If the government is using tax payer money they should not pay for it. Especially poor students who just want to start their lives. A few immigrants can mow it for minimium wage and not a professional team of horticulturalists or whatever.
The opposite if you read my post actually. I congradulated the grand parent for going to school school and finding a job fast using his skills to pay it off. He wasn't to blame.
My example was to show someone who *should* be blamed and I was not clear. I am agaisnt bailing out, but I want to see reforms as the colleges themselves are part of the problem too. Not just the student.
They are just reacting to market conditions and administrators are buying BMWs from these poor saps and tax payer assisted money. If you are going to try to do a more favorable loan with these students who fucked up, at least fix the problem before these $150,000 loans turn into $350,000 by 2020.
True you need to pay them and be prepaired to take costs very seriously.
They need to teach this in school. They need to teach compounding interest. All 8th graders in Asia and Europe know this but American colleges do not teach this unless you take calc 1 or Accounting 101 by your second or third year. Then it is too late.
People forget cars are very expensive and having just $200 a month left after debt repayments and rent wont cut it.
I am not a heartless monster and think college is a ripoff at these rates. I favor reform, but not if it punishes others or puts our own economic security as a nation at risk due to high rising debt! NO more debt and if you stop giving free money and guaranteeing loans the banks will quickly put caps on tuition and refuse to serve students who do not major in areas that make money. The problem woudl fix itself.
Yes it is a dream to be an art major for the student. But how does that benefit him or her 5 years later working at Walmart for free 100% wage garnishment to pay for it? Just shoot yourself now. It would be better for that person to be an accountant making $28,000 a year instead and being able to have a life.
Great job in finding a cheap solution and utilizing a skill to pay them off quick.
What about someone who gets $150,000 in loans just to teach? Ouch. That will haunt you for years and yes that is the grats fault 100%. That is the problem as a $1700 a month student loan bill is unsustainable when you have $1200 in rent if you only make $45,000 a year, etc.
That is who Obama wants to help and where tax payers will revolt at this. Univerisities are partially to blame but they are a business out to make money. Of course you raise the rates very high and pay yourself $500,000 a year for being the Univerisity's president. Get rid of money and univeristies will charge less and students will need to figure out ways to cut costs like you did.
They have no clue that they will be payuing $1700 a month when signing that paper for hte next 20 years!
Cutting the aid program or tell banks they will have to cover more and more percentages of defaults will quickly fix the situation.
1. Colleges will stop having 12 directors and VPs for things like diversity who get paid $200,000 a year, stop paying $5,000,000 a year on gardens and lawns, and many other useless things because they have free money so why care?
2. Costs will start to go down too and many parents and students will vote for governors who promise more state funding for universities too.
That is another issue. With free money the states can simply not fund their state colleges anymore. They in turn raises rates and students do not care as they are covered with their loans. Boy, after graduation their will be hell to pay when the bill is due.
3. If banks know that a socialogy major will not be able to pay back his/her loan, they can demand students to only major in disciplines that give them a career. Don't like it? Pay for it yourself etc. This will get rid of the art major crowds and force them to major in marketing to use their art skills in advertising.
No bailouts, and gradual cuts and increasing liability for banks will fix it. It will be painful at first and students will be pissed off as hell so I wonder how feasible that would be?
You agreed. You signed the papers. You gave them your word and honesty that you would do whatever it would take to pay them back. You took the money from hard working Americans' bank accounts for these financial institutions to invest you in the hopes for interest in return to fund their retirement.
Pay it.
Why should hard working successfull people who paid off their loans be punished by having to pay for your own foolishness? They were smart and worked harder and saved and now should have their reward.
One thing we found out is Americans HATE bailouts. They will not support it and will fight every stance to keep what htey earned. Yes costs are going up but you are an adult and need to take responsibility. I wish home owners couldn't default either to level the playing field. The problem is if you help students, help big banks, then everyone else will want a handout. Ultimately, the government goes broke and end up like Greece all poor and taxed to death with no end in sight.... FYI this is coming from someone who owes $40,000 in student loans and is living with his parents to pay them off.
Would you bet your life savings and hire someone for your business who has no ambition, poor math and writting skills, and not the brightest?
