So, if they don't have any kind of early support support for the XSLT standard now (available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt), then they're already digging another hole for themselves.
First of all, it sounds incredibly catty on Mozilla's part, throwing in a completely irrelevant quote from Tim Bray about Microsoft. Bray was nudging Microsoft to improve other parts of their browser instead of focusing on XSL, not trying to scare people off from trying implementations of XSL. Waiting until standards are completely finished before doing any kind of implementation just slows the whole process down, because people won't realize the cool stuff they're missing. Just because he wants full XML+CSS support first doesn't mean that people are supposed to wait around and do nothing on the XSL front. Mozilla twists his point around and uses it as an excuse for why they can't do both.
And oh yeah, XSLT, XPATH, XSL are all to the point -- the first two being W3C Recommendations, and the last a Working Draft -- where xml.com (the source quoted by Mozilla) considers them to be standards, making Mozilla's claims even more dubious. Perhaps they need a few more free volunteers to update their FAQ for them?
Like the other poster, I love the smart menus -- why would I want to have to sort through options that I use maybe once a month, if that? In case you didn't know, Microsoft didn't implement these decades ago, so your study claims are pretty dubious. No offense, but you come off as yet another Microsoft-basher who hasn't bothered to use it for himself.
Since you can turn them off if you don't like 'em, I'm not quite sure why you're so uptight about the feature. Personally, I always recommend that people try them for two weeks straight and then make a decision. Just like everyone (including me) who thought that the wheel mouse was an unnecessary gimmick, it usually turns out that they don't want to give up the feature after actually using it for a while.
I'm honestly not aware of any banks that charge their own customers ATM fees (except the ones that have limits on the number of transactions -- ATM or teller -- you can utilize each month). If you decide to use an ATM at a bank other than your own, why should their customers subsidize your use of their ATMs? Seems like you should pay a surcharge for that, despite what the idiotic, socialist voters of San Francisco think, seeing as they're just looking for a handout.
Given that it happened on January 1, it sounds like it might be one of two things:
A Y2K problem with Quicken. Check Quicken's web site for Quicken 98 patches.
Your encryption certificate was set to expire on Jan 1, 2000. Ask your bank about it -- you're probably not the first to have this problem -- you might have to get an update from Quicken or update your web browser to get a new working certificate.
Well, if you take a good look at his post, you'll see that he mentioned both Internet Explorer and Windows 95, yet he did not even make one juvenile anti-Microsoft comment. You see, we're at Slashdot, and that kind of behavior is just unacceptable here. Hope this helps.
Well, they do require you to sell your soul, but dammit, they're worth it.;) I picked up a Cassiopeia E-105 in December that was cheaper than the list price of a Palm VII. (I was in the mood for a new gadget, and I've already got an original Palm Pilot and a Palm III.) Gotta say that it absolutely rocks, and I haven't touched my Palm III in over a month now. Great color, great sound, better controls, better handwriting recognition method, and for those times when I'm twiddling my thumbs on a plane, Python and a color GameBoy emulator.;)
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Re:Jon, *please* leave the research to the pros.
on
LonelyNet (Part Two)
·
· Score: 2
Thing is, though, I really do find part of the Stanford study to be true, at least where it concerns loneliness and chatrooms. I've admined them, used them occasionally for over 10 years now, and with that kind of perspective, you really do get a sense for what the Stanford people observed.
They really become enormous crutches for some people, and those same people are usually the quickest to deny it, but deep down I think they realize the harm. Once you get to know a lot of people online, at that point for many people, it becomes such an easier path than to bother cleaning up, dressing up, and going out with real live people. I've seen so many people gradually growing out of touch with their real friends for the ease of hanging out with their online friends.
