You are completely missing the point. Yes, there are cases where I want something to open in a new window. In those cases I right click and select 'open in new window'.
The question is not whether we sometimes want things opened in a new window, the question is whether there should be a way for someone else to FORCE us to do so. And the answer is no.
Well, and we sort of agree on this. I was striving to make a distinction between moral claims, which many people call human rights, and legal rights that delineate how governments may act and provide for redress of grievances. I have real problem with the conflation of the two, and I think the word 'right' is a very poor descriptor of the first species of entity.
I'd agree with everything but the last clause. The word 'right' is exactly the proper descriptor of the first class of entity, and of no other. Law does not create rights, it either respects them or it violates them.
Nearly everybody agrees that all people can make certain moral claims that do inhere to the status of being human, such as 'it would be better for me to be alive than to die' and 'it would be better for me to be free than to be oppressed', etc.. For me, in order to make the leap from a moral claim to a moral right, there must be some concept of justice, which entails as necessary some mechanism for a redress of harm against a moral claim.
The most basic mechanism for redress is also a fundamental right - the right to defend oneself. Any legitimate law enforcement function consists of acting as an agent of the victim.
Respect for national sovereignty overrrides the moral sense of people who ought to interfere to assert a moral claim on behalf of defenseless people; sovereignty is a useful legal concept in many ways but here it becomes morally problematic.
I'm not sure where you follow this rationale. I would say that true sovereignty vests with the individual. 'National sovereignty' is a useful concept only when it applies exclusively to relationships between states. But if you're suggesting that, for instance, the US (or any other) government should be going around the world disregarding national sovereignty and intervening in other countries on humanitarian grounds, I must disagree completely, for many reasons.
I would assert that victims of genocide are people whose moral claims are being heinously violated, in a darkly ironical way, by a legal system of national rights which prevent the victims from ever having rights adhere to their moral claims.
<pedant>Ironic is already an adjective, the -al ending is not needed with it.</pedant>
But yes, although I wouldn't frame it in exactly that way, I think we fundamentally agree. Such episodes demonstrate quite starkly exactly what consequences follow when humans exist without a framework of respect for the basic human rights of their fellows.
The entire point to CSS is to try to find a way to get people to quit misusing HTML as a markup language. Put all your layout crap in a separate file so I can instruct my browser to ignore it. Great. If it doesn't work without the css, it's broken.
Another way to look at it, and one more in line with what the founding fathers had in mind in their writings, is that rights inhere, but are a statement of morality or ethics, not as you seem to think a statement of existential reality. That is to say, the fact that I have the right to speak, but am prohibited from doing so, is not contradictory - it simply means that my rights are being violated.
Now, what you seem to be saying is that if a right can be violated, it doesn't exist. I don't know where this idea comes from, but it seems to be increasingly common. Just because a law is altered and no longer honours human rights, doesn't mean that human rights no longer exist - it simply means that the law has become evil.
Victims of genocide are not people without rights, they're people whose rights have been heinously violated.
You're currently at +4 insightful and I'd happily put you up to +5 if I could. There are very few posts that deserve +5 IMOP but you really hit the nail on the head. Well done.
Oh, it's far worse (actually far better) than you think. HTML doesn't allow you to specify how anything will be displayed. It was done that way DELIBERATELY. It's display-independent. Many web browsers don't display anything, they convert the page to text.
Quit trying to force HTML to be PDF. It's not. All these horrible intractible *problems* are the result of meatheads refusing to use it as it was designed to work, and trying to do things like controlling the display. Once you get over yourself and realise that HTML is not a language for "design" and you cannot determine how the reader will choose to display, or not, your page, you can start concentrating on marking up content to make it accessible, and start creating proper web pages.
I meant 3.2, yes. And they all support it just fine. Which means they'll support any properly written page just fine. It is NOT proper HTML if it won't degrade to a 3.2 compliant page when necessary.
You are correct, the compulsory school system in the US was set up to train a compliant and placid workforce for factory owners, as well as to make good protestants out of those roman catholic immigrants.
The only fair thing to do is to abolish this abomination outright, however, not to tax "the rich" - a category that lumps together dedicated hard working people with the corporate welfare whores.
Ick. What disease is it that makes people want to stick those funky menus on web pages in the first place? They are usability nightmares, and just generally annoying.
Name a modern browser that doesn't support HTML 3.5.
