LBRY fixes the mess which libtards created

[C4Cat]

Listen bud, I am not against people with disabilities. I have long before you were probably born promoted good practices. Things like frames for instance which the rest of the world is against are actually the perfect tool for the blind, but google and web standards committee don't want them because apparently they are hard to index and break web pages, unless you implement a few simple tweaks.

This however is a step backwards. Instead of making things accessible they are trying to remove knowledge and I'm glad somebody is doing something about it. Instead of going this dumb route they could rather have promoted access to information. There are already tools to convert speech into text. An Iphone can be used right out of the box by a blind person which is why the darn things are so popular. But rather than move us forward they are trying to take us all a step backwards. But that's the MO of you SJWs.

Goodness, and I've seen you accuse other people of having a sense of entitlement. The knowledge is all still available, if you're a student or staff member of the University of California, Berkeley. They gave a number of reasons why they took the stuff out of public including to protect their intellectual property. But no, Swa wants everything for free, so entitled. If I didn't know better I'd think think you were socialist, wanting education to be free. Smh

 

[Swa]

Goodness, and I've seen you accuse other people of having a sense of entitlement. The knowledge is all still available, if you're a student or staff member of the University of California, Berkeley. They gave a number of reasons why they took the stuff out of public including to protect their intellectual property. But no, Swa wants everything for free, so entitled. If I didn't know better I'd think think you were socialist, wanting education to be free. Smh

ROFLMAO, it's creative commons so there's nothing for them to protect. It's not me that decided it should be free but the authors ffs and yes it's still available because someone decided to make it available. Go get your facts straight before showing yourself as an i d 10 tee.

 

[Thor]

Listen bud, I am not against people with disabilities. I have long before you were probably born promoted good practices. Things like frames for instance which the rest of the world is against are actually the perfect tool for the blind, but google and web standards committee don't want them because apparently they are hard to index and break web pages, unless you implement a few simple tweaks.

This however is a step backwards. Instead of making things accessible they are trying to remove knowledge and I'm glad somebody is doing something about it. Instead of going this dumb route they could rather have promoted access to information. There are already tools to convert speech into text. An Iphone can be used right out of the box by a blind person which is why the darn things are so popular. But rather than move us forward they are trying to take us all a step backwards. But that's the MO of you SJWs.

Frames?

 

[Swa]

Frames?

Webpages?

 

[Cray]

That headline....:wtf:

 

[Thor]

Webpages?

Be specific what are you refering to in your post that you've been saying for years.

I certainly hope you are not talking about iframes

 

[C4Cat]

ROFLMAO, it's creative commons so there's nothing for them to protect. It's not me that decided it should be free but the authors ffs and yes it's still available because someone decided to make it available. Go get your facts straight before showing yourself as an i d 10 tee.

It may be creative commons but people were using the material commercially, to make money, which is against the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY-NC license. The university itself gave this as a reason:

Finally, moving our content behind authentication allows us to better protect instructor intellectual property from “pirates” who have reused content for personal profit without consent.

Also, they are developing new content that includes accessible features so it's not like there will be no more knowledge being shared.

Go get your facts straight

 

[Swa]

Be specific what are you refering to in your post that you've been saying for years.

I certainly hope you are not talking about iframes

No, frames.

It may be creative commons but people were using the material commercially, to make money, which is against the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY-NC license. The university itself gave this as a reason:

BS reasoning. You don't prohibit public use because some individuals are using it commercially. Also weird how they misuse the word 'pirate' as Creative Commons allows commercial use, one of the reasons Wikipedia moved from GNU to CC.

Also, they are developing new content that includes accessible features so it's not like there will be no more knowledge being shared.

Invalid red herring.

Go get your facts straight

That might have carried some weight if it wasn't you who needed constant correction on the facts.

 

[Thor]

No, frames.


BS reasoning. You don't prohibit public use because some individuals are using it commercially. Also weird how they misuse the word 'pirate' as Creative Commons allows commercial use, one of the reasons Wikipedia moved from GNU to CC.


Invalid red herring.


That might have carried some weight if it wasn't you who needed constant correction on the facts.

Send me a link so I can see what you are talking about please.

 

[Swa]

Send me a link so I can see what you are talking about please.