I am not saying all people who do not have a college degree have these attributes. But if you have no work experience how can you prove you are not a moron? If you have a bachelors with a 3.0 GPA or higher you have ambition and medium intelligence. If you have a 3.4 GPA from a decent skill you have skill and ambition on top of that.
I would take my bet on the latter.
People say these things and how life is unfair until they are the ones who own the business or if their job as a manager is on the line from a single bad hire. Outlawing these filters will have me bring in H1B1 from India instead. As indentured servants I can overwork them and underpay them too which helps my bottom line if I were an asshole. My point is we need to get rid of the regulation and roadblocks to give people incentives to hire Americans. Especially ones who took the expensive risk of college for trying to better themselves.
40,000 Mexicans are slain and many folks like myself refuse to visit it now costing jobs, which in return encourages unemployed Mexicans to take bribes or work for the cartel to feed their family. Wouldn't they want our help?
True many have misgivings with history but if the Mexican government needs help I think 50,000 marines could come in and solve the problem and work with their existing military to solve the problem.... last it is in America's interest. What if these cartel members do a Columbian style rebel movement and take over the government who is weaker than they are? What if the lords start the killings in Texas and California too and bring the war to us?
We need to take them out as they pose a much greater risk than Iraq and would benefit the Mexican people. I do agree not to invade and respect the country's sovereignity but if I were Obama I would be in talks with the goverment about a partnership to remove them and cooperate peacefully. Both nations would benefit and the risk of a Zeta takoever is real with 40,000 members who are armed. Probably more of them than the whole rebel Libyan Army.
Unix had a huge marketshare of the WWW back in 1994 as average Mom and Pops didn't browse the internet. They used Prodigy, AOL, and CompuServe, assuming they would even have a computer.
Mac users too would rebel like I said in my post. Linux was tiny, but SGI and Sun were the big boys on college campuses and students telnetted into their unix boxen to browse the web too in those days.
Ms could not have that 90% marketshare as Windows internet usage was much smaller.
I was so hardcore democratic for many years posting here, but these posts sicken me.
Ok maybe more libertarian than republican. This debt nightmare and corruption from financial institutions has GOT TO STOP. I wish more Wall Street Protestors would voice their opposition at the government and follow Peter Schiff's advice to them.
This is scandalous and I hope it hits the news. The right at least is getting serious about cutting funding to try to balance market conditions and historically democrats have done a better job but this non sense needs to stop before another crash making the 2008 one look like picnic starts.
Hear my words. The next crash there will be no bailouts. Retirees and widows will lose everything as it is too political to save them again like Obama did and we saw the result of angry Americans.
You know in the old days the UK (assuming you are british) and the US would not charge more than 6% interest and both country's prospered with insury laws.
What happened to your country after the Victorian Era? Debt crushed it and when WW1 hit England and its citizens couldn't pay it back. It was much easier to get a loan and not be burdened if you owned a texttile in the 1880s in England than in 1920. Things were good in the 1880s until the bill was due. It took until the 1940s to get out of it as so many corporations, the bank of england, and the government owed everyone so much money that production was cut to pay it. A 40 year recession due to excessive debt not being able to have capital to reinvest.
I heard an American economist in 2007 warn us that the fall of the British Empire was being repeated in the US and it took 40 years to fully recover until it was paid off. England was a vast empire and even today it never fully recovered due to its debt burden. Not because us Yanks outdid you.
Any debt is bad for consumers as corporation =! individual expendture investments.
Getting a big house is a mistake if you plan to retire by 55 as so much savings potential would go to the back to cover the interest on the 30 year loan.
But I understand just like a manufacturer can not stay in business for long without a plant, and renting will just cost more than owning it outright. Having a house paid off in full is a requirement for retirement and that is true as no one wants to splurge their savings making some landlord rich. Still getting the cheapest house is the best as you gain no extra money from getting a bigger one as a bigger house does not give you more money and therefore is not an intelligent move.
A business on the otherhand can make extra money by buying larger plant equipment for better economies of scale so for the business it is a trade off with long term reward vs short term risk + interest costs for the loans. But the same is not true for consumers.
Expenditures = bad and avoided if possible for consumers
I believe IE today is holding the web back 5 - 10 years. IE 6 came at the worst time as average joes with their Windows PCs took over the WWW. If MS bought out Netscape back in 1994 when the Unix geeks controlled the vast majority of internet usage you can bet immediately another browser, Mosiac or otherwise would replace Netscape and quickly catch up.
