And what *I'm* saying, is that by your definition, they still do not ship with a multi-button mouse - because the user must enable it. They still believe the single button to be better for the starting user, and more advanced users are allowed to choose a more complex interface.
Apple has not changed what they are doing other than a little more configurability in hardware.
I've never said what Apple is doing now with respect to mice is any good, just that it's better than before.
Furthermore of course laptops all still ship with a single button, which I still believe to be a better choice even for advanced users as it's easier to chord in a button modifier than to work two buttons on a laptop.
How so? Working with two buttons on a laptop does not impede you in any way. The second button is there, you don't need to use it if you don't want to. Whether you're using the mouse left- or right-handed, your thumb is going to naturally fall on the "left" button, so it's not like you're going to be accidentally hitting the "right" button all the time. Chording in a key modifier isn't much effort, but it's harder than effortless, which is what working with two buttons is.
That's not arrogance, that's wisdom.
No, it's arrogance. Even if I were to concede the point about laptops, their refusal to ship two-button mice is still inexcusable. And why are they doing it? Because they don't want to back down. There is no other possible reason for it, because the greater usability a two-button mouse provides has been clearly demonstrated for the past number of years.
You are discriminating if you decide that the white male that's been around for a few years must be good, and the new white male employee must be OK since he isn't under any quotas, but you'll have to scrutinize the work of the new African American female employee since she came in after the quotas were mandated. I threw in African American since that also leads to an assumption of affirmative action.
No. I am not. I would be discriminating if I scrutinized them because they were black, or female, or both. I am not discriminating by saying there's a greater probability that someone whose job was mandated by law isn't up to the task, and paying closer attention to them. I'd do the same for white males, if they ever passed one of these idiotic quota laws for white males. Your claim of discrimination completely misses my point, and, frankly, is insulting, because it isn't in the least true.
You're correct that I don't know that anyone who was hired in the absence of a quota is a good employee, but I maintain that there's a higher probability that someone hired under a quota is a poor employee, especially in a field where many women just plain don't show any interest. What you're saying is kind of like saying that insurance companies are wrong to pay closer attention to their members with higher ristk. Everyone can be bad, but some have a higher probability than others.
If anything, the mandated ratio will foster more discrimination because of the perceived view that they "didn't earn it".
Exactly. While I don't believe in discrimination based on superficial factors (race, sex, etc), I would, without hesitation, apply far more scrutiny to my co-workers (male or female, for that matter) if I knew they quite possibly only got hired because the law said to hire them. I have far less tolerance for failure from someone whose presence is mandated by law.
Love them or hate them, moderators and meta-moderators are part of the system. If all you are concerned about is karma, then you will have to weigh you desire to post against your fear of loosing karma points. My suggestion is to say what you want intelligently and damn whether it is popular. Popular speech is boring.
I agree, and that's what I do, but it doesn't leave me any less frustrated when I say things that are legitimate additions to the discussion, but get swatted down because they aren't popular. I'd rather die with integrity than live without it, if you will, but better still to live with integrity. In addition, it's even more frustrating when a post that is very clearly trolling/flamebait gets modded up just because it disagrees with the unpopular viewpoint (the post in question was nothing more than, and I quote, "Douchefag." This post actually got modded up.). This is blatant moderator abuse, and pisses me off. I can hope it gets caught in meta-moderation, but that isn't going to make it any less frustrating to see the abuse taking place.
It is a site and browser developer's responsibility to code to a set of standards.
I can agree that it's the browser's responsibility to code to a set of standards. The site's responsibility, though, is not to the standard, or to their own ease of development, but to the users. Once it gets to the site development stage, the browser is set in stone, and the developer has to deal with it in order to deliver a good experience to their users. Ignoring those users is abandoning their responsibility, just as surely as browser-makers ignoring standards is abandoning their responsibility.
They SHIPPED with a one button mouse for a while. But all along, they have supported multiple buttons on mice.
