I tried using Dvorak for about three days and was already as fast as I was on QWERTY. It's just I don't really have a keyboard laid out for it and I didn't want to take all the keys off of mine. I've heard QWERTY was intentionally laid out to slow the typist down so the keys wouldn't jam on early typewriters. Notice that 'u' is the only vowel that is hit with a strong finger. 'A' a very common vowel is hit with the pinky. And E the most common vowel gets the middle finger.
His 'original question' does ask what I was generally responding to..
How is the average computer illiterate going to download a browser if Microsoft is not allowed to bundle one? Buy a disc?
You put a link on the desktop to a real add/remove programs that says 'CLICK HERE TO INSTALL A WEB BROWSER'. Another (perhaps easier) option would be a folder on the desktop named 'Internet', inside it you put links to automatically download(via ftp, p2p, http, whatever) and automatically install IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc. Most people at this point would double click IE anyway, but the point is you wouldn't need the browser already installed.
I think a lot of Slashdotters are forgetting that these same computer illiterate people are perfectly capable of downloading and installing screen savers, games, and porn full of malware. The reason it's not a moot point is that Slashdotters are acting like people are so stupid they can't even click on things, which if that were true they wouldn't need a browser at all(and wouldn't be able to open it anyway).
My point rests on the assumption that people know how to click on things and you don't need a browser to allow them to install a browser by clicking on things.
IE on Windows is like Safari on Mac. You can remove the front-end IU for it, but you can't remove the HTML rendering libraries-- too many other parts of the OS rely on it.
I continue out of honest curiosity then, how is the Internet separated from the OS for security purposes if it's underlying functions are built into the OS. Is this true for Linux as well?
The OEM could do that now, but they don't. This decision from the EU won't change anything there.
Because there is already a browser. If there weren't, you don't think that would change anything?
I don't know why anyone complains about this. I mean it's not like corporations are anything but the great back bone of our country. Forget rights and freedoms, we all know it's the corporations who make this country great. It is why we give them all of the rights and privileges of human beings but none of the responsibility. For instance they own copyrights much longer than mortal humans. I mean look, we have one of the highest corporate tax burdens in the free world and one of the strongest economies on the planet. Don't you see how that tax burden is crippling us. Just imagine if our corporations paid less taxes like Europe. Just think lower taxes=better business right. Bermuda is the next economic powerhouse then, right. Right?
Now I will agree that most people have become accustomed to having a browser pre-installed. I'll even agree that it can be useful. But it absolutely is not necessary for downloading.
See how you missed my point and I already saw yours.:)
You should think before calling someone stupid as you completely missed the point. I didn't list just FTP, nor did I say you would have to do it from a command prompt. If Joe Gardner can double click IE, then I think it's reasonable to think that he could also double click a link to a file on an FTP site. More so he could probably double click an icon called Add/Remove Programs and you could add it through there.
There are other options that just a browser, and they can have a GUI too. They can even have whatever interface you choose to give them. Stop acting like the *only* solution is a browser.
That's already true in Vista and Windows 7, in which IE runs in a "sandbox" security environment.
I haven't used Vista that much and have an honest question. If this is true can I uninstall IE in Vista?
Yes it is. You obviously have no understanding of the capabilities of the average computer user. In fact, I'd say a good percentage of average users are not even capable of downloading and installing software with a browser.
I agree most users are not capable of dl and installing software within a browser. Unless of course it's a screensaver, game or porn viewer with malware(half kidding). However if the average user can't download and install something in a browser then the browser really has no benefit as a method for downloading and installing. Which is sort of my point.
Besides, I have a sneaking suspicion that w/o IE built in OEM's would just preinstall a browser of their choosing. I doubt the end user would have to do it themselves.
You could separate ftp functions from browsing functions. Just because MS combines and cross references everything doesn't mean it has to. In fact if MS would separate things a little more, IE's security problems wouldn't necessarily become Windows security problems. Whether or not there is an anti trust violation, security is probably the best reason to support efforts to make MS separate the browser from the OS. Over the years as this comes up I have gone back and forth on whether or not I think there is an anti trust issue. Currently I am just pointing out that a built-in full featured browser is not necessary to download software easily. And thus it is not a valid argument that IE must be built into Windows. Security updates can also be done w/o IE and as I understand it(I may be wrong) a modular approach would have less inherent security risk than a monolithic one anyway.
Please name another ubiquitously-installed system for intelligently processing user input and then delivering them a file, using a graphic interface.
Hmm, you say there isn't one? And that I would have to install a custom program to get that functionality?
I never said you would have to install one. All I'm saying is that if downloading is not a reason for MS to bundle IE, they could have something else already installed to allow you to download a browser of your choosing.
