there's nothing stopping you from showing up 4 minutes 36 into the movie
Right, but you can't sue them if you come "on time" and sit through all of the commercials. Similarly, if the movie contains a lot of advertisement (which many do), it's still you're choice to see the movie. If a website want's to flood your browser with 10 popups, let 'em - I just won't go back.
No, many versions of version 6 had this problem. Read throughout this thread for more verification. I've used Opera for a long time as well and I have run into this problem myself. It has to do with lists and the extra 30px of margin it puts on the left side (instead of a "normal" indent). This is what pushes the content outside of the cells on MSN, hence the fix.
Why does everyone complain when they are expect to actually do work at work.
I mean, really, if you need to eat, use the restroom, or do any other human task during the greater part of your human life, try to keep such tasks away from the workplace!
You may be correct. The bug probably hurt older versions of the browser, and instead of doing a greater than/less than they just said "all Opera browsers". There may be a reason for this (eg: different formatting of Opera versions for different User-Agents making it difficult to accurately parse the version - ya, it's a long shot), but the point is it's no conspiracy theory, and the fact that Opera feeds into it shows a lack of objectivity and intellectual honesty regarding the issue.
You're right, it's an honest attempt to fix a problem in Opera 6. Read my 6+ other posts... and to moderators, why so many +5's to people saying the same thing? Most of these posts (mine included!) are redundant conspiracy theorist BS. Mod the first 1 or 2 up, but after that it just gets really old.
Did they just guess it might work and leave it at that? Or is it something else?
You got it - it's something else. As I've redundantly posted to this thread, their Opera CSS works FINE in Opera 6 (I just tried it) and as others have pointed out it addresses a bug in most Opera 6 builds. The issue is, Opera 7 (recently released) renders completely differently than Opera 6 (eg: it's more standards complient), and therefore should be using the IE6/Standard CSS, however, MS has yet to update the browser detection to accomodate for the new Opera release.
The fact that Microsoft is pushing out (delibrately) a broken style sheet is just wrong.
No, the fact the Microsoft is pushing out a CSS that addresses a padding bug in Opera 6 is not "wrong". Opera 6 currently hit's MSN just fine. It's just with Opera 7 (released a few days ago) the bug is "fixed", so therefore the "fix" actually breaks Opera 7.
The latest build of O6 seems to handle it just fine, however, what's interesting is O6 also handles the "broken" CSS just fine. There was a bug in O6 regarding the 30px margin issue.
I love the bald-faced lying that MS pulls out for this behavior. Explain why there would be any reason at all to force every child entity 30 pixels to the left of its parent. Because in Opera 6 there was a bug that added 30px of padding.
For that matter, why does MSN still use the tired old hack of sending different pages to each browser?
Because some browsers (like Opera 6) are broken.
I just loaded up msn.com on the latest Opera 6 build, and it looks fine. MS just hasn't updated their browser detection to let Opera 7 use the standard/IE6 stylesheet.
MS goes out of it's way to display maintain compatibility with it's competitors browser, and on/. it's a conspiracy theory about how MS is trying to crush the competition.
So MS goes out of their way to FIX a competing browser and/.'s conspiracy theory is that they purposely break it? Only on/.
To the uninformed (who obviously have never had to code against Opera 6 browsers): There's an Opera 6 bug regarding the margin (hence the -30) - the bug is fixed in Opera 7 and that's why it displays funny - MS just hasn't updated the browser checking to the very recently released Opera 7.
...that full disclosure of security issues is not in the publics interest. Opera has aggressively been working on the problems, and has released 7.01 which (AFAIK) fixes said problems. However, they did not have reasonable time to address each issue once found.
It's one thing when a company sits on an exploit for a month without even aknowledging it. It's another when a company acknowledges it, and requests a reasonable amount of time to make a fix, and regression test that fix. Sheeshe, give these guys a break - they patched very quickly and from what it looks like it's a stable patch.
This hasn't kept Sony from outselling the XBox by a considerable amount.
