I'm fine with vendors trying to add their own DRM, I don't have any problem with that. I'm not necessarily going to use their products, but I don't have a moral objection to some company deciding to try DRM in the marketplace. I just don't think it should be standardized. If that means that certain protected content will only play on certain devices, so be it. If I want the content that badly to use DRM then I'll take that into account. If I don't want to deal with the DRM, then I won't be their customer. See EA for a good example. I'm not going to berate them for the fact that they use DRM, that's their choice. I'm just not going to buy their products because I don't agree with the decisions they've made.

If Minecraft is something you refuse to live without, then maybe people like you can lobby the vendor for a version that doesn't use Java. But, take it from a person who has never played Minecraft: you can live without it.

It's not about me, Flamey McTrollerson. The W3C exists to promote open standards. DRM by definition is not open. Look over this page and tell me which of these points relates to the W3C endorsing DRM:

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission

DRM is a choice for the market to make, not the open standards body. If someone wants to sell your coveted program on a DRM-laden DVD, great, go out and buy it. But don't standardize that bullshit on the open web.

Stallman is right on this. The W3C should not endorse DRM. If that means that it requires Flash for certain things, then certain companies have to be OK with using Flash to display their content to their customers. The W3C shouldn't endorse DRM, that is a battle that deserves to be fought.

No, I'm saying that no competent teacher is teaching anyone to use a font tag in order to specify how text should look in a web page. As for faith in web developers, I think I'm pretty acquainted with beginner developers, I have more posts than anyone else in the W3Schools forum trying to help teach people and answer their questions. I'm surprised the people running the site finally managed to update their PHP/MySQL tutorials to use the mysqli extension instead of mysql, they were using those examples forever.

That's an easy one. Don't install Java.

That page has 5 pieces of red text saying that the font tag is not supported in HTML5. It tells you to use CSS instead. It says that it was deprecated in HTML 4.01. The font tag is an example of people realizing their mistakes, not a reason to bash modern HTML. Even W3Schools, with all of its problems and outdated tutorials, makes sure people know that.

Does IE7 support the IE box model? I'm not sure, I'll have to get back to you on that one.

That's true, it wouldn't be a good idea to tell them to "piss off". It would be better to just tell them that they are using an unsupported browser that no longer receives testing, and they can either upgrade their browser or pay extra to test on legacy software. That sounds a little better than "piss off".

Steam traffic goes over HTTP and is not peer-to-peer, they just have a massive content delivery network. It used to be that they would tell you which server you're downloading from. I haven't seen any evidence that I'm downloading from more than one server, let alone a peer.

Where did you hear that?

Bummer. I'm done with Sprint, I bought the Evo 4G when it came out in June 2010 and they told me they were only months away from getting 4G service in Phoenix. It's never happened. Looks like I might have to go back to T-Mobile.

The summary only lists AT&T and T-Mobile, but are you saying that the unlocked HTC One would also be fully-functional on Verizon's network? Verizon clearly has the best network where I live, so I would prefer them over T-Mobile if I could use all the features on that phone.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong, for a number of reasons.

First - innocence is not subjective. If he actually committed the actions then he is guilty of them, even if he is the only one who knows that and even if he has not been charged with anything. Him being charged with a crime and convicted does not change whether or not he actually committed the crime. If he committed the crime then he is simply not innocent of the accusation of having committed that crime. In this case, he even confessed to committing the crime to the driver he carjacked (per that person's statement).

Second - what you are talking about is the presumption of innocence in a court of law. Whether the justice systems presumes the person is innocent does not change the fact of whether or not they actually committed the crime. You're just talking about how he gets treated by the justice system. Yes, the justice system must presume that he is innocent and attempt to prove their charges. Him being presumed innocent in court does not change the fact of his actual innocence. That is exactly why they put the word "PRESUMED" in there. No court has ever said "you are innocent until proven guilty". They say "you are presumed innocent until proven guilty". There is a world of difference there.

In the US, Presumption Of Innocence is not in our constitution, but courts hold it as a standard of proof as coming from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments, plus a few court cases. It means that the person making the charge has the burden of proof, not the person being accused. That is completely separate from the fact of whether the accused actually committed the crime. If a person is found not guilty of the crime of murder, that does not necessarily mean that the person never committed a murder (and is thereby innocent of the murder). It means that no one could prove it.

I don't watch CSI, and what I'm trying to tell you is that the presumption of innocence by the justice system and actual innocence are two different things. One of them can change, one of them is a fact and cannot change (it can only be proven, or not).

Why was he killed? He was killed because he was throwing explosives and firing a gun at police. That is a crime where you live, I assume, correct? If that is a crime then he is not innocent. Police got injured, his bullets hit their cars, his explosives detonated, and police tackled him before his brother ran him over. He was also wearing explosives that he did not detonate. He is guilty of those actions, he wasn't even out of sight for the police to have tackled the wrong person. The person they tackled was the person shooting at them. He is guilty of shooting at them. He's not going to be charged with any crime, because there's no reason to charge a dead guy, but he's certainly not innocent. Not being found guilty in a court of law is not the same as being innocent. We can review the definitions for the words "innocent", "innocence", and "guilty" if you think I'm incorrect.

I disagree. The guy was ultimately found in the boat when law enforcement lifted the lockdown, the homeowner went outside for the first time that day, and saw the blood trail and open tarp. If he was walking around all day he probably would have seen that a lot earlier. The guy's movements also would have been much more restricted if the entire city wasn't locked in their houses.

That guy sort of lost his right to be presumed innocent when he carjacked the guy, told that guy that he was the one responsible for the bombs, and then later shot at and threw explosives at the police. That doesn't exactly scream "innocence" there. Actually being innocent has nothing to do with going to court. He should be presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until he goes to court, but that's not the same thing as actually being innocent. He's not innocent because he's dead, he's dead because he's guilty (guilty at a minimum of carjacking, shooting at police, and using IEDs).