The average user is not going to figure out how to download firefox with ftp.exe
Type ftp.mozilla.com into a regular explorer window and see what happens. Besides the 'average user' is not going to figure out how to install firefox from a browser either. In my experience the 'average user' doesn't even know what a 'broswer' is, they just know they click on IE to get on the internet, which is really why IE has the market share that it does. Not because it's better, but because people don't know any better.
So your proposed solution to the anti-trust action is for Microsoft to become a central channel for distributing and installing third-party software, rather than leaving that to the third parties?
It was merely one of several examples of ways to download software without a browser. But since you bring it up, it would be nice if they included a method for installing third-party software from the web without a warning about running an executable that could harm or damage your computer.
Do you really think its reasonable to get the average user to use FTP to find and download a web browser? Yes its absoloutley possible to download something like that with FTP, finding it and getting it with only FTP isnt reasonable.
FTP != text based.
Microsofts market shre keeps itself where it is because of compatability. Its a sad and frustrating fact but its how things are. When other products offer the same compatability then we will see microsoft fading into the crowd of other products.
This is like saying Windows is inherently compatible with more software and that if Mac wants more market share it needs to become more compatible with the software that's out there. In other words just because website test for IE doesn't mean IE itself is inherently more compatible.
If IE was as basic as Sound Editor, MS Paint, or Movie Maker you might have a point. But as it is a full featured browser your analogy isn't accurate. Microsoft has not poured billions into any of the programs you mention. Nor have they updated any of them significantly in a decade. If they updated Paint the way they do IE, Photoshop would get trampled. Ditto for the other two you mention. However perhaps the solution lies there. Strip IE down to a bare bones browser with minimal functionality like the programs you mention.
Why does everyone think you need a browser to download something. It's not like HTTP is a protocol made for downloading files.How about FTP, p2p, or an add/remove programs that actually adds programs.
It doesn't have to be hard. I cannot believe so many people on slashdot actually think you need a browser to download a file. A lot of times a browser uses FTP anyway to download something. Now I will agree that most people have become accustomed to having a browser pre-installed. I'll even agree that it can be useful. But it absolutely is not necessary for downloading.
I have to call you, and many, many others on this statement. Sure, OpenOffice does handle standard word documents without too much trouble.
Unfortunately I find this can hold true between different versions of Word as well.
More of an upgrade issue but an amusing story nonetheless...The corporate office where I work recently sent out an Excel spreadsheet to about 1000 employees. I opened it with OOo 3.0 with no problem, it was a simple calendar, however it seemed nobody else could open it. The problem was our corporate office had Office 2007 whereas all of the employees still had Office 2003. The guy at corporate tried emailing it 3 times before someone told him what the problem was.
While employees could use a conversion program to open it, I thought it was funny that it all boils down to whether someone knows how to use their computer and not what software they are using.
At a cost of over $600 billion dollars and the erosion of my liberties one 9/11 was enough. I would feel much safer if Pakistan had a more stable economy. Just as a more economically stable China is a safer China. I don't care if you lack any sympathy for poor people, but to dismiss them the way you do seems similar to the confidence Bush had when he invaded IRAQ. Your profanity really says it all though and I'm done debating with you. I'd rather be learning something.
Uh, no, Western governments do not. Only attention seeking unpopular politicians do.
Uh, no what? What are you arguing here? Who do you think runs Western governments if not unpopular politicians?
The fact is, 9/11 was minor damage. About as much destruction as a few hours during World War 2. The United States has the capacity to absorb thousands of times as much damage without any real negative effects.
It was the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, and Hawaii was just a territory at that.
The sensible move to make would have been to spend only as much money to prevent another 9/11 as would be cost effective.
Who said war was sensible?
The FAA agrees that a human life is worth about 3 million bucks, and other numbers put the value at 10 million. So, in order to prevent another 9/11 that killed about 3000 people, 30 billion bucks is the spending limit.
30 billion would pay for better airport security, and that's it. That's all we should have done.
Sure, but we've spent over 20 times that amount.
The rest of the money should have gone to helping prevent more common causes of death that affect MANY more people. Such as heart disease and traffic accidents.
What does this have to do with the link between economic failure and war?
They were merely suffering an economic recession/depression.
That's my point! I'm not arguing that Germany had no military or technology. I'm arguing that there are almost always economic reasons behind war(i.e. a recession/depression) Economic failure is what makes it possible to consolidate people behind the idea of war, most of the time. People rarely fight when they feel they have something to loose.
Impoverished African villagers, or Arab religious zealots don't have the ability to develop this kind of military force.