You don't know what standard frames are? Not iframes. If I meant iframes I would have said iframes and not frames. Iframes are iframes, they are not frames.

 

[Swa]

https://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html

 

[ponder]

They gave a number of reasons why they took the stuff out of public including to protect their intellectual property. But no, Swa wants everything for free, so entitled. If I didn't know better I'd think think you were socialist, wanting education to be free. Smh

So when a company violates the GPL for example you pull the source code out of the public domain and shut the project down?

 

[Thor]

You don't know what standard frames are? Not iframes. If I meant iframes I would have said iframes and not frames. Iframes are iframes, they are not frames.

Dude send me a link.

 

[Thor]

https://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html

In what time do you live? 1997?

Do NOT use frames or Iframes ever. This is 2017 frames are dead for over a decade. You probably still think web page layouts should be in table form.

The World Wide Web is based on a single unit - the web page. Frames destroy this unit, and therein lies most of the associated problems.

It's important to remember how fickle Internet users are. Whilst you may think it's easy to get round the problems, your visitors will not be prepared to make the same effort you are. For example, if a bookmarked page doesn't return a visitor to the correct page, there is a good chance you will lose that visitor forever. If a user's browser starts having a fit and opening framed links in new windows (a relatively common occurrence), it's a shocking look for your site.

In summary, the disadvantages of frames outweigh the advantages in most situations. There are very few features which absolutely must use frames to work. On the other hand frames render many standard web features useless.

In my opinion you should be very wary about using frames, and only consider them if there really is no other option.

 

[Swa]

In what time do you live? 1997?

Do NOT use frames or Iframes ever. This is 2017 frames are dead for over a decade. You probably still think web page layouts should be in table form.

The World Wide Web is based on a single unit - the web page. Frames destroy this unit, and therein lies most of the associated problems.

It's important to remember how fickle Internet users are. Whilst you may think it's easy to get round the problems, your visitors will not be prepared to make the same effort you are. For example, if a bookmarked page doesn't return a visitor to the correct page, there is a good chance you will lose that visitor forever. If a user's browser starts having a fit and opening framed links in new windows (a relatively common occurrence), it's a shocking look for your site.

In summary, the disadvantages of frames outweigh the advantages in most situations. There are very few features which absolutely must use frames to work. On the other hand frames render many standard web features useless.

In my opinion you should be very wary about using frames, and only consider them if there really is no other option.

Dude you missed what I said completely. Frames are perfect for screen readers. They work right out of the box. No tweaking necessary. But unfortunately that isn't what people want so they make others' life harder. Imo CSS is one of the worst things that happened to the web. Everyone is so obsessed about single pixels they miss compatibility which is how the web was designed to work. Take a look at mybb, 20 links one on top of the other taking up a complete screen. Just because some newb decided to focus on some obscure CSS element thinking it could fix the fact the wrong html element is being used. Decide what it is you want, either compatibility or looks, but it can't be both as that's just messing up the web for everybody.

 

[access]

..trump protestor screams in agony..

:crylaugh::crylaugh::crylaugh:

best response. win. its true.


so what else needs to be removed to accommodate the less abled. lets remove everything that all cannot participate in.

lets force the top athletes to perform less so the other athletes feel better.

 

[C4Cat]

So when a company violates the GPL for example you pull the source code out of the public domain and shut the project down?

It's their IP, if that's how they want to handle it yes. They have no obligation to make it available to everyone themselves and you have no right to feel entitled to it. They haven't just shut the project down, they are working on a more accessible replacement which will no doubt become available in time.

 

[C4Cat]

:crylaugh::crylaugh::crylaugh:

best response. win. its true.


so what else needs to be removed to accommodate the less abled. lets remove everything that all cannot participate in.

lets force the top athletes to perform less so the other athletes feel better.

Yeah, like you own any IP under creative commons.

 

[access]

Yeah, like you own any IP under creative commons.

IP is discriminating against those that don't have IP, it should be scrapped.

 

[C4Cat]

IP is discriminating against those that don't have IP, it should be scrapped.

Actually I agree that IP should be scrapped but while it exists the owners of intellectual property have the right to make it available or not, irrespective of your feelings of entitlement