to be built. It is in Ketchikan, Alaska. Ketchikan is completely out of space. Land prices have skyrocketed because there is no land. On the other side of the proposed bridge is land just waiting to be developed. Oh, and the AIRPORT is on the other side of the "bridge to nowhere". Do you think it might be nice if they could drive to the airport instead of having to take a ferry?
Based on your post, I now know that Ketchikan, Alaska has a local land development problem of their own making that they need to solve with their own money. Thanks for clearing that up.
Recent nightly builds for Mac OS X feel much snappier than Firefox 2.0. One of the obvious culprits is that Cocoa widgets are now used on Mac OS X builds. I don't know if there are other changes affecting the performance on Mac OS X, but the difference is fairly dramatic.
I love Firefox on Windows, but I have stuck with Safari on the Mac because Firefox has always felt porky and slow compared to Safari on the same hardware. The newer builds of Firefox 3 for the Mac are much better: windows, tabs, menus and other user interface elements have a nice immediate feel to them. And the page rendering is more performant than Safari on certain Web 2.0 type sites like digg and Slashdot's new discussion system. It's buggy alpha code, but early indications seem to be good for a nice improvement on the Mac when Firefox 3 comes out.
You make a very good point. And I agree in principle that in a reasonable world carefully targeted advertising would be a great time saver. But the world is not a reasonable place. I am inundated by so much advertising, so many attempts to sell me something, each and every waking moment... I'm sick and tired of it all. I am a pretty aggressive user of ad blocking software on the net. It is just about the last bastion of control that I have left and I use it for all its worth for so long as I can.
Some people prefer this level of control and granularity instead of the idiot approach. Plus if it shows up as a drive you can drag and drop your latest powerpoint presentation to it and tote it around easily.
The popularity of the iPod and iTunes pretty well demonstrate that most people do NOT prefer this level of complexity. They want it to "just work", a feature which the iPod gets exactly right. As for your second point, the iPod does show up as a drive on your desktop and you can drag and drop any file to it that you want. The playable music is handled separately by iTunes to enable the "it just works" feature of its primary function, playing music.
My point is that the primary criterion for an ad does not show up in my search terms at all. One cannot calculate relevance for a search term that is not there. That criterion is that I am not wanting to buy anything. No one searches for "rugged 4wd, not for sale, not to purchase, please don't try to sell me anything, I HAVE NO MONEY, I don't want to buy your product, I just want to read about 4wd, please get out of my face".
And because that lack-of-desire-to-purchase criterion is not there, it is impossible to show me an ad relevant to my search. To re-word my point to hopefully clarify my position: no ad, no matter how laser-sharp targeted, is immediately relevant to me if I am not seeking to purchase.
The story is about targeted advertising, and if you're searching on, say, "rugged 4wd" and you get ads from GM, then why would you not want to see if they have something that interests you?
Because I own a Ford. Or a Toyota. Or an ATV. Or I am a kid writing a report. Or I wanted to see what owners of "rugged 4wd" vehicles had to say and I deliberately did not want to hear what a manufacturer has to say. Or because I was just bored. One of the least likely reasons for me to search for something is because "I want to buy one right now."
That first web site is a really cool concept so long as you live in a city and only want to ever visit other cities without seeing anything of the area between them. For anyone in an non-urban setting, though, it is basically useless. And on the page where it describes how NOT to do PRT, it advises not to have vehicles with capacities above 3 passengers. That's just stupid. Did the designer of this concept not know any family with more than one child? I have a wife and 3 young children. I have one friend who has 6 children and I know another family who has 8. I cannot imagine a family routinely separating into multiple 3-person squads to travel around town, especially if the children are young. It ain't gonna happen. A reasonable lower limit on the individual vehicle passenger capacity would have to account for the size of families traveling together. But then you get into a larger vehicle size that this concept so desperately tries to avoid. Hmmm... I think this needs a little more thought.
I think it is cool, though. I would use it, presuming these concerns were addressed.
Re:The first and biggest consumer will be...
on
3D Face Cameras
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but 3D frontal, er, features are very important to the pr0n industry. At least, that's what I hear, anyway. From other people. I wouldn't know myself. Why are you looking at me like that?