Sony has had the momenutum of a second generation console, and a 1-year lead on the XBox. The GC also has the momentum of previous generation consoles, and they have the games developers because they are, after all, Nintendo.
... and they don't have to lose $150 per console to do so.
There are a few problems I have with this number. A) It's speculation. B) It doesn't account for even medium-term average pricing, let alone long-term. C) It doesn't account for the XBox's higher-than-usual attach rate which means that MS makes more software and accessory sales than any other console. This fact alone could make the average XBox break even, but that's speculation as well.
Add in the losses that Microsoft has admitted that it expects from XBox Live
Like the XBox, the XBox Live is another venture that requires significant investment before it can break even. Again I don't think this is a bad thing. Even if the XBox Live has minimal or no profit in the future, it will create more XBox console sales, as well as more game sales.
Perhaps something will happen in the next couple of years that will drastically increase the profitability of XBox, but I don't see what it might be.
You don't see it because you aren't one of the people at MS who spend 50hrs/week thinking about it! Or, your pessimism may pan out to reality. It's too early to tell IMHO.
Even if XBox does turn a profit, it's not likely to be the type of profit that is going to actually effect Microsoft's bottom line in a substantial way.
Again, this is pessimistic speculation. Of course you may be right, but I give more credit to the minds at MS for thinking a bit more than you and I can about such a venture before plunging 2B into it.
First, what right do you have to determine how MUCH a person should donate and to what causes? How arrogant and judgemental!
Second, Bill has donated MORE (and we are not talking dollars, we are talking RELATIVE net worth) than any the Rockefellors, Carnegie, or any other rich person in history. All you had to do was read one of many articles published over the past few years regarding his philantropy.
So no, you probably have not donated more precentage wise, especially when considering that BillG can not donate investments - he donates LIQUID, and he has a lot less liquid then his net-worth. A lot of his investments return dividends directly into their foundation.
I don't claim to be a business guru, but come on, you are failing to understand some of the BASICS (and we're getting real basic here!) of business. How such ignorance get's +5'd is beyond me, even on/. (OK, I'm naive!). I'm being a bit redundant as others have posted to this affect, but I have two statements: A) Businesses take a loss (generally for many years) when investing in new ventures and B) if you want more details go to school (bus101 at your local community college should be fine, but many highschool business courses should suffice), go to the library, or use the Internet for something other than admitting your ignorance on/.
Sorry for getting a bit personal, but when you make loud accusations, expect to get called on your crap.
Microsoft simply loses too much money per customer to be able to turn a profit before Sony and Nintendo come out with their next gen consoles.
Back to Bus101, remember the term ROI and the concept of initial capitol loss? Investing in a business venture in normal economic climates generally takes many years to return - and MS is doing it in a very harsh economic climate. There are a few reasons why MS is losing more than we'd like that are both related to the current economic climate:
A) Volume production was to mimimize the loss but the volume is just not there partially due to less-than-expected consumers with the disposable income to plunge into a "next-gen" console like the GC and the XBox.
B) Due to slowing sales in the PC hardware sector, commodity hardware is not lowering in price as quickly as anticipated.
C) Obviously, PS2 has the edge as far as momentum, but this was properly calculated by MS.
I think that the XBox has a good chance - I agree that it _may_ fail, but I think that with the proper considerations one can conclude that it is not obvious whether or not this was a poor business venture.
Do you choose your power company, your water company or even your telco company? In most area's you can't. Although I agree that there are some downsides to government run utilities (I generally prefer regulated private entities), but at the same time, a utility is a social service, and the Internet is becoming more of a utility then even a telephone.
Competition has it's place, but it's also not economical. It's cheaper to run one power line to all houses, and have it managed by one organiztion. It's also cheaper to citizens since it's not for profit, but for service. It can be better for citizens because quality isn't cut for the sake of profit.