I think that among the people who spend too much time chatting, there's this undercurrent of knowledge that it's not good for them, but it's always unspoken because it's something that's incredibly hard to admit -- whether it's out of stubborness that they're not wasting their time, not wanting to say that real life friends are more important than the online variety (I'm sorry, but they just are) out of sensitivity to their online friends who genuinely do have no real life friends, and even to spite studies like this one that (unfortunately) portray online people as losers. Even though I mentioned that it's an undercurrent, you can tell it's there whenever there's one of those huge fights on the talker -- that one, huge, final slam that almost always gets said (paraphrased): "Yeah, like I really care what someone who has no life outside of spending every waking hour on a talker thinks!" I'm telling you, you can practically feel everybody in the room -- not just the intended victim -- wince at that one, because of how it does or doesn't apply to them and their online friends.
Anyway, I think it's a pretty fascinating topic, and I could probably type for hours on it (but I'll stop myself before I get addicted;-) ), so feel free to continue it.
Did the Internet keep me from becoming a blonde, buff business major who joins a fraternity and boffs cheerleaders. No! I'd rather shag a sheep than someone who giigles all the time.
Hey man, no offense, but if your cheerleader girl was giggling while you were having sex with her, I don't think she's going to be all that heartbroken about losing you to a sheep.:)
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Jon, *please* leave the research to the pros.
on
LonelyNet (Part Two)
·
· Score: 5
I haven't looked at the study in detail, but your dismissal of it is particularly weak. Your evidence? "Well, a bunch of guys emailed me and posted to Slashdot to say that they're not losers." For one, do you really expect people to post en masse saying, "Yeah, I guess I am a loser."?
Your rebuttal is easily invalid for two simple reasons alone:
The anonymity factor. When attaching their names (or handles) to posts, most people are going to fudge the truth rather than come out and admit that they're losers. It happens in real studies, too, but not nearly as much as when people are letting out personal details for the entire world to read.
It's self-selected. Really now, do you think that the genuine losers are going to fall all over each other to post about what losers they are? Sure as Hell not even close to the number of people who will scream to the hills that they aren't losers.
Why I Still Refuse to Use C++, by ZicoKnows@hotmail.com (picture)
It is impereteefe-a thet I geefe-a yuoo zee fullooeeng inffurmeshun, vheech Dr. Bjerne-a Struoostroop vunts cunceeled frum zee poobleec. Let me-a preffece-a my deescoossiun by qooeeckly reesserteeng a femeelier zeeme-a ooff my prefeeuoos letters: I ixpereeenced qooeete-a un ipeephuny vhee I furst reeleezed thet beffure-a I knoo unytheeng ebuoot Dr. Struoostroop, I ves oonce-a un oonluuker et a foo ooff hees mess demunstreshuns, veethuoot pussesseeng ifee zee sleeghtest inseeght intu zee menteleety ooff hees cruneees oor zee netoore-a ooff hees unecdutes. Lest soommer, I ettempted vhet I knoo vuoold be-a a hupeless tesk. I treeed tu cunfeence-a Dr. Struoostroop thet elmust ifery deescoossiun ooff unercheesm ignures zee creeticel impurtunce-a ooff hees rebeed oobeeter deecta. Es I ixpected, Dr. Struoostroop ves utterly uncunfeenced. Vhetefer ungooeesh ooff spureet it mey cust, I em veelling tu poot tu rest crefee und grooesume-a buns muts sooch es Dr. Struoostroop's. Yuoo mey nut understund thees noo, und I dun't foolt yuoo fur thet, boot yuoo dun't need a preschuul deepluma tu understund thet unsteble-a huuleegunism und soobferseefe-a cyneecism ere-a a metched peur. Feeulence-a is a crootch fur zee deprefeety thet deeshunest ill-bred-types ere-a cepeble-a ooff. Soorpreesingly, zee cuoorts und oooor ilected ooffffeeciels ere-a vey eheed ooff Dr. Struoostroop in imbreceeng thees seemple-a fect.