I understand that the OS has supported it for ages (since OS 9 at least, or was it OS 8?). That's not what I'm saying, though. Their refusal to ship with a one-button mouse was arrogance in refusing to acknowledge that multi-button mice had proven to be the most useful, most adaptable version of the mouse, and that the minor loss in simplicity was made up for in leaps and bounds by simplicity. The rest of the industry "got it" pretty much right away, but Apple took years to finally sigh and say "Fine, we'll join the world the rest of you live in".
Uh, those are all (but one) fake problems to some extent or other. Breakin' it down:
Accident: PC in a body cast explains how his laptop got injured when someone tripped over his power cord. Mac points out new Apple notebooks have a magnetic quick release power cord.
This is a problem which might happen to only the most careless of people. Realistically, no one trips over laptop power cords, or plugs them in where people are walking through. Fake.
Breakthrough: Mac and a counselor try to explain to PC that some of his Vista hardware compatibility issues are caused by having many different manufacturers and this is not his fault.
A problem, true, but just as much of a problem for Macs. Both are brought on by vendors not writing proper drivers for their hardware, so Apple looks just a bit asinine acting like they'd be immune to this.
Choose a Vista: PC is confused about which of the 6 versions of Vista he should pick and has to use a wheel.
Fake problem. Does anyone actually go to the store and buy a boxed copy of Windows, anyway? Even if they do, they'll do one of three things: pick home cause they're a home user, pick ultimate cause it says "ultimate", or, most likely, ask a store employee.
Computer Cart: Various PCs are plagued with cryptic error messages like "Fatal Error" and error "692".
Real-ish problem. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, though: it's been a few years since I worked on Macs as part of my job, but I saw far more cryptic error messages there than I ever did with Windows. For instance, not once on Windows have I seen "Error xxxx", but that was pretty much the only error I ever saw from Mac OS.
Security: A bodyguard constantly asks PC to authorize every action he takes. References UAC.
This is the only real problem. It is damned annoying, too. Hopefully Microsoft gets it right in Windows 7, or people will just turn it off again.
Surgery: PC explains he might need some surgery (upgrades) in order to run Vista and is worried about it.
Occasionally, spyware is an issue on Windows through no fault of the user. The vast majority of the time, it's because the user feels some ungodly need to click on every pop-up they see, and download those "free emoticon omg" packs (and I remind you, those "free emoticon omg" packs would work quite nicely independent of OS). Mostly fake.
Viruses: PC is infected with a new virus and asks Mac to stay away.
See above. In addition, running anti-virus works wonders, and is good practice on any platform, so that can hardly be counted a disadvantage of Windows.
There is a small grain of truth for a lot of these, but it's generally so blown out of proportion, or ignores the fact that Macs have the same problem, that one can dismiss it as an outright lie.
Bullshit. The processors alone would cost $1430 from NewEgg.
Bullshit. I priced out 2.8 GHz quad-core Pentiums, and they were $550 each. Yes, I didn't pick a Xeon. Know why? Cause it doesn't make any real difference, from any benchmarks I've ever seen. I didn't say THE SAME hardware, I said EQUIVALENT.
No sane person would claim that Microsoft isn't arrogant. A lot of organizations are arrogant, and that isn't even necessarily an indictment of their motives or ethics (Stallman has excellent motives, for example, but every time I hear something he says, he comes off as incredibly arrogant). I just said Apple is the most arrogant. For that matter, Apple is guilty of the same thing you (basically correctly) blame Microsoft for: it's Apple's way or no way, when they can get their say in.
First of all, I never said "fanboi", I said "fanboy". Second, if you don't like it, I'm sorry, but that is the main reason for Apple's success, along with excellent marketing. They absolutely do not offer any real advantage (for their computers, their peripherals aren't bad) over the competition, do so at a much higher price, yet manage to sell their product. The fact that they sell only a small percent of systems out there only strengthens the case for the argument that fanboys are their primary demographic.
We don't even have to look at their products themselves to determine the mass numbers of fanboys out there. Like I said, the iPhone. It is a damn cool piece of hardware, and I give Apple props for making it. Before it came out, however, what was the buzz? We heard, every other day or so, how the iPhone was a revolution in mobile phone technology and would completely change the way we use phones. It wasn't, it hasn't, and it isn't going to. The iPhone is an excellent evolution of the phones that came before it, but it isn't the best, most revolutionary thing since sliced bread.
