Then don't use the NVidia drivers. If you're not using the computer to play games, I've found the XFree/Xorg 'nv' driver to be far better and more stable than the NVidia binary driver.
Your silver bullet is no real solution. You would still be dealing with algorithms, you are just pushing them somewhere else and calling them by a different name. The signal based synchronous software model would not (in and of itself) make any improvents to the relibility of software. You state in your paper that hardware flaws are physicial flaws rather than design flaws, which is completely untrue. The hardware world has seen more than it's fair share of design flaws as well. The reason is that QA for hardware is typically much higher than it is for software for three reasons:
1) hardware typically is designed to have longer life cycles than most software. Many chip producers are still actively manufacturing and selling five year old designs, while (for example) Microsoft has not only stopped selling windows 2000, they've also stopped actively supporting it.
2) hardware is difficult to patch after it has been deployed, so they can't just ship a product and then release patches when they find bugs after the fact.
3) hardware is usually much easier to test than software because it is much simpler (in that it is usually designed to perform a much smaller number of tasks in a narrower range of conditions), and a finite series of tests can be designed that achieve full or nearly full coverage.
the real problem with software instability is twofold. 1) marketing pressures in the software industry are such that software tends to be released without bing properly tested, released with known bugs, and more emphasis is put on getting things quickly rather than getting things done well. 2) unlike in other industries, consumers have come to expect that it is normal for software to be buggy or to have numerous patches released after the product. they would never accept this in consumer electronics, cars, public transportation, home appliances, or anything else that they purchase, but somehow this is normal for computer software, so they shrug and go on with their lives.
number 2 is the primary cause, because if it wasn't for number 2, number 1 wouldn't happen. the companies that rush products out the door that are buggy and incomplete would go out of business as people refused to buy their products or returned them en masse for being faulty. (which is another problem with the software industry- people can't return software that doesn't meet expectations like they can in any other sector)
which, by the way, is what happens to just about any non-software company when they release products with the same level of quality control as most software companies.
Re:I love the math they did to come up with this..
on
Wi-Fi Times Sixteen
·
· Score: 1
I think the parent was saying 11 jacks because this unit is several wireless AP's combined into one unit. What does this unit provide you that plugging in 12 separate and far cheaper access points could not? (although the blurb claims it is 16 access points, not 12, but either way...) afaik, you can buy an 11g access point for around $50 these days, can't you?
I have looked at iTunes before, but apparently I am not buying average CD's. Most CD's I can think of off the top of my head have at least 10 songs, and I would put the average number of songs on a CD at about 12-15. I usually buy CD's for about $13 or less, and if there's only 1-3 songs that I like on an album, I don't buy it.
I had forgotten about the $10 per album on iTunes, which is a little bit cheaper than a CD, but not enough to make me consider giving up physical media.
As for selling CD's- I never had either until about two years ago. Then I got married and my wife and I merged our music collections, leaving us with a lot of duplicate CD's. So in ~15 years of buying CD's I've only once so far ever used the ability to resell any of them, but that one time was enough to convince me that it is worth keeping that right when I buy new music.
Amazingly enough, at $12.99 per CD, record companies typically net significantly less than 20% at the end of the year. If you were to plot the net margins of all the companies from which you buy goods and services, CDs would be on the far left of the graph. Choosing to pay or not pay for CDs is one thing, but it's not accurate to state that CD prices are "unreasonable" if one also happily buys food at the supermarket, clothing at the mall, PCs (including parts and accessories), and countless other items from industries that typically enjoy net margins well in excess on what the record industry relies on.
perhaps the record companies themselves may not have that high of margins (if you really believe 20% is that low- i certainly don't, especially if your comparison is supermarkets and other retailers, but i digress) but you also have to consider where that other 80% goes. There is an awful lot of creative accounting that goes on in the music business. In most other businesses, there is a lot of competition, and therefore a lot of pressure to keep all of the expenses as low as possible. For retailers (for example) that means almost all of the expenses go into getting products into the store and onto the shelves. other than a few store managers, most salaries are minimum or near minimum wage.
The recording industries are a whole other ball of yarn. Where does all that money go? I speculate that maybe 20%-30% goes into all of the places that you listed. Another poster mentioned cd-r's which sell for less than 50 cents a piece and got written off. But really, most of the costs that you enumerate (operating costs of the shipper and distributor, returns, etc..) apply just as much to blank cd's as they do to real cd's. so all of that is just handwaving. when you pay $15 for a cd, less than about three dollars is (or could be, in an efficient economy) going to shipping, distributing, etc. We know that the artists typically get less than a dollar per cd as well. (I had a pie chart once that shows where all the money from a typical cd purchase goes. I wish I could find it now.) Most of the money gets payed out in advertising, salaries, and similar expenses which are much higher than they need to be (Jack Valenti's comment about $60-$70K not being a lot to live on springs to mind here).
