You've clearly NEVER used ASP.NET or you'd realise that everything you've said is pretty much the exact opposite of what is true. It doesn't even *SUPPORT* VBScript let alone push you towards it! The code it produces is clean HTML/CSS and doesn't use any IE6 specific markup at all. Name me ONE case where it does this?
> ASP.Net apps work only with IE6 with ActiveX enabled.
Sorry but this is rubbish. ASP.NET is a *server-side* engine. It's rubbish to say that ASP.NET sites only work with IE6. And ASP.NET does NOT require any ActiveX support in the browser. Properly written ASP.NET sites work properly in ALL browsers - even ones which don't have javascript support.
I think your website is broken for other reasons - not because of ASP.NET or it's supposed incompatibly with IE7.
> The autopilot apparently sensed the need for more thrust and warned the pilots of this.
The autopilot does not "warn" the pilots. The autopilot flies the plane itself.
The autopilot itself demanded more power from the engines (by physically pushing the throttle levers forwards) and neither engine responded. The autopilot is not responsible for warning pilots about things that are wrong. The pilots would probably have got a stall warning or low airspeed warning first, but fundamentally, they would have already known something was up as they would be falling below the glide slope on the ILS and they also have a pretty good view out of the front window.
Since both engines are completely independent from each other, it's a fair hypothesis to say that's likely to be the engine control software which was at fault. The chances of both engines failing simultaneously are close to zero unless the aircraft has recently collided with something (eg the terrain). I think the hypothesis is therefore fair. The articles are clearly suggesting a hypothesis and and NOT claiming that the the REASON has already been found. Hence phrases like "likely to be" and "prime suspect" in the TFA.
How is that +5 Insightful when you don't even seem to know what an autopilot does?
Point accepted, but some technologies DO come to market and work out OK in the end.
1. I would never have believed when I was at university exactly ten years ago, that in 2008, I would have a more powerful processor in my *telephone* than I had in my desktop computer I took to uni to study Computer Science with. 2. I would never have believed ten years ago that I could get 4 GIGABYTES of non-volatile memory in something the same size as my little fingernail (MicroSD) for a few pounds off eBay. 3. I also bet my colleague about 3 years ago that you would NOT be able to ever run your computer from any kind of solid state hard disk until at least 2010. I lost the bet - I assumed the OS and data would get bigger faster than solid state storage would increase in size, but 64GB SSD drives are now affordable and would easily take all my files on any of my computers. 4. We can access the Internet in the lounge, park or coffee shop at multi-megabit speeds, often for free. 10 years ago MOST people had never even heard of "broadband" and I was paying £20 per month for Demon DIAL UP at 28.8K. If you'd said that someone could get 2-8Mbit internet over shitty copper phone lines from a mile away, they'd have laughed. At the time I was struggling to make a 10Mbit work just within the confines of our office. Now our office as a 20MBit internet connection just a few years later. When I graduated from Uni in '99 (CompSci) our entire halls of residence (over 100 people) was connected back to the uni with one 64Kbit leased line - which cost the uni nearly £2000 per month. Now they have 100Mb broadband in every room connected to the uni using a laser.
I doubt MOST people would have believed any of these things would be possible in only 8-10 years - even on slashdot but sometimes it just does happen.
On the other hand there are some other surprises. If you expand the old graphs of PC processor clock speeds, we should have 12GHz CPUs now, but we don't. Clock speeds stopped increasing about 4 years ago. Processors are still faster due to architectural changes, faster bus speeds and more cores, but clock speeds are exactly the same if not slower than they were a few years back. My 4 year old desktop has a FASTER clock speed (2.4GHz P4) than my brand new more expensive desktop (2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo).
> They were able to connect their PC/Mac to the 'net, > why would you think they would not be able to do so with their player?
Because your PC tends to be near your modem. Your TV does not. Also PCs support wireless networking. Very few blu-ray players do (none in my local shop do) and therefore need a cable running half way across your house to put it on the net. It's not that people don't know HOW to do this - it's that they WON'T. Who wants cables running all over their house just so they can play movies in slightly better quality.
From normal viewing distances (NOT standing 4 ft away in a shop) most people can't even tell the difference between high definition and standard definition on the average 32" screen (the average size of a TV in the UK is 31 inches). Unless someone buys us all massive 50" inch screens, there is currently no point in upgrading.
Why do people keep saying Blu-Ray is "superior"? Bigger capacity - yes, but in most other ways the format offers no technical advantages. In fact I would have thought most slashdot readers would prefer HD-DVD due to the lack of region-coding and non-compulsory DRM (unlike Blu-Ray).
Why has my comment been modded "funny"? I was serious... If you open your firewall for incoming torrent connections, the download speeds are much better. The same is true of pretty much any peer-to-peer application. Additionally VOIP applications like Skype perform much more reliably. Not quite sure why anybody thinks my comment was "funny" - but maybe I've missed something.