My experience has shown that whenever a new area of freedom opens up, some group abuses it, requiring regulation/oversight.
Pardon me if this sounds offensive, I don't mean it to be, but my first (and second and third) impression from this statement is that you like control and telling other people what to do or how to do it. Some people prefer consensus and commonly held mores of behavior to authoritarian approaches with rigid rules and regulations, as in level 3 vs. level 2 of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. However, from what I remember of my college psychology, the majority of people feel most comfortable with the concept that something is right or wrong because some authority says so. Your view may be most typical in the general population.
If something is unconstitutional for run-of-the-mill crime suspects, then it is unconstitutional for the nut-jobs, too. You don't get to treat people differently under the law by just lumping them into some nebulous "very bad" category.
I still have no idea what the purpose of the iPod Photo is. Sure, the better battery life and color screen are nice, but who really cares about carrying their photos around with them for viewing on a 1.5-inch screen?
Very convenient presentation tool. Just google "iPod photo presentation". The top two links in the search results pretty much sum it up:
a polite smoker will ask those around him if they mind him smoking
Slightly sarcastic response: "No, do you mind if I fart?"
of course polite non-smokers will reply that they do not
Why "of course"? I find tobacco smoke very unpleasant and I can still be polite about it. Indeed, I find your cavalier assumption to be very impolite. It is, after all, the smoker who is imposing on others around him, not the other way around.
Re:With Java, stuck in Windows/Linux/Solaris
on
Java 1.5 vs C#
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
If it's a choice of language based solely on the portablity of code, C# wins out IMHO. With Java, you're dependant on Sun to support your system, which is a royal pain. (as anyone with a *BSD box will tell you)
I run a J2EE application on WebSphere on a mainframe under OS/390. Where's.Net for OS/390? I can (and have) also deploy that same application with zero changes to Linux, Windows, Solaris, AS/400 or Mac OS X. I can choose from a number of J2EE implementations like WebSphere, WebLogic, JBoss or Resin, each of which have different features and strengths. I don't even recompile, I just drop in the WAR and go.
And it is incorrect to say that you are dependent on Sun to support your system. Independent vendors like IBM, BEA and Apple also license and support J2SE and J2EE for their own platforms. My personal systems are Macs and I get my Java from Apple, not Sun. My corporate systems are IBM and I get my corporate Java from IBM, not Sun. If I have a problem with either, I don't call Sun, I call Apple or IBM. IBM provides my production support contract. IBM are the ones who responded with a custom patched version of WebSphere for OS/390 in less than 24 hours when I had a production problem. Not Sun.
As I recall, in all the John Carter books everyone ran around mostly naked. At least, that's how Dejah Thoris was described the first time John Carter saw her. Naked with some jewelry was described as normal attire.
So, I can see Hollywood doing naked women running around everywhere, but they would probably balk at male full-frontal nudity. I wonder how he would address this? Probably just put clothes on everybody.
Go here for an introduction to the difficulties of modern web development with IE for Windows.
For me, the two biggest problems with IE for Windows that I run into are:
1. The complete lack of CSS2 selectors. It's just annoying to have to go to a lot of trouble to implement something that would be trivial with a sibling or descendent selector.
2. The box model in IE for Windows is wrong, not "different" as you say, but wrong. It incorrectly includes margin and border width in size calculations. This is not a matter of different interpretation. It is broken behavior. And I am unaware of any way to make IE for Windows correct this problem by using a different DOCTYPE as you suggest. If you could provide any documentation on how to do this, I would be seriously grateful because it is a major thorn in my side.
Slashdot Mirror
Does that apply to all the tribal culture that lived communally, the sort that existed peacefully for thousands of years ...
No they didn't. There is no such mythical perfectly peaceful primitive tribal culture.
... before running into the white men who exterminated them to take their property?
But if property rights are subordinate to the betterment of society, taking their property to bring them the benefits of modern society should be a good thing, right? Though I do admit the extermination thing is pretty bad.
Without personal freedoms, property rights are useless.
I wholeheartedly agree with that. I would also add that without individual property rights, personal freedoms are useless. As a trivial example, without property rights, what good would be freedom of the press if you had no right to own the press?