And yet western governments consider those Arab religious zealots the single greatest threat to Western Civilization.
I'm curious, do you think the Treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with WWII? Do you think it is a complete coincidence that Africa and the Middle East have so much violence and so much poverty? That Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations in the world? That even on a micro level, poor neighborhoods have more violence that rich ones? It may not be the sole cause in all cases, but it is a huge factor, and definitely one used by leaders to mobilize people into war. What was Hitler blaming the Jewish people for after all? Too think poverty does not play a big role in war/violence is beyond ignorant.
Germany was prosperous when they started the second world war.
I don't even know how to respond to that, but I'll try by asking this question "What do you think Hitler was blaming the Jewish people for?" Hint: the answer is not bring prosperity to Germany.
Fair enough, the point of my OP was that poverty was a major component in war. It was oversimplified to ask for examples of two rich nations fighting. Perhaps I should have qualified it as rich nations during good times.
But, my point is, economic problems can drive rich nations, as well as poor nations, to war.
Check out this article written 20 days before the start of that war.
3. USA vs UK (War of 1812)
"Failing in peaceful efforts and facing an economic depression, some Americans began to argue for a declaration of war to redeem the national honor." source
4. France vs UK (Napoleonic Wars)
"It has been estimated that in France and Britain by the end of the [18th] century 10 percent of the people were dependent on charity or begging for food." source
5. France vs UK (Seven Years War)
See rebuke of number 4.
I probably could have named five just between UK and France. Seriously, they must hate each other.
Or they are just near each other and fight every time economic conditions drop.
Most were fought during times of poverty. WWI and WWII were both started by impoverished nations.
The "few" exceptions? Western history is filled with examples of well fed populations fighting each other. Do you really want a list of the wars fought in Europe for the last 200 years?
Since you ask, I would like you to name at least 5 wars between two wealthy nations. You can use the history of mankind if it makes it any easier.
A quick look at the every war in the 20th century begs to differ. Germany and Japan before WWII were both poor and suffering. So where are your examples of two rich countries fighting? You'd have to be pretty dense to not see the correlation between poverty and war.
Slight correction to my post. Change: 'When have two well fed populations fought each other?' to 'How often have two well fed populations fought each other?'. I would hate for the few exceptions in history to sidetrack my general statement.
Slashdot Mirror
I tried using Dvorak for about three days and was already as fast as I was on QWERTY. It's just I don't really have a keyboard laid out for it and I didn't want to take all the keys off of mine.
I've heard QWERTY was intentionally laid out to slow the typist down so the keys wouldn't jam on early typewriters. Notice that 'u' is the only vowel that is hit with a strong finger. 'A' a very common vowel is hit with the pinky. And E the most common vowel gets the middle finger.
How is the average computer illiterate going to download a browser if Microsoft is not allowed to bundle one? Buy a disc?
You put a link on the desktop to a real add/remove programs that says 'CLICK HERE TO INSTALL A WEB BROWSER'. Another (perhaps easier) option would be a folder on the desktop named 'Internet', inside it you put links to automatically download(via ftp, p2p, http, whatever) and automatically install IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc. Most people at this point would double click IE anyway, but the point is you wouldn't need the browser already installed.
I think a lot of Slashdotters are forgetting that these same computer illiterate people are perfectly capable of downloading and installing screen savers, games, and porn full of malware. The reason it's not a moot point is that Slashdotters are acting like people are so stupid they can't even click on things, which if that were true they wouldn't need a browser at all(and wouldn't be able to open it anyway).
My point rests on the assumption that people know how to click on things and you don't need a browser to allow them to install a browser by clicking on things.
One more thing. If I delete iexplore.exe can I still type ftp.mozilla.com into explorer?
IE on Windows is like Safari on Mac. You can remove the front-end IU for it, but you can't remove the HTML rendering libraries-- too many other parts of the OS rely on it.
I continue out of honest curiosity then, how is the Internet separated from the OS for security purposes if it's underlying functions are built into the OS. Is this true for Linux as well?
The OEM could do that now, but they don't. This decision from the EU won't change anything there.
Because there is already a browser. If there weren't, you don't think that would change anything?
I don't know why anyone complains about this. I mean it's not like corporations are anything but the great back bone of our country. Forget rights and freedoms, we all know it's the corporations who make this country great. It is why we give them all of the rights and privileges of human beings but none of the responsibility. For instance they own copyrights much longer than mortal humans. I mean look, we have one of the highest corporate tax burdens in the free world and one of the strongest economies on the planet. Don't you see how that tax burden is crippling us. Just imagine if our corporations paid less taxes like Europe. Just think lower taxes=better business right. Bermuda is the next economic powerhouse then, right. Right?
