Actually, the fact that they are large has something to do with one of the chemicals used when cloning cattle. Sheep don't have this issue. It is actually believed that human cloning would be much more successful, because so much more is known, due to invirtro fertilization.
The reason cloning has problems is that no one knows how the egg unmasks the dna (parts of the dna are masked to create the different types of cells), and it takes sperm and eggs months to become ready for use, and this unmasking process is forced on the dna in a few days, sometimes even hours.
Everyone is so ready to clone, they forget that we don't even know why cloning works at all!
Just like a script kiddie, not carring how the script works, just that it does. That's why they screw up and get caught all the time.
The same goes for open source software. I mean really, how often do you download a program and then read through the thousands of lines of code that make it. Oh sure, I can go in and change something that bothers me, which is nice, but if there isn't anything bothering me about it, and nothing I want to add, then why would I look at the code? And even when I do, I generally jump straight to where I need to go.
If there is hole, and it was intentional, then it's probably in some obscure section of the code I'm not going to look at.
Most companies don't have the time to search for this sort of problem, and in the case where the software wasn't supposed to be on the computers anyways, they aren't going to waste time and money to find these problems.
I have seen too many companies been bought out by MS where the technology vanished, never to be seen again.
This is a sad fact. MS sees a new company, with a new product that they think that they can use. Management decides to grab it, but at the last minute the economy changes and they discard the idea. Instead of some small company failing, with the technology becoming widespread, it is possessed by those with money and tossed into the back closet for future use, if ever.
And where if you didn't want to sell out, your product became their innovation in the software, or the next urgeant core feature to the OS.
If they think that that product or service will be the next big thing, then of course they are going to make it urgeant and copy that product or service. This has been going on for ages. If Compaq hadn't thought that the PC would be the next big thing and reverse engineered an IBM machine, most likely computers would never have gotten as advanced as they are today. MS is extremely competitive, which is why they succeed where others fail.
And the result is that this guy has thousands of dollars of software that he has never even used once. Things like Photoshop, PageMaker, etc. because of this clueless urge for the latest thing.
Personally, I feel that this is nature's way of making up for the people who have at least a small clue (enough to know that they can use the key from their friend's cd) who have this software for free.
Based on Microsoft's past actions, the current level of standards support in IE is there to gain market share.
That would make a lot of sense; however, standards for HTML will soon be completely unecessary (XML again). XML is relatively agreed upon (excepting schemas). Any issues aren't created by the browser companies, but instead by other XML organizations that feel XML is becoming too bloated.
If web sites don't work for me, I go elsewhere - there are usually plenty of other places to find what I'm looking for.
I fully agree with you there, although at times companies seem to have an overabundance of flash plugins on their websites when you need to access their websites urgently. Flash, Java applets, and ActiveX controls are some of the most unecessary things a website could possibly possess.
In the more recent versions of IE, standards support is remarkable, which is a change from older versions. I'd like to link to a nice summary of browser/standards compatibility, however, I couldn't find one a short amount of time. Does anyone know of any?
I said Heaven, which is supposed to be perfection. I do understand that in real life 100% market share is not the always the best. Competition always decreases prices and causes companies to work harder in order to maintain market share. It was merely wishful thinking, which will hopefully become irrelevent once XML becomes widespread.
And besides, this broken up market share hasn't been good for the public either. It is almost necessary to have multiple browsers on your computer in order to visit all of the sites that you might happen across, if only for the latest plugins that might not have been developed for your browser of choice.
And of course, I am cynical about how all of these optional features are now suddenlly urgeant core features of the MS OS, but that is a rant for another day.
Simple. Most people that have Windows, have absolutely no need to upgrade. It already supports everything the average user needs. In order to make money, Microsoft needs to keep adding more features to their main product, so the average user sees a reason to upgrade.
These may not seem urgeant to the average/. reader, but this is the sort of thing that the average consumer will want. This is what will cause the average consumer to give more money to Microsoft so MS doesn't go under. This isn't just some greedy MS concept, all companies do this. If they don't they are a (or should be) a non-profit organization.
I can see why people don't like MS for strongarming other companies, and spying on consumers, but I will never understand why everyone complains when MS adds a new feature to their major product. If a car company adds a new feature, and I'm looking for a new car, the car with the newest, coolest features are going to stand out in my mind, making the car manufacturer more likely to get my money.
Most people seem to forget about how the W3C works, and see this as a reason to bash Microsoft.
Microsoft would not ignore the standards. Versions 5 and 6 (so far) of IE, have incredible support of most (CSS2 stands out like a sore thumb) of the standards. The extra things are added for the advancement of the web standards. If something is popular, it is added to the standard; otherwise, it is removed in later versions of the browser.
The thing about IE that I love (as a proffesional web developer) is its support for practically anything I need. If something is programmed one way for NS4, it is different for Mozilla, but using IE, I can write the code either way.