The key here is not what the record companies profit margins are, but what their expenses are. If there were any real competition in the music business, competition that forced the record companies to price their CDs competetively, they could probably reduce the price of a CD by about 20-30% without cutting into their profit margin by being more careful with their expenses. Of course, that's standard practice in any other industry.
As an aside regarding Apples online music service. Apparently it's working for them, but if I am going to pay a dollar per song, I see no attraction to buying them from Apple versus buying the actual physical CD (usually less than a dollar per track) and having all of the following which you can't get from Apple: 1) full quality uncompressed audio 2a) ability to chhoose my preferred encoding format and compression ratio for digital storage 2b) ability to choose any hardware or software player to listen to my music on 3) ability to share the cd with friends 4) ability to resell the cd if I decide I don't want it anymore.
Why anybody (particularly anyone who ever complained that CD's cost too much) would be willing to pay a higher price for significantly reduced utility is beyond me. Of course, as I said, it seems to be working for Apple, so more power to them...
Looks like you need some reading comprehension courses. The parent never said that copyright infringement is theft. He stated (correctly) that the common excuse "copyright infringement isn't theft" does nothing to justify the fact that copyright infringement is illegal.
I'm willing to suffer though rebooting to windows to play games and then reboot to a different OS to get actual work done. If I had an OS that was good for both purposes, I wouldn't have to do that, but in the meantime, I do.
Consoles suck for most of the types of games that I enjoy playing on my PC. Conversely, games that I enjoy on a console tend to not impress me very much if/when I play them on a PC. About the only game that I have played and enjoyed on both platforms was GTA3, but even then, it was almost like playing a completely different game with the same plot.
And lastly, your stereotype is about 5-10 years out of date. As the generation of kids that grew up with Ataris and Nintendos ages, they are bringing the age of the gaming market segment right along with them. The average gamer is now in his late twenties or early thirties. Only about 30% of gamers are under the age of 20.
The HP guy wasn't saying that IBM and Sun should open source their proprietary software products. He merely said that in order to reduce confusion, when IBM and Sun release do release programs as Open Source, they should use an existing Free/Open source license like the GPL, rather than the CDDL or whatever IBM's Open Source license is. So he is not in any way asking them to do something that HP doesn't already do.
(I agree with another poster that the headline would have been much clearer if they had said "HP Calls For Sun and IBM to Remove OSS Licenses" rather than "HP Calls For Sun and IBM to Remove OS Licenses".)
I don't get this one though. I write open source software so people can use it. "leaching" is what they're doing by nature.
This depends on the perspective of the developer though. An individual developer who just wants his code to be out there for anyone to use may not have any issue with a company selling a product based on his code, but a company like IBM, who sells a lot of products and services around open source code that they have released, probably doesn't want HP, Sun, et al. making and selling closed source improved versions of their products. In that case, GPL makes more sense than BSD to the developer (IBM) because it ensures that any improvements that are made to the code by other companies are also available to IBM to be incorporated back into their own version.
By that reason, nothing at all should be patentable, i.e., patents shouldn't exist for anything. That argument isn't even worthy of discussion.
I don't quite see how that follows from what I said. Portable music players have existed at least since the early 1980's. The fact that the iPod uses a magnetic disk for starage rather than a magnetic tape or an optical disk is not really revolutionary, especially considering that many other devices that used magnetic tapes were already switching over to magnetic disks around the time that portable music players were invented.
Likewise, as many other posters have said, knobs and dials have been around forever. When someone can figure out how to pump music directly into my brain without wires or headphones/speakers, or adjust the controls without having to actually touch them, then that would be something patent worthy. But a music player that plays music through a pair of headphones or speakers and is controlled by manipulating wheels and knobs? Sorry, nothing new here.
I realize that I may have oversimplified my original statement slightly, but my point was that most of the software patents that people complain about wouldn't suddenly be ok if they were implemented in hardware rather than in software. I was using the parent posters example of a music player implemented in hardware vs software to make that point.
You seem to have a problem with that. Yet if I invent a portable music player that somehow does it all in hardware, you're presumeably OK with that.
I don't know that he ever says he is ok with that. I'm certainly not. I see no reason why any lump of plastic and wires that plays music should be patentable, regardless of whether it's functionality is implemented in hardware or software.
I am not really agains the idea of software patents in theory, but I am very much against them in practice because I can't remember ever hearing of a single software patent that I really think would be non-obvious to an experienced software developer. Of course this also applies to most non-software patents issued these days as well.
And don't even get me started on people trying to patent business practices...