The over-hyped status of the iPhone proves, all by itself (and, I might add, isn't the only example), how many drooling fanboys Apple has for customers. Not all, perhaps, but a very large number indeed.
I dunno if you've noticed or not, but Apple is the most arrogant company in computing. They will do the stupidest thing imaginable for a long, long time, before finally changing their ways and admitting that it was a bad idea. Look at how long it took them to drop the hockey puck mouse. Look at how long it took them to realize that they should make a mouse with more than one buttons. Look at how they still aren't making a real two-button mouse. Look at how long it took them to get with the program, and get on the same processor architecture as the rest of the world had been on for years.
Apple may one day sell OS X on other companies' hardware, but that point is years off, if it ever arrives, due to Apple's sheer overwhelming arrogance.
How sad, that some overzealous mod came along and modded you flamebait for this. Come on guys, get with the program already. Apple doesn't produce better hardware than anyone else. Apple could be argued to produce the best OS (I disagree, I think it's the worst, but we'll accept that it's the best for sake of argument), but it's nowhere near as far ahead of its' competitors as their propaganda would have you believe. They don't get ahead on any real merits except marketing, really. It's hard not to sell your products when your customers will accept anything you make as 100 times better than it is (see the iPhone, which is admittedly a cool device, but was hailed by fanboys as if its significance were on par with the second coming of Jesus).
Apple exists basically only on marketing and fanboys, and, due to their huge prices, is making a mint doing it. I'd call that an extremely coveted spot indeed. I wouldn't mind being in their shoes.
Uh-huh. I just looked up the specs from Apple's site for a Mac Pro. It costs $2800. I priced out the parts to build a comparable machine on Newegg. It costs $1630. Now consider that often enough, a comparable machine from a major manufacturer will cost less than it will to build it yourself, because they get bulk deals on parts, get paid to load crapware, etc.
So, only $1200 more for equivalent hardware. You have a strange conception of "competitive", and "not a ripoff", sir.
As much as I'd love to sit and argue the merits of browsers with you, it's just going to take this thread from "off-topic" to "hellaciously off-topic", so let's save it for a story that's about browsers.
Added thought: my sig shouldn't be interpreted to mean that I hate Firefox. I just don't think it's anything special. My sig is more hate toward the moderators a few weeks ago who modded me troll/flamebait left and right (I went from karma capped to somewhere in "Good") just for arguing with people that Firefox isn't some holy grail of awesome, and that as far as features for the end-user are concerned, IE is just as good these days.
IE is my browser of preference. As far as I'm concerned, if a site doesn't display properly in it, I don't go to that site, since web sites tend to be nicer to IE than Firefox. Thus, I don't use D2, since they haven't seen fit to make it work with IE.
Note I'm not saying that sites shouldn't work in Firefox, either... it's a site developer's responsibility to make their web site work in all browsers in common usage, not just the ones they feel like. Whether a site doesn't work in IE or Firefox or Opera or Safari or... you get the idea, it's just as poor on the part of the site dev.
It always just felt klunky and slow to me. Earning my special ire was the fact that, by default, it has that damnable sidebar floating on the left, one of my most hated web UI devices. If I remember correctly, it displays fairly wonky in IE as well. I realize that "klunky and slow" is pretty subjective, but it's good enough for my purposes. Not to mention, by all the accounts here, it's buggy as hell, so while I may check it out again in the future, I'll wait to do so until it isn't the widespread beta it seems to be right now.
No, others don't have two computers. I only have one, and will only have one for the foreseeable future, because that's simply all that I need. I have my one machine, which I periodically put new hardware in as I need it, and it'll serve my needs for a long time to come that way.
Granted, I live alone, but the number of machines some people have just blows me away. What the hell do you need so many boxes for? Why don't you just build one really good one, instead of N mediocre ones? I just don't get it.
Uh... it didn't say they "won" with no qualifiers, it says they won an agreement to anonymize the logs... exactly what happened. I fail to see a problem with their choice of verb.
