Quick question. If you have "one or two hard-drives, one or two optical drives, and one or two fans on top of the internal PSU fan" are you really using any more power if you have a 400W supply versus a 250W one? Just curious, I've never really delved into this.
To use the modern terms: domain experts know more about their domain than non-domain experts. No shit.
There is a "lack of knowledge on the part of designers on how to really build good systems" but it stems from the inability of domain experts to work in terms that the software engineer understands. Or, conversly, it stems from the inability of the software engineer to work in terms that the domain expert understands.
I'm willing to bet that I could design a GUI for an IDE that suited my needs as a software engineer a lot easier than I could design a GUI for a dentist's office.
In other words, the software industry needs people who are really good at bridging those gaps between the users (or domain experts) and the programmers.
A lot of companies try to overcome this by bringing in customer focus groups to try and describe what they want. Unfortunately, they are generally about as good at talking in terms of software design as the programmers are in talking design to the cusomters. (For those of you that have seen it, plug in the Simpson's episode where Homer gets to design a car).
A lot of companies try to overcome this by just doing what they've always done. If a windows paradigm was appropriate to Word then, dammit, it's good enough for Dentist Office Management Software Version 1.
I guess it all boils down to a plea. Companies need to identify and retain the very few people who are domain experts that can turn existing processes into requirements and the few software engineers that can really listen to the domain experts and understand what needs to be incorporated into software.
Possible, but there are very important digital ramifications. Given the comments at the end of the article, it looks like the author is pushing for some interesting programs. I like the idea of the Digital Marshall Plan among others.
I know the reality of the farmers' financial situation. That is why I chose not to carry on the family tradition, as are many other people. The large corporate farmers are making quite a bit of money, the small family farms are not. And I don't know of any farmer in my area that has received a "bonus" or supplement from the government for being a farmer. Not a one.
Other than the "American Patriot" rhetoric at the end of your post (farmers, as a whole, aren't any better people or harder working than your computer programmers, doctors, taxi drivers, carpenters, or McD's counter person, so save the sob story) I agree wholeheartedly with your post. I'm not against farms (especially family ones) but I am against simplistic statments that we are supposed to take at face value.
What it really boils down to is this: congress wraps their farm-aid bills in the rhetoric of the family farm when you know and I know that the subsidies are going to a few huge corporate farms that have the money to hire lobbiests.
Add this to the fact that farming benefits from economies of scale (sorry to repeat myself). Your family farmer has a few options:
push for a socialist government like France's that is willing to ignore the realities of capitalism in exchange for allowing the family farmer to exist or
expand until you have the land and resources to compete in a capitalist society (including the cost of purchasing your very own senator so you can get subsidies and avoid regulation) or
sell out or
find a small niche market that is approriate to the environment of your farm (if you only have 200 acres and you don't have enough water rights you are too small to plant corn, try growing Agave cactus for tequila or something...)
* The cost of the tractor per bushel has plummeted (how many acres could you seed, plow, etc. with that tractor in 1902) * And the cost of labor per bushel has plummeted (how many people did it take to harvest a bushel in 1902) * And the yield per acre as shot up (if they haven't then I guess Monsanto hasn't been doing their job)
Like every other industry, farming benefits from efficiencies of scale.
I am the last person on earth to want to see farm land turned into housing developments, but try not to be so simplistic that you insult your readers.
This will let us pay more farmers not to grow crops so they don't have to sell their farms to big corporations or turn them into housing developments.
That's a nice theory but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. About the only farms that get substancial government subsidies are wheat, corn, and other grain farms. Almost all of the subsidies go to huge corporate farms (who do you think can afford all of those lobbiests anyway?). And most of the subsidies go to areas where you're not going to have a huge amount of success building another housing development.
On the other hand, the smaller, family-owned farms are often closer to cities (under a much greater tax pressure and regulation pressure to sell to a developer), selling crops that don't get subsidies (fruits and vegetables) , and, usually, subsidizing thier lifestyle with at least one other full time job. Check out Montgomory Co in MD or the Willamette Valley in OR for an idea on what the few remaining family farms look like.
I'm not opposed to farming subsidies, but subsidies as they currently exists don't do anything that their supporters CLAIM that they do.
I've had one job since leaving college where it seemed like management had a clue. The owner was the inventor and original programmer but he didn't do any technical work by the time I started there. The chief engineer had mad skilz but could talk to people. Then they brought in a quiet, intelligent CFO to make sure they weren't fucking up. Finally, the marketing/sales manager was a typical salesman, but good at his job.