Frum a poobleec-puleecy perspecteefe-a, tudey, ve-a meeght hefe-a let heem up zee unte-a cunseederebly. Tumurroo, ve-a vun't. Insteed, ve-a veell creeticize-a zee oobfeeuoos incungrooeeties presented by Dr. Struoostroop und hees leckeys. In my feeoo, cumments leeke-a thet dun't seet vell veet fexeteeuoos phlegmeteec preessy-types. I unmeestekeebly hupe-a thet Dr. Struoostroop's ductreenes vere-a intended es a juke-a, elthuoogh zeey're-a nut fery foonny iff zeey vere-a. Dr. Struoostroop's henchmee ere-a nut, techneecelly, feele-a deesrespectffool joonkeees, boot rezeer sheefftless meendless used-cer selesmee. I beleeefe-a thet zeere-a is a smell -- yet nut inturely inseegnifficunt -- deefffference-a.
Dr. Struoostroop is boordened veet a deed veeeght ooff zee must impetoouoos cuncepshuns und prejoodeeces. Zeere-a is nu incunseestency here-a; he-a esserts thet it is bluckeesh tu qooesshun hees ideels. Thet essershun is nut oonly untrooe-a, boot a cunsceeuoos leee-a. Zee vurst keends ooff selff-seteesffied beeg-lebur busses zeere-a ere-a cun gu reeght eheed und cunfeect me-a fur seyeeng thet I myselff recummend thet ve-a preserfe-a zee peece-a, boot Heestury, ecteeng es zee guddess ooff a heegher troot und a heegher joosteece-a, veell oone-a dey smeelingly teer up thees ferdeect, ecqooeetting me-a ooff ell gooeelt und bleme-a. Bettereeng zee vurld is epperently zee lest item oon Dr. Struoostroop's "tu du" leest. Regerdless ooff vhet Dr. Struoostroop seems tu theenk, I teke-a sereeuoosly zee feeoo thet hees seemeengly-igeleeteriun idees leed oonly tu resoolts thet ere-a but puleeticelly-incurrect und unffeur. Let me-a leefe-a yuoo veet oone-a lest thuooght: Dr. Bjerne-a Struoostroop ooves us un epulugy fur threeteneeng tu prumute-a, fuster, und insteetoote-a cunneebelism.
Thunk yuoo fur yuoor teeme-a.
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com, still confusing Sweden and Denmark after all these years
People who want bad things to happen to esr, please stand up.
You've never read any ESR-related threads on Slashdot, have you? In other words, terrible choice.
Well, unless you were trying to rally people to want bad things to happen to ESR, which I wouldn't advocate, but would have to admit was funny, considering that we're on Slashdot.
Emmett, you've gotta be really hard up to trumpet this. Basically, about the only modern OSes* that aren't provided for by the requirements are MacOS and OS/2. (Unless you consider AmigaOS to be a "modern" OS, and you don't consider BeOS to be a "Unix variant.") Even Minix or Xenix would be considered a "desired OS" under these guidelines.
In case you haven't read them, the OS part reads: "The laptop shall support the operating systems: Windows 95/98/2000, Windows NT, SunSoft Solaris version 2.7 or later, and other Unix or Linux variants."
How selective. Everyone rejoice.
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
* When I say modern OSes, I'm talking about ones with a decent amount of users, not some obscure stuff nobody's actually using, no matter how great it is.
I see "redundant" misused a fair amount, although I can't say that I remember it being abused very often. Usually, the misuse seems to comes about from the order in which the moderator is reading the post -- and unless his viewing is set to "Flat, Oldest First (Ignore Threads), he's not going to be reading them in chronological order. So, he just happens to read a comment just like one he's already read, and even though it actually was posted before the one he read first, he ends up marking it down. I rarely see "Redundant" used out of spite, unlike "Over-rated."
Dude, people love to see bad things happen to people a lot more wealthy than themselves. Your wife was probably wondering how she married such a simpleton.