How does affect their SEO status? Flash is pretty much crap for SEO with most flash content being extremely non search engine friendly (mainly due to the inability to link to a certain page within a flash file).
Pretty much ALL ways of generating electricity are cleaner than nuclear, with the only exception of burning stuff (oil, coal, natural gas or whatever). There's nothing more dirty than radioactive waste.
However, I understand the point you were making though - and I'm all for going more nuclear so we can burn less natural resources and produce less CO2. I'm just not sure that "cleaner" was appropriate phrasing for what you meant:)
You're missing my main point - I AM NOT A CRIMINAL. So I don't actually care if 'they' monitor me. Nothing will ever come of it. Worse case scenario - I'll just be some numbers a file somewhere that wouldn't have otherwise been there.
Yes, I obviously agree to not wanting to share my details with people who spam me - but that's off-topic with regards to product activation. No activation system I've seen asks you for any personal details like your name or email address. Microsoft's doesn't. Adobe's doesn't.
> I won't buy a GM car with OnStar precisely because I don't want to be monitored.
Personally, having been in a major car accident and living the UK where we don't have anything like OnStar, I would quite welcome having a button I could press when I'm sitting in my crumpled car having smashed my face on my dashboard. I'd really quite like it actually if they could work out for themselves that I've crashed and call 999/911 for me (does it do that already?).
Even if someone was watching me on their little screen for some bizarre reason - WHO CARES. Where I am is public information - people can see me and my car has license plates. If you really want privacy and want to hide, for the love of God don't get in a car.
I hate activation because of several aspects: 1: the company gets some information from me, including the fact that I bought their software. 2: they know everytime I install it, due to whatever reason (failed HD, upgraded system, whatever). 3: should they go out of business or pull an NFL stunt, I'll no longer be able to use the software.
Yes, but only software pirates tend to be worried about these things. You wouldn't worry about that when you buy a mobile/cell phone, or buy a car, because you know you're not intending to steal a phone or a car. Yet people seem to hate it when software producers do exactly the same thing - they seem to think they're being spied on or monitored. None of these things should worry anybody that isn't intending to pirate the software as nothing will ever come of it. However I agree that in the rare instance that the manufacturer goes bankrupt - that would be really annoying if you couldn't then reactivate your software. Not really a problem when talking about Microsoft products though.
> OOo can effectively replace Office and Thunderbird can replace Outlook for 95+%
No and no. OO.org has very poor support for interoperability with MS Word documents, which is why almost nobody uses it (less than 1% of the market share of office). It can just about open a basic letter, but not much more than that. If you don't believe me, try opening a moderately complex Word document and see what it looks like. Then save it out and open it in Word again. Pretty bad huh? I'm not saying that OO.org isn't better - I'm just saying it's not *compatible* so people will avoid it until it really is (which may never happen if MS keep changing the document format faster than OO.org can keep up with).
Amongst home users, software piracy is also rife, meaning that many people perceive MS Office to be "free" too. If everyone really did have to pay for their software because the copy protection was 100% effective, you can bet that Open Source would take off in a huge way. Even some companies that license their software, are usually running far more copies than they've got licenses for. Ie, they buy ONE copy of Office and install it everywhere. This has probably lessened with the introduction of product activation.
What I never understand about Slashdot, is that most people seem to hate activation and copy protection and yet in the same breath wonder why people don't choose "free" software. Copied software is free too. I DO NOT CONDONE SOFTWARE PIRACY - I'm simply making a point.
Thunderbird is an extremely basic email client whick lacks most of the features found in Outlook. That's like saying Wordpad can replace Word. Yes, they both edit text documents but they're hardly comparable! Thunderbird is targetted at home users - not big companies who need to use shared folders, calendars and shared contacts.
> It's funny you can download better operating systems for free than what the richest corporation on earth can sell you
If you really could, everybody would have done so already. If free operating systems really were "better" in every way, nobody would pay for a worse one if they can get something better for free. The problem with most free operating systems is that they don't run the software that people want to use (Office, Outlook, most games etc). Until they do, they won't be regarded as 'better' by the 95% of non-technical computer users.
Slashdot Mirror
..and I like waterboarding, but over here we call it "surfing".
Well no matter how bad they look, they'll still look better than mine.
Brian.
Um. NO!
You've clearly NEVER used ASP.NET or you'd realise that everything you've said is pretty much the exact opposite of what is true. It doesn't even *SUPPORT* VBScript let alone push you towards it! The code it produces is clean HTML/CSS and doesn't use any IE6 specific markup at all. Name me ONE case where it does this?
Northern Rock has not collapsed. It's share price has, but the bank itself is still trading normally.
