besides obvious things like online banking, and microsoft junk,
Microsoft, probably more than anyone else, has actually gotten their act together with regard to Opera. It used to be that they were actually delivering Opera a separate stylesheet to manually move everything off the page and mess up the margins, but now I can even use the MSDN articles just fine with Opera. I certainly don't miss an opportunity to rub my Opera user agent string all over their logs.
Acid3 is the third in a series of test pages written to help browser vendors ensure proper support for web standards in their products.
Acid3 is primarily testing specifications for "Web 2.0" dynamic Web applications. Also there are some visual rendering tests, including webfonts. Here is the list of specifications tested: DOM2 Core DOM2 Events DOM2 HTML DOM2 Range DOM2 Style (getComputedStyle,...) DOM2 Traversal (NodeIterator, TreeWalker) DOM2 Views (defaultView) ECMAScript HTML4 (, ,...) HTTP (Content-Type, 404,...) Media Queries Selectors (:lang,:nth-child(), combinators, dynamic changes,...) XHTML 1.0 CSS2 (@font-face) CSS2.1 ('inline-block', 'pre-wrap', parsing...) CSS3 Color (rgba(), hsla(),...) CSS3 UI ('cursor') data: URIs SVG (SVG Animation, SVG Fonts,...)
The ACID tests might include some of the known bugs in browsers, but that's certainly not the only thing they're testing. Unless you consider lack of standard support a "bug". If Opera passes ACID perfectly, you can conclude a lot more then the fact that Opera is not affected by bugs present in other browsers.
although Opera already accepts/. and expands it to http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] by default.
Holy crap, I never even knew that. Sure enough, even on 9.63, open a new tab, type "/.", hit enter, it expands it to http://slashdot.org/. I think that's pretty cool of the Opera team to throw stuff like that in. I would imagine that many of the devs at Opera are creating the browser that they want to use. Is there a list of built-in nicknames somewhere?
Once again Opera pushes the misconception that Acid3 is the test of web standards compliance.
I don't think they're doing that, and I think that if this was your Browser of Choice you would not be disparaging the fact that it passes ACID. Why the Opera hate? The ACID test is a good barometer of how "standardy" a browser is, that's all. No one is trying to claim that scoring 100 on ACID 3 means that the browser is 100% compliant with all web standards that anyone has ever made. Again, why the Opera hate? Should browser vendors not strive to reach 100 on ACID 3?
IANNYCL, but from what I can tell about the brief, the only reason they brought up KaZaA was for the wiretapping act. One of the requirements of being charged with illegal wiretapping is that the communications cannot be accessible to the general public. They use the terms in the EULA to argue that those make the network only accessible to people who agree to the EULA, instead of the general public. Therefore, KaZaA is not accessible to the general public, and the wiretapping was illegal.
It sounds like you have almost nothing. Probably because you wasted it on non-necessities.
I don't know how you can pretend to know that. My 401k has around $100k in it after 5 years of working, 10-15% of my monthly income goes into that account (my salary started pretty low, but it's better now). I've got another 35 years to continue building wealth before I retire. I also own my house and have stake in several other pieces of land, and I have no debt other than my mortgage, so I'm doing just fine, thanks. I also keep my computer up to date so that I can remain efficient. A few hundred dollars every few years towards maintaining efficiency in work is not exactly a frivolous or wasted expense. I've never spent any money on a Mac, I don't own an iPhone and never will, and I don't waste time with PDAs. My current cell phone is a Blackberry 8150 from several years ago. So I don't sound a whole lot like your friend.
By the way, I also enjoy my life (and my computer).
Ironically, the device even improved the experience of using the iPhone, making it usable for surfing where its native network (AT&T) doesn't even connect.
So even if he does take the 5th (or specifically because of it?), the evidence would still be stricken? The only difference is that he wouldn't be charged with a crime, correct?