I would take the digital. Last time my wife and I went to Europe we filled up two CF cards and that was after we deleted about half the pictures due to dupes, poor light conditions, lack of space, etc.
I'd rather not think about how many rolls of film we would have had to carry around with us on that trip if we had a regular camera, or how much it would have cost us to have them all develop when we got home. I'll take a plug adaptor or two over a dozen rolls of film, any day.
BTW, most battery chargers and AC-DC adaptors will work just fine under a very wide variety of voltages and frequencies, so for just about anything that uses DC power you only need the plug adaptor, and not a transformer. It should be trivial to find out by reading the label on te back of the charger.
The MiG-25 wasn't designed to intercept the SR-71; it was designed to intercept the B-70. The B-70 maxed out just over mach 3 (3.08 I believe was the maximum speed ever attianed in flight testing), and while it could maintain top speed for a much longer time, it also had 6 engines that were among the largest ever fitted to an airframe. The XB-70 was large fast and extremely heavy, built for straight line speed above all else, and thus any plane designed to brng it down would likely have had to be the same. The XB-70 was a fascinating airplane in many repsects, but had it ever made it to production, I suspect the MiG-25 would have been more than a match for it.
Moreover, as a ground based interceptor, the MiG-25 had much different requirements than either the SR-71 or the XB-70. It could only fly at top speed for about a half hour because that's all the farther it would ever need to fly to intercept an enemy plane entering it's airspace. The other two planes which were designed to fly halfway around the world and their only defense was to fly as high and fast as possible any time they were within enemy airspace.
how long until somebody fixes photoshop's user interface to work like the gimp? that's what i'm waiting for. photoshop's awful mdi interface drives me absolutely batty.
I think many of these Corporations are starting to get the message that they will get caught eventually if they continue to play dirty, with Spitzer working the beat. They may breath a huge sigh of relief if they can get him in a position where he cannot weild so much power over them.
Yeah, a lot of big corporations breathed a huge sigh of relief when Teddy Roosevelt went from being Governor of New York to Vice President, too. Didn't last long...
> > Customers are no good to you when they're mangled and decapitated. > The undertaker begs to differ:-)
Sorry to nitpick, but I'm pretty sure the mangled and decapitated guy isn't the undertakers customer... Although I suppose he could hope that the next of kin see the billboard when fishing the mangled corpse of their loved one out of the ravine.
I'm just waiting for the lawsuits. I'm sure that some offended conservative group is trying to find distress Moms who's little babies downloaded the patch to modify the game and were sullied. Poor little Johnny.
Me, I'm just amused by the thought of class action attorneys trolling for a named plaintiff parent who will testify that, while she was okay for her little Johnny to buy a game involving drug dealing, gambling, carjacking, cop-shooting, prostitution, throat-slashing, baseball-bat beatings, drive-by shootings, street-racing, gang wars, profanity-laced rap music, homosexual lovers' quarrels, blood and gore, and "Strong Sexual Content," she is shocked, shocked to learn that the game also includes an animation at about the level of a Ken doll rubbing up against an unclothed Barbie doll with X-rated sound effects, and is thus a victim of both consumer fraud and intense emotional distress, entitled to actual and punitive damages totalling $74,999 per identically-situated class member in the state.
Slashdot Mirror
Then don't use the NVidia drivers. If you're not using the computer to play games, I've found the XFree/Xorg 'nv' driver to be far better and more stable than the NVidia binary driver.
Your silver bullet is no real solution. You would still be dealing with algorithms, you are just pushing them somewhere else and calling them by a different name. The signal based synchronous software model would not (in and of itself) make any improvents to the relibility of software. You state in your paper that hardware flaws are physicial flaws rather than design flaws, which is completely untrue. The hardware world has seen more than it's fair share of design flaws as well. The reason is that QA for hardware is typically much higher than it is for software for three reasons:
1) hardware typically is designed to have longer life cycles than most software. Many chip producers are still actively manufacturing and selling five year old designs, while (for example) Microsoft has not only stopped selling windows 2000, they've also stopped actively supporting it.
2) hardware is difficult to patch after it has been deployed, so they can't just ship a product and then release patches when they find bugs after the fact.
3) hardware is usually much easier to test than software because it is much simpler (in that it is usually designed to perform a much smaller number of tasks in a narrower range of conditions), and a finite series of tests can be designed that achieve full or nearly full coverage.
the real problem with software instability is twofold.
1) marketing pressures in the software industry are such that software tends to be released without bing properly tested, released with known bugs, and more emphasis is put on getting things quickly rather than getting things done well.