Second, take Secure DNS seriously, even though there are intractable problems in its business and governance model -- deploy it locally and push on your vendors for the tools and services you need.
In other words, what he's saying is: "Take this new thing and deploy it, even though I admit it doesn't and can't work properly."
And this man doesn't see a problem with his logic? He must be certifiable.
If you go back and look at when Yoda was first introduced as a character he didn't do that cutesy backwards sentence construction. That came later.
Huh? Have you ever watched Empire Strikes Back (when he was first introduced as a character)? Let me quote you various Yoda phrases from that movie, all of which involve the grammar you say he didn't use:
"Looking? Found someone you have, I would say!" (one of his very first lines, I might add)
"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."
"Your father? Powerful Jedi was he!"
"Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? And well you should not... for my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is."
"Mudhole? Slimy? My home this is!"
"Anger, fear, aggression... the Dark Side of the Force are they..."
"Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will..."
I could go on, but you get the idea. Yoda always used that style of sentence construction.
In the scenario you descibre, the streets would become choked with dirty, unsafe buses and traffic would grind to a halt.
I doubt it. Why would anyone ride an unsafe bus knowingly? If no one rides the buses, the buses don't have money to operate, and they aren't crowding the streets any more.
In any case, he recognized that there are things which are better done by the state, so you're setting up a strawman by saying he thinks the market is always superior.
people smarter than you
Perhaps, when you've grown up, experienced the real world a bit and stopped reading Ayn Rands bullshit, you might get a clue.
Perhaps when you've grown up, you won't choose to resort to ad-hominem attacks against another person trying to engage in a civilized discussion with you. You're being nothing short of stupid and childish by resorting to personal attacks.
Slashdot Mirror
And what *I'm* saying, is that by your definition, they still do not ship with a multi-button mouse - because the user must enable it. They still believe the single button to be better for the starting user, and more advanced users are allowed to choose a more complex interface.
Apple has not changed what they are doing other than a little more configurability in hardware.
I've never said what Apple is doing now with respect to mice is any good, just that it's better than before.
Furthermore of course laptops all still ship with a single button, which I still believe to be a better choice even for advanced users as it's easier to chord in a button modifier than to work two buttons on a laptop.
How so? Working with two buttons on a laptop does not impede you in any way. The second button is there, you don't need to use it if you don't want to. Whether you're using the mouse left- or right-handed, your thumb is going to naturally fall on the "left" button, so it's not like you're going to be accidentally hitting the "right" button all the time. Chording in a key modifier isn't much effort, but it's harder than effortless, which is what working with two buttons is.
That's not arrogance, that's wisdom.
No, it's arrogance. Even if I were to concede the point about laptops, their refusal to ship two-button mice is still inexcusable. And why are they doing it? Because they don't want to back down. There is no other possible reason for it, because the greater usability a two-button mouse provides has been clearly demonstrated for the past number of years.
You are discriminating if you decide that the white male that's been around for a few years must be good, and the new white male employee must be OK since he isn't under any quotas, but you'll have to scrutinize the work of the new African American female employee since she came in after the quotas were mandated. I threw in African American since that also leads to an assumption of affirmative action.
No. I am not. I would be discriminating if I scrutinized them because they were black, or female, or both. I am not discriminating by saying there's a greater probability that someone whose job was mandated by law isn't up to the task, and paying closer attention to them. I'd do the same for white males, if they ever passed one of these idiotic quota laws for white males. Your claim of discrimination completely misses my point, and, frankly, is insulting, because it isn't in the least true.
You're correct that I don't know that anyone who was hired in the absence of a quota is a good employee, but I maintain that there's a higher probability that someone hired under a quota is a poor employee, especially in a field where many women just plain don't show any interest. What you're saying is kind of like saying that insurance companies are wrong to pay closer attention to their members with higher ristk. Everyone can be bad, but some have a higher probability than others.
If anything, the mandated ratio will foster more discrimination because of the perceived view that they "didn't earn it".