FictionPimp is exactly right, but I wanted to reply to your post. These problems are not going away. You need to proactively fix them, you can't just sit there and wait for things to get better. You need a plan.
At the company I'm working at, when I got here we were working on version 5 of a web application done entirely in ASP/VB using SQL Server. I supported version 5 through its life, I added several features and called it version 6 (most of the new features done in Javascript instead of VBScript), and all the while I was working on version 6 I was constantly on my boss about wanting to rewrite the thing from scratch with a completely different architecture. Functionally equivalent, but better architecture. He agreed that the application was a beast that had evolved for years without a design document of any kind and that we needed a rewrite in order to solve some of the fundamental performance issues, including the database structure and the ineptitude of VB. Years later we finally found funding to rewrite the application, and it took me over a year (about 2000 hours, actually) to redesign and rewrite the entire thing using PHP, MySQL or PostgreSQL, and the ExtJS framework. The new version is years and years ahead of the previous version, and we now have a product that we are able to resell. Now we've got 5 of our clients migrated to the new application, and I'm adding new features to it daily. None of this would have happened if I had accepted the status quo of version 6, but I saw a situation that my experience told me was a problem, and I created a plan to fix it. That's how these things happen.
Your attitude that this stuff isn't going away any time soon and that there's nothing you can do about it is a defeatist attitude, you're not helping anything. You're also not helping your company, you should take the responsibility on yourself to recognize this is a problem for your company and figure out how to fix it. In other words, man up and get to work. If you turn a blind eye when you see a problem in your company, frankly you don't deserve to be employed.
...will always be there, regardless of when you choose to migrate. You're not losing any money by migrating now, in fact it's a better decision to migrate now versus later because you can migrate to a platform that is able to easily be upgraded in the future, and you can do it at your leisure. Businesses can now see that it wasn't a great idea to bind all of their processes to IE6 specifically. The sooner they can get off that model, the better, for them. It's in their own interest to migrate. You can even make the point that if they delay migration, they're taking a huge risk that if their environment is not compatible with future software than they *have* to migrate, at that point with a small timeframe and great expense. Might as well plan for a migration now, when there's no rush, right? I don't think there's any company out there who plans on using a browser released in 2001 as their platform of choice for the next 30 years.
There are a ton of reasons to migrate, the only reason not to migrate is that it might take some work, and only if your processes are specifically tied to IE6 (as opposed to just testing your stuff to make sure it works). People who take the attitude that they can't change a company's policies are not helping the situation. The IT staff and the decision makers are able to be reasoned with, believe it or not.
When that happens, your only choices are either to support IE6 or not to work for that client.
Advocacy goes a long way. The majority of people heading IT departments are reasonable people that can be talked to. In fact, they probably already share your view. It's not going to hurt to advocate to the decision makers in the company why they need to switch away from IE6, including the point that if they delay a switch not only are they going to have to switch anyway in the future, but until they do they're going to be left behind. It's pretty easy with all the other browser choices to illustrate why IE6 is a deficient piece of software without getting into the technical details, I can make my parents and coworkers understand that IE6 is not a good piece of software, that's an easy argument to make (again, considering the other options).
If the decision makers in the business are hearing that IE6 needs to be dropped, and they're hearing it from their IT staff and their vendors, eventually they're going to get the point. If you take the assumption that they're using IE6 and there's nothing you can do about it, then I think you're part of the problem. You're definitely not part of the solution. Talk to them.
What I wonder about is how, under these circumstances, the MediaSentry guy can take the stand and not take the 5th Amendment.
How is that going to affect anything though? Isn't it already well established what MediaSentry did? For what purpose would they be asked to take the stand at all? It seems like they've already taken care (according to the brief) to document and explain the methods they use (as well as they can anyway), so why would it be necessary to call them to the stand?
If we know what they did, and we know they did it without a required license (the irony of which is not lost on me), what else do we need to know?
Oh and before someone says upgrade, do you have $150 laying-around to pay for that cost?