Basically, you had a triumverate of equals -- engineering, financial, and marketing -- under an owner/CEO that new the product inside and out.
It's probably not something you can hope to find in a larger company, however.
Unfortunately I had to leave that job to follow my love (so I guess it was fortunately), and I sure haven't found as nice a place to work since.
That's funny. My app uses the mshtml.dll so I guess that makes my application part of the operating system. (Or it would be if my unistaller script removed mshtml.dll just because I didn't need it any more.)
Netmeeting's Online Directory and Winamp's Mini Browser are also part of the operating system.
By your definition any application that uses a dll that is included with the OS automatically becomes part of the operating system.
These are things that Powell, Rumsfeld, et al. would decide upon. Sure he has input but he can't just decide to bomb some country without their agreement.
Well, it sure good to hear that the president is restrained by an unelected staff that the president hand-picked for their current positions. I was worried for a moment....;-)
Reminds me. I'd like the "Step by step guide for GCC development under Linux for the Windows Programmer who has only ever used an integrated development environment and wouldn't know a command line if it came and bit him on the butt."
Chapters should include:
"Pick a shell and stick with it."
"VI and EMACS. What the fuck?"
"'Hello World' works, now what?"
"Make 'world' is not your friend."
"Just enough CVS to use it and then do something else."
"What's the PATH less traveled by?"
On a more serious note. It would be a book that is aimed at the intelligent windows programmer (we exist, we just need to be shown the True Way) that wants to use linux and contribute to the open source community.
The enclosed CD would have a complete distribution of debian or somehthing that is set up with the latest GCC and libraries. The publisher should work in tandem with a big Open Source project and have lots of real world examples of how one would use GCC, linux, CVS, make and at least one shell. Personally, I'd like it if it were targeted towards C++ (or C). Also, don't assume that we have anything more than a dial up connection.
Short, specific, inexpensive, and if it claims to teach me anything in 24 hours, 1 week, 1 month, or even in 10 easy steps I'm not going to buy it.
If it claims to be a "Bible". I'm not going to buy it.
If it has source code it had better come with a CD or a link to a well-designed and fast web site.
If it doesn't have source code, I'd rather save $5 and not get a CD instead of getting a CD with demo software that is already 6 monthes out-of-date by the time the book is published.
Also, any book that begins with a "history of the computer" introduction goes back on the shelf down at Borders.
In principle I favor loser-pays, but you have to keep the winner's costs realistic somehow.
I appreciate your comment on my post. This is really the basis of my thought. The money paid is only between the lawyers. If the plaintiff wins he simply gets the award that is appropriate to the basis of the lawsuit. If the defendent wins, his only reward is probably going to be that if doens't have to put on a suit and go to court again. The money paid between laywers is limited to what the losing side paid. Basically, the loser pays double. I also think (just thought of this) that this penalty should be paid at the end of each court case (before the corp simply tries to drag out payment through appeals) .
For example, Small Legal Team [SLT] pays $100k to pursue a lawsuit against Mega-corp Division [McD]. McD pays $20M for their defense.
If SLT loses the lawsuit then SLT (not the plaintiff unless there was an agreement between the plaintiff and SLT that the plaintiff would be responsible) owes McD $100k. If on the other hand, SLT wins then McD owes SLT $20M.
This provides some positive incentive:
All parties have an incentive to keep their costs down.
Similarly it wouldn't tie up the courts with massive numbers of appeals.
The "little guy" with a legitimate beef could get a lawyer to go after a large corp knowing that when they win the lawyer would be rewarded.
"Ambulance chaser" lawyers who are simply in it for a percentage of the take would forced to change their tactics.
Corps would have less incentive to simple settle frivilous lawsuits (and therefor rewarding fraud) since they would have some hope of recovering their costs.
Even for the military, there isn't much need for a maneuverable drone.
The Comanche costs (will cost? may cost? link is from 1997) $26M each. Even at the current cost that means approximately 650 of these helecopters for the cost of one Comanche. They are (were?) taking about buying 1600 Comanche helicopters. That works out to 1,040,000 drones for the same cost.
Imagine you add a saturday night special to the helicopter and you send a million of these things sweeping into Iraq. Now the only problem is finding enough trained pilots.