By the time 2001 when came, there would be many different browsers and the newcombers running Windows could not take 90% marketshare with IE/Netscape 6. The internet today would have looked more like an IPAD with fancy html 5 and graphics with advanced effects. Today IE 8 is holding it back as it owns 25% of the market so webmasters can't do the cool tricks and the 75% have to wait until IE 8 has below 10% marketshare. With Windows 7 becoming the next XP that will be a very very long time. Sigh
I believe it was called Hotjava or Hot something. That was the name of their browser for their failed JavaOS project for the Network Computer. It supported HTML 3 when it came out in 1999 or 2000 and Java 1.3. Unfortunately, they didn't market it outside of JavaOS. I did run it on Windows and I played with it and it was ok, but didn't support HTML 4 and back then loading Java sucked.
Who knows if it would have become more popular, but I forgot Sun did have that browser back then and it would have been multi platform.
Not only did AOL purchase them, but they bundled IE 6 with custom AOL artwork instead even though they owned Netscape! That was a slap in the face and I believe Bill Gates owned 10% stock of Time Warner. hmm I smell a rat.
That only worked for 5 years anyway. It is funny by 2009 when IE 8 came out it was obvious MS was panicking realizing they were asleep due to Firefox. IE 9 is still catch up
Not only that but in 1994 the majority of web users were Unix geeks or those with PCs in there dorms who telneted or dailed into their unix servers on campus. If netscape for Unix was killed they would have used something else and these students marketshare would have mattered in those days signficantly.
There were 4 other browsers in the early 1990s and Ars Technica has an article on it (too lazy to look up). My guess is those would become popular and be developed to catch up to Netscape and be cross released to the Mac and Windows platforms from the then strong Unix community. If I recall in 1991 - 1998 Netscape/Mosiac was the only way to get on the web for the Mac. IE for macs came later. Didn't Apple make a lame one? If MS killed Netscape the mac that would add demand for the alternative browser too.
"Do you think Microsoft would have allowed Google to flourish?
" You can't control the market of search providors like you can with Word. MS would have to rewrite w3c and lock html, encrypt it with proprietary protocols not based on HTTP, and do crazy shit to kill all competition. It is not like controlling the.doc formats in Word to force Office. MS excells at this (no pun intended) but the WWW is a different beast. As long as something is somewhat open alternative will pop out and once that happens the monopolists no longer writes the rules and controls the market.
There would be another browser if it were not for Firefox.
In 1994 there were 4 browsers out there. Some were as good as Mosaic too and I used one that I can't remember the name of which was made by a lawyer organization. Anyway, Netscape was the best one and it didn't win until the late 1990s.
What would have happened is another browser would have come by. IE 6 was ok in 2001, but security holes, and terrible development efforts to get anything done in it created the fuel for Mozilla Phoenix (later Firefox). Konqueror was created on Linux that was starting to become popular which is what webkit is based off of (engine of Chrome).
Mac users also would have used a different browser altogether as IE did not exist on the mac until 1998 if I recall. Was there even a MacOS8 or MacOS9 version before MacOSX? I do not recall as I was an NT user then. Someone can correct me if I am wrong as I didn't use macs then but it stands my point. Linux was more popular and so was Unix 10+ years ago in the workstation market and they would have used a different browser or a Gnu based one would come about that would be ported to all operating systems such as Konqueror. Universities were not all NT and Windows based like today and these CS and engineering students were most of the internet users anyway in the mid 1990s. Not the general public.
When MS had 90% of the market in the dark days of 2004 - 2006 demand for a way out corrected it. Many people do not like control by one company. Firefox was born. I just remembered Opera does exist and is popular in Russia and Eastern Europe. Perhaps, that would be the new norm? Demand exists outside of the workplace who do not want one company, one standard, one way of doing things etc.
IE 6 did make much of the web proprietary and started the intranets that can't be upgraded today that we all loathe, but MS attempts at proprietarization failed. Too many people need the net on many devices which means standards and more browsers hence the race for HTML 5.