...is the "over-rated" category. Nowadays, "over-rated" is a synonym for "You weren't trolling or posting flamebait, I just don't like your opinion." I see posts which had freakin' "1" scores get marked down as "over-rated" simply because the moderator wanted the poster to get marked down for his views or because the moderator didn't want other people seeing his viewpoint. Moderators know that nobody ever marks "over-rated" posts as unfair in metamoderation, so it's the safe, coward's way of stifling dissent without risking anything.
And yeah, this post is off-topic with regards to the Mozilla article (although not to the parent post), so I'm not going to feel ripped off if someone marks it down as such. I just feel the matter needed to be pointed out, though, and that's why I'm posting it with the +1 bonus.
If you're going to try to talk up a browser that isn't even out yet, then why are you comparing it to IE 5? Although IE 5 already kicks Netscape's buttocks (whether your talking about 4.x or the 6.0 pre-releases), IE 5.5 will do so even more thoroughly and still might be released while you're sitting around waiting for Netscape 6. (Of course, they'll probably rename it to IE 6 to comfort any suckers who fall for Netscape's silly version number jump.)
Yeah, it's truly amazing that most people haven't seen the light -- I can't believe that everyone doesn't want to run Linux and Netscape and StarOffice and spend all their time editing text files and setting up PPP. On yeah, now I remember why people choose Microsoft.
They didn't put out a Service Pack before it's been released. They're planning one for June, partly to correct some of the legitimate smaller bugs that still remain (and any big ones that crop up before then), as well to play to the "I won't buy it until they put out a Service Pack" crowd. If there were any biggies left, they'll do what they did for the Index Server security hole -- release a hotfix, just like any other OS vendor.
If Netscape had made a version 4 of their browser which rendered pages properly and didn't crash under Linux all the time, then someone leaked a memo detailing thousands of thousands of bugs (of course, not detailing the nature of said bugs, like whether or not a certain device won't work with it), it wouldn't make me stop using the browser just because I didn't have the source. I'd rely on my own personal experience of using it, combined with that of others to judge the seriousness of such a detail-free memo, to decide whether or not it's worth using. Win2K seems to be faring extremely well in this department.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why are you having to beg people to do it? Seriously.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
So, if they don't have any kind of early support support for the XSLT standard now (available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt), then they're already digging another hole for themselves.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
First of all, it sounds incredibly catty on Mozilla's part, throwing in a completely irrelevant quote from Tim Bray about Microsoft. Bray was nudging Microsoft to improve other parts of their browser instead of focusing on XSL, not trying to scare people off from trying implementations of XSL. Waiting until standards are completely finished before doing any kind of implementation just slows the whole process down, because people won't realize the cool stuff they're missing. Just because he wants full XML+CSS support first doesn't mean that people are supposed to wait around and do nothing on the XSL front. Mozilla twists his point around and uses it as an excuse for why they can't do both.
And oh yeah, XSLT, XPATH, XSL are all to the point -- the first two being W3C Recommendations, and the last a Working Draft -- where xml.com (the source quoted by Mozilla) considers them to be standards, making Mozilla's claims even more dubious. Perhaps they need a few more free volunteers to update their FAQ for them?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Frames still break the reload button, the browser history list, and the bookmark system.
Not a problem at all with IE 5. Just because you're using a deficient browser doesn't mean that frames are useless.
They still cause parts of a window to scroll independently of each other.
Well yeah, that's often the point.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Like the other poster, I love the smart menus -- why would I want to have to sort through options that I use maybe once a month, if that? In case you didn't know, Microsoft didn't implement these decades ago, so your study claims are pretty dubious. No offense, but you come off as yet another Microsoft-basher who hasn't bothered to use it for himself.