Of course, the problem with government is that due to lack of competition, one can point out the bloat and inefficiencies in many government run organizations. However one can see that with a proper checks and balance system, and with consumers keeping these utility companies accountable, it's very possible to offer a better solution publically. In many cases this approach is not the right way to go. But again the Internet is approaching the status of Utility, which is where I think it makes sense to be a not-for-profit enterprise. I also dissagree with the power company offering cable TV, as this is, IMHO, not a utility, and should be left to the soomewhat "free market".
As already mentioned, you are absolutely wrong - I'd say it's be more correct to say that 95% of Windows server software _IS_ configurable via a CLI, or a custom front end (Web based configurator, etc.)
Because the city-owned electric utility provides cable TV and Internet access over wires that also monitor power usage in the town of 14,000. The utility isn't trying to profit from the service -- just recover its costs.
I'm not defending it - it's security issues are rediculous! I'm saying that _IF_ MS is really getting their act together regarding security, it's too early to pass judgement. From what I've heard, IIS6 is a significant improvement to security. Just don't exepct a "magic patch" to fix MS's security problems within a year of their "trusted computing initiative".
Recent history, however, tells us that it's pretty hard to find arrogant, stupid, ignorant or lazy sysadmins amongst those who administer Linux/BSD/OSS systems.
Can you qualify this or do you just "feel" this way because of your bias and minimal anecdotes?
Even after having spent spent 100M on their Trustworthy Computing Initiative by July of 2002, we have not seen a great deal of proactive security fixes from Microsoft.
Of course this is ignoring the massive amounts of code they have to go through while insuring that existing functionality won't be affected by security issues. Remember, security is not an afterthough, it must be buil-in. This means a lot of MS software (Outlook/Office) need to be rethought - it's not just an issue of fixing a bunch of buffer overflows.
Slashdot Mirror
there's nothing stopping you from showing up 4 minutes 36 into the movie
Right, but you can't sue them if you come "on time" and sit through all of the commercials. Similarly, if the movie contains a lot of advertisement (which many do), it's still you're choice to see the movie. If a website want's to flood your browser with 10 popups, let 'em - I just won't go back.
What I don't want to see happening is Sony start skimping on performance and overcharging the consumer all for the sake of selling a Lifestyle.
Summation: Sony, stop copying Apple!
No, many versions of version 6 had this problem. Read throughout this thread for more verification. I've used Opera for a long time as well and I have run into this problem myself. It has to do with lists and the extra 30px of margin it puts on the left side (instead of a "normal" indent). This is what pushes the content outside of the cells on MSN, hence the fix.
Why does everyone complain when they are expect to actually do work at work.
I mean, really, if you need to eat, use the restroom, or do any other human task during the greater part of your human life, try to keep such tasks away from the workplace!
You may be correct.
The bug probably hurt older versions of the browser, and instead of doing a greater than/less than they just said "all Opera browsers". There may be a reason for this (eg: different formatting of Opera versions for different User-Agents making it difficult to accurately parse the version - ya, it's a long shot), but the point is it's no conspiracy theory, and the fact that Opera feeds into it shows a lack of objectivity and intellectual honesty regarding the issue.
That seems pretty far from "an honest typo".
... and to moderators, why so many +5's to people saying the same thing? Most of these posts (mine included!) are redundant conspiracy theorist BS. Mod the first 1 or 2 up, but after that it just gets really old.
You're right, it's an honest attempt to fix a problem in Opera 6. Read my 6+ other posts
Did they just guess it might work and leave it at that? Or is it something else?
You got it - it's something else. As I've redundantly posted to this thread, their Opera CSS works FINE in Opera 6 (I just tried it) and as others have pointed out it addresses a bug in most Opera 6 builds. The issue is, Opera 7 (recently released) renders completely differently than Opera 6 (eg: it's more standards complient), and therefore should be using the IE6/Standard CSS, however, MS has yet to update the browser detection to accomodate for the new Opera release.
The fact that Microsoft is pushing out (delibrately) a broken style sheet is just wrong.
No, the fact the Microsoft is pushing out a CSS that addresses a padding bug in Opera 6 is not "wrong". Opera 6 currently hit's MSN just fine. It's just with Opera 7 (released a few days ago) the bug is "fixed", so therefore the "fix" actually breaks Opera 7.
