Yes, but for those examples there are other barriers to entry.
To own your own home, you have to make a large financial investment.
And hire a qualified electrician to install cabling inside the house, to reinforce your point.
People try to draw a line between electric cabling and using a computer, based on the false assumption that if you screw up electric cabling you die, whereas if you screw up your own computer, it only affects you.
That's a bogus assumption because the reality is that we have this thing called the "Internet". You know, a community of networks, where computers actually talk to each other. And, you know, cause havoc on each other's networks.
If you crash the car in your own paddock, that's okay -- it's your car, and your paddock. But if you drive irresponsibly on the road, especially a highway, which is a commons of road drivers, you suddenly have the ability to cause a lot more harm.
It's the same with the Internet. If you own a PC, and you connect it to the Internet, you have a responsibility as a citizen of the Internet (and the world, pretty much) to be conscientious to others. An infected PC is not a laughing matter — you’re actively harming someone or something whether you’re aware of it or not. If you're not prepared to take due care, you should be treated like the cops would treat you if you were an unlicensed drive — you shouldn't be allowed on the Internet.
It's a social problem, not a technical one.
Its 2010 and the fact you still have to explain to people how a digital connection works is getting old.
Yes, the data going through the USB may be digital, but as I have shown, the USB power, not data can cause interference.
For a vinyl ripper, the USB power has the ability to interfere with the audio while it's still analogue, before its conversion to digital prior to being sent over USB.
One would hope a vinyl ripper would use an external source of power and shield the USB well.
Uh, what? USB means that the ADC is outside the computer, which means that you get less possibility of EM noise from the electronics in the case interfering with the analogue signal.
In theory, maybe, but in practice I get noticeable EM noise from USB.
I have a USB-powered speaker (uses a normal 3.5 mm jack for audio) for my computer which also has an earphone port on the side, which is handy. It used to be part of a HP LCD monitor (L1740 if you must know), which had a USB port for plugging the speaker into for power. Why you would design the speakers to get their power off a monitor they were specially designed to be an accessory for with USB I do not know -- surely a normal DC plug would have done the job. But I digress.
Anyway, I no longer use that monitor, but kept the USB speakers. To power them, I now plug them directly into my desktop PC's USB port for the power. Now when I plug my earphones into the side of the speaker bar, there is a noticeable hum that is directly correlated with the CPU usage. Normally it's like "bzzt zzt zzt". But if I drag a window around or compile something, it goes like "BZZT THH ZZT THH ZZT TTH ZZT".quite loudly.
It does that with two separate motherboards with two separate PSUs. However, it does not do that if I plug the USB power into my Eee PC (laptop) instead.
So there you have it. USB does suffer from EM noise. If you have a solution, I'd like to know -- it drives me batty some days.
If you're going to spend money why don't you just buy a damn SBS and use AD?
The GP did use AD. Re-read this quote from the GP, my friend:
This meant it had to be AD.
If that doesn't convince you, read this quote, then read up up on the description for the likewise-open package.
The first thing I tried was likewise-open which I had a number of problems with.
If the GP wasn't using AD, then what the heck were they doing using a tool that provides "authentication services for Active Directory domains"?
But the truth is, sometimes you *have* to break the back button. Sometimes, you have to update portions of a page in order to keep it "fresh". Sadly, doing so breaks the back button.
A bit like how Gmail, Twitter, or many other sites don't use the document fragment identifier to do such a thing. Or a bit like how there's no such thing as history.pushState() to implement that (and because it doesn't exist, it doesn't work in Google Chrome, but if it did, it would work perfectly).
Yep, sometimes you have to break the back button.
The issue isn't that it's not possible, the issue is that HTML5 seems to tend towards HTML markup over XML markup.
I don't get why that is an issue. If you want to write clean markup, write clean markup. And today's browsers are perfectly capable of handling all manner of weird and wonderful markup.
The only situation I can think of where lax HTML5 markup would cause you a problem is if you're deploying to a custom mobile device or custom-written browser for a specific deployment. But in that case, you'd likely have control over both the input and output, in which case what I said above -- just write damn clean markup -- still applies.
If I saw problems with my browser struggling to render all the HTML5 content out there, I'd agree with you. But the reality is that browsers are mature, and can deal with the markup out there. And those that are writing markup are testing. It's a cycle that is working in practice, not just theory.
There is nothing stopping you from using well-formed XML in your HTML5, or serving your document as application/xhtml+xml (explicitly stated in the HTML5 spec). Serving HTML5 as proper XML is dubbed "XHTML 5". It uses the same doctype. All the new tags -- video, audio, section, header, etc. are supported, but obviously the lax markup features of HTML5 (like being able to omit most tags) no longer apply.
BLISS is ignorance.