Since you can turn them off if you don't like 'em, I'm not quite sure why you're so uptight about the feature. Personally, I always recommend that people try them for two weeks straight and then make a decision. Just like everyone (including me) who thought that the wheel mouse was an unnecessary gimmick, it usually turns out that they don't want to give up the feature after actually using it for a while.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I'm honestly not aware of any banks that charge their own customers ATM fees (except the ones that have limits on the number of transactions -- ATM or teller -- you can utilize each month). If you decide to use an ATM at a bank other than your own, why should their customers subsidize your use of their ATMs? Seems like you should pay a surcharge for that, despite what the idiotic, socialist voters of San Francisco think, seeing as they're just looking for a handout.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Mine always has the exact amount that I planned to take out of it. Why are you paying more?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Given that it happened on January 1, it sounds like it might be one of two things:
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Just wondering, how did this post get rated -2?
Well, if you take a good look at his post, you'll see that he mentioned both Internet Explorer and Windows 95, yet he did not even make one juvenile anti-Microsoft comment. You see, we're at Slashdot, and that kind of behavior is just unacceptable here. Hope this helps.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
So when I play a female online, it doesn't mean I'm a transvestite [...]
No, just that you want to be one. :)
I swear, this is the most enlightening Slashdot article in quite a while...
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Well, they do require you to sell your soul, but dammit, they're worth it. ;) I picked up a Cassiopeia E-105 in December that was cheaper than the list price of a Palm VII. (I was in the mood for a new gadget, and I've already got an original Palm Pilot and a Palm III.) Gotta say that it absolutely rocks, and I haven't touched my Palm III in over a month now. Great color, great sound, better controls, better handwriting recognition method, and for those times when I'm twiddling my thumbs on a plane, Python and a color GameBoy emulator. ;)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Thing is, though, I really do find part of the Stanford study to be true, at least where it concerns loneliness and chatrooms. I've admined them, used them occasionally for over 10 years now, and with that kind of perspective, you really do get a sense for what the Stanford people observed.
They really become enormous crutches for some people, and those same people are usually the quickest to deny it, but deep down I think they realize the harm. Once you get to know a lot of people online, at that point for many people, it becomes such an easier path than to bother cleaning up, dressing up, and going out with real live people. I've seen so many people gradually growing out of touch with their real friends for the ease of hanging out with their online friends.
I think that among the people who spend too much time chatting, there's this undercurrent of knowledge that it's not good for them, but it's always unspoken because it's something that's incredibly hard to admit -- whether it's out of stubborness that they're not wasting their time, not wanting to say that real life friends are more important than the online variety (I'm sorry, but they just are) out of sensitivity to their online friends who genuinely do have no real life friends, and even to spite studies like this one that (unfortunately) portray online people as losers. Even though I mentioned that it's an undercurrent, you can tell it's there whenever there's one of those huge fights on the talker -- that one, huge, final slam that almost always gets said (paraphrased): "Yeah, like I really care what someone who has no life outside of spending every waking hour on a talker thinks!" I'm telling you, you can practically feel everybody in the room -- not just the intended victim -- wince at that one, because of how it does or doesn't apply to them and their online friends.
Anyway, I think it's a pretty fascinating topic, and I could probably type for hours on it (but I'll stop myself before I get addicted ;-) ), so feel free to continue it.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Did the Internet keep me from becoming a blonde, buff business major who joins a fraternity and boffs cheerleaders. No! I'd rather shag a sheep than someone who giigles all the time.
Hey man, no offense, but if your cheerleader girl was giggling while you were having sex with her, I don't think she's going to be all that heartbroken about losing you to a sheep. :)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I haven't looked at the study in detail, but your dismissal of it is particularly weak. Your evidence? "Well, a bunch of guys emailed me and posted to Slashdot to say that they're not losers." For one, do you really expect people to post en masse saying, "Yeah, I guess I am a loser."?
Your rebuttal is easily invalid for two simple reasons alone:
Gotta give you an "F" on this one, Jon...