This article goes on the theory that the volcano is in an an area of more known super volcanos than any place on Earth. A hidden magma chamber is forming under the regular volcano. The other super volcanos could actually be the same one through through the the same chamber. If a huge chamber blows the rock above that will qualify it as a super volcano for sure. At 19,000 feet up it is hard to tell, but signs are a super volcano is under it. It appears to be forming
In the 1990s you had 2 options to go in the net. PC or $$$ Unix workstation. Guess which one had 95% marketshare? With bundling and OEM deals IE took over and extinguished the net. Today MS can not do that.
More people in 5 years will be accessing the web from phones, tablets, and tiny netbooks running blackberry, IOS, Andriod, etc. This will be especially true in Asia and South America where the countries are poorer and these are more affordable than a full blown computer.
Linux is a dream and will never grow beyond 1% but other mobile platforms the market is much bigger.
Even if MS were to make their own HTML, own activeX garbage, own convulted way of not following standards like they did with IE 6, it would fail. My guess is 50% of all internet users will be using portable operating systems and webmasters simply would ignore the lock in.
I look forward to IE 10 as it is much better for I.T. departments and people who do not know any better and is a real competitive browser unlike the past decade. It can't ever take over again. It can't happen today.
I agree with IE 10 being not sucking as much as I get flamed here on slashdot for that. IE 9's hardware acceleration makes it the best browser for multimedia sites on my computer with a decent graphics card. MS realized they were getting burned and see IOS with html 5 applets as serious threats and realized their own browser sucks horribly bad and simply could not compete with it nor Firefox. IE 9/10 were the results of a new direction.
However, I doubt it will get that 90% markethshare thanks to driod phones and Ipads and Chrome. Windows 8 will make serious inroads for sure in the corporate market, but IPads are popular too. Driods are popular too which use webkit. In the 1990s only PCs and Unix workstations had net access so one platform with 95% marketshare could twist the whole market etc.
This is good and from what I see is IE is very standards compliant and not lockin heavy like with IE 6. IE 6 really did suck and won not because it was better but it sucked least in my opinion at the time. IE rocked in the 1990s in the pre CSS days of static html like you said, but becomes a nightmare with advanced content seen in the last decade. It just couldn't handle AJAX and CSS 2 with html 4 with large amounts of tags without getting creative.
Chrome if anything is turning proprietary and it even includes its own scripting language Dart. My prediction is tablets and subnotebooks will become more popular and IOS and Andriod will start running on a few of them and the rest will run Windows 8. Multiple browser support will discourage heavy lockin as even many corporations want their employees in China not in front of their pcs to access their html 5 intranet applets on their phones etc. A corporation could use ActiveX or Metro and tie it to a workstation but they lose many advantages like portability. 10 years ago it was difficult to not make it heavily embedded in a MS ecosystem to do anything useful. Today it is difficult to tie it in vs using open technologies.
Even if W3c wont finalize until late it wont matter. IE in the past refused to support drafts from w3c to avoid issues like the box model when the finalized standard changed. MS now supports drafts and IE was the sole reason webmasters couldn't use anything new because 50% of their visitors used IE. That is gone now.
A better browser is good for everyone because some poor saps need to support it.
No it will be muuuch better. Many intranet migrations from IE 6 to IE 8 have the surprise benefit of running on Chrome and even an IPad as long as activex is not heavily utilized. Why? IE 8 supports more standards. IE 10 as much as you want to light it on fire and burn it is a good browser on par with opera and just behond Chrome. Seriously it is a HUGE improvement! Standard html 5 and ajax will make intranet portals to an open standard. Less tie in. MS is opening up and woth IE 6 dead we can have better lives in I.T.
We would have an actually great browser with little lockin. Actually I thank Apple. Chrome to me is turning more proprietary with Dart and other technologies. I think this is good and IE 10 can never be IE 6 due to other browsers and phones and tablets. I.T greatly looks forward to Ie 10 and html 5 compaired to to IE 6 anyday
... Not to sound trollbaitish here but I would rather use IE 9 than Firefox these days. Google is a much bigger threat and Chrome is a mini os with Dart and other lockin technologies. Ms wants people to use Windows more than caring about a browser.
IE 9 is nothing like IE 6. It is a competive browser with no lockin. IE 10 will rival all with a 309 html 5 score! Ms doest need Firefox. Google screwed mozilla and its payback. Mozilla has no interest in being proprietary or an OS. Not a threat to MS.
Slashdot Mirror
Then they can pay them then.