Mozilla isn't too bad; it does support non-standard properties (eg. innerHTML), but Opera is another matter. It supports nothing new. It can never help advance the standard (Is this needed with XML coming up?), and therefore is merely a bane to web development, weakening modern tools.
Heaven is when one browser has 100% of the market share, works cross-platform, and could bring newer, more modern, and more useful features to the public.
Sorry about the rant, but I do get tired of writing, checking my code in six different browsers (Have to check in Op4 and NS3..*shudder*) all the time.
What's the real purpose in supporting ui ports (GTK+, Qt) if the Mozilla languages (XUL, etc) are supposed to replace those (to be more cross-platform friendly)?
Mice. Of course, I live out in the middle of nowhere, but I don't think that it would be much better in the cities, if not worse. It all depends on where you live I suppose.
Well, I agree about the C++ and the optimized compiler.
Even if they did code in assembly, it doesn't mean that the code will run any faster than the C++ unless they have some seriously hard core assembly programmers.
Most programmers just won't know all of the little tricks that the compiler writers will have used to optimize the output, and the compiler will be tweaked over time with improvements, where the assembly programmer will still be using the same techniques and macros that he has always known.
He would need to release the latter version under a different license.
What good would it do his customers to buy his product, and he does say that he wants to sell it, if they can get it for free?
All he would really be able to sell is the support, and maybe one of a few other things. Since I am unfamiliar with his product, I don't know what the demand would be for support.
The majority of users won't care if there browser has security issues. They have their browser, they may have had it set up for them, or they may just not want to download a newer browser; this, and most other browser security holes will be left open.
The Windows update utility will fix this more some Windows users, but again, most users aren't using the latest version, or they'll just cancel the download.
Are there any really good ways for a browser to be kept up to date without causing too much trouble on the users part or sacrificing any security (for the anti-Microsoft paranoids)?
One thing that this article seems to ignore, is that many of the newer advancements that WOULD have such a dramatic effect scare people, or offend people.
Take genetic enhancement for example. That COULD have extreme benefits to society. Maybe in the future there could be cow milk that cures cancer. Pigs with human organs to be used in transplants. Are these possible? Yes. Will they become common any time soon? Probably not.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the fact that they are large has something to do with one of the chemicals used when cloning cattle. Sheep don't have this issue. It is actually believed that human cloning would be much more successful, because so much more is known, due to invirtro fertilization.
The reason cloning has problems is that no one knows how the egg unmasks the dna (parts of the dna are masked to create the different types of cells), and it takes sperm and eggs months to become ready for use, and this unmasking process is forced on the dna in a few days, sometimes even hours.
Everyone is so ready to clone, they forget that we don't even know why cloning works at all!
Just like a script kiddie, not carring how the script works, just that it does. That's why they screw up and get caught all the time.
The same goes for open source software. I mean really, how often do you download a program and then read through the thousands of lines of code that make it. Oh sure, I can go in and change something that bothers me, which is nice, but if there isn't anything bothering me about it, and nothing I want to add, then why would I look at the code? And even when I do, I generally jump straight to where I need to go.
If there is hole, and it was intentional, then it's probably in some obscure section of the code I'm not going to look at.
Most companies don't have the time to search for this sort of problem, and in the case where the software wasn't supposed to be on the computers anyways, they aren't going to waste time and money to find these problems.
Of course it has big holes, that is why all of these communistic countries are doing so much better than the United States.
It may have problems, but it sure beats living in a communist country that controls what its people are allowed to do, say, hear, feel, or think.
I have seen too many companies been bought out by MS where the technology vanished, never to be seen again.
This is a sad fact. MS sees a new company, with a new product that they think that they can use. Management decides to grab it, but at the last minute the economy changes and they discard the idea. Instead of some small company failing, with the technology becoming widespread, it is possessed by those with money and tossed into the back closet for future use, if ever.
And where if you didn't want to sell out, your product became their innovation in the software, or the next urgeant core feature to the OS.
If they think that that product or service will be the next big thing, then of course they are going to make it urgeant and copy that product or service. This has been going on for ages. If Compaq hadn't thought that the PC would be the next big thing and reverse engineered an IBM machine, most likely computers would never have gotten as advanced as they are today. MS is extremely competitive, which is why they succeed where others fail.
And the result is that this guy has thousands of dollars of software that he has never even used once. Things like Photoshop, PageMaker, etc. because of this clueless urge for the latest thing.
Personally, I feel that this is nature's way of making up for the people who have at least a small clue (enough to know that they can use the key from their friend's cd) who have this software for free.
Based on Microsoft's past actions, the current level of standards support in IE is there to gain market share.
That would make a lot of sense; however, standards for HTML will soon be completely unecessary (XML again). XML is relatively agreed upon (excepting schemas). Any issues aren't created by the browser companies, but instead by other XML organizations that feel XML is becoming too bloated.