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to be arguing from extremes. There must be at least some individual property rights, if nothing else, to own the clothes you are wearing. That's what I mean when I say that they are fundamental. I do not believe that property rights are paramount over all other considerations. I believe that reasonable people can disagree over where to draw the line. I tend to fall more towards the individual side of the spectrum, you obviously tend towards the collectivist side. There's plenty of room in the middle to come to an agreement and live amicably.
Spoken like a true Objectivist.
If I sounded that way, it was truly not intentional. Unlike objectivists, I don't try to build a huge immoral self-justification on top of first principles. I just wanted to recognize and point out something that has been obvious to any retard ever since Ug the caveman made a cool club and whacked the first guy who tried to take it away from him.
Property rights, along with the right to defend one's self, family and property are fundamental, but they must also be tempered by moral consideration. It is the balance and tension between individual and social considerations that make for a well functioning society. Extremes to either side of the equation are unproductive and ultimately self-defeating.
Umm, dude (or dudette), I'm trying really hard not to react: speciesist? speciesism? You have got to be trolling me.
If there's no incentive for people to make productive use of capital, the economy stagnates.
The incentive for people to make productive use of capital is the reward / gain they get from doing so. I'm no rabid objectivist or "big-L" libertarian, but that's just fundamental economics.
it's not fair to society to let him keep it for no/low cost when it might be put to better, more productive use for society by someone else.
Spoken like a true communist. Other than life itself, there is no more fundamental right than the right to property. From your comments I get the impression that you are not a property owner or you would not be so cavalier in taxing it away.
Reallocating property from one person to another based on "productive use of capital" for the benefit of society over the rights of the individual is always going to be a negative incentive to productivity. Why acquire property if it can just be taken away (or taxed away) at the whim of some powerful individual or group? Some property taxes are probably inevitable to pay for necessary social services (fire, police, etc.) but those taxes should never be used to penalize for some imagined lack of relative "productivity".
Unfortunately, there are others who agree with your line of reasoning, most notably some US Supreme Court justices. See Kelo v. City of New London for a real world example of the results.
Please don't invoke the fire-in-a-crowded-theater argument. It is most often inappropriate to do so. Shouting "Fire!" isn't really even speech. It is just the raising of an alarm, similar to pulling a fire alarm. Just because it is spoken does not raise it to the level of "speech" in the context of freedom of speech. Most people don't know or understand the origins of this argument and thus over-use it in inappropriate places. See this excellent analysis by Alan Dershowitz: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/89jan/dershowitz.htm
The more appropriate response is to talk about "time and place" restrictions and mitigation of "clear and present danger" caused by certain types of "speech", such as incitement to riot. But even then, one has to be very careful that the motivation is avoiding imminent, needless harm and not just suppressing speech we don't like. I personally tend to think that most hate speech laws lean more toward the latter than the former.
ISPs don't even care about users abusing access specifically, unless it affects their ability to operate and make money. The only thing any business cares about is maximizing shareholder (owner) value. If an ISP offers a paid service over their network, they have a direct financial interest to promote their service over competing services. Since they own the "last mile", they have a natural monopoly position with inordinate power over the services and their quality as they reach the user, including competing services that run over that last mile. Human nature suggests that eventually at least some of these ISPs are going to abuse their control of the wire. At that point, the most effective solution is government intervention through regulation, as is the case in most every situation involving natural monopolies.
Choice is not always good. Consistency of interface is a big help for documentation and support. I have a hard enough time trying to help someone find the Windows XP control panel over the phone, because Windows lets you customize the appearance and location of Start menu items including the Control Panel. I basically tell them to click on the Start button and look for it. I could not imagine trying phone support for an application for which the entire UI could be changed in strange and inconsistent ways,
Always wear a v-neck undershirt.
You must be a smooth chested man. Guys with chest hair should wear crew-neck undershirts.
That's funny, I do run my own business. I like to call it Me, Inc. I provide a service (my time and skills) to the highest bidder the market. Currently, the highest bidder is my employer and part of the price they pay for my services is a mutually negotiated and agreed upon balance between my time spent with them and the time I spend elsewhere.
I don't understand why, when 2 parties negotiate conditions in a relationship (contract, purchase, service, etc), if both of the parties are businesses, it's just a part of doing decent, respectable business, enlightened self-interest, free-market economics, etc. But when one of the negotiating parties is a business and the other is a worker/employee, then the worker's enlightened self-interest is characterized as entitlement (or socialism, if they do it collectively).
Why is it so hard to conceive of individuals as little self-owned businesses with valuable services to provide to employers at mutually negotiated prices? And let the market decide which way the prices go. After all, capitalism is all about free markets, right? And labor is another market. Regulated, like most markets, but still a market, nonetheless. I have seen many business people who tout free market economics when it benefits them and then with straight faces denounce the workings of the labor market when it swings in favor of the worker.
Anyone who has been to the area of the proposed bridge will agree that it needs to be built. It is in Ketchikan, Alaska. Ketchikan is completely out of space. Land prices have skyrocketed because there is no land. On the other side of the proposed bridge is land just waiting to be developed. Oh, and the AIRPORT is on the other side of the "bridge to nowhere". Do you think it might be nice if they could drive to the airport instead of having to take a ferry?
Based on your post, I now know that Ketchikan, Alaska has a local land development problem of their own making that they need to solve with their own money. Thanks for clearing that up.
Recent nightly builds for Mac OS X feel much snappier than Firefox 2.0. One of the obvious culprits is that Cocoa widgets are now used on Mac OS X builds. I don't know if there are other changes affecting the performance on Mac OS X, but the difference is fairly dramatic.
I love Firefox on Windows, but I have stuck with Safari on the Mac because Firefox has always felt porky and slow compared to Safari on the same hardware. The newer builds of Firefox 3 for the Mac are much better: windows, tabs, menus and other user interface elements have a nice immediate feel to them. And the page rendering is more performant than Safari on certain Web 2.0 type sites like digg and Slashdot's new discussion system. It's buggy alpha code, but early indications seem to be good for a nice improvement on the Mac when Firefox 3 comes out.
You make a very good point. And I agree in principle that in a reasonable world carefully targeted advertising would be a great time saver. But the world is not a reasonable place. I am inundated by so much advertising, so many attempts to sell me something, each and every waking moment... I'm sick and tired of it all. I am a pretty aggressive user of ad blocking software on the net. It is just about the last bastion of control that I have left and I use it for all its worth for so long as I can.
You didn't. So sorry. I saw a common argument that I hear from some people and my knee jerked. My second point still stands, though.
Some people prefer this level of control and granularity instead of the idiot approach. Plus if it shows up as a drive you can drag and drop your latest powerpoint presentation to it and tote it around easily.
The popularity of the iPod and iTunes pretty well demonstrate that most people do NOT prefer this level of complexity. They want it to "just work", a feature which the iPod gets exactly right. As for your second point, the iPod does show up as a drive on your desktop and you can drag and drop any file to it that you want. The playable music is handled separately by iTunes to enable the "it just works" feature of its primary function, playing music.
My point is that the primary criterion for an ad does not show up in my search terms at all. One cannot calculate relevance for a search term that is not there. That criterion is that I am not wanting to buy anything. No one searches for "rugged 4wd, not for sale, not to purchase, please don't try to sell me anything, I HAVE NO MONEY, I don't want to buy your product, I just want to read about 4wd, please get out of my face".
And because that lack-of-desire-to-purchase criterion is not there, it is impossible to show me an ad relevant to my search. To re-word my point to hopefully clarify my position: no ad, no matter how laser-sharp targeted, is immediately relevant to me if I am not seeking to purchase.
The story is about targeted advertising, and if you're searching on, say, "rugged 4wd" and you get ads from GM, then why would you not want to see if they have something that interests you?
Because I own a Ford. Or a Toyota. Or an ATV. Or I am a kid writing a report. Or I wanted to see what owners of "rugged 4wd" vehicles had to say and I deliberately did not want to hear what a manufacturer has to say. Or because I was just bored. One of the least likely reasons for me to search for something is because "I want to buy one right now."
