So you don't support IE7 and IE8 either, then? Because speaking as a developer at a different company, we have to specifically test each of those separately anyhow. And Firefox, of course. And Safari.
So what you're really saying is that it's too hard to support 3 versions of IE and Firefox and Safari AND Chrome and Opera as well.
Since Chrome is Webkit, just like Safari, it seems to me you should probably go ahead and support that one. And if your app works on Firefox and Safari without any hacks, it'll run on Opera as well.
And like it or not, Chrome is taking market share from IE and Firefox. We are rapidly approaching a market that doesn't have 1 dominant browser, and you'll have to support them anyhow. Giving up now is letting go of things you'll need right before they become critical.
I feel we need a car analogy, so it's like going from a single car on the highways to having many companies making many cars, but paving your roads to only work for that single car.
Standards need to be COMPLETELY open, even to those who don't want to follow your rules, if you want them to do well. Restricting this to companies that wish to play by your rules is a great way to ensure that others will create a competing standard and basically nullify any real forward progress this might have.
Also, this line is screwy:
"In addition, a preliminary draft of the tech specs for the project must be published within 20 working days, in order to allow broadcasters and manufacturers of set-top boxes to adopt the new standards."
What the hell kind of timeline is that? What broadcaster or manufacturer is saying "We're making new boxes in 20 days, so you had better have the draft ready by then." That's a ridiculous amount of time for such a massive standard. In addition, a preliminary draft of the tech specs for the project must be published within 20 working days, in order to allow broadcasters and manufacturers of set-top boxes to adopt the new standards.
Unless, of course, the standard is so generic as to be useless. If so, let me write it for you:
Equipment or software rendering this service must support video with synchronized audio delivered via internet protocol.
For something that's supposed to compete with PayPal, it's amazingly limited.
You can't withdraw your own funds. You can't transfer funds to anyone who isn't a family member unless they are a business, and Payclick gets a cut of the transfer to a business. (Note that I'm not faulting them for making money here, just stating facts.) You can't pull right from a bank or credit card. You must pre-deposit funds.
Combine that with the fact that almost no services use it yet and it's not a very good offering.
Unfortunately, I think you are right. Only if the second comes in very close on the heels of the first, and is obviously better, would it win. As I said in a post below, companies can't judge 'good' software without an excellent programmer on staff to do the judging, and even then it could get twisted by politics.
So some random person made a command with the name of an extremely famous company and you think it's the company's fault for picking that name for the command?
Google could benefit from this according TFA? Seriously? Giving up data on their customers and replacing it with less useful data benefits them? I seriously doubt it. Especially since we've already seen what people in general think about privacy.
No, if Google wanted to go down that road, it would be MUCH smarter to allow people to specify how much of their personal data Google can have, and have a way to remove that data at any time.
You seem to have missed the part where I said Party A didn't bother to show their proof that it was true and that they didn't commit libel. Refusing to defend yourself is indistinguishable from guilt.
Seems to me this is a good thing. I've heard a lot of talk lately about how programming isn't regulated in any way, you don't need a degree or certification, etc etc. Any hack can jump on a keyboard and claim to be a programmer. There's no industry-wide way to determine if your new coder is a hack or an artist.
For hacks and newbies, that's a great thing. It lets them land a job. For professionals and companies, it's a pain in the ass.
Now, in the Ukraine, they still don't require any actual certification, but they do require that the person be serious enough to set up a business. It's something, at least.
"Starbucks customers will have free unrestricted access to various paid sites and services, such as wsj.com, as well as other free downloads Starbucks didn't detail."
It's not "free unlimited access." It's "free unlimited access to select Starbucks-chosen sites, most of them you have to pay for."
Really? Switching to IPv6 would let the government resell tons of radio bandwidth? It would improve the connection speed or clarity of youtube videos? Maybe HighDef internet?
No, IPv6 will allow more IPs without using workarounds like NAT. It's specifically because there isn't much improvement that nobody has really moved on it.
Sadly, all my channels are just on the edge of clarity. That means that I get 98% of the video, but 2% of the time it glitches and I miss a few seconds. It effectively ruins the broadcast.
However, this is partly my fault for using a small indoor antenna. If I really cared, I'd get a better antenna. Or cable.
Slashdot Mirror
You can fail to disallow something without specifically allowing it. The 2 sentences mean different things.
Perhaps he didn't mean 'old' in that sense. ;)
Right, because the fact that you came through it fine must mean that all those other people are faking their injuries and illnesses.
So you don't support IE7 and IE8 either, then? Because speaking as a developer at a different company, we have to specifically test each of those separately anyhow. And Firefox, of course. And Safari.
So what you're really saying is that it's too hard to support 3 versions of IE and Firefox and Safari AND Chrome and Opera as well.
Since Chrome is Webkit, just like Safari, it seems to me you should probably go ahead and support that one. And if your app works on Firefox and Safari without any hacks, it'll run on Opera as well.
And like it or not, Chrome is taking market share from IE and Firefox. We are rapidly approaching a market that doesn't have 1 dominant browser, and you'll have to support them anyhow. Giving up now is letting go of things you'll need right before they become critical.