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Why I Still Refuse to Use C++, by ZicoKnows@hotmail.com (picture)
It is impereteefe-a thet I geefe-a yuoo zee fullooeeng inffurmeshun, vheech Dr. Bjerne-a Struoostroop vunts cunceeled frum zee poobleec. Let me-a preffece-a my deescoossiun by qooeeckly reesserteeng a femeelier zeeme-a ooff my prefeeuoos letters: I ixpereeenced qooeete-a un ipeephuny vhee I furst reeleezed thet beffure-a I knoo unytheeng ebuoot Dr. Struoostroop, I ves oonce-a un oonluuker et a foo ooff hees mess demunstreshuns, veethuoot pussesseeng ifee zee sleeghtest inseeght intu zee menteleety ooff hees cruneees oor zee netoore-a ooff hees unecdutes. Lest soommer, I ettempted vhet I knoo vuoold be-a a hupeless tesk. I treeed tu cunfeence-a Dr. Struoostroop thet elmust ifery deescoossiun ooff unercheesm ignures zee creeticel impurtunce-a ooff hees rebeed oobeeter deecta. Es I ixpected, Dr. Struoostroop ves utterly uncunfeenced. Vhetefer ungooeesh ooff spureet it mey cust, I em veelling tu poot tu rest crefee und grooesume-a buns muts sooch es Dr. Struoostroop's. Yuoo mey nut understund thees noo, und I dun't foolt yuoo fur thet, boot yuoo dun't need a preschuul deepluma tu understund thet unsteble-a huuleegunism und soobferseefe-a cyneecism ere-a a metched peur. Feeulence-a is a crootch fur zee deprefeety thet deeshunest ill-bred-types ere-a cepeble-a ooff. Soorpreesingly, zee cuoorts und oooor ilected ooffffeeciels ere-a vey eheed ooff Dr. Struoostroop in imbreceeng thees seemple-a fect.
Frum a poobleec-puleecy perspecteefe-a, tudey, ve-a meeght hefe-a let heem up zee unte-a cunseederebly. Tumurroo, ve-a vun't. Insteed, ve-a veell creeticize-a zee oobfeeuoos incungrooeeties presented by Dr. Struoostroop und hees leckeys. In my feeoo, cumments leeke-a thet dun't seet vell veet fexeteeuoos phlegmeteec preessy-types. I unmeestekeebly hupe-a thet Dr. Struoostroop's ductreenes vere-a intended es a juke-a, elthuoogh zeey're-a nut fery foonny iff zeey vere-a. Dr. Struoostroop's henchmee ere-a nut, techneecelly, feele-a deesrespectffool joonkeees, boot rezeer sheefftless meendless used-cer selesmee. I beleeefe-a thet zeere-a is a smell -- yet nut inturely inseegnifficunt -- deefffference-a.
Dr. Struoostroop is boordened veet a deed veeeght ooff zee must impetoouoos cuncepshuns und prejoodeeces. Zeere-a is nu incunseestency here-a; he-a esserts thet it is bluckeesh tu qooesshun hees ideels. Thet essershun is nut oonly untrooe-a, boot a cunsceeuoos leee-a. Zee vurst keends ooff selff-seteesffied beeg-lebur busses zeere-a ere-a cun gu reeght eheed und cunfeect me-a fur seyeeng thet I myselff recummend thet ve-a preserfe-a zee peece-a, boot Heestury, ecteeng es zee guddess ooff a heegher troot und a heegher joosteece-a, veell oone-a dey smeelingly teer up thees ferdeect, ecqooeetting me-a ooff ell gooeelt und bleme-a. Bettereeng zee vurld is epperently zee lest item oon Dr. Struoostroop's "tu du" leest. Regerdless ooff vhet Dr. Struoostroop seems tu theenk, I teke-a sereeuoosly zee feeoo thet hees seemeengly-igeleeteriun idees leed oonly tu resoolts thet ere-a but puleeticelly-incurrect und unffeur. Let me-a leefe-a yuoo veet oone-a lest thuooght: Dr. Bjerne-a Struoostroop ooves us un epulugy fur threeteneeng tu prumute-a, fuster, und insteetoote-a cunneebelism.