> ASP.Net apps work only with IE6 with ActiveX enabled.
Sorry but this is rubbish. ASP.NET is a *server-side* engine. It's rubbish to say that ASP.NET sites only work with IE6.
And ASP.NET does NOT require any ActiveX support in the browser. Properly written ASP.NET sites work properly in ALL browsers - even ones which don't have javascript support.
I think your website is broken for other reasons - not because of ASP.NET or it's supposed incompatibly with IE7.
> there are a number of companies which in-house sites which are *not* IE7 compatible
That's usually a problem with the site - not the browser.
> but it's still not a good idea for an upgrade to *break* compatibility
Yes it is. Why try and maintain compatibility with a BROKEN and BUGGY browser? Fix the browser, then let the web developers fix their sites.
> IE7 WILL NOT be going on any of my machines
Why on earth not? IE 7 is *SO MUCH* better than IE 6 it's ridiculous.
IE 6 is so bad that I can't understand why anybody would NOT want to upgrade as soon as IE 7 came out.
IE 6 is an seven year old web browser! It was released on August 27, 2001! a The web has moved on from then and so should you.
> The autopilot apparently sensed the need for more thrust and warned the pilots of this.
The autopilot does not "warn" the pilots. The autopilot flies the plane itself.
The autopilot itself demanded more power from the engines (by physically pushing the throttle levers forwards) and neither engine responded. The autopilot is not responsible for warning pilots about things that are wrong. The pilots would probably have got a stall warning or low airspeed warning first, but fundamentally, they would have already known something was up as they would be falling below the glide slope on the ILS and they also have a pretty good view out of the front window.
Since both engines are completely independent from each other, it's a fair hypothesis to say that's likely to be the engine control software which was at fault. The chances of both engines failing simultaneously are close to zero unless the aircraft has recently collided with something (eg the terrain). I think the hypothesis is therefore fair. The articles are clearly suggesting a hypothesis and and NOT claiming that the the REASON has already been found. Hence phrases like "likely to be" and "prime suspect" in the TFA.
How is that +5 Insightful when you don't even seem to know what an autopilot does?
> except that they have to 'break' the executable files.
> (My memory is shot, I can't remember the term for this,
Decompiling?
Point accepted, but some technologies DO come to market and work out OK in the end.
1. I would never have believed when I was at university exactly ten years ago, that in 2008, I would have a more powerful processor in my *telephone* than I had in my desktop computer I took to uni to study Computer Science with.
2. I would never have believed ten years ago that I could get 4 GIGABYTES of non-volatile memory in something the same size as my little fingernail (MicroSD) for a few pounds off eBay.
3. I also bet my colleague about 3 years ago that you would NOT be able to ever run your computer from any kind of solid state hard disk until at least 2010. I lost the bet - I assumed the OS and data would get bigger faster than solid state storage would increase in size, but 64GB SSD drives are now affordable and would easily take all my files on any of my computers.
4. We can access the Internet in the lounge, park or coffee shop at multi-megabit speeds, often for free. 10 years ago MOST people had never even heard of "broadband" and I was paying £20 per month for Demon DIAL UP at 28.8K. If you'd said that someone could get 2-8Mbit internet over shitty copper phone lines from a mile away, they'd have laughed. At the time I was struggling to make a 10Mbit work just within the confines of our office. Now our office as a 20MBit internet connection just a few years later. When I graduated from Uni in '99 (CompSci) our entire halls of residence (over 100 people) was connected back to the uni with one 64Kbit leased line - which cost the uni nearly £2000 per month. Now they have 100Mb broadband in every room connected to the uni using a laser.
I doubt MOST people would have believed any of these things would be possible in only 8-10 years - even on slashdot but sometimes it just does happen.
On the other hand there are some other surprises. If you expand the old graphs of PC processor clock speeds, we should have 12GHz CPUs now, but we don't. Clock speeds stopped increasing about 4 years ago. Processors are still faster due to architectural changes, faster bus speeds and more cores, but clock speeds are exactly the same if not slower than they were a few years back. My 4 year old desktop has a FASTER clock speed (2.4GHz P4) than my brand new more expensive desktop (2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo).
Um, England has the "Monster Raving Loon Party".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party
What about running a whois lookup on a few million GUID domain names:
:)
828BA458-73EF-44E5-B6DA-91ACEC2F38FA.com
etc...
> They were able to connect their PC/Mac to the 'net,
> why would you think they would not be able to do so with their player?
Because your PC tends to be near your modem. Your TV does not. Also PCs support wireless networking. Very few blu-ray players do (none in my local shop do) and therefore need a cable running half way across your house to put it on the net. It's not that people don't know HOW to do this - it's that they WON'T. Who wants cables running all over their house just so they can play movies in slightly better quality.