Wait. Scratch that thought. I just had a vision of a million, unsupervised 14 year old boys in control of armed, remote control helicopters.
Gee, I don't know. I've never done a study of coffee temperatures, but I would assume that any consumable liquid that is made by running BOILING WATER over crushed, dried beans would be slightly less than 212F.
And to think that I made tea this morning by pouring DANGEROUS BOILING WATER directly from the tea kettle into my cup. My fingers were mere inches from that stream of hazardous fluid.
You have opened my eyes to the treacherous position I place myself in every day.
If I don't see a warning label on the side of that kettle when I get home I'm going to sue the bastard for the sheer emotional trauma they have put me through contemplating how I might have been injured.
P.S. I was really hoping someone would comment on my origional idea not rehash old arguments about coffee temperatures. J. Random. Aexia. Do YOU think tort reform that doesn't give all the power to the corporations is a good idea? Do you think the current system is perfect? Do you think a system that tries to keep frivilous lawsuits from being dragged out but rewards lawyers that undertake cases for the underdog should be implemented. Please no more coffee comments. I'm sorry. I'm so, so sorry.
Personal Responsibility. If you are incapable of successfully negotiating a drive-in coffee transaction then you need to take the responsibility to perform your coffee transations in an alternate way. Only YOU know what your capabilities are.
From the information you posted, the next question is why she didn't sue the sweatpant manufacturer since "the sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin." Sounds like gross negligence on the part of the sweatpant manufacturer. There should have been a warning label.
Obviously McD's had deeper pockets;-).
Oh, and BTW, I'm no ignorant, conservative, corporation-loving McD's fan, but the sign on the McD's down the road reads 85 billion served. This works out to a roughly 99.9999177% chance of successfully NOT being burned. I wish my NT server had such reliability.
...it could probably maintain a conversation for a while, but it had no understanding of emotion, poetry, or art in general. It would be forced to answer a question about such topics with "I don't know what you mean"...
On the other hand, if you were to ask a question that required an understanding of emotion (other than anger or ego), poetry, or art on/. what percentage of the time would you get "I don't know what you mean" as an answer.
A program could have Roget's Rhyming Dictionary hard coded and probably do a better job of analizing poetry than I could. Scan in ten years of _Poet's Life_ magazine add a nice randomizing hack that keyed off of your questions and it could "talk" (or at least parrot back) poetry analysis better than I ever want to. However, I don't think such a program would be "intelligent".
I think we are similar to the engineers that designed Deep Thought in Douglas Adams' book. We are asking the equivalent of "What's the meaning of life" but we don't really know what the question is...
Frivilous lawsuits like this should be highly profitable to those attacked. Say a $1Mill USD award to whoever get's sued by a company for something stupid like this? Granted it would take a court system that isnt corrupt in every crevice..
I wanted to repeat this (minus an ad hominim attack on lawyers;-) so that people who are filtering out acowards could read it. I happen to agree with the logic. I think a better solution would be to have the losing party's legal team pay the winning party's legal fees. This penalty should be no greater than what the losing party paid for their own legal council.
I wouldn't want to see situations evolve where a corp can simply threaten a legitimate lawsuit with "you'll owe us $1M if you lose, better settle now." But I would like to see a situation where Joe Public has a legitimate beef so he pays $100k for lawyers against a corp who spends $10M on their lawyers. Joe wins his legitimate beef so he gets the award and his lawyer gets a $10M bonus. This rewards the lawyer who takes up legitimate causes and punishes the lawyer that sues for the [insert comical frivilous lawsuit (i.e. hot McD's coffee)].
Corps would also benefit since they would have the possibility of actually recouping their defense against frivilous lawsuits instead of settleing.
Sure, though I lack the imagination to come up with a reason to design a IE-only web site out of some humorous, high-minded, or political motivation.
No, I take that back. Here's an example:
"In an effort to protect Microsoft from the ravages of Open Source I have made www.smithfamilyphotos.org an IE-only web site by only implementing non-standard IE extensions to HTML. I have taken this drastic step because I really feel that poor Microsoft with only 30 billion dollars in the bank needs my assistance to preserve their monopoly. And all you people that don't like it can just bugger off..."
Re:The best way to convert people from Microsoft..
on
Borking Outlook Express
·
· Score: 2, Troll
Oh boo fucking hoo. The guy made an amusing hack and ahlf the people around here start comparing him to hitler.