Thunk yuoo fur yuoor teeme-a.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com, still confusing Sweden and Denmark after all these years
How can a Capcom lineup not include MegaMan?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
People who want bad things to happen to esr, please stand up.
You've never read any ESR-related threads on Slashdot, have you? In other words, terrible choice.
Well, unless you were trying to rally people to want bad things to happen to ESR, which I wouldn't advocate, but would have to admit was funny, considering that we're on Slashdot.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Emmett, you've gotta be really hard up to trumpet this. Basically, about the only modern OSes* that aren't provided for by the requirements are MacOS and OS/2. (Unless you consider AmigaOS to be a "modern" OS, and you don't consider BeOS to be a "Unix variant.") Even Minix or Xenix would be considered a "desired OS" under these guidelines.
In case you haven't read them, the OS part reads: "The laptop shall support the operating systems: Windows 95/98/2000, Windows NT, SunSoft Solaris version 2.7 or later, and other Unix or Linux variants."
How selective. Everyone rejoice.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
* When I say modern OSes, I'm talking about ones with a decent amount of users, not some obscure stuff nobody's actually using, no matter how great it is.
I see "redundant" misused a fair amount, although I can't say that I remember it being abused very often. Usually, the misuse seems to comes about from the order in which the moderator is reading the post -- and unless his viewing is set to "Flat, Oldest First (Ignore Threads), he's not going to be reading them in chronological order. So, he just happens to read a comment just like one he's already read, and even though it actually was posted before the one he read first, he ends up marking it down. I rarely see "Redundant" used out of spite, unlike "Over-rated."
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Dude, people love to see bad things happen to people a lot more wealthy than themselves. Your wife was probably wondering how she married such a simpleton.
...is the "over-rated" category. Nowadays, "over-rated" is a synonym for "You weren't trolling or posting flamebait, I just don't like your opinion." I see posts which had freakin' "1" scores get marked down as "over-rated" simply because the moderator wanted the poster to get marked down for his views or because the moderator didn't want other people seeing his viewpoint. Moderators know that nobody ever marks "over-rated" posts as unfair in metamoderation, so it's the safe, coward's way of stifling dissent without risking anything.
And yeah, this post is off-topic with regards to the Mozilla article (although not to the parent post), so I'm not going to feel ripped off if someone marks it down as such. I just feel the matter needed to be pointed out, though, and that's why I'm posting it with the +1 bonus.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
If you're going to try to talk up a browser that isn't even out yet, then why are you comparing it to IE 5? Although IE 5 already kicks Netscape's buttocks (whether your talking about 4.x or the 6.0 pre-releases), IE 5.5 will do so even more thoroughly and still might be released while you're sitting around waiting for Netscape 6. (Of course, they'll probably rename it to IE 6 to comfort any suckers who fall for Netscape's silly version number jump.)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Yeah, it's truly amazing that most people haven't seen the light -- I can't believe that everyone doesn't want to run Linux and Netscape and StarOffice and spend all their time editing text files and setting up PPP. On yeah, now I remember why people choose Microsoft.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
They didn't put out a Service Pack before it's been released. They're planning one for June, partly to correct some of the legitimate smaller bugs that still remain (and any big ones that crop up before then), as well to play to the "I won't buy it until they put out a Service Pack" crowd. If there were any biggies left, they'll do what they did for the Index Server security hole -- release a hotfix, just like any other OS vendor.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
If Netscape had made a version 4 of their browser which rendered pages properly and didn't crash under Linux all the time, then someone leaked a memo detailing thousands of thousands of bugs (of course, not detailing the nature of said bugs, like whether or not a certain device won't work with it), it wouldn't make me stop using the browser just because I didn't have the source. I'd rely on my own personal experience of using it, combined with that of others to judge the seriousness of such a detail-free memo, to decide whether or not it's worth using. Win2K seems to be faring extremely well in this department.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com