If the government is using tax payer money they should not pay for it. Especially poor students who just want to start their lives. A few immigrants can mow it for minimium wage and not a professional team of horticulturalists or whatever.
There are many ways to start cutting.
The opposite if you read my post actually. I congradulated the grand parent for going to school school and finding a job fast using his skills to pay it off. He wasn't to blame.
My example was to show someone who *should* be blamed and I was not clear. I am agaisnt bailing out, but I want to see reforms as the colleges themselves are part of the problem too. Not just the student.
They are just reacting to market conditions and administrators are buying BMWs from these poor saps and tax payer assisted money. If you are going to try to do a more favorable loan with these students who fucked up, at least fix the problem before these $150,000 loans turn into $350,000 by 2020.
No that is not me and I through that in there. Thanks for trolling
True you need to pay them and be prepaired to take costs very seriously.
They need to teach this in school. They need to teach compounding interest. All 8th graders in Asia and Europe know this but American colleges do not teach this unless you take calc 1 or Accounting 101 by your second or third year. Then it is too late.
People forget cars are very expensive and having just $200 a month left after debt repayments and rent wont cut it.
I am not a heartless monster and think college is a ripoff at these rates. I favor reform, but not if it punishes others or puts our own economic security as a nation at risk due to high rising debt! NO more debt and if you stop giving free money and guaranteeing loans the banks will quickly put caps on tuition and refuse to serve students who do not major in areas that make money. The problem woudl fix itself.
Yes it is a dream to be an art major for the student. But how does that benefit him or her 5 years later working at Walmart for free 100% wage garnishment to pay for it? Just shoot yourself now. It would be better for that person to be an accountant making $28,000 a year instead and being able to have a life.
You are not to blame.
Great job in finding a cheap solution and utilizing a skill to pay them off quick.
What about someone who gets $150,000 in loans just to teach? Ouch. That will haunt you for years and yes that is the grats fault 100%. That is the problem as a $1700 a month student loan bill is unsustainable when you have $1200 in rent if you only make $45,000 a year, etc.
That is who Obama wants to help and where tax payers will revolt at this. Univerisities are partially to blame but they are a business out to make money. Of course you raise the rates very high and pay yourself $500,000 a year for being the Univerisity's president. Get rid of money and univeristies will charge less and students will need to figure out ways to cut costs like you did.
They have no clue that they will be payuing $1700 a month when signing that paper for hte next 20 years!
Yep.
Cutting the aid program or tell banks they will have to cover more and more percentages of defaults will quickly fix the situation.
1. Colleges will stop having 12 directors and VPs for things like diversity who get paid $200,000 a year, stop paying $5,000,000 a year on gardens and lawns, and many other useless things because they have free money so why care?
2. Costs will start to go down too and many parents and students will vote for governors who promise more state funding for universities too.
That is another issue. With free money the states can simply not fund their state colleges anymore. They in turn raises rates and students do not care as they are covered with their loans. Boy, after graduation their will be hell to pay when the bill is due.
3. If banks know that a socialogy major will not be able to pay back his/her loan, they can demand students to only major in disciplines that give them a career. Don't like it? Pay for it yourself etc. This will get rid of the art major crowds and force them to major in marketing to use their art skills in advertising.
No bailouts, and gradual cuts and increasing liability for banks will fix it. It will be painful at first and students will be pissed off as hell so I wonder how feasible that would be?
You agreed. You signed the papers. You gave them your word and honesty that you would do whatever it would take to pay them back. You took the money from hard working Americans' bank accounts for these financial institutions to invest you in the hopes for interest in return to fund their retirement.
Pay it.
Why should hard working successfull people who paid off their loans be punished by having to pay for your own foolishness? They were smart and worked harder and saved and now should have their reward.
One thing we found out is Americans HATE bailouts. They will not support it and will fight every stance to keep what htey earned. Yes costs are going up but you are an adult and need to take responsibility. I wish home owners couldn't default either to level the playing field. The problem is if you help students, help big banks, then everyone else will want a handout. Ultimately, the government goes broke and end up like Greece all poor and taxed to death with no end in sight. ... FYI this is coming from someone who owes $40,000 in student loans and is living with his parents to pay them off.
Would you bet your life savings and hire someone for your business who has no ambition, poor math and writting skills, and not the brightest?