That first web site is a really cool concept so long as you live in a city and only want to ever visit other cities without seeing anything of the area between them. For anyone in an non-urban setting, though, it is basically useless. And on the page where it describes how NOT to do PRT, it advises not to have vehicles with capacities above 3 passengers. That's just stupid. Did the designer of this concept not know any family with more than one child? I have a wife and 3 young children. I have one friend who has 6 children and I know another family who has 8. I cannot imagine a family routinely separating into multiple 3-person squads to travel around town, especially if the children are young. It ain't gonna happen. A reasonable lower limit on the individual vehicle passenger capacity would have to account for the size of families traveling together. But then you get into a larger vehicle size that this concept so desperately tries to avoid. Hmmm... I think this needs a little more thought.
I think it is cool, though. I would use it, presuming these concerns were addressed.
Yes, but 3D frontal, er, features are very important to the pr0n industry. At least, that's what I hear, anyway. From other people. I wouldn't know myself. Why are you looking at me like that?
My experience has shown that whenever a new area of freedom opens up, some group abuses it, requiring regulation/oversight.
Pardon me if this sounds offensive, I don't mean it to be, but my first (and second and third) impression from this statement is that you like control and telling other people what to do or how to do it. Some people prefer consensus and commonly held mores of behavior to authoritarian approaches with rigid rules and regulations, as in level 3 vs. level 2 of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. However, from what I remember of my college psychology, the majority of people feel most comfortable with the concept that something is right or wrong because some authority says so. Your view may be most typical in the general population.
If something is unconstitutional for run-of-the-mill crime suspects, then it is unconstitutional for the nut-jobs, too. You don't get to treat people differently under the law by just lumping them into some nebulous "very bad" category.
I still have no idea what the purpose of the iPod Photo is. Sure, the better battery life and color screen are nice, but who really cares about carrying their photos around with them for viewing on a 1.5-inch screen?
Very convenient presentation tool. Just google "iPod photo presentation". The top two links in the search results pretty much sum it up:
HOW-TO: Put PowerPoint on your iPod Photo
ZappTek's presentation-to-iPod photo software
Slightly sarcastic response: "No, do you mind if I fart?"
of course polite non-smokers will reply that they do notWhy "of course"? I find tobacco smoke very unpleasant and I can still be polite about it. Indeed, I find your cavalier assumption to be very impolite. It is, after all, the smoker who is imposing on others around him, not the other way around.
If it's a choice of language based solely on the portablity of code, C# wins out IMHO. With Java, you're dependant on Sun to support your system, which is a royal pain. (as anyone with a *BSD box will tell you)
I run a J2EE application on WebSphere on a mainframe under OS/390. Where's .Net for OS/390? I can (and have) also deploy that same application with zero changes to Linux, Windows, Solaris, AS/400 or Mac OS X. I can choose from a number of J2EE implementations like WebSphere, WebLogic, JBoss or Resin, each of which have different features and strengths. I don't even recompile, I just drop in the WAR and go.
And it is incorrect to say that you are dependent on Sun to support your system. Independent vendors like IBM, BEA and Apple also license and support J2SE and J2EE for their own platforms. My personal systems are Macs and I get my Java from Apple, not Sun. My corporate systems are IBM and I get my corporate Java from IBM, not Sun. If I have a problem with either, I don't call Sun, I call Apple or IBM. IBM provides my production support contract. IBM are the ones who responded with a custom patched version of WebSphere for OS/390 in less than 24 hours when I had a production problem. Not Sun.
As I recall, in all the John Carter books everyone ran around mostly naked. At least, that's how Dejah Thoris was described the first time John Carter saw her. Naked with some jewelry was described as normal attire.
So, I can see Hollywood doing naked women running around everywhere, but they would probably balk at male full-frontal nudity. I wonder how he would address this? Probably just put clothes on everybody.
Go here for an introduction to the difficulties of modern web development with IE for Windows.
For me, the two biggest problems with IE for Windows that I run into are:
1. The complete lack of CSS2 selectors. It's just annoying to have to go to a lot of trouble to implement something that would be trivial with a sibling or descendent selector.
2. The box model in IE for Windows is wrong, not "different" as you say, but wrong. It incorrectly includes margin and border width in size calculations. This is not a matter of different interpretation. It is broken behavior. And I am unaware of any way to make IE for Windows correct this problem by using a different DOCTYPE as you suggest. If you could provide any documentation on how to do this, I would be seriously grateful because it is a major thorn in my side.