Uh, yeah I do. Are you saying you don't have a way to raise a hefty $150? I find that very difficult to believe. Either you're in a labor of love that you don't get paid for, you need a new job, or you need to learn how to manage your money. I have 4 bank accounts that have 4 digits and 2 that have 5 digits, and I'm by no means a "rich" guy. When work gives you a paycheck for $1000, that doesn't mean that you should immediately go out and spend $1000. Learn how to manage your money so that you can upgrade from IE6. I never thought an excuse for using IE6 is because you're poor (sorry, if you can't scrounge up $150, you're poor).
If the network overlords are requiring IE6 in favor of Firefox, then someone needs to have a chat with them.
The software I'm developing for corporate clients is Javascript-heavy stuff, where IE6 has some performance problems (not functionality issues, just performance). IE8, Firefox, Opera etc handle it just fine. If a corporate client comes to us and has a problem because they can't execute Javascript (it's required), or things are just a little too slow to render because they're using IE6, I just get them to put me in touch with the IT people at their company. You might be surprised how reasonable these people are. I've gotten some clients set up with Chrome even.
You can make a really good argument that you should get the world though. The defendant's brief is a good one, and the evidence the attorneys give is sound. There are only a few possible outcomes from this.
One outcome is that the judge grants the motion, which would effectively negate MediaSentry evidence in this and other cases. Attorneys in other RIAA cases would be able to show that the same circumstances apply to their cases.
Another outcome is that the RIAA drops the case, which implies that they don't want to question the validity of MediaSentry evidence, which would also put attorneys on other cases on notice that MediaSentry evidence is available to challenge.
Other possible outcomes include the motion being denied, which I can't see happening because of the arguments the attorneys are making. The attorneys are arguing that MediaSentry violated at least three laws. One law is the MN state Private Detectives Act, which says that in order to conduct a private investigation in MN, you need a license. It's a fact that MediaSentry doesn't have a license, that's not debatable. The act defines private investigating as consisting of at least one of nine acts, four of which demonstrably apply to MediaSentry's behavior. Therefore, MediaSentry committed a misdemeanor under MN law in doing their investigation.
Another law is the Pen Register Act, which makes it a crime to record IP addresses using a pen register device. The PATRIOT Act amended the Pen Register Act to expand the definition of a pen register device to include the type of software that MediaSentry used to collect IP addresses. A violation of the Pen Register Act is a federal crime, not a state crime like the above law.
The other law is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which prohibits wiretapping. The attorneys show that MediaSentry's behavior is in the scope of wiretapping as defined by the act, and that none of the exemptions apply to MediaSentry. Among other things, they use Kazaa's EULA against MediaSentry because the EULA forbids the kind of data collection that was performed. The purpose of that is to argue that Kazaa is not available to the general public, but only to people who agree to the terms.
Then they go one step further and charge that the liability for MedaSentry's actions rests with the RIAA attorneys, and they show why that applies also.
They site precedents, specific sections offering exemptions and show why they don't apply, specific definitions of behavior and show why they do apply, it's pretty hard to think that the judge would disagree with the brief. It starts off a little preachy, but they turn it around. It's only a 20-page PDF, Ray was kind enough to link to it in the summary.
I haven't needed to use anything that heavy to build a site, most of what I've done lately I've been using ExtJS for the frontend. The learning curve is a little steep with their object model, but it's a really powerful framework, for both interface stuff and data management. About the only thing you really need something like Java or Flash for would be a web-based game with decent graphics. I've got some pretty beefy ExtJS-based applications I'm hosting on Apache though, I guess it depends what you need your sites to do.
And Oracle does not own Sun yet, since the deal has not even been finalized, and therefore is not making decisions about Java.
Really? You think that Sun is going to jeopardize its deal with Oracle by doing things with Java that Oracle doesn't want it to do? You better believe that Sun is looking for approval from Oracle before it does anything major. Because, like you said, the deal hasn't been finalized.