I feel we need a car analogy, so it's like going from a single car on the highways to having many companies making many cars, but paving your roads to only work for that single car.
Standards need to be COMPLETELY open, even to those who don't want to follow your rules, if you want them to do well. Restricting this to companies that wish to play by your rules is a great way to ensure that others will create a competing standard and basically nullify any real forward progress this might have.
Also, this line is screwy:
"In addition, a preliminary draft of the tech specs for the project must be published within 20 working days, in order to allow broadcasters and manufacturers of set-top boxes to adopt the new standards."
What the hell kind of timeline is that? What broadcaster or manufacturer is saying "We're making new boxes in 20 days, so you had better have the draft ready by then." That's a ridiculous amount of time for such a massive standard. In addition, a preliminary draft of the tech specs for the project must be published within 20 working days, in order to allow broadcasters and manufacturers of set-top boxes to adopt the new standards.
Unless, of course, the standard is so generic as to be useless. If so, let me write it for you:
Equipment or software rendering this service must support video with synchronized audio delivered via internet protocol.
There, saved you 20 days.
For something that's supposed to compete with PayPal, it's amazingly limited.
You can't withdraw your own funds.
You can't transfer funds to anyone who isn't a family member unless they are a business, and Payclick gets a cut of the transfer to a business. (Note that I'm not faulting them for making money here, just stating facts.)
You can't pull right from a bank or credit card. You must pre-deposit funds.
Combine that with the fact that almost no services use it yet and it's not a very good offering.
Even more reason to use SSL for every site. Not like I needed another.
Right, because it didn't have any violence at all.
Anyhow, the restrictions only apply to minors. Adults can still get all the violence and cults they crave.
That word 'expected' means that it's someone wild-ass guess as to which will get updated with this.
It's only a matter of time.
Unfortunately, I think you are right. Only if the second comes in very close on the heels of the first, and is obviously better, would it win. As I said in a post below, companies can't judge 'good' software without an excellent programmer on staff to do the judging, and even then it could get twisted by politics.
Not sure why this ended up anon. It's mine.
So some random person made a command with the name of an extremely famous company and you think it's the company's fault for picking that name for the command?
Google could benefit from this according TFA? Seriously? Giving up data on their customers and replacing it with less useful data benefits them? I seriously doubt it. Especially since we've already seen what people in general think about privacy.
No, if Google wanted to go down that road, it would be MUCH smarter to allow people to specify how much of their personal data Google can have, and have a way to remove that data at any time.
From their website:
"Spamhaus tracks the Internet's worst Spammers, known Spam Gangs and Spam Support Services"
So, yeah. They do. They say nothing about 'suspected' or 'alleged' spammers.
In fact, if they did, they'd lose a lot of their customers. Nobody wants to block 'alleged spammers'. They only want to block actual spammers.
You seem to have missed the part where I said Party A didn't bother to show their proof that it was true and that they didn't commit libel. Refusing to defend yourself is indistinguishable from guilt.
To me, this looks just like a case of libel. (Or slander. Or whatever.) IANAL.
Party A said, "Party B is a spammer."
Party B said, "I am not, and now you've cost me money because of your accusations."
Party B took Party A to court and won. They got money from Party A to cover the money they lost because Party A libeled them.
Party A could have gone to court and said, "They ARE spammers. Here's the proof," and they might have won. Party A didn't bother.
I really don't see the problem here, now that the monetary amounts aren't insane.
Seems to me this is a good thing. I've heard a lot of talk lately about how programming isn't regulated in any way, you don't need a degree or certification, etc etc. Any hack can jump on a keyboard and claim to be a programmer. There's no industry-wide way to determine if your new coder is a hack or an artist.
For hacks and newbies, that's a great thing. It lets them land a job. For professionals and companies, it's a pain in the ass.
Now, in the Ukraine, they still don't require any actual certification, but they do require that the person be serious enough to set up a business. It's something, at least.
No, that's Russian Chat Roulette.
You can choose a dual-core Athlon for $45 more than the $250 one.
Hehe, I had a lot of fun with that C16 before my sister did something to it that overheated it and made the Q key stick. I was mighty pissed.
Did nobody else catch this?
"Starbucks customers will have free unrestricted access to various paid sites and services, such as wsj.com, as well as other free downloads Starbucks didn't detail."
It's not "free unlimited access." It's "free unlimited access to select Starbucks-chosen sites, most of them you have to pay for."
Actually, until it's actually been proven, or at least many scientists have failed to disprove it, it -is- "just a pretty theory." THAT is science.
Really? Switching to IPv6 would let the government resell tons of radio bandwidth? It would improve the connection speed or clarity of youtube videos? Maybe HighDef internet?
No, IPv6 will allow more IPs without using workarounds like NAT. It's specifically because there isn't much improvement that nobody has really moved on it.
Sadly, all my channels are just on the edge of clarity. That means that I get 98% of the video, but 2% of the time it glitches and I miss a few seconds. It effectively ruins the broadcast.
However, this is partly my fault for using a small indoor antenna. If I really cared, I'd get a better antenna. Or cable.