Now I will agree that most people have become accustomed to having a browser pre-installed. I'll even agree that it can be useful. But it absolutely is not necessary for downloading.
See how you missed my point and I already saw yours. :)
You should think before calling someone stupid as you completely missed the point. I didn't list just FTP, nor did I say you would have to do it from a command prompt. If Joe Gardner can double click IE, then I think it's reasonable to think that he could also double click a link to a file on an FTP site. More so he could probably double click an icon called Add/Remove Programs and you could add it through there.
There are other options that just a browser, and they can have a GUI too. They can even have whatever interface you choose to give them. Stop acting like the *only* solution is a browser.
That's already true in Vista and Windows 7, in which IE runs in a "sandbox" security environment.
I haven't used Vista that much and have an honest question. If this is true can I uninstall IE in Vista?
Yes it is. You obviously have no understanding of the capabilities of the average computer user. In fact, I'd say a good percentage of average users are not even capable of downloading and installing software with a browser.
I agree most users are not capable of dl and installing software within a browser. Unless of course it's a screensaver, game or porn viewer with malware(half kidding). However if the average user can't download and install something in a browser then the browser really has no benefit as a method for downloading and installing. Which is sort of my point.
Besides, I have a sneaking suspicion that w/o IE built in OEM's would just preinstall a browser of their choosing. I doubt the end user would have to do it themselves.
You could separate ftp functions from browsing functions. Just because MS combines and cross references everything doesn't mean it has to. In fact if MS would separate things a little more, IE's security problems wouldn't necessarily become Windows security problems. Whether or not there is an anti trust violation, security is probably the best reason to support efforts to make MS separate the browser from the OS.
Over the years as this comes up I have gone back and forth on whether or not I think there is an anti trust issue. Currently I am just pointing out that a built-in full featured browser is not necessary to download software easily. And thus it is not a valid argument that IE must be built into Windows. Security updates can also be done w/o IE and as I understand it(I may be wrong) a modular approach would have less inherent security risk than a monolithic one anyway.
Please name another ubiquitously-installed system for intelligently processing user input and then delivering them a file, using a graphic interface. Hmm, you say there isn't one? And that I would have to install a custom program to get that functionality?
I never said you would have to install one. All I'm saying is that if downloading is not a reason for MS to bundle IE, they could have something else already installed to allow you to download a browser of your choosing.
The average user is not going to figure out how to download firefox with ftp.exe
Type ftp.mozilla.com into a regular explorer window and see what happens. Besides the 'average user' is not going to figure out how to install firefox from a browser either. In my experience the 'average user' doesn't even know what a 'broswer' is, they just know they click on IE to get on the internet, which is really why IE has the market share that it does. Not because it's better, but because people don't know any better.
So your proposed solution to the anti-trust action is for Microsoft to become a central channel for distributing and installing third-party software, rather than leaving that to the third parties?
It was merely one of several examples of ways to download software without a browser. But since you bring it up, it would be nice if they included a method for installing third-party software from the web without a warning about running an executable that could harm or damage your computer.
Do you really think its reasonable to get the average user to use FTP to find and download a web browser? Yes its absoloutley possible to download something like that with FTP, finding it and getting it with only FTP isnt reasonable.
FTP != text based.
Microsofts market shre keeps itself where it is because of compatability. Its a sad and frustrating fact but its how things are. When other products offer the same compatability then we will see microsoft fading into the crowd of other products.
This is like saying Windows is inherently compatible with more software and that if Mac wants more market share it needs to become more compatible with the software that's out there. In other words just because website test for IE doesn't mean IE itself is inherently more compatible.
If IE was as basic as Sound Editor, MS Paint, or Movie Maker you might have a point. But as it is a full featured browser your analogy isn't accurate. Microsoft has not poured billions into any of the programs you mention. Nor have they updated any of them significantly in a decade. If they updated Paint the way they do IE, Photoshop would get trampled. Ditto for the other two you mention. However perhaps the solution lies there. Strip IE down to a bare bones browser with minimal functionality like the programs you mention.
Why does everyone think you need a browser to download something. It's not like HTTP is a protocol made for downloading files.How about FTP, p2p, or an add/remove programs that actually adds programs.
It doesn't have to be hard. I cannot believe so many people on slashdot actually think you need a browser to download a file. A lot of times a browser uses FTP anyway to download something. Now I will agree that most people have become accustomed to having a browser pre-installed. I'll even agree that it can be useful. But it absolutely is not necessary for downloading.
I have to call you, and many, many others on this statement. Sure, OpenOffice does handle standard word documents without too much trouble.