Exactly. While I don't believe in discrimination based on superficial factors (race, sex, etc), I would, without hesitation, apply far more scrutiny to my co-workers (male or female, for that matter) if I knew they quite possibly only got hired because the law said to hire them. I have far less tolerance for failure from someone whose presence is mandated by law.
Love them or hate them, moderators and meta-moderators are part of the system. If all you are concerned about is karma, then you will have to weigh you desire to post against your fear of loosing karma points. My suggestion is to say what you want intelligently and damn whether it is popular. Popular speech is boring.
I agree, and that's what I do, but it doesn't leave me any less frustrated when I say things that are legitimate additions to the discussion, but get swatted down because they aren't popular. I'd rather die with integrity than live without it, if you will, but better still to live with integrity. In addition, it's even more frustrating when a post that is very clearly trolling/flamebait gets modded up just because it disagrees with the unpopular viewpoint (the post in question was nothing more than, and I quote, "Douchefag." This post actually got modded up.). This is blatant moderator abuse, and pisses me off. I can hope it gets caught in meta-moderation, but that isn't going to make it any less frustrating to see the abuse taking place.
It is a site and browser developer's responsibility to code to a set of standards.
I can agree that it's the browser's responsibility to code to a set of standards. The site's responsibility, though, is not to the standard, or to their own ease of development, but to the users. Once it gets to the site development stage, the browser is set in stone, and the developer has to deal with it in order to deliver a good experience to their users. Ignoring those users is abandoning their responsibility, just as surely as browser-makers ignoring standards is abandoning their responsibility.
They SHIPPED with a one button mouse for a while. But all along, they have supported multiple buttons on mice.
I understand that the OS has supported it for ages (since OS 9 at least, or was it OS 8?). That's not what I'm saying, though. Their refusal to ship with a one-button mouse was arrogance in refusing to acknowledge that multi-button mice had proven to be the most useful, most adaptable version of the mouse, and that the minor loss in simplicity was made up for in leaps and bounds by simplicity. The rest of the industry "got it" pretty much right away, but Apple took years to finally sigh and say "Fine, we'll join the world the rest of you live in".
Accident: PC in a body cast explains how his laptop got injured when someone tripped over his power cord. Mac points out new Apple notebooks have a magnetic quick release power cord.
This is a problem which might happen to only the most careless of people. Realistically, no one trips over laptop power cords, or plugs them in where people are walking through. Fake.
Breakthrough: Mac and a counselor try to explain to PC that some of his Vista hardware compatibility issues are caused by having many different manufacturers and this is not his fault.
A problem, true, but just as much of a problem for Macs. Both are brought on by vendors not writing proper drivers for their hardware, so Apple looks just a bit asinine acting like they'd be immune to this.
Choose a Vista: PC is confused about which of the 6 versions of Vista he should pick and has to use a wheel.
Fake problem. Does anyone actually go to the store and buy a boxed copy of Windows, anyway? Even if they do, they'll do one of three things: pick home cause they're a home user, pick ultimate cause it says "ultimate", or, most likely, ask a store employee.
Computer Cart: Various PCs are plagued with cryptic error messages like "Fatal Error" and error "692".
Real-ish problem. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, though: it's been a few years since I worked on Macs as part of my job, but I saw far more cryptic error messages there than I ever did with Windows. For instance, not once on Windows have I seen "Error xxxx", but that was pretty much the only error I ever saw from Mac OS.
Security: A bodyguard constantly asks PC to authorize every action he takes. References UAC.
This is the only real problem. It is damned annoying, too. Hopefully Microsoft gets it right in Windows 7, or people will just turn it off again.
Surgery: PC explains he might need some surgery (upgrades) in order to run Vista and is worried about it.
Occasionally, spyware is an issue on Windows through no fault of the user. The vast majority of the time, it's because the user feels some ungodly need to click on every pop-up they see, and download those "free emoticon omg" packs (and I remind you, those "free emoticon omg" packs would work quite nicely independent of OS). Mostly fake.
Viruses: PC is infected with a new virus and asks Mac to stay away.
See above. In addition, running anti-virus works wonders, and is good practice on any platform, so that can hardly be counted a disadvantage of Windows.
