y.st./source/pages/en/weblog/2017/02-February/01.xhtml

<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2017 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'title' => "$a[XHTML] 5.1",
	'body' => <<<END
<img src="/img/CC_BY-SA_4.0/y.st./weblog/2017/02/01.jpg" alt="Some plant with both green and purple leaves" class="weblog-header-image" width="800" height="480" />
<section id="general">
	<h2>General news</h2>
	<p>
		Someone mentioned today that the license reference that&apos;s been present in my older edited photographs isn&apos;t present in my newer, unedited photographs.
		I knew that this was the case as soon as I made the transition, but didn&apos;t consider it problematic at the time.
		However, their concerns are valid, so to rectify this, I&apos;ve amended the footer of my website to provide more complete licensing information.
		Every file of this website is released under the $a[GNU] $a[GPL], but the licensing page linked to in the footer explains the dual-licensing of individual, non-text-based files, including images.
	</p>
	<p>
		After having updated every page of the website (which was minimal effort on my end because of my use of a template, but required a full reupload of the entire website), I found out that the $a[W3C] is working on $a[XHTML] 5.2.
		That means that $a[XHTML] 5.1 is already out!
		After verifying that fact, I modified my template again and prepared to reuploaded once more.
		I held off on the actual upload though until I finalized my journal entry for the day.
		In theory, it doesn&apos;t matter whether I say my pages are written in $a[XHTML]5 or $a[XHTML] 5.1, but in practice, it sort of does.
		$a[XHTML]5 is an overlap, where the standards-setting $a[W3C] and the noxious $a[WHATWG] agree on a name.
		However, with $a[XHTML] 5.1 out, I can show my support for the $a[W3C]&apos;s side, the side of freezing standards and having different document format versions, and my opposition to the $a[WHATWG]&apos;s side, the side of a &quot;living standard&quot; in which old documents are interpreted according to a new standard that they might not even measure up to because the standard is only days old and the document is years old.
		I&apos;m peeved with the $a[WHATWG] so much, they killed $a[XHTML]2 and resuscitated $a[HTML].
		I don&apos;t want to look like I support them even a little unless I have to.
	</p>
	<p>
		My <a href="/a/canary.txt">canary</a> still sings the tune of freedom and transparency.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="university">
	<h2>University life</h2>
	<p>
		Before working on my essay, I completed my discussion assignment for the week:
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			You say that some club-goers might feel that the music selection is compromised, but how much does the compromised music selection affect these club-goers?
			If these people want to go to a club that plays only unknown bands or some other specific subset of artists, they might have an argument as to why the club should act differently.
			However, that&apos;s not the alternative for It&apos;s My Party.
			The alternative likely involves playing most of the bands that they play now, but with some additions and some subtractions.
			If someone wants a specific play list, they&apos;re on their own to put it together.
			For example, I don&apos;t expect radio stations to ply the music that I listen to, and as far as I know, none do.
			Instead, I buy music and use my own music player.
			When you go to a public venue, such as a club, it&apos;s safe to assume that the entire play list is compromised in every way, and you don&apos;t get any say in the matter (aside from your ability to vote with your money by not going).
		</p>
		<p>
			It&apos;s worth noting too that such compromised play lists are a big reason that I&apos;ve never set foot in a club.
			While I have a problem with compromised play lists, I <strong>*still*</strong> think that anyone that chooses to go to the club must accept the play lists, whatever they are, if the decide to go to a public venue.
			The club-goers have no right to complain about which music is chosen and why.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Is Hurwitz really compromising what they like best?
			What if what Hurwitz likes best has changed since childhood?
			Perhaps now, what they like best now is turning a profit.
		</p>
		<p>
			While I wholly agree that one could look at the ethical issues outside of making money and outside of personal tastes (I do so when I buy my music), I don&apos;t think that these are things that Hurwitz even cares about.
			There&apos;s also the issue of what constitutes a bad message and what doesn&apos;t.
			For example, you mention language and obscenity as a problem, by which I&apos;m gussing that you&apos;re talking about swearing.
			Most of the artists that I listen to don&apos;t seem to swear, but that&apos;s not why I listen to them.
			Many people view swear words as bad, but I view it as people putting too much power in words.
			People are offended by swear words <strong>*because*</strong> said offended parties consider those words as somehow different than other words.
			They&apos;re not different though.
			In my opinion, people need to stop caring about swearing and understand that words are words.
			Contradicting the current culture isn&apos;t necessarily bad either.
			That&apos;s how cultures are changed.
			Change can be either good, bad, or neutral, depending on the change, so contradicting the culture shouldn&apos;t be viewed as bad unless it&apos;s contradicting it in a bad way.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			I hadn&apos;t considered the possibility of how things would be different in a non-profit radio station.
			Like you said though, it might not even make a difference there though, as the station may depend on donations to stay on the air waves, so they may still need to cater to their audience.
		</p>
		<p>
			I agree that the questions could be posed as relating to either personal business ethics or institutional business ethics.
			Because there&apos;s no definitive ethical standard, ethics are highly subjective.
			It makes arguing both sides of anything viable, and there&apos;s no way to come to a &quot;correct&quot; answer.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<p>
		That cost me much more time than I thought it word, and a lot more than I wanted it too.
		Now, it was time to reread half of my assigned readings and complete my essay for the week.
		I ended up skimming though, and didn&apos;t have time find something useful to the essay on every page as I&apos;d intended.
		Instead, I only four out of ten of the pages.
		Next week should be easier, as I should be less pressed for time.
	</p>
	<p>
		Having finished that, I completed my <a href="https://y.st./en/coursework/PHIL1404/Apple_and_ethics.xhtml">essay</a> as well.
	</p>
	<p>
		It seems that this week&apos;s <span title="Programming Fundamentals">CS 1101</span> activities are to be handled in the <a href="/en/coursework/CS1101/">Learning Journal</a> just like last week&apos;s.
		It&apos;s likely that this is what&apos;s to happen every week in this course, so I won&apos;t mention it again.
	</p>
</section>
END
);