That's a red herring. Organized religion does not cause suffering. People do. You can't blame suffering on a belief system and ignore the practicers of it. In other words, the religions aren't the problem, the people trying to spread their religion by violence or forcing it on others are the problem. I don't have anything against Islam, but I have a problem with the way a lot of Muslims behave towards other people. Religion does not automatically cause people to become intolerant of others (as you are), it requires people who are already intolerant to begin with, and gives them justifcation for being intolerant.
I'm not sure why we need a term like paywall, but if anyone was wondering it's a subscription-based content delivery business model. I didn't see anyone in the summary or article bother to define it.
Why is it stupid to think this stops anything? This stops people from making edits to wikipedia from known Scientology IP addresses. That's all it's meant to stop. It's not meant to stop all of Scientology from editing wikipedia. So, what will happen? If Scientology wants to, then they acquire a new block of IP addresses, create new accounts on wikipedia, and start editing again. Then those accounts and IP addresses get blocked. Then Scientology has to get a new block of IP addresses and a new set of accounts...
It's not meant to stop all of Scientology from editing wikipedia for all time. It's specifically meant to make Scientology do extra work if they want to continue editing wikipedia, and to continue to do extra work as long as they want to make edits. That's the only thing you *can* enforce on wikipedia, it wouldn't be right to delete or lock the entire articles.
What exactly are those religions "next up" for? Are you saying that those three religions are intolerable? Should wikipedia ban anyone making edits with respect to those religions? How exactly are you trying to connect an organization like Scientology with three of the world's oldest religions? I don't see the connection, other than that all organizations have something to do with spirituality. Please clarify.
Slashdot Mirror
besides obvious things like online banking, and microsoft junk,
Microsoft, probably more than anyone else, has actually gotten their act together with regard to Opera. It used to be that they were actually delivering Opera a separate stylesheet to manually move everything off the page and mess up the margins, but now I can even use the MSDN articles just fine with Opera. I certainly don't miss an opportunity to rub my Opera user agent string all over their logs.
I don't know if that's entirely accurate.
Acid3 is the third in a series of test pages written to help browser vendors ensure proper support for web standards in their products.
Acid3 is primarily testing specifications for "Web 2.0" dynamic Web applications. Also there ...) ...) ...) :nth-child(), combinators, dynamic changes, ...) ...) ...)
are some visual rendering tests, including webfonts. Here is the list of specifications tested:
DOM2 Core
DOM2 Events
DOM2 HTML
DOM2 Range
DOM2 Style (getComputedStyle,
DOM2 Traversal (NodeIterator, TreeWalker)
DOM2 Views (defaultView)
ECMAScript
HTML4 (, ,
HTTP (Content-Type, 404,
Media Queries
Selectors (:lang,
XHTML 1.0
CSS2 (@font-face)
CSS2.1 ('inline-block', 'pre-wrap', parsing...)
CSS3 Color (rgba(), hsla(),
CSS3 UI ('cursor')
data: URIs
SVG (SVG Animation, SVG Fonts,
The ACID tests might include some of the known bugs in browsers, but that's certainly not the only thing they're testing. Unless you consider lack of standard support a "bug". If Opera passes ACID perfectly, you can conclude a lot more then the fact that Opera is not affected by bugs present in other browsers.
Not sure, but it does support BOOTS and FLIPFLOPS.
although Opera already accepts /. and expands it to http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] by default.
Holy crap, I never even knew that. Sure enough, even on 9.63, open a new tab, type "/.", hit enter, it expands it to http://slashdot.org/. I think that's pretty cool of the Opera team to throw stuff like that in. I would imagine that many of the devs at Opera are creating the browser that they want to use. Is there a list of built-in nicknames somewhere?
Once again Opera pushes the misconception that Acid3 is the test of web standards compliance.