Unfortunately I find this can hold true between different versions of Word as well.
More of an upgrade issue but an amusing story nonetheless...The corporate office where I work recently sent out an Excel spreadsheet to about 1000 employees. I opened it with OOo 3.0 with no problem, it was a simple calendar, however it seemed nobody else could open it. The problem was our corporate office had Office 2007 whereas all of the employees still had Office 2003. The guy at corporate tried emailing it 3 times before someone told him what the problem was.
While employees could use a conversion program to open it, I thought it was funny that it all boils down to whether someone knows how to use their computer and not what software they are using.
At a cost of over $600 billion dollars and the erosion of my liberties one 9/11 was enough. I would feel much safer if Pakistan had a more stable economy. Just as a more economically stable China is a safer China. I don't care if you lack any sympathy for poor people, but to dismiss them the way you do seems similar to the confidence Bush had when he invaded IRAQ. Your profanity really says it all though and I'm done debating with you. I'd rather be learning something.
Uh, no, Western governments do not. Only attention seeking unpopular politicians do.
Uh, no what? What are you arguing here? Who do you think runs Western governments if not unpopular politicians?
The fact is, 9/11 was minor damage. About as much destruction as a few hours during World War 2. The United States has the capacity to absorb thousands of times as much damage without any real negative effects.
It was the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, and Hawaii was just a territory at that.
The sensible move to make would have been to spend only as much money to prevent another 9/11 as would be cost effective.
Who said war was sensible?
The FAA agrees that a human life is worth about 3 million bucks, and other numbers put the value at 10 million. So, in order to prevent another 9/11 that killed about 3000 people, 30 billion bucks is the spending limit. 30 billion would pay for better airport security, and that's it. That's all we should have done.
Sure, but we've spent over 20 times that amount.
The rest of the money should have gone to helping prevent more common causes of death that affect MANY more people. Such as heart disease and traffic accidents.
What does this have to do with the link between economic failure and war?
They were merely suffering an economic recession/depression.
That's my point! I'm not arguing that Germany had no military or technology. I'm arguing that there are almost always economic reasons behind war(i.e. a recession/depression) Economic failure is what makes it possible to consolidate people behind the idea of war, most of the time. People rarely fight when they feel they have something to loose.
Impoverished African villagers, or Arab religious zealots don't have the ability to develop this kind of military force.
And yet western governments consider those Arab religious zealots the single greatest threat to Western Civilization.
I'm curious, do you think the Treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with WWII? Do you think it is a complete coincidence that Africa and the Middle East have so much violence and so much poverty? That Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations in the world? That even on a micro level, poor neighborhoods have more violence that rich ones? It may not be the sole cause in all cases, but it is a huge factor, and definitely one used by leaders to mobilize people into war. What was Hitler blaming the Jewish people for after all? Too think poverty does not play a big role in war/violence is beyond ignorant.
Germany was prosperous when they started the second world war.
I don't even know how to respond to that, but I'll try by asking this question "What do you think Hitler was blaming the Jewish people for?" Hint: the answer is not bring prosperity to Germany.
But, my point is, economic problems can drive rich nations, as well as poor nations, to war.
I agree.
1. USA vs Japan (WWII)
The world was in a global Great Depression.
2. Germany vs France (Franco-Prussian War)
Check out this article written 20 days before the start of that war.
3. USA vs UK (War of 1812)
"Failing in peaceful efforts and facing an economic depression, some Americans began to argue for a declaration of war to redeem the national honor." source
4. France vs UK (Napoleonic Wars)
"It has been estimated that in France and Britain by the end of the [18th] century 10 percent of the people were dependent on charity or begging for food." source
5. France vs UK (Seven Years War)
See rebuke of number 4.
I probably could have named five just between UK and France. Seriously, they must hate each other.
Or they are just near each other and fight every time economic conditions drop.
The "few" exceptions? Western history is filled with examples of well fed populations fighting each other. Do you really want a list of the wars fought in Europe for the last 200 years?
Since you ask, I would like you to name at least 5 wars between two wealthy nations. You can use the history of mankind if it makes it any easier.
Do a quick a search on Google for poverty and war and stop arguing against the obvious.
Untrue. Poor people can't do anything,
A quick look at the every war in the 20th century begs to differ. Germany and Japan before WWII were both poor and suffering. So where are your examples of two rich countries fighting? You'd have to be pretty dense to not see the correlation between poverty and war.
Slight correction to my post. Change: 'When have two well fed populations fought each other?' to 'How often have two well fed populations fought each other?'. I would hate for the few exceptions in history to sidetrack my general statement.