From normal viewing distances (NOT standing 4 ft away in a shop) most people can't even tell the difference between high definition and standard definition on the average 32" screen (the average size of a TV in the UK is 31 inches). Unless someone buys us all massive 50" inch screens, there is currently no point in upgrading.
Why do people keep saying Blu-Ray is "superior"? Bigger capacity - yes, but in most other ways the format offers no technical advantages. In fact I would have thought most slashdot readers would prefer HD-DVD due to the lack of region-coding and non-compulsory DRM (unlike Blu-Ray).
Why has my comment been modded "funny"? I was serious... If you open your firewall for incoming torrent connections, the download speeds are much better. The same is true of pretty much any peer-to-peer application. Additionally VOIP applications like Skype perform much more reliably. Not quite sure why anybody thinks my comment was "funny" - but maybe I've missed something.
> yes, I did once leave my PC on for a wek trying to download one album.
Open your firewall then. The albums will download about 10 times quicker.
You cannot steal a "service". You can USE a service, but you can't steal it.
How does affect their SEO status? Flash is pretty much crap for SEO with most flash content being extremely non search engine friendly (mainly due to the inability to link to a certain page within a flash file).
Pretty much ALL ways of generating electricity are cleaner than nuclear, with the only exception of burning stuff (oil, coal, natural gas or whatever). There's nothing more dirty than radioactive waste.
:)
However, I understand the point you were making though - and I'm all for going more nuclear so we can burn less natural resources and produce less CO2. I'm just not sure that "cleaner" was appropriate phrasing for what you meant
Read the article and watch the video and you'll soon find out :)
You're missing my main point - I AM NOT A CRIMINAL. So I don't actually care if 'they' monitor me. Nothing will ever come of it. Worse case scenario - I'll just be some numbers a file somewhere that wouldn't have otherwise been there.
Yes, I obviously agree to not wanting to share my details with people who spam me - but that's off-topic with regards to product activation. No activation system I've seen asks you for any personal details like your name or email address. Microsoft's doesn't. Adobe's doesn't.
> I won't buy a GM car with OnStar precisely because I don't want to be monitored.
Personally, having been in a major car accident and living the UK where we don't have anything like OnStar, I would quite welcome having a button I could press when I'm sitting in my crumpled car having smashed my face on my dashboard. I'd really quite like it actually if they could work out for themselves that I've crashed and call 999/911 for me (does it do that already?).
Even if someone was watching me on their little screen for some bizarre reason - WHO CARES. Where I am is public information - people can see me and my car has license plates. If you really want privacy and want to hide, for the love of God don't get in a car.
> Concorde would be flying to this day except for one thing: 9/11.
?! Not sure what you're talking about - there were no Concordes involved on 9/11 at all.
The last commercial concorde flight was on 23 October 2003 (source). Therefore it was flying more than two years AFTER 9/11/2001.
Concorde was actually grounded due to a massive crash and nothing to do with 9/11.
> OOo can effectively replace Office and Thunderbird can replace Outlook for 95+%
No and no. OO.org has very poor support for interoperability with MS Word documents, which is why almost nobody uses it (less than 1% of the market share of office). It can just about open a basic letter, but not much more than that. If you don't believe me, try opening a moderately complex Word document and see what it looks like. Then save it out and open it in Word again. Pretty bad huh? I'm not saying that OO.org isn't better - I'm just saying it's not *compatible* so people will avoid it until it really is (which may never happen if MS keep changing the document format faster than OO.org can keep up with).
Amongst home users, software piracy is also rife, meaning that many people perceive MS Office to be "free" too. If everyone really did have to pay for their software because the copy protection was 100% effective, you can bet that Open Source would take off in a huge way. Even some companies that license their software, are usually running far more copies than they've got licenses for. Ie, they buy ONE copy of Office and install it everywhere. This has probably lessened with the introduction of product activation.
What I never understand about Slashdot, is that most people seem to hate activation and copy protection and yet in the same breath wonder why people don't choose "free" software. Copied software is free too. I DO NOT CONDONE SOFTWARE PIRACY - I'm simply making a point.
Thunderbird is an extremely basic email client whick lacks most of the features found in Outlook. That's like saying Wordpad can replace Word. Yes, they both edit text documents but they're hardly comparable! Thunderbird is targetted at home users - not big companies who need to use shared folders, calendars and shared contacts.
> It's funny you can download better operating systems for free than what the richest corporation on earth can sell you
If you really could, everybody would have done so already. If free operating systems really were "better" in every way, nobody would pay for a worse one if they can get something better for free. The problem with most free operating systems is that they don't run the software that people want to use (Office, Outlook, most games etc). Until they do, they won't be regarded as 'better' by the 95% of non-technical computer users.