I don't think they're doing that, and I think that if this was your Browser of Choice you would not be disparaging the fact that it passes ACID. Why the Opera hate? The ACID test is a good barometer of how "standardy" a browser is, that's all. No one is trying to claim that scoring 100 on ACID 3 means that the browser is 100% compliant with all web standards that anyone has ever made. Again, why the Opera hate? Should browser vendors not strive to reach 100 on ACID 3?
IANNYCL, but from what I can tell about the brief, the only reason they brought up KaZaA was for the wiretapping act. One of the requirements of being charged with illegal wiretapping is that the communications cannot be accessible to the general public. They use the terms in the EULA to argue that those make the network only accessible to people who agree to the EULA, instead of the general public. Therefore, KaZaA is not accessible to the general public, and the wiretapping was illegal.
It sounds like you have almost nothing. Probably because you wasted it on non-necessities.
I don't know how you can pretend to know that. My 401k has around $100k in it after 5 years of working, 10-15% of my monthly income goes into that account (my salary started pretty low, but it's better now). I've got another 35 years to continue building wealth before I retire. I also own my house and have stake in several other pieces of land, and I have no debt other than my mortgage, so I'm doing just fine, thanks. I also keep my computer up to date so that I can remain efficient. A few hundred dollars every few years towards maintaining efficiency in work is not exactly a frivolous or wasted expense. I've never spent any money on a Mac, I don't own an iPhone and never will, and I don't waste time with PDAs. My current cell phone is a Blackberry 8150 from several years ago. So I don't sound a whole lot like your friend.
By the way, I also enjoy my life (and my computer).
Ironically, the device even improved the experience of using the iPhone, making it usable for surfing where its native network (AT&T) doesn't even connect.
How exactly is that "ironic"?
Because of its Javascript performance, it helps a lot with the interface compared to IE.
So even if he does take the 5th (or specifically because of it?), the evidence would still be stricken? The only difference is that he wouldn't be charged with a crime, correct?
FictionPimp is exactly right, but I wanted to reply to your post. These problems are not going away. You need to proactively fix them, you can't just sit there and wait for things to get better. You need a plan.
At the company I'm working at, when I got here we were working on version 5 of a web application done entirely in ASP/VB using SQL Server. I supported version 5 through its life, I added several features and called it version 6 (most of the new features done in Javascript instead of VBScript), and all the while I was working on version 6 I was constantly on my boss about wanting to rewrite the thing from scratch with a completely different architecture. Functionally equivalent, but better architecture. He agreed that the application was a beast that had evolved for years without a design document of any kind and that we needed a rewrite in order to solve some of the fundamental performance issues, including the database structure and the ineptitude of VB. Years later we finally found funding to rewrite the application, and it took me over a year (about 2000 hours, actually) to redesign and rewrite the entire thing using PHP, MySQL or PostgreSQL, and the ExtJS framework. The new version is years and years ahead of the previous version, and we now have a product that we are able to resell. Now we've got 5 of our clients migrated to the new application, and I'm adding new features to it daily. None of this would have happened if I had accepted the status quo of version 6, but I saw a situation that my experience told me was a problem, and I created a plan to fix it. That's how these things happen.
Your attitude that this stuff isn't going away any time soon and that there's nothing you can do about it is a defeatist attitude, you're not helping anything. You're also not helping your company, you should take the responsibility on yourself to recognize this is a problem for your company and figure out how to fix it. In other words, man up and get to work. If you turn a blind eye when you see a problem in your company, frankly you don't deserve to be employed.
The costs to migrate off of everything you have
...will always be there, regardless of when you choose to migrate. You're not losing any money by migrating now, in fact it's a better decision to migrate now versus later because you can migrate to a platform that is able to easily be upgraded in the future, and you can do it at your leisure. Businesses can now see that it wasn't a great idea to bind all of their processes to IE6 specifically. The sooner they can get off that model, the better, for them. It's in their own interest to migrate. You can even make the point that if they delay migration, they're taking a huge risk that if their environment is not compatible with future software than they *have* to migrate, at that point with a small timeframe and great expense. Might as well plan for a migration now, when there's no rush, right? I don't think there's any company out there who plans on using a browser released in 2001 as their platform of choice for the next 30 years.
There are a ton of reasons to migrate, the only reason not to migrate is that it might take some work, and only if your processes are specifically tied to IE6 (as opposed to just testing your stuff to make sure it works). People who take the attitude that they can't change a company's policies are not helping the situation. The IT staff and the decision makers are able to be reasoned with, believe it or not.
When that happens, your only choices are either to support IE6 or not to work for that client.
Advocacy goes a long way. The majority of people heading IT departments are reasonable people that can be talked to. In fact, they probably already share your view. It's not going to hurt to advocate to the decision makers in the company why they need to switch away from IE6, including the point that if they delay a switch not only are they going to have to switch anyway in the future, but until they do they're going to be left behind. It's pretty easy with all the other browser choices to illustrate why IE6 is a deficient piece of software without getting into the technical details, I can make my parents and coworkers understand that IE6 is not a good piece of software, that's an easy argument to make (again, considering the other options).
If the decision makers in the business are hearing that IE6 needs to be dropped, and they're hearing it from their IT staff and their vendors, eventually they're going to get the point. If you take the assumption that they're using IE6 and there's nothing you can do about it, then I think you're part of the problem. You're definitely not part of the solution. Talk to them.
What I wonder about is how, under these circumstances, the MediaSentry guy can take the stand and not take the 5th Amendment.
How is that going to affect anything though? Isn't it already well established what MediaSentry did? For what purpose would they be asked to take the stand at all? It seems like they've already taken care (according to the brief) to document and explain the methods they use (as well as they can anyway), so why would it be necessary to call them to the stand?
If we know what they did, and we know they did it without a required license (the irony of which is not lost on me), what else do we need to know?
Oh and before someone says upgrade, do you have $150 laying-around to pay for that cost?
Uh, yeah I do. Are you saying you don't have a way to raise a hefty $150? I find that very difficult to believe. Either you're in a labor of love that you don't get paid for, you need a new job, or you need to learn how to manage your money. I have 4 bank accounts that have 4 digits and 2 that have 5 digits, and I'm by no means a "rich" guy. When work gives you a paycheck for $1000, that doesn't mean that you should immediately go out and spend $1000. Learn how to manage your money so that you can upgrade from IE6. I never thought an excuse for using IE6 is because you're poor (sorry, if you can't scrounge up $150, you're poor).
If the network overlords are requiring IE6 in favor of Firefox, then someone needs to have a chat with them.
The software I'm developing for corporate clients is Javascript-heavy stuff, where IE6 has some performance problems (not functionality issues, just performance). IE8, Firefox, Opera etc handle it just fine. If a corporate client comes to us and has a problem because they can't execute Javascript (it's required), or things are just a little too slow to render because they're using IE6, I just get them to put me in touch with the IT people at their company. You might be surprised how reasonable these people are. I've gotten some clients set up with Chrome even.
You can make a really good argument that you should get the world though. The defendant's brief is a good one, and the evidence the attorneys give is sound. There are only a few possible outcomes from this.
One outcome is that the judge grants the motion, which would effectively negate MediaSentry evidence in this and other cases. Attorneys in other RIAA cases would be able to show that the same circumstances apply to their cases.
Another outcome is that the RIAA drops the case, which implies that they don't want to question the validity of MediaSentry evidence, which would also put attorneys on other cases on notice that MediaSentry evidence is available to challenge.
Other possible outcomes include the motion being denied, which I can't see happening because of the arguments the attorneys are making. The attorneys are arguing that MediaSentry violated at least three laws. One law is the MN state Private Detectives Act, which says that in order to conduct a private investigation in MN, you need a license. It's a fact that MediaSentry doesn't have a license, that's not debatable. The act defines private investigating as consisting of at least one of nine acts, four of which demonstrably apply to MediaSentry's behavior. Therefore, MediaSentry committed a misdemeanor under MN law in doing their investigation.
