IIRC, XMLHttpResponse is implemented via ActiveX under IE 6. (Anybody know if IE 7 implements it as a native JS object?)
In some cases it's the fault of developers (or their bosses) who rely on IE-only technology, but ActiveX is sometimes the only way to get 'standard' behavior out of IE.
The problem with a particular piece of M$ software is always the same: If you'd paid more to get the (Latest | Professional) version, it would work properly.
i couldn't wait to download this album, paying 8 pounds for it even though i don't normally buy music. it's a vote against the record companies, and i'll vote that way again when the next band follows in radiohead's footsteps. i see two problems that may keep this from being the sea change many of us are hoping for:
1) TRUST first, there was the www.radioheadlp7.com hoax. then, there was the strange design of the actual inrainbows.com site. i had to do some research before i was convinced that i was giving my credit card info to radiohead, and not some script kiddie in the former USSR. when every promising band starts to sell their album on their own website, how are we going to know which sites really do represent the bands, and which are worse than Sony?
2) NEWS radiohead made BIG news by doing this, so they cashed-in on a lot of (well deserved) publicity. but the next band will not be able to count on this.
It seems like some kind of trusted distribution network may have to be developed before it's practical. If outlets like the amazon mp3 store (or maybe more journalistic sources, like pitchforkmedia.com) could work directly with the bands, for instance, this kind of thing might really fly.
(Of course, they may just replace the labels in ripping off artists and consumers.)
Absolutely. For an example, look at spam. We already have a perfectly good law outlawing spam, but it's not being enforced. Maybe they should figure out that one before passing another, less enforceable law targeting a much less serious problem.
It's been mentioned on a post or two already, but folks are still making posts that ignore this: OEM deals based on EXCLUSIVITY are outlawed. The only thing Acer has to lose by selling linux is perhaps a step down on the Vista bulk pricing scale due to sheer quantity.
This is from the NYTimes (subscription)...an excerpt directly from the Judge's ruling in 2002:
In its order of remedy, the court has heeded plaintiffs' call for broad protection for O.E.M.'s, I.S.V.'s, and I.H.V.'s [independent hardware vendors] against retaliation and threats of retaliation by Microsoft for the support of products that compete with Microsoft's monopoly product. The court's remedy further curtails Microsoft's ability to enter into agreements that have the effect of excluding competitors from the marketplace. The court's prohibition on exclusionary contracts is carefully drawn, however, so as to foster, rather than prohibit, procompetitive joint ventures, work-for-hire agreements, and intellectual property licenses. . . .
Slashdot Mirror
My website is hosted at Adhost, and it's up right now. Email, too.
I'd post my url for proof, but, I like it to stay online...
why, that sounds like class warfare!!!
just kidding. great post.
following that link is the smartest thing i've done in weeks
you know it's time for 3.0 when when the pop-up ads in Web 2.0 blogs offer you $50 off registration for a conference that happened over a week ago.
and these classified environments are filled with public terminals with keyloggers installed? hmmm...
IIRC, XMLHttpResponse is implemented via ActiveX under IE 6. (Anybody know if IE 7 implements it as a native JS object?)
In some cases it's the fault of developers (or their bosses) who rely on IE-only technology, but ActiveX is sometimes the only way to get 'standard' behavior out of IE.
I've heard this before.
The problem with a particular piece of M$ software is always the same:
If you'd paid more to get the (Latest | Professional) version, it would work properly.
i couldn't wait to download this album, paying 8 pounds for it even though i don't normally buy music. it's a vote against the record companies, and i'll vote that way again when the next band follows in radiohead's footsteps. i see two problems that may keep this from being the sea change many of us are hoping for:
1) TRUST
first, there was the www.radioheadlp7.com hoax. then, there was the strange design of the actual inrainbows.com site. i had to do some research before i was convinced that i was giving my credit card info to radiohead, and not some script kiddie in the former USSR. when every promising band starts to sell their album on their own website, how are we going to know which sites really do represent the bands, and which are worse than Sony?
2) NEWS
radiohead made BIG news by doing this, so they cashed-in on a lot of (well deserved) publicity. but the next band will not be able to count on this.
It seems like some kind of trusted distribution network may have to be developed before it's practical. If outlets like the amazon mp3 store (or maybe more journalistic sources, like pitchforkmedia.com) could work directly with the bands, for instance, this kind of thing might really fly.
(Of course, they may just replace the labels in ripping off artists and consumers.)
Absolutely.
For an example, look at spam. We already have a perfectly good law outlawing spam, but it's not being enforced. Maybe they should figure out that one before passing another, less enforceable law targeting a much less serious problem.
i heard on the (fox) news that NY Times writers ARE the terrorists.