Now combine that null set with the concept of graceful degredation, which is the core of HTML standards and accessibility design.
It doesn't matter that the most recent standards have inconsistent compliance, it doesn't matter one bit. A properly written web page will gracefully degrade and remain usable without the fluffy stuff.
He's clearly ranting, and it doesn't all make sense.
If he doesn't care if pages work in someone else choice of browser why would anyone care if they work in his?
Personally, I do care that data which is presented as being a 'web page' should, in fact, be a web page. Web pages work in any browser, barring browser bugs.
So the question for me is, does this page not work in opera because the page is wrong, or because of a bug in Opera? I haven't used Opera in a long time, but it used to be a very solid browser with very few bugs when I used it, and I suspect it still is. Nonetheless, generalities don't solve the problem, specifics do. Is Opera correctly displaying a broken page, or is it displaying a good page improperly?
The page in question is far from a good web page, which reïnforces my suspicion, but still, does anyone know exactly the issue in question here?
Sorry, you're the one living in a dreamworld. Every time a major manufacturer starts making "consumer grade" machines available running linux they suddenly get hit with a carrot and stick attack and drop them. MS has had to learn to live with them shipping linux on high-end server systems in some cases, yes, but they just fell back to a new line in the sand.
This is exactly what the courts should do. HP and all the others are afraid to allow any consumer OS choice now, as they will be punished by MS if they do. If a court forces them all to allow it, then MS won't be able to single out offenders and punish them anymore.
Of course, such a decision would only be valid in France at this point. Every nation should follow suit.
There's a setting for cache in the settings interface, it's set to 50mb on my install, but obviously not respecting that limit. Why have such a setting in the place a normal user will look for it, then disregard it in favour of a setting most people won't know how to find? That just seems like very bad design.
Also, I don't think this explains the memory leaks. The default setting seems to be 50, so once it hits that number of pages the memory usage should stabilise. Also it should never increase when no new pages are being loaded. But I, and many others, have observed what seems more like a true memory leak, for instance going to bed with firefox up and coming back to find it's memory usage has grown drastically overnight, with no activity.
I was thinking something similar when I read this.
I don't think the decentralisation factor here is their problem, at all. A decentralised structure has lots of advantages, and it's really the only efficient way to organise any entity of such size.
The problem is the opposite - despite a certain degree of decentralisation in fact, it's still nominally a monolithic company, and the central authorities are imposing a huge overhead, a huge beaureacracy, on top of that. This is a company with MANY layers of managers. They're trying to tie the semi-feudal structure on the ground together with these layers after layers of managers, leading back to the central authority, and to impose a single over-arching rule over all of them.
Microsoft would work much better if they started spinning off operations left and right and quit trying to control what happens on the ground.
I don't know of any such source, and I suspect that "vast majority" is an overstatement.
However, a shockingly high percentage are. Aside from the editting tools, Bioware did a wonderful job. A lot of folks run it on linux and mac, and even when the expansions weren't available on those platforms, people could and did buy the windows disk and just use the data files, so the percentage is much higher than their sales figures indicate. Most servers seem to be on linux, and a fair percentage of clients as well. Also it seems that Mac/Linux clients run the game longer, more are still playing today, while many folks that ran the Windows clients quit playing it long ago. There are also network affects. When your DM and server run linux and have no intention of moving to NWN2 as a result of lack of linux support, several windows clients will as a result stick with the original as well.
"Vast majority" may well be an overstatement, but it's still a significant hit that competent management would have tried to avoid.
No, I have a choice. I could easily set my hands on an x86 machine and throw Windows on it just for the game. I could even do that with a new intel Mac. I won't, though. If they can't be bothered to write their engine cross platform, I'm not interested in giving them money.
No, actually, we found some better articles on the card after that comment was written, and it seems a large part of the performance improvement comes from bypassing the windows network stack and firewall, so it should apply to dual core machines also. Of course, under linux, that trick wouldn't work. However, it might be possible to make it do some cool tricks - the thing is actually a PPC based linux machine on a card.
Actually, I found some more info on this after I made that post, and it's pretty interesting. Apparently there's more to it. First, they're bypassing the windows networking stack entirely, and that gives a measurable latency decrease. Second, the card is actually a linux machine on a card, so it runs a firewall and the windows drivers disable the windows firewall, and that gives another significant speed boost.
