Slashdot Mirror
IE7 to be Pushed to Users Via Windows Update
dfrick writes "CNET is reporting that IE7 will be pushed to users via Windows Update. This has serious implications for e-commerce websites whose functionality might be affected by any bugs in the software. Also to have end users suddenly using a new browser right before the holiday shopping season could magnify the cost any bugs that might create a bad user experience on sites."
Smashing Windows for Peace
by Robert Garmong (March 28, 2003)
The attack was well-choreographed. Moving in successive waves, they executed a perfect assault. Some moved to cut off their enemies' supply lines, seizing control of crucial bridges and roadways, while others worked to surround and besiege key command and control buildings.
No, these were not U.S. commandos on a mission in Baghdad. They were anti-war protestors on Mission Street in San Francisco.
There, as elsewhere across the nation, well-planned demonstrations targeted not the military or the government, but the financial districts, the commuter roadways, the schools and universities. Their goal was not to advocate, but to disrupt.
Both protestors and their detractors have agreed on one thing: that these protests are examples of freedom of speech. "This is what democracy looks like" is the common refrain.
But these protests are not a benevolent manifestation of the freedom to express ideas. They are an attempt by a small gang of protesters to "express themselves" by forcibly imposing themselves on others.
Freedom of speech is the right to communicate ideas, information and values. It includes, in the words of the First Amendment, the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" and to assemble "peaceably" for that purpose. Freedom of speech protects debate and dispute. It does not protect coercion, nor does one person's freedom of speech authorize him to force others to listen. No one has the right to violate rights.
Yet that is precisely what the anti-war demonstrators have done. Declaring their desire to halt "business as usual" in America, protesters have chained themselves across major thoroughfares to block rush-hour traffic in New York, Chicago, San Francisco and other cities. They have blockaded office buildings, smashed the windows of police cars and squirted red paint on Republican Party headquarters. In San Francisco alone the cost of the first day's protests--counting only physical damage and police overtime, not lost wages and productivity for the besieged--was estimated at half a million dollars.
The goal of the protestors is to impose their anti-war tirades on a public that does not agree with them, and to do so by forcibly disrupting the lives of commuters, office workers, government officials and political opponents. They spread their message not through persuasion, but by blocking roadways, shutting down classes, besieging office buildings, smashing property. So much for their alleged goals of peace and brotherhood.
The issue is not merely that some protestors have resorted to outright violence and destruction. Just as wrong are such acts of "non-violent" coercion as imprisoning workers and commuters by obstructing public streets. There is a fundamental difference between rational persuasion and coercive interference, whatever form the interference may take.
The crime of these protestors is not that they are wrong about the war. In advocating their political views, they violate no one's rights. But there is a crucial distinction between ideas and actions, between holding obnoxious views and forcibly imposing them on others.
Nor is "civil disobedience" inherently wrong. There are cases, such as the Montgomery bus boycott, in which protests are a justified and even heroic measure to defy and confront injustice. But truly peaceful civil disobedience consists of the refusal to support unjust practices or comply with unjust laws. It does not consist of a refusal to respect the rights of others.
In their insistence that vandalism and blockades are protected by the principle of free speech, the demonstrators turn this idea on its head. For them, freedom of speech becomes not a right to debate, but a right to violent disruption. For them, "democracy" becomes what it meant in its origins in Ancient Greece: the absolute right of the screaming masses to dispose of the individual's life, liberty and property.
The fundamental basis for freedom
I can't speak to Microsoft Update, but as for Apple, the problem is this:
If you tell it to ignore/hide/delete/whatever the iPod updater, it will never bother you again about that specific update. The next time they release a new iPod update, it will present you with the option to install the new updater. Also, unlike other updates, the iPod updater is an application that pushes a firmware flash to an iPod; it does not update software that is already installed on your Mac. As far as I know, there's no way to make it quit bugging you every time they release a new update.
However, if your grandmother doesn't want to be harassed about updating GarageBand, she should probably uninstall GarageBand, and then Software Update will never bother her about it again. Just because she doesn't know what it is doesn't mean Apple shouldn't try to fix the bugs in it for her.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Maybe this is an oversimplified solution, but why couldn't Microsoft just "push" CSS fixes to their older browsers? I realize web developers (like myself) already have a slew of hacks and patches to handle the broken CSS of IE 5&6, but surely a company with as many bright engineers as Microsoft could figure out a way to patch the old browsers without breaking pages that use the hacks.
IE6's rendering engine has been mostly consistent for about 5 years now. Web developers know what's broken, and how it's broken, and how to work around the problems. If a certain bit of CSS code behaves a certain way on IE and a different way on everything else, I can use conditional comments to use one stylesheet on IE and a different stylesheet on everything else so that all browsers look the same. If that one bug gets fixed by itself, then IE will still be using my hacked stylesheet, but now it will display the page wrong (just like Firefox or Opera would if I gave them the same hacked stylesheet).
IE6 has been so broken for so long that we really don't WANT them to fix it one piece at a time. What they're doing with IE7 is far better. Of course, ideally, they'd make IE7 pass Acid2, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. If they patched rendering bugs in IE6, it'd be a nightmare.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;