I am not saying all people who do not have a college degree have these attributes. But if you have no work experience how can you prove you are not a moron? If you have a bachelors with a 3.0 GPA or higher you have ambition and medium intelligence. If you have a 3.4 GPA from a decent skill you have skill and ambition on top of that.
I would take my bet on the latter.
People say these things and how life is unfair until they are the ones who own the business or if their job as a manager is on the line from a single bad hire. Outlawing these filters will have me bring in H1B1 from India instead. As indentured servants I can overwork them and underpay them too which helps my bottom line if I were an asshole. My point is we need to get rid of the regulation and roadblocks to give people incentives to hire Americans. Especially ones who took the expensive risk of college for trying to better themselves.
40,000 Mexicans are slain and many folks like myself refuse to visit it now costing jobs, which in return encourages unemployed Mexicans to take bribes or work for the cartel to feed their family. Wouldn't they want our help?
True many have misgivings with history but if the Mexican government needs help I think 50,000 marines could come in and solve the problem and work with their existing military to solve the problem. ... last it is in America's interest. What if these cartel members do a Columbian style rebel movement and take over the government who is weaker than they are? What if the lords start the killings in Texas and California too and bring the war to us?
We need to take them out as they pose a much greater risk than Iraq and would benefit the Mexican people. I do agree not to invade and respect the country's sovereignity but if I were Obama I would be in talks with the goverment about a partnership to remove them and cooperate peacefully. Both nations would benefit and the risk of a Zeta takoever is real with 40,000 members who are armed. Probably more of them than the whole rebel Libyan Army.
Yep.
Unix had a huge marketshare of the WWW back in 1994 as average Mom and Pops didn't browse the internet. They used Prodigy, AOL, and CompuServe, assuming they would even have a computer.
Mac users too would rebel like I said in my post. Linux was tiny, but SGI and Sun were the big boys on college campuses and students telnetted into their unix boxen to browse the web too in those days.
Ms could not have that 90% marketshare as Windows internet usage was much smaller.
I was so hardcore democratic for many years posting here, but these posts sicken me.
Ok maybe more libertarian than republican. This debt nightmare and corruption from financial institutions has GOT TO STOP. I wish more Wall Street Protestors would voice their opposition at the government and follow Peter Schiff's advice to them.
This is scandalous and I hope it hits the news. The right at least is getting serious about cutting funding to try to balance market conditions and historically democrats have done a better job but this non sense needs to stop before another crash making the 2008 one look like picnic starts.
Hear my words. The next crash there will be no bailouts. Retirees and widows will lose everything as it is too political to save them again like Obama did and we saw the result of angry Americans.
You know in the old days the UK (assuming you are british) and the US would not charge more than 6% interest and both country's prospered with insury laws.
What happened to your country after the Victorian Era? Debt crushed it and when WW1 hit England and its citizens couldn't pay it back. It was much easier to get a loan and not be burdened if you owned a texttile in the 1880s in England than in 1920. Things were good in the 1880s until the bill was due. It took until the 1940s to get out of it as so many corporations, the bank of england, and the government owed everyone so much money that production was cut to pay it. A 40 year recession due to excessive debt not being able to have capital to reinvest.
I heard an American economist in 2007 warn us that the fall of the British Empire was being repeated in the US and it took 40 years to fully recover until it was paid off. England was a vast empire and even today it never fully recovered due to its debt burden. Not because us Yanks outdid you.
What are Obama's numbers? Probably 50%!
Any debt is bad for consumers as corporation =! individual expendture investments.
Getting a big house is a mistake if you plan to retire by 55 as so much savings potential would go to the back to cover the interest on the 30 year loan.
But I understand just like a manufacturer can not stay in business for long without a plant, and renting will just cost more than owning it outright. Having a house paid off in full is a requirement for retirement and that is true as no one wants to splurge their savings making some landlord rich. Still getting the cheapest house is the best as you gain no extra money from getting a bigger one as a bigger house does not give you more money and therefore is not an intelligent move.
A business on the otherhand can make extra money by buying larger plant equipment for better economies of scale so for the business it is a trade off with long term reward vs short term risk + interest costs for the loans. But the same is not true for consumers.
Expenditures = bad and avoided if possible for consumers
I believe IE today is holding the web back 5 - 10 years. IE 6 came at the worst time as average joes with their Windows PCs took over the WWW. If MS bought out Netscape back in 1994 when the Unix geeks controlled the vast majority of internet usage you can bet immediately another browser, Mosiac or otherwise would replace Netscape and quickly catch up.