Of course, all this presumes you're running windows to begin with, so it's useless to me. But for those so afflicted, perhaps a small subset are hyper sensitive to lag enough to make the thing be worth it. And it sounds interesting to me for other reasons - couldn't you stick a hard drive in directly attached to it and run bittorrent on your NIC?;)
Slashdot Mirror
You are completely missing the point. Yes, there are cases where I want something to open in a new window. In those cases I right click and select 'open in new window'.
The question is not whether we sometimes want things opened in a new window, the question is whether there should be a way for someone else to FORCE us to do so. And the answer is no.
I use noscript. It handles flash very well, along with a lot of other crap I don't want to deal with.
I'd agree with everything but the last clause. The word 'right' is exactly the proper descriptor of the first class of entity, and of no other. Law does not create rights, it either respects them or it violates them.
The most basic mechanism for redress is also a fundamental right - the right to defend oneself. Any legitimate law enforcement function consists of acting as an agent of the victim.
I'm not sure where you follow this rationale. I would say that true sovereignty vests with the individual. 'National sovereignty' is a useful concept only when it applies exclusively to relationships between states. But if you're suggesting that, for instance, the US (or any other) government should be going around the world disregarding national sovereignty and intervening in other countries on humanitarian grounds, I must disagree completely, for many reasons.
<pedant>Ironic is already an adjective, the -al ending is not needed with it.</pedant>
But yes, although I wouldn't frame it in exactly that way, I think we fundamentally agree. Such episodes demonstrate quite starkly exactly what consequences follow when humans exist without a framework of respect for the basic human rights of their fellows.
The entire point to CSS is to try to find a way to get people to quit misusing HTML as a markup language. Put all your layout crap in a separate file so I can instruct my browser to ignore it. Great. If it doesn't work without the css, it's broken.
Another way to look at it, and one more in line with what the founding fathers had in mind in their writings, is that rights inhere, but are a statement of morality or ethics, not as you seem to think a statement of existential reality. That is to say, the fact that I have the right to speak, but am prohibited from doing so, is not contradictory - it simply means that my rights are being violated.
Now, what you seem to be saying is that if a right can be violated, it doesn't exist. I don't know where this idea comes from, but it seems to be increasingly common. Just because a law is altered and no longer honours human rights, doesn't mean that human rights no longer exist - it simply means that the law has become evil.
Victims of genocide are not people without rights, they're people whose rights have been heinously violated.
You mean, the 'witness' that is first claimed in documents dating at least 70 years after the supposed event?
You're currently at +4 insightful and I'd happily put you up to +5 if I could. There are very few posts that deserve +5 IMOP but you really hit the nail on the head. Well done.
Oh, it's far worse (actually far better) than you think. HTML doesn't allow you to specify how anything will be displayed. It was done that way DELIBERATELY. It's display-independent. Many web browsers don't display anything, they convert the page to text.
Quit trying to force HTML to be PDF. It's not. All these horrible intractible *problems* are the result of meatheads refusing to use it as it was designed to work, and trying to do things like controlling the display. Once you get over yourself and realise that HTML is not a language for "design" and you cannot determine how the reader will choose to display, or not, your page, you can start concentrating on marking up content to make it accessible, and start creating proper web pages.
I meant 3.2, yes. And they all support it just fine. Which means they'll support any properly written page just fine. It is NOT proper HTML if it won't degrade to a 3.2 compliant page when necessary.
You are correct, the compulsory school system in the US was set up to train a compliant and placid workforce for factory owners, as well as to make good protestants out of those roman catholic immigrants.
The only fair thing to do is to abolish this abomination outright, however, not to tax "the rich" - a category that lumps together dedicated hard working people with the corporate welfare whores.
Ick. What disease is it that makes people want to stick those funky menus on web pages in the first place? They are usability nightmares, and just generally annoying.
Name a modern browser that doesn't support HTML 3.5.
Now combine that null set with the concept of graceful degredation, which is the core of HTML standards and accessibility design.
It doesn't matter that the most recent standards have inconsistent compliance, it doesn't matter one bit. A properly written web page will gracefully degrade and remain usable without the fluffy stuff.
Actually it was the old page, it seems that they have reverted to the old one, however.
He's clearly ranting, and it doesn't all make sense.
If he doesn't care if pages work in someone else choice of browser why would anyone care if they work in his?
Personally, I do care that data which is presented as being a 'web page' should, in fact, be a web page. Web pages work in any browser, barring browser bugs.