I guess you're going to boycott his mailing list and I am sure Mr. Moffitt is going to loose sleep over it.
And, one more point, the goal of our movement is to have fun messing around with computers. I don't know what "movement" you belong to, but when you stop taking yourself so seriously you should consider joining ours.
It may be hypocrisy to you. However, for me at least, motives make a difference in life. Most people make IE only web sites out of ignorance or lazyness. The thought that there are other browsers available may not even occur to them or, if it does, they are too lazy to try and make their web sites work on other browsers. In my opinion, neither laziness nor ignorance are defensible and I am perfectly happy to condem a site that doesn't look right under Opera.
In this case, Moffit is not lazy or ignorant. You might not agree with his motives but you have to admit that with his knowledge and with a full understanding of the consequences he made a -- pretty funny -- decision to limit the applications that can view his email.
I am willing to applaud him for it (even though at work I also have to use Outlook and therefor could be negatively affected by his choice.)
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that was funny... Or, at least, not worth modding down.
I guess that mean we have about six months before the large corps start paying senators for huge increases in the H1B tech-worker quotas.
Quick question. If you have "one or two hard-drives, one or two optical drives, and one or two fans on top of the internal PSU fan" are you really using any more power if you have a 400W supply versus a 250W one? Just curious, I've never really delved into this.
There is a "lack of knowledge on the part of designers on how to really build good systems" but it stems from the inability of domain experts to work in terms that the software engineer understands. Or, conversly, it stems from the inability of the software engineer to work in terms that the domain expert understands.
I'm willing to bet that I could design a GUI for an IDE that suited my needs as a software engineer a lot easier than I could design a GUI for a dentist's office.
In other words, the software industry needs people who are really good at bridging those gaps between the users (or domain experts) and the programmers.
A lot of companies try to overcome this by bringing in customer focus groups to try and describe what they want. Unfortunately, they are generally about as good at talking in terms of software design as the programmers are in talking design to the cusomters. (For those of you that have seen it, plug in the Simpson's episode where Homer gets to design a car).
A lot of companies try to overcome this by just doing what they've always done. If a windows paradigm was appropriate to Word then, dammit, it's good enough for Dentist Office Management Software Version 1.
I guess it all boils down to a plea. Companies need to identify and retain the very few people who are domain experts that can turn existing processes into requirements and the few software engineers that can really listen to the domain experts and understand what needs to be incorporated into software.
Possible, but there are very important digital ramifications. Given the comments at the end of the article, it looks like the author is pushing for some interesting programs. I like the idea of the Digital Marshall Plan among others.
Other than the "American Patriot" rhetoric at the end of your post (farmers, as a whole, aren't any better people or harder working than your computer programmers, doctors, taxi drivers, carpenters, or McD's counter person, so save the sob story) I agree wholeheartedly with your post. I'm not against farms (especially family ones) but I am against simplistic statments that we are supposed to take at face value.
What it really boils down to is this: congress wraps their farm-aid bills in the rhetoric of the family farm when you know and I know that the subsidies are going to a few huge corporate farms that have the money to hire lobbiests.
Add this to the fact that farming benefits from economies of scale (sorry to repeat myself). Your family farmer has a few options:
After Fritz, what technology company is going to more to South Carolina?
Or was it North Carolina?
Actually, who cares?
* The cost of the tractor per bushel has plummeted (how many acres could you seed, plow, etc. with that tractor in 1902)
* And the cost of labor per bushel has plummeted (how many people did it take to harvest a bushel in 1902)
* And the yield per acre as shot up (if they haven't then I guess Monsanto hasn't been doing their job)
Like every other industry, farming benefits from efficiencies of scale.
I am the last person on earth to want to see farm land turned into housing developments, but try not to be so simplistic that you insult your readers.
That's a nice theory but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. About the only farms that get substancial government subsidies are wheat, corn, and other grain farms. Almost all of the subsidies go to huge corporate farms (who do you think can afford all of those lobbiests anyway?). And most of the subsidies go to areas where you're not going to have a huge amount of success building another housing development.
On the other hand, the smaller, family-owned farms are often closer to cities (under a much greater tax pressure and regulation pressure to sell to a developer), selling crops that don't get subsidies (fruits and vegetables) , and, usually, subsidizing thier lifestyle with at least one other full time job. Check out Montgomory Co in MD or the Willamette Valley in OR for an idea on what the few remaining family farms look like.
I'm not opposed to farming subsidies, but subsidies as they currently exists don't do anything that their supporters CLAIM that they do.
I've had one job since leaving college where it seemed like management had a clue. The owner was the inventor and original programmer but he didn't do any technical work by the time I started there. The chief engineer had mad skilz but could talk to people. Then they brought in a quiet, intelligent CFO to make sure they weren't fucking up. Finally, the marketing/sales manager was a typical salesman, but good at his job.
Basically, you had a triumverate of equals -- engineering, financial, and marketing -- under an owner/CEO that new the product inside and out.
It's probably not something you can hope to find in a larger company, however.
Unfortunately I had to leave that job to follow my love (so I guess it was fortunately), and I sure haven't found as nice a place to work since.
That's funny. My app uses the mshtml.dll so I guess that makes my application part of the operating system. (Or it would be if my unistaller script removed mshtml.dll just because I didn't need it any more.)
Netmeeting's Online Directory and Winamp's Mini Browser are also part of the operating system.
By your definition any application that uses a dll that is included with the OS automatically becomes part of the operating system.
Well, it sure good to hear that the president is restrained by an unelected staff that the president hand-picked for their current positions. I was worried for a moment.... ;-)
Cookbook books can be great. How about a complete series:
If they were short and $20 or less ($25 with a CD), I'd buy everything listed here.
Reminds me. I'd like the "Step by step guide for GCC development under Linux for the Windows Programmer who has only ever used an integrated development environment and wouldn't know a command line if it came and bit him on the butt."
Chapters should include:
On a more serious note. It would be a book that is aimed at the intelligent windows programmer (we exist, we just need to be shown the True Way) that wants to use linux and contribute to the open source community.
The enclosed CD would have a complete distribution of debian or somehthing that is set up with the latest GCC and libraries. The publisher should work in tandem with a big Open Source project and have lots of real world examples of how one would use GCC, linux, CVS, make and at least one shell. Personally, I'd like it if it were targeted towards C++ (or C). Also, don't assume that we have anything more than a dial up connection.
Short, specific, inexpensive, and if it claims to teach me anything in 24 hours, 1 week, 1 month, or even in 10 easy steps I'm not going to buy it.
If it claims to be a "Bible". I'm not going to buy it.
If it has source code it had better come with a CD or a link to a well-designed and fast web site.
If it doesn't have source code, I'd rather save $5 and not get a CD instead of getting a CD with demo software that is already 6 monthes out-of-date by the time the book is published.
Also, any book that begins with a "history of the computer" introduction goes back on the shelf down at Borders.
I appreciate your comment on my post. This is really the basis of my thought. The money paid is only between the lawyers. If the plaintiff wins he simply gets the award that is appropriate to the basis of the lawsuit. If the defendent wins, his only reward is probably going to be that if doens't have to put on a suit and go to court again. The money paid between laywers is limited to what the losing side paid. Basically, the loser pays double. I also think (just thought of this) that this penalty should be paid at the end of each court case (before the corp simply tries to drag out payment through appeals) .
For example, Small Legal Team [SLT] pays $100k to pursue a lawsuit against Mega-corp Division [McD]. McD pays $20M for their defense.
If SLT loses the lawsuit then SLT (not the plaintiff unless there was an agreement between the plaintiff and SLT that the plaintiff would be responsible) owes McD $100k. If on the other hand, SLT wins then McD owes SLT $20M.
This provides some positive incentive:
The Comanche costs (will cost? may cost? link is from 1997) $26M each. Even at the current cost that means approximately 650 of these helecopters for the cost of one Comanche. They are (were?) taking about buying 1600 Comanche helicopters. That works out to 1,040,000 drones for the same cost.
Imagine you add a saturday night special to the helicopter and you send a million of these things sweeping into Iraq. Now the only problem is finding enough trained pilots.
Wait. Scratch that thought. I just had a vision of a million, unsupervised 14 year old boys in control of armed, remote control helicopters.
Gee, I don't know. I've never done a study of coffee temperatures, but I would assume that any consumable liquid that is made by running BOILING WATER over crushed, dried beans would be slightly less than 212F.
And to think that I made tea this morning by pouring DANGEROUS BOILING WATER directly from the tea kettle into my cup. My fingers were mere inches from that stream of hazardous fluid.
You have opened my eyes to the treacherous position I place myself in every day.