By the time 2001 when came, there would be many different browsers and the newcombers running Windows could not take 90% marketshare with IE/Netscape 6. The internet today would have looked more like an IPAD with fancy html 5 and graphics with advanced effects. Today IE 8 is holding it back as it owns 25% of the market so webmasters can't do the cool tricks and the 75% have to wait until IE 8 has below 10% marketshare. With Windows 7 becoming the next XP that will be a very very long time. Sigh
I believe it was called Hotjava or Hot something. That was the name of their browser for their failed JavaOS project for the Network Computer. It supported HTML 3 when it came out in 1999 or 2000 and Java 1.3. Unfortunately, they didn't market it outside of JavaOS. I did run it on Windows and I played with it and it was ok, but didn't support HTML 4 and back then loading Java sucked.
Who knows if it would have become more popular, but I forgot Sun did have that browser back then and it would have been multi platform.
Not only did AOL purchase them, but they bundled IE 6 with custom AOL artwork instead even though they owned Netscape! That was a slap in the face and I believe Bill Gates owned 10% stock of Time Warner. hmm I smell a rat.
That only worked for 5 years anyway. It is funny by 2009 when IE 8 came out it was obvious MS was panicking realizing they were asleep due to Firefox. IE 9 is still catch up
Not only that but in 1994 the majority of web users were Unix geeks or those with PCs in there dorms who telneted or dailed into their unix servers on campus. If netscape for Unix was killed they would have used something else and these students marketshare would have mattered in those days signficantly.
There were 4 other browsers in the early 1990s and Ars Technica has an article on it (too lazy to look up). My guess is those would become popular and be developed to catch up to Netscape and be cross released to the Mac and Windows platforms from the then strong Unix community. If I recall in 1991 - 1998 Netscape/Mosiac was the only way to get on the web for the Mac. IE for macs came later. Didn't Apple make a lame one? If MS killed Netscape the mac that would add demand for the alternative browser too.
"Do you think Microsoft would have allowed Google to flourish?
" .doc formats in Word to force Office. MS excells at this (no pun intended) but the WWW is a different beast. As long as something is somewhat open alternative will pop out and once that happens the monopolists no longer writes the rules and controls the market.
You can't control the market of search providors like you can with Word. MS would have to rewrite w3c and lock html, encrypt it with proprietary protocols not based on HTTP, and do crazy shit to kill all competition. It is not like controlling the
There would be another browser if it were not for Firefox.
In 1994 there were 4 browsers out there. Some were as good as Mosaic too and I used one that I can't remember the name of which was made by a lawyer organization. Anyway, Netscape was the best one and it didn't win until the late 1990s.
What would have happened is another browser would have come by. IE 6 was ok in 2001, but security holes, and terrible development efforts to get anything done in it created the fuel for Mozilla Phoenix (later Firefox). Konqueror was created on Linux that was starting to become popular which is what webkit is based off of (engine of Chrome).
Mac users also would have used a different browser altogether as IE did not exist on the mac until 1998 if I recall. Was there even a MacOS8 or MacOS9 version before MacOSX? I do not recall as I was an NT user then. Someone can correct me if I am wrong as I didn't use macs then but it stands my point. Linux was more popular and so was Unix 10+ years ago in the workstation market and they would have used a different browser or a Gnu based one would come about that would be ported to all operating systems such as Konqueror. Universities were not all NT and Windows based like today and these CS and engineering students were most of the internet users anyway in the mid 1990s. Not the general public.
When MS had 90% of the market in the dark days of 2004 - 2006 demand for a way out corrected it. Many people do not like control by one company. Firefox was born. I just remembered Opera does exist and is popular in Russia and Eastern Europe. Perhaps, that would be the new norm? Demand exists outside of the workplace who do not want one company, one standard, one way of doing things etc.
IE 6 did make much of the web proprietary and started the intranets that can't be upgraded today that we all loathe, but MS attempts at proprietarization failed. Too many people need the net on many devices which means standards and more browsers hence the race for HTML 5.