The latest build of O6 seems to handle it just fine, however, what's interesting is O6 also handles the "broken" CSS just fine. There was a bug in O6 regarding the 30px margin issue.
I love the bald-faced lying that MS pulls out for this behavior. Explain why there would be any reason at all to force every child entity 30 pixels to the left of its parent.
/. it's a conspiracy theory about how MS is trying to crush the competition.
Because in Opera 6 there was a bug that added 30px of padding.
For that matter, why does MSN still use the tired old hack of sending different pages to each browser?
Because some browsers (like Opera 6) are broken.
I just loaded up msn.com on the latest Opera 6 build, and it looks fine. MS just hasn't updated their browser detection to let Opera 7 use the standard/IE6 stylesheet.
MS goes out of it's way to display maintain compatibility with it's competitors browser, and on
So MS goes out of their way to FIX a competing browser and /.'s conspiracy theory is that they purposely break it? Only on /.
To the uninformed (who obviously have never had to code against Opera 6 browsers):
There's an Opera 6 bug regarding the margin (hence the -30) - the bug is fixed in Opera 7 and that's why it displays funny - MS just hasn't updated the browser checking to the very recently released Opera 7.
Everyone who whines about the "candy awful look of XP" (I agree, BTW) is missing two points:
1) The "Candy Awful Look" is a set of high-contrast colors that make the system easier to use for many people.
2) The "Candy Awful Look" is easily removed by either A) changing the skin (there are a few nice ones IMHO), or B) changing the UI to "classic" mode.
And too be fair, Apple understands this too. Granted, we'd all like them to provide their great value for lower price.
...that full disclosure of security issues is not in the publics interest. Opera has aggressively been working on the problems, and has released 7.01 which (AFAIK) fixes said problems. However, they did not have reasonable time to address each issue once found.
It's one thing when a company sits on an exploit for a month without even aknowledging it. It's another when a company acknowledges it, and requests a reasonable amount of time to make a fix, and regression test that fix. Sheeshe, give these guys a break - they patched very quickly and from what it looks like it's a stable patch.
This hasn't kept Sony from outselling the XBox by a considerable amount.
... and they don't have to lose $150 per console to do so.
Sony has had the momenutum of a second generation console, and a 1-year lead on the XBox. The GC also has the momentum of previous generation consoles, and they have the games developers because they are, after all, Nintendo.
There are a few problems I have with this number. A) It's speculation. B) It doesn't account for even medium-term average pricing, let alone long-term. C) It doesn't account for the XBox's higher-than-usual attach rate which means that MS makes more software and accessory sales than any other console. This fact alone could make the average XBox break even, but that's speculation as well.
Add in the losses that Microsoft has admitted that it expects from XBox Live
Like the XBox, the XBox Live is another venture that requires significant investment before it can break even. Again I don't think this is a bad thing. Even if the XBox Live has minimal or no profit in the future, it will create more XBox console sales, as well as more game sales.
Perhaps something will happen in the next couple of years that will drastically increase the profitability of XBox, but I don't see what it might be.
You don't see it because you aren't one of the people at MS who spend 50hrs/week thinking about it! Or, your pessimism may pan out to reality. It's too early to tell IMHO.
Even if XBox does turn a profit, it's not likely to be the type of profit that is going to actually effect Microsoft's bottom line in a substantial way.
Again, this is pessimistic speculation. Of course you may be right, but I give more credit to the minds at MS for thinking a bit more than you and I can about such a venture before plunging 2B into it.
First, what right do you have to determine how MUCH a person should donate and to what causes? How arrogant and judgemental!
Second, Bill has donated MORE (and we are not talking dollars, we are talking RELATIVE net worth) than any the Rockefellors, Carnegie, or any other rich person in history. All you had to do was read one of many articles published over the past few years regarding his philantropy.
So no, you probably have not donated more precentage wise, especially when considering that BillG can not donate investments - he donates LIQUID, and he has a lot less liquid then his net-worth. A lot of his investments return dividends directly into their foundation.