2) unlike in other industries, consumers have come to expect that it is normal for software to be buggy or to have numerous patches released after the product. they would never accept this in consumer electronics, cars, public transportation, home appliances, or anything else that they purchase, but somehow this is normal for computer software, so they shrug and go on with their lives.
number 2 is the primary cause, because if it wasn't for number 2, number 1 wouldn't happen. the companies that rush products out the door that are buggy and incomplete would go out of business as people refused to buy their products or returned them en masse for being faulty. (which is another problem with the software industry- people can't return software that doesn't meet expectations like they can in any other sector)
which, by the way, is what happens to just about any non-software company when they release products with the same level of quality control as most software companies.
I think the parent was saying 11 jacks because this unit is several wireless AP's combined into one unit. What does this unit provide you that plugging in 12 separate and far cheaper access points could not? (although the blurb claims it is 16 access points, not 12, but either way...) afaik, you can buy an 11g access point for around $50 these days, can't you?
just as renaming the 802.11b WiFi made sense
Except that the term WiFi makes no sense whatsoever. Ah well, it's a little too late to complain about that one...
The Infocon is intended to measure change. We can't stay on yellow for ever.
Why not- It works for DHS.
I have looked at iTunes before, but apparently I am not buying average CD's. Most CD's I can think of off the top of my head have at least 10 songs, and I would put the average number of songs on a CD at about 12-15. I usually buy CD's for about $13 or less, and if there's only 1-3 songs that I like on an album, I don't buy it.
I had forgotten about the $10 per album on iTunes, which is a little bit cheaper than a CD, but not enough to make me consider giving up physical media.
As for selling CD's- I never had either until about two years ago. Then I got married and my wife and I merged our music collections, leaving us with a lot of duplicate CD's. So in ~15 years of buying CD's I've only once so far ever used the ability to resell any of them, but that one time was enough to convince me that it is worth keeping that right when I buy new music.
either that, or the subset of people who didn't want one is zero....
Amazingly enough, at $12.99 per CD, record companies typically net significantly less than 20% at the end of the year. If you were to plot the net margins of all the companies from which you buy goods and services, CDs would be on the far left of the graph. Choosing to pay or not pay for CDs is one thing, but it's not accurate to state that CD prices are "unreasonable" if one also happily buys food at the supermarket, clothing at the mall, PCs (including parts and accessories), and countless other items from industries that typically enjoy net margins well in excess on what the record industry relies on.
perhaps the record companies themselves may not have that high of margins (if you really believe 20% is that low- i certainly don't, especially if your comparison is supermarkets and other retailers, but i digress) but you also have to consider where that other 80% goes. There is an awful lot of creative accounting that goes on in the music business. In most other businesses, there is a lot of competition, and therefore a lot of pressure to keep all of the expenses as low as possible. For retailers (for example) that means almost all of the expenses go into getting products into the store and onto the shelves. other than a few store managers, most salaries are minimum or near minimum wage.
The recording industries are a whole other ball of yarn. Where does all that money go? I speculate that maybe 20%-30% goes into all of the places that you listed. Another poster mentioned cd-r's which sell for less than 50 cents a piece and got written off. But really, most of the costs that you enumerate (operating costs of the shipper and distributor, returns, etc..) apply just as much to blank cd's as they do to real cd's. so all of that is just handwaving. when you pay $15 for a cd, less than about three dollars is (or could be, in an efficient economy) going to shipping, distributing, etc. We know that the artists typically get less than a dollar per cd as well. (I had a pie chart once that shows where all the money from a typical cd purchase goes. I wish I could find it now.) Most of the money gets payed out in advertising, salaries, and similar expenses which are much higher than they need to be (Jack Valenti's comment about $60-$70K not being a lot to live on springs to mind here).
The key here is not what the record companies profit margins are, but what their expenses are. If there were any real competition in the music business, competition that forced the record companies to price their CDs competetively, they could probably reduce the price of a CD by about 20-30% without cutting into their profit margin by being more careful with their expenses. Of course, that's standard practice in any other industry.
As an aside regarding Apples online music service. Apparently it's working for them, but if I am going to pay a dollar per song, I see no attraction to buying them from Apple versus buying the actual physical CD (usually less than a dollar per track) and having all of the following which you can't get from Apple:
1) full quality uncompressed audio
2a) ability to chhoose my preferred encoding format and compression ratio for digital storage
2b) ability to choose any hardware or software player to listen to my music on
3) ability to share the cd with friends
4) ability to resell the cd if I decide I don't want it anymore.
Why anybody (particularly anyone who ever complained that CD's cost too much) would be willing to pay a higher price for significantly reduced utility is beyond me. Of course, as I said, it seems to be working for Apple, so more power to them...
Looks like you need some reading comprehension courses. The parent never said that copyright infringement is theft. He stated (correctly) that the common excuse "copyright infringement isn't theft" does nothing to justify the fