As you may have noticed, this blog got a natty new theme last week. One of the things I wanted to do was make it hugely obvious which links have been followed. I therefore decided to style visited links with text-decoration: line-through. The thing is, this didn’t work. I was baffled, and so stood up, pointed to the sky and yelled: “TO THE GOOGLETRON!”

After my dog did his “what are you on?” face, I ended up finding Apple KB article HT4196, About the security content of Safari 5.0 and Safari 4. It says this:

WebKit

Impact: A maliciously crafted website may be able to determine which sites a user has visited

Description: A design issue exists in WebKit’s handling of the CSS :visited pseudo-class. A maliciously crafted website may be able to determine which sites a user has visited. This update limits the ability of web pages to style pages based on whether links are visited.

Further testing this morning regarding :visited suggests that the limits in WebKit are now severe. As far as I can tell, this is the list of properties now available to you when styling :visited in CSS:

• color

Great, huh? (Do leave a comment if you know of any others that work.) And with a good chunk of the world being colour-blind, what’s supposedly a fix for security is in reality also a punch in the face for accessibility.

Politics in the UK remains broken, with a voting system that is dated and rubbish, and an electorate that whinges no matter the outcome. We also have people making promises that they never keep, and everyone but the upper classes is getting routinely shafted.

But at least we’re not the USA.

The Nation, among other publications, reported on the Republican Party using the filibuster to stop legislation to end the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the country’s military. Said policy essentially means no-one’s allowed to ask if you’re gay, lesbian, or bisexual, but you’ll be kicked out of the forces if you are and reveal that’s the case.

Given the size of the US and its military, this is a big problem. The Nation reports that 14,000 Americans have been booted out for having the shocking audacity to be gay. The bastards. Still, Republicans to the rescue! To safeguard the country (by excluding lots of people for no good reason), they derailed legislation and offered some choice quotes. John McCain, who’s seemingly decided to become an extremist since losing to Obama, accused the Obama administration and Senate Democrats of “pandering” to the gay and lesbian community with their effort to end discrimination.

That’s quite a statement to make in any kind of civilised country. It’s no wonder many people, including his daughter, reckon the fight for equal rights is this generation’s civil rights movement. After all, imagine if McCain had instead declared one of the following:

The Obama administration and Senate Democrats are “pandering” to blacks with their effort to end discrimination.

The Obama administration and Senate Democrats are “pandering” to Hispanic people with their effort to end discrimination.

The Obama administration and Senate Democrats are “pandering” to women with their effort to end discrimination.

It’s not like the UK is devoid of discrimination, and there are plenty of (mostly Tory) MPs who aim to derail equal rights legislation (especially when it comes to gay rights), but the brazen level of disrespect, decency and common sense from the Republican Party just beggars belief. Anyone would think it’s 1810, not 2010.

We live in exciting times! McAfee has just launched McAf.ee (beta, obv.), which will revolutionise the internet by… adding another URL-shortening service to all the existing URL-shortening services that shorten URLs. Wow, McAf(ee), how exciting! It’s almost as if some dolt in PR figured you could get down with the kids, without stopping to think whether or not the world needs another URL-shortening service (hint: it doesn’t).

McAfee’s effort does stand out in two ways, though. First, the site is one of the ugliest it’s possible to imagine. It’s about 80 per cent likely to make your eyes explode, so be warned. Secondly, it enables you to create a ‘safe’ short URL, unlike all those deadly ones we’ve all been using previously. I don’t know about you, but every time I’ve used bit.ly my iMac has rocketed off the desk and banged on the ceiling, so McAfee is the Best Thing Ever on the internet. Unless, of course, I’m being hugely sarcastic and wish McAfee’s service would McAf.uckoff.

*thinks*

Oh.

So The Guadian’s waded in with its size-tens, running an op-ed by Charles Arthur about Jobs being all grumpy with a trainee journo. She complains that Apple PR hasn’t responded to her questions (welcome to my world, baby journo!), and there’s a brief to-and-fro before Jobs says “Please leave us alone”.

I write for a bunch of Mac magazines, and am regularly frustrated with Apple PR. Those I deal with are friendly, courteous people, and they help when it benefits Apple very directly (they’re quick to supply review software, for example), but that’s basically it. The thing is, everyone in this industry knows the score with Apple, apart, apparently, from this trainee.

She says:

Unfortunately, for a journalist in the professional world, lacking the answers they need on deadline day won’t just cost them a grade; it could cost them their job.

That’s pretty unlikely when it comes to Apple, unless you’re working for an editor that’s gone mental and actually expects you to get a comment from the company. Even if that’s the case, whining to the CEO won’t help matters, and, frankly, if you’re going to be a journo, you’ll need to figure out some other course of action when things don’t go your way. In her case, an article on “implementation of an iPad program” at her school, was Apple PR really the only source she could use? Did she really expect the PR arm of a huge multinational to be at her beck and call?

Arhoolie sums it up nicely in the Guardian article’s comments:

[…] the whine of “don’t you realise you are threatening my grade” is quite common. Perhaps if the students made sure the work they have chosen to pursue is practical first much of this grief could be avoided.

Commercial firms, charities, and Govt Departements [sic] are not in existence to be a training resource for student journalists.

Macworld reports that Warner has declined Apple’s invitation to offer 99-cent rentals for Apple TV. It reasons that the low price would harm the sales of full seasons of hit shows, and said it didn’t want to “open up a rental business in television at a low price”. Instead, Warner wants to continue charging viewers three bucks per TV episode.

Warner doesn’t get it. TV—even good TV—is relatively throwaway, but people are willing to pay if the price is right. $2.99 for a TV show is terrible value. $0.99 is directly in impulse purchase territory. For that price, people would try out way more stuff, and would be likely to grab each new episode as it came in, or just buy a season pass if they’d ordered a couple of episodes of a show that they ended up liking. Also, when prices fall and availability is immediate, people can’t be bothered to deal with torrents. For 99 cents, someone will pay for the latest Doctor Who. For three bucks, they’ll instead fire up their favourite BitTorrent client.

But wait! The industry says that lower pricing results in studios becoming paupers, right? Not quite. Stuart Campbell has written about premium versus low-end pricing in the iOS games market. With well-known properties—which TV shows mostly are—lower pricing equates to higher revenues overall, as shown by Pac-Man leaping into the top-grossing chart when at 99 cents (59p) and then disappearing without a trace when Namco returns to its rather ambitious pricing for a conversion of a 30-year-old arcade game. With TV shows, there are a lot of Pac-Mans, but, sadly, a lot of Namcos that own them

Apple’s thinking with TV is in enabling viewers to free themselves from buying loads of crap they don’t need in return for grabbing what they do at a reasonable price; it’s about low-cost entry but long-term profits, for Apple and for studios. It’s a pity Warner doesn’t get it, but it almost certainly won’t be alone, and I suspect the future for Apple TV may well be bleak unless studios wrench themselves out of the 1990s and embrace the idea of more flexible delivery mechanisms and pricing for TV shows.