If web sites don't work for me, I go elsewhere - there are usually plenty of other places to find what I'm looking for.
I fully agree with you there, although at times companies seem to have an overabundance of flash plugins on their websites when you need to access their websites urgently. Flash, Java applets, and ActiveX controls are some of the most unecessary things a website could possibly possess.
In the more recent versions of IE, standards support is remarkable, which is a change from older versions. I'd like to link to a nice summary of browser/standards compatibility, however, I couldn't find one a short amount of time. Does anyone know of any?
I said Heaven, which is supposed to be perfection. I do understand that in real life 100% market share is not the always the best. Competition always decreases prices and causes companies to work harder in order to maintain market share. It was merely wishful thinking, which will hopefully become irrelevent once XML becomes widespread.
And besides, this broken up market share hasn't been good for the public either. It is almost necessary to have multiple browsers on your computer in order to visit all of the sites that you might happen across, if only for the latest plugins that might not have been developed for your browser of choice.
And of course, I am cynical about how all of these optional features are now suddenlly urgeant core features of the MS OS, but that is a rant for another day.
/. reader, but this is the sort of thing that the average consumer will want. This is what will cause the average consumer to give more money to Microsoft so MS doesn't go under. This isn't just some greedy MS concept, all companies do this. If they don't they are a (or should be) a non-profit organization.
Simple. Most people that have Windows, have absolutely no need to upgrade. It already supports everything the average user needs. In order to make money, Microsoft needs to keep adding more features to their main product, so the average user sees a reason to upgrade.
These may not seem urgeant to the average
I can see why people don't like MS for strongarming other companies, and spying on consumers, but I will never understand why everyone complains when MS adds a new feature to their major product. If a car company adds a new feature, and I'm looking for a new car, the car with the newest, coolest features are going to stand out in my mind, making the car manufacturer more likely to get my money.
Most people seem to forget about how the W3C works, and see this as a reason to bash Microsoft.
Microsoft would not ignore the standards. Versions 5 and 6 (so far) of IE, have incredible support of most (CSS2 stands out like a sore thumb) of the standards. The extra things are added for the advancement of the web standards. If something is popular, it is added to the standard; otherwise, it is removed in later versions of the browser.
The thing about IE that I love (as a proffesional web developer) is its support for practically anything I need. If something is programmed one way for NS4, it is different for Mozilla, but using IE, I can write the code either way.
Mozilla isn't too bad; it does support non-standard properties (eg. innerHTML), but Opera is another matter. It supports nothing new. It can never help advance the standard (Is this needed with XML coming up?), and therefore is merely a bane to web development, weakening modern tools.
Heaven is when one browser has 100% of the market share, works cross-platform, and could bring newer, more modern, and more useful features to the public.
Sorry about the rant, but I do get tired of writing, checking my code in six different browsers (Have to check in Op4 and NS3..*shudder*) all the time.
Linux on the PDA doesn't really rely on the command prompt. Check out PocketLinux. It's really quite cool.
The two companies are Cisco and Juniper, not Cisco and Jupiter.
What's the real purpose in supporting ui ports (GTK+, Qt) if the Mozilla languages (XUL, etc) are supposed to replace those (to be more cross-platform friendly)?
Mice. Of course, I live out in the middle of nowhere, but I don't think that it would be much better in the cities, if not worse. It all depends on where you live I suppose.
Well, I agree about the C++ and the optimized compiler.
Even if they did code in assembly, it doesn't mean that the code will run any faster than the C++ unless they have some seriously hard core assembly programmers.
Most programmers just won't know all of the little tricks that the compiler writers will have used to optimize the output, and the compiler will be tweaked over time with improvements, where the assembly programmer will still be using the same techniques and macros that he has always known.
He would need to release the latter version under a different license.
What good would it do his customers to buy his product, and he does say that he wants to sell it, if they can get it for free?
All he would really be able to sell is the support, and maybe one of a few other things. Since I am unfamiliar with his product, I don't know what the demand would be for support.
I don't believe that the moderations will go away; you just lose any moderator points that you may have left.
And I agree about the jargon. It gets to be so annoying after a while.
The majority of users won't care if there browser has security issues. They have their browser, they may have had it set up for them, or they may just not want to download a newer browser; this, and most other browser security holes will be left open.
The Windows update utility will fix this more some Windows users, but again, most users aren't using the latest version, or they'll just cancel the download.
Are there any really good ways for a browser to be kept up to date without causing too much trouble on the users part or sacrificing any security (for the anti-Microsoft paranoids)?
One thing that this article seems to ignore, is that many of the newer advancements that WOULD have such a dramatic effect scare people, or offend people.
Take genetic enhancement for example. That COULD have extreme benefits to society. Maybe in the future there could be cow milk that cures cancer. Pigs with human organs to be used in transplants. Are these possible? Yes. Will they become common any time soon? Probably not.