If I don't see a warning label on the side of that kettle when I get home I'm going to sue the bastard for the sheer emotional trauma they have put me through contemplating how I might have been injured.
P.S. I was really hoping someone would comment on my origional idea not rehash old arguments about coffee temperatures. J. Random. Aexia. Do YOU think tort reform that doesn't give all the power to the corporations is a good idea? Do you think the current system is perfect? Do you think a system that tries to keep frivilous lawsuits from being dragged out but rewards lawyers that undertake cases for the underdog should be implemented. Please no more coffee comments. I'm sorry. I'm so, so sorry.
Personal Responsibility. If you are incapable of successfully negotiating a drive-in coffee transaction then you need to take the responsibility to perform your coffee transations in an alternate way. Only YOU know what your capabilities are.
;-).
From the information you posted, the next question is why she didn't sue the sweatpant manufacturer since "the sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin." Sounds like gross negligence on the part of the sweatpant manufacturer. There should have been a warning label.
Obviously McD's had deeper pockets
Oh, and BTW, I'm no ignorant, conservative, corporation-loving McD's fan, but the sign on the McD's down the road reads 85 billion served. This works out to a roughly 99.9999177% chance of successfully NOT being burned. I wish my NT server had such reliability.
On the other hand, if you were to ask a question that required an understanding of emotion (other than anger or ego), poetry, or art on /. what percentage of the time would you get "I don't know what you mean" as an answer.
A program could have Roget's Rhyming Dictionary hard coded and probably do a better job of analizing poetry than I could. Scan in ten years of _Poet's Life_ magazine add a nice randomizing hack that keyed off of your questions and it could "talk" (or at least parrot back) poetry analysis better than I ever want to. However, I don't think such a program would be "intelligent".
I think we are similar to the engineers that designed Deep Thought in Douglas Adams' book. We are asking the equivalent of "What's the meaning of life" but we don't really know what the question is...
And, first, they use the threat of cutting your finger off to get your password.
I wanted to repeat this (minus an ad hominim attack on lawyers ;-) so that people who are filtering out acowards could read it. I happen to agree with the logic. I think a better solution would be to have the losing party's legal team pay the winning party's legal fees. This penalty should be no greater than what the losing party paid for their own legal council.
I wouldn't want to see situations evolve where a corp can simply threaten a legitimate lawsuit with "you'll owe us $1M if you lose, better settle now." But I would like to see a situation where Joe Public has a legitimate beef so he pays $100k for lawyers against a corp who spends $10M on their lawyers. Joe wins his legitimate beef so he gets the award and his lawyer gets a $10M bonus. This rewards the lawyer who takes up legitimate causes and punishes the lawyer that sues for the [insert comical frivilous lawsuit (i.e. hot McD's coffee)].
Corps would also benefit since they would have the possibility of actually recouping their defense against frivilous lawsuits instead of settleing.
Sure, though I lack the imagination to come up with a reason to design a IE-only web site out of some humorous, high-minded, or political motivation.
No, I take that back. Here's an example:
"In an effort to protect Microsoft from the ravages of Open Source I have made www.smithfamilyphotos.org an IE-only web site by only implementing non-standard IE extensions to HTML. I have taken this drastic step because I really feel that poor Microsoft with only 30 billion dollars in the bank needs my assistance to preserve their monopoly. And all you people that don't like it can just bugger off..."
Oh boo fucking hoo. The guy made an amusing hack and ahlf the people around here start comparing him to hitler.
I guess you're going to boycott his mailing list and I am sure Mr. Moffitt is going to loose sleep over it.
And, one more point, the goal of our movement is to have fun messing around with computers. I don't know what "movement" you belong to, but when you stop taking yourself so seriously you should consider joining ours.
It may be hypocrisy to you. However, for me at least, motives make a difference in life. Most people make IE only web sites out of ignorance or lazyness. The thought that there are other browsers available may not even occur to them or, if it does, they are too lazy to try and make their web sites work on other browsers. In my opinion, neither laziness nor ignorance are defensible and I am perfectly happy to condem a site that doesn't look right under Opera.
In this case, Moffit is not lazy or ignorant. You might not agree with his motives but you have to admit that with his knowledge and with a full understanding of the consequences he made a -- pretty funny -- decision to limit the applications that can view his email.
I am willing to applaud him for it (even though at work I also have to use Outlook and therefor could be negatively affected by his choice.)