There is a small grain of truth for a lot of these, but it's generally so blown out of proportion, or ignores the fact that Macs have the same problem, that one can dismiss it as an outright lie.
Links, or it didn't happen.
Ask, and ye shall receive.
Processor (x2): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115041
Case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147056 (I think, I'm not positive if this is the case I picked earlier)
RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145175
Mobo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131232
PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817152031 (again, I think... I didn't save these links so I'm not sure on some parts)
GPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121082
Hard drive: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136098
And I tacked on $40 for an optical drive, I believe. I overshot, looking now it looks like they're $25. Even better.
Bullshit. The processors alone would cost $1430 from NewEgg.
Bullshit. I priced out 2.8 GHz quad-core Pentiums, and they were $550 each. Yes, I didn't pick a Xeon. Know why? Cause it doesn't make any real difference, from any benchmarks I've ever seen. I didn't say THE SAME hardware, I said EQUIVALENT.
No sane person would claim that Microsoft isn't arrogant. A lot of organizations are arrogant, and that isn't even necessarily an indictment of their motives or ethics (Stallman has excellent motives, for example, but every time I hear something he says, he comes off as incredibly arrogant). I just said Apple is the most arrogant. For that matter, Apple is guilty of the same thing you (basically correctly) blame Microsoft for: it's Apple's way or no way, when they can get their say in.
First of all, I never said "fanboi", I said "fanboy". Second, if you don't like it, I'm sorry, but that is the main reason for Apple's success, along with excellent marketing. They absolutely do not offer any real advantage (for their computers, their peripherals aren't bad) over the competition, do so at a much higher price, yet manage to sell their product. The fact that they sell only a small percent of systems out there only strengthens the case for the argument that fanboys are their primary demographic.
We don't even have to look at their products themselves to determine the mass numbers of fanboys out there. Like I said, the iPhone. It is a damn cool piece of hardware, and I give Apple props for making it. Before it came out, however, what was the buzz? We heard, every other day or so, how the iPhone was a revolution in mobile phone technology and would completely change the way we use phones. It wasn't, it hasn't, and it isn't going to. The iPhone is an excellent evolution of the phones that came before it, but it isn't the best, most revolutionary thing since sliced bread.
The over-hyped status of the iPhone proves, all by itself (and, I might add, isn't the only example), how many drooling fanboys Apple has for customers. Not all, perhaps, but a very large number indeed.
Come again?
I dunno if you've noticed or not, but Apple is the most arrogant company in computing. They will do the stupidest thing imaginable for a long, long time, before finally changing their ways and admitting that it was a bad idea. Look at how long it took them to drop the hockey puck mouse. Look at how long it took them to realize that they should make a mouse with more than one buttons. Look at how they still aren't making a real two-button mouse. Look at how long it took them to get with the program, and get on the same processor architecture as the rest of the world had been on for years.
Apple may one day sell OS X on other companies' hardware, but that point is years off, if it ever arrives, due to Apple's sheer overwhelming arrogance.
How sad, that some overzealous mod came along and modded you flamebait for this. Come on guys, get with the program already. Apple doesn't produce better hardware than anyone else. Apple could be argued to produce the best OS (I disagree, I think it's the worst, but we'll accept that it's the best for sake of argument), but it's nowhere near as far ahead of its' competitors as their propaganda would have you believe. They don't get ahead on any real merits except marketing, really. It's hard not to sell your products when your customers will accept anything you make as 100 times better than it is (see the iPhone, which is admittedly a cool device, but was hailed by fanboys as if its significance were on par with the second coming of Jesus).
Apple exists basically only on marketing and fanboys, and, due to their huge prices, is making a mint doing it. I'd call that an extremely coveted spot indeed. I wouldn't mind being in their shoes.
Uh-huh. I just looked up the specs from Apple's site for a Mac Pro. It costs $2800. I priced out the parts to build a comparable machine on Newegg. It costs $1630. Now consider that often enough, a comparable machine from a major manufacturer will cost less than it will to build it yourself, because they get bulk deals on parts, get paid to load crapware, etc.
So, only $1200 more for equivalent hardware. You have a strange conception of "competitive", and "not a ripoff", sir.