Another law is the Pen Register Act, which makes it a crime to record IP addresses using a pen register device. The PATRIOT Act amended the Pen Register Act to expand the definition of a pen register device to include the type of software that MediaSentry used to collect IP addresses. A violation of the Pen Register Act is a federal crime, not a state crime like the above law.
The other law is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which prohibits wiretapping. The attorneys show that MediaSentry's behavior is in the scope of wiretapping as defined by the act, and that none of the exemptions apply to MediaSentry. Among other things, they use Kazaa's EULA against MediaSentry because the EULA forbids the kind of data collection that was performed. The purpose of that is to argue that Kazaa is not available to the general public, but only to people who agree to the terms.
Then they go one step further and charge that the liability for MedaSentry's actions rests with the RIAA attorneys, and they show why that applies also.
They site precedents, specific sections offering exemptions and show why they don't apply, specific definitions of behavior and show why they do apply, it's pretty hard to think that the judge would disagree with the brief. It starts off a little preachy, but they turn it around. It's only a 20-page PDF, Ray was kind enough to link to it in the summary.
I haven't needed to use anything that heavy to build a site, most of what I've done lately I've been using ExtJS for the frontend. The learning curve is a little steep with their object model, but it's a really powerful framework, for both interface stuff and data management. About the only thing you really need something like Java or Flash for would be a web-based game with decent graphics. I've got some pretty beefy ExtJS-based applications I'm hosting on Apache though, I guess it depends what you need your sites to do.
Really? Adding .NET support to Firefox === trying to take over the world? I think you overestimate .NET a little.
And Oracle does not own Sun yet, since the deal has not even been finalized, and therefore is not making decisions about Java.
Really? You think that Sun is going to jeopardize its deal with Oracle by doing things with Java that Oracle doesn't want it to do? You better believe that Sun is looking for approval from Oracle before it does anything major. Because, like you said, the deal hasn't been finalized.
That's a red herring. Organized religion does not cause suffering. People do. You can't blame suffering on a belief system and ignore the practicers of it. In other words, the religions aren't the problem, the people trying to spread their religion by violence or forcing it on others are the problem. I don't have anything against Islam, but I have a problem with the way a lot of Muslims behave towards other people. Religion does not automatically cause people to become intolerant of others (as you are), it requires people who are already intolerant to begin with, and gives them justifcation for being intolerant.
I'm not sure why we need a term like paywall, but if anyone was wondering it's a subscription-based content delivery business model. I didn't see anyone in the summary or article bother to define it.
Why is it stupid to think this stops anything? This stops people from making edits to wikipedia from known Scientology IP addresses. That's all it's meant to stop. It's not meant to stop all of Scientology from editing wikipedia. So, what will happen? If Scientology wants to, then they acquire a new block of IP addresses, create new accounts on wikipedia, and start editing again. Then those accounts and IP addresses get blocked. Then Scientology has to get a new block of IP addresses and a new set of accounts...
It's not meant to stop all of Scientology from editing wikipedia for all time. It's specifically meant to make Scientology do extra work if they want to continue editing wikipedia, and to continue to do extra work as long as they want to make edits. That's the only thing you *can* enforce on wikipedia, it wouldn't be right to delete or lock the entire articles.
Next up, christianity, islam, judaism.
What exactly are those religions "next up" for? Are you saying that those three religions are intolerable? Should wikipedia ban anyone making edits with respect to those religions? How exactly are you trying to connect an organization like Scientology with three of the world's oldest religions? I don't see the connection, other than that all organizations have something to do with spirituality. Please clarify.
Isn't everything? :)
Only if you don't take the order into account.. if "midnight" is the start and "noon" is the end then the answer to your question is no.