This article goes on the theory that the volcano is in an an area of more known super volcanos than any place on Earth. A hidden magma chamber is forming under the regular volcano. The other super volcanos could actually be the same one through through the the same chamber. If a huge chamber blows the rock above that will qualify it as a super volcano for sure. At 19,000 feet up it is hard to tell, but signs are a super volcano is under it. It appears to be forming
In the 1990s you had 2 options to go in the net. PC or $$$ Unix workstation. Guess which one had 95% marketshare? With bundling and OEM deals IE took over and extinguished the net. Today MS can not do that.
More people in 5 years will be accessing the web from phones, tablets, and tiny netbooks running blackberry, IOS, Andriod, etc. This will be especially true in Asia and South America where the countries are poorer and these are more affordable than a full blown computer.
Linux is a dream and will never grow beyond 1% but other mobile platforms the market is much bigger.
Even if MS were to make their own HTML, own activeX garbage, own convulted way of not following standards like they did with IE 6, it would fail. My guess is 50% of all internet users will be using portable operating systems and webmasters simply would ignore the lock in.
I look forward to IE 10 as it is much better for I.T. departments and people who do not know any better and is a real competitive browser unlike the past decade. It can't ever take over again. It can't happen today.
History is different today than pre 2001 too.
I agree with IE 10 being not sucking as much as I get flamed here on slashdot for that. IE 9's hardware acceleration makes it the best browser for multimedia sites on my computer with a decent graphics card. MS realized they were getting burned and see IOS with html 5 applets as serious threats and realized their own browser sucks horribly bad and simply could not compete with it nor Firefox. IE 9/10 were the results of a new direction.
However, I doubt it will get that 90% markethshare thanks to driod phones and Ipads and Chrome. Windows 8 will make serious inroads for sure in the corporate market, but IPads are popular too. Driods are popular too which use webkit. In the 1990s only PCs and Unix workstations had net access so one platform with 95% marketshare could twist the whole market etc.
This is good and from what I see is IE is very standards compliant and not lockin heavy like with IE 6. IE 6 really did suck and won not because it was better but it sucked least in my opinion at the time. IE rocked in the 1990s in the pre CSS days of static html like you said, but becomes a nightmare with advanced content seen in the last decade. It just couldn't handle AJAX and CSS 2 with html 4 with large amounts of tags without getting creative.
Chrome if anything is turning proprietary and it even includes its own scripting language Dart. My prediction is tablets and subnotebooks will become more popular and IOS and Andriod will start running on a few of them and the rest will run Windows 8. Multiple browser support will discourage heavy lockin as even many corporations want their employees in China not in front of their pcs to access their html 5 intranet applets on their phones etc. A corporation could use ActiveX or Metro and tie it to a workstation but they lose many advantages like portability. 10 years ago it was difficult to not make it heavily embedded in a MS ecosystem to do anything useful. Today it is difficult to tie it in vs using open technologies.
Even if W3c wont finalize until late it wont matter. IE in the past refused to support drafts from w3c to avoid issues like the box model when the finalized standard changed. MS now supports drafts and IE was the sole reason webmasters couldn't use anything new because 50% of their visitors used IE. That is gone now.
A better browser is good for everyone because some poor saps need to support it.
No it will be muuuch better. Many intranet migrations from IE 6 to IE 8 have the surprise benefit of running on Chrome and even an IPad as long as activex is not heavily utilized. Why? IE 8 supports more standards. IE 10 as much as you want to light it on fire and burn it is a good browser on par with opera and just behond Chrome. Seriously it is a HUGE improvement! Standard html 5 and ajax will make intranet portals to an open standard. Less tie in. MS is opening up and woth IE 6 dead we can have better lives in I.T.
We would have an actually great browser with little lockin. Actually I thank Apple. Chrome to me is turning more proprietary with Dart and other technologies. I think this is good and IE 10 can never be IE 6 due to other browsers and phones and tablets. I.T greatly looks forward to Ie 10 and html 5 compaired to to IE 6 anyday
... Not to sound trollbaitish here but I would rather use IE 9 than Firefox these days. Google is a much bigger threat and Chrome is a mini os with Dart and other lockin technologies. Ms wants people to use Windows more than caring about a browser.
IE 9 is nothing like IE 6. It is a competive browser with no lockin. IE 10 will rival all with a 309 html 5 score! Ms doest need Firefox. Google screwed mozilla and its payback. Mozilla has no interest in being proprietary or an OS. Not a threat to MS.