As much as I'd love to sit and argue the merits of browsers with you, it's just going to take this thread from "off-topic" to "hellaciously off-topic", so let's save it for a story that's about browsers.
Added thought: my sig shouldn't be interpreted to mean that I hate Firefox. I just don't think it's anything special. My sig is more hate toward the moderators a few weeks ago who modded me troll/flamebait left and right (I went from karma capped to somewhere in "Good") just for arguing with people that Firefox isn't some holy grail of awesome, and that as far as features for the end-user are concerned, IE is just as good these days.
IE is my browser of preference. As far as I'm concerned, if a site doesn't display properly in it, I don't go to that site, since web sites tend to be nicer to IE than Firefox. Thus, I don't use D2, since they haven't seen fit to make it work with IE.
Note I'm not saying that sites shouldn't work in Firefox, either... it's a site developer's responsibility to make their web site work in all browsers in common usage, not just the ones they feel like. Whether a site doesn't work in IE or Firefox or Opera or Safari or... you get the idea, it's just as poor on the part of the site dev.
It always just felt klunky and slow to me. Earning my special ire was the fact that, by default, it has that damnable sidebar floating on the left, one of my most hated web UI devices. If I remember correctly, it displays fairly wonky in IE as well. I realize that "klunky and slow" is pretty subjective, but it's good enough for my purposes. Not to mention, by all the accounts here, it's buggy as hell, so while I may check it out again in the future, I'll wait to do so until it isn't the widespread beta it seems to be right now.
No, others don't have two computers. I only have one, and will only have one for the foreseeable future, because that's simply all that I need. I have my one machine, which I periodically put new hardware in as I need it, and it'll serve my needs for a long time to come that way.
Granted, I live alone, but the number of machines some people have just blows me away. What the hell do you need so many boxes for? Why don't you just build one really good one, instead of N mediocre ones? I just don't get it.
how about you make those annoying Anonymous Coward trolls use the old discussion system? You know, as a sort of punishment for not logging in.
That'd be a reward. The real punishment would be forcing them to use D2.
Uh... it didn't say they "won" with no qualifiers, it says they won an agreement to anonymize the logs... exactly what happened. I fail to see a problem with their choice of verb.
Second, take Secure DNS seriously, even though there are intractable problems in its business and governance model -- deploy it locally and push on your vendors for the tools and services you need.
In other words, what he's saying is: "Take this new thing and deploy it, even though I admit it doesn't and can't work properly."
And this man doesn't see a problem with his logic? He must be certifiable.
And the article is a bit light on details, he is being charged with *four* counts of "computer tampering", why four, why not one?
He tampered with four computers, perhaps? That would seem to be a reasonable interpretation to me.
If you go back and look at when Yoda was first introduced as a character he didn't do that cutesy backwards sentence construction. That came later.
Huh? Have you ever watched Empire Strikes Back (when he was first introduced as a character)? Let me quote you various Yoda phrases from that movie, all of which involve the grammar you say he didn't use:
"Looking? Found someone you have, I would say!" (one of his very first lines, I might add)
"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."
"Your father? Powerful Jedi was he!"
"Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? And well you should not... for my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is."
"Mudhole? Slimy? My home this is!"
"Anger, fear, aggression... the Dark Side of the Force are they..."
"Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will..."
I could go on, but you get the idea. Yoda always used that style of sentence construction.
In the scenario you descibre, the streets would become choked with dirty, unsafe buses and traffic would grind to a halt.
I doubt it. Why would anyone ride an unsafe bus knowingly? If no one rides the buses, the buses don't have money to operate, and they aren't crowding the streets any more.
In any case, he recognized that there are things which are better done by the state, so you're setting up a strawman by saying he thinks the market is always superior.
people smarter than you
Perhaps, when you've grown up, experienced the real world a bit and stopped reading Ayn Rands bullshit, you might get a clue.
Perhaps when you've grown up, you won't choose to resort to ad-hominem attacks against another person trying to engage in a civilized discussion with you. You're being nothing short of stupid and childish by resorting to personal attacks.