Get off your high horse.
I don't claim to be a business guru, but come on, you are failing to understand some of the BASICS (and we're getting real basic here!) of business. How such ignorance get's +5'd is beyond me, even on /. (OK, I'm naive!). I'm being a bit redundant as others have posted to this affect, but I have two statements: A) Businesses take a loss (generally for many years) when investing in new ventures and B) if you want more details go to school (bus101 at your local community college should be fine, but many highschool business courses should suffice), go to the library, or use the Internet for something other than admitting your ignorance on /.
Sorry for getting a bit personal, but when you make loud accusations, expect to get called on your crap.
Microsoft simply loses too much money per customer to be able to turn a profit before Sony and Nintendo come out with their next gen consoles.
Back to Bus101, remember the term ROI and the concept of initial capitol loss? Investing in a business venture in normal economic climates generally takes many years to return - and MS is doing it in a very harsh economic climate. There are a few reasons why MS is losing more than we'd like that are both related to the current economic climate:
A) Volume production was to mimimize the loss but the volume is just not there partially due to less-than-expected consumers with the disposable income to plunge into a "next-gen" console like the GC and the XBox.
B) Due to slowing sales in the PC hardware sector, commodity hardware is not lowering in price as quickly as anticipated.
C) Obviously, PS2 has the edge as far as momentum, but this was properly calculated by MS.
I think that the XBox has a good chance - I agree that it _may_ fail, but I think that with the proper considerations one can conclude that it is not obvious whether or not this was a poor business venture.
Do you choose your power company, your water company or even your telco company? In most area's you can't. Although I agree that there are some downsides to government run utilities (I generally prefer regulated private entities), but at the same time, a utility is a social service, and the Internet is becoming more of a utility then even a telephone.
Competition has it's place, but it's also not economical. It's cheaper to run one power line to all houses, and have it managed by one organiztion. It's also cheaper to citizens since it's not for profit, but for service. It can be better for citizens because quality isn't cut for the sake of profit.
Of course, the problem with government is that due to lack of competition, one can point out the bloat and inefficiencies in many government run organizations. However one can see that with a proper checks and balance system, and with consumers keeping these utility companies accountable, it's very possible to offer a better solution publically. In many cases this approach is not the right way to go. But again the Internet is approaching the status of Utility, which is where I think it makes sense to be a not-for-profit enterprise. I also dissagree with the power company offering cable TV, as this is, IMHO, not a utility, and should be left to the soomewhat "free market".
As already mentioned, you are absolutely wrong - I'd say it's be more correct to say that 95% of Windows server software _IS_ configurable via a CLI, or a custom front end (Web based configurator, etc.)
Because the city-owned electric utility provides cable TV and Internet access over wires that also monitor power usage in the town of 14,000. The utility isn't trying to profit from the service -- just recover its costs.
I'm not defending it - it's security issues are rediculous! I'm saying that _IF_ MS is really getting their act together regarding security, it's too early to pass judgement. From what I've heard, IIS6 is a significant improvement to security. Just don't exepct a "magic patch" to fix MS's security problems within a year of their "trusted computing initiative".
Recent history, however, tells us that it's pretty hard to find arrogant, stupid, ignorant or lazy sysadmins amongst those who administer Linux/BSD/OSS systems.
Can you qualify this or do you just "feel" this way because of your bias and minimal anecdotes?
Apache is twice as popular as IIS
That's not the point. The fact that Windows is so popular makes hacking IIS and other Windows based products popular - esp. for "skript kiddies".
Even after having spent spent 100M on their Trustworthy Computing Initiative by July of 2002, we have not seen a great deal of proactive security fixes from Microsoft.
Of course this is ignoring the massive amounts of code they have to go through while insuring that existing functionality won't be affected by security issues. Remember, security is not an afterthough, it must be buil-in. This means a lot of MS software (Outlook/Office) need to be rethought - it's not just an issue of fixing a bunch of buffer overflows.