So the question for me is, does this page not work in opera because the page is wrong, or because of a bug in Opera? I haven't used Opera in a long time, but it used to be a very solid browser with very few bugs when I used it, and I suspect it still is. Nonetheless, generalities don't solve the problem, specifics do. Is Opera correctly displaying a broken page, or is it displaying a good page improperly?
The page in question is far from a good web page, which reïnforces my suspicion, but still, does anyone know exactly the issue in question here?
Sorry, you're the one living in a dreamworld. Every time a major manufacturer starts making "consumer grade" machines available running linux they suddenly get hit with a carrot and stick attack and drop them. MS has had to learn to live with them shipping linux on high-end server systems in some cases, yes, but they just fell back to a new line in the sand.
This is exactly what the courts should do. HP and all the others are afraid to allow any consumer OS choice now, as they will be punished by MS if they do. If a court forces them all to allow it, then MS won't be able to single out offenders and punish them anymore.
Of course, such a decision would only be valid in France at this point. Every nation should follow suit.
FYI, the shim Nvidia uses appears to NOT be under the GPL or any compatible license.
There's a setting for cache in the settings interface, it's set to 50mb on my install, but obviously not respecting that limit. Why have such a setting in the place a normal user will look for it, then disregard it in favour of a setting most people won't know how to find? That just seems like very bad design. Also, I don't think this explains the memory leaks. The default setting seems to be 50, so once it hits that number of pages the memory usage should stabilise. Also it should never increase when no new pages are being loaded. But I, and many others, have observed what seems more like a true memory leak, for instance going to bed with firefox up and coming back to find it's memory usage has grown drastically overnight, with no activity.
Even if it wasn't hype, it appears to be a non-sequitur. MMOG != RPG. Not even close.
I was thinking something similar when I read this.
I don't think the decentralisation factor here is their problem, at all. A decentralised structure has lots of advantages, and it's really the only efficient way to organise any entity of such size.
The problem is the opposite - despite a certain degree of decentralisation in fact, it's still nominally a monolithic company, and the central authorities are imposing a huge overhead, a huge beaureacracy, on top of that. This is a company with MANY layers of managers. They're trying to tie the semi-feudal structure on the ground together with these layers after layers of managers, leading back to the central authority, and to impose a single over-arching rule over all of them.
Microsoft would work much better if they started spinning off operations left and right and quit trying to control what happens on the ground.
I don't know of any such source, and I suspect that "vast majority" is an overstatement.
However, a shockingly high percentage are. Aside from the editting tools, Bioware did a wonderful job. A lot of folks run it on linux and mac, and even when the expansions weren't available on those platforms, people could and did buy the windows disk and just use the data files, so the percentage is much higher than their sales figures indicate. Most servers seem to be on linux, and a fair percentage of clients as well. Also it seems that Mac/Linux clients run the game longer, more are still playing today, while many folks that ran the Windows clients quit playing it long ago. There are also network affects. When your DM and server run linux and have no intention of moving to NWN2 as a result of lack of linux support, several windows clients will as a result stick with the original as well.
"Vast majority" may well be an overstatement, but it's still a significant hit that competent management would have tried to avoid.
No, I have a choice. I could easily set my hands on an x86 machine and throw Windows on it just for the game. I could even do that with a new intel Mac. I won't, though. If they can't be bothered to write their engine cross platform, I'm not interested in giving them money.
No, actually, we found some better articles on the card after that comment was written, and it seems a large part of the performance improvement comes from bypassing the windows network stack and firewall, so it should apply to dual core machines also. Of course, under linux, that trick wouldn't work. However, it might be possible to make it do some cool tricks - the thing is actually a PPC based linux machine on a card.
Actually, I found some more info on this after I made that post, and it's pretty interesting. Apparently there's more to it. First, they're bypassing the windows networking stack entirely, and that gives a measurable latency decrease. Second, the card is actually a linux machine on a card, so it runs a firewall and the windows drivers disable the windows firewall, and that gives another significant speed boost.
;)
Of course, all this presumes you're running windows to begin with, so it's useless to me. But for those so afflicted, perhaps a small subset are hyper sensitive to lag enough to make the thing be worth it. And it sounds interesting to me for other reasons - couldn't you stick a hard drive in directly attached to it and run bittorrent on your NIC?
Aha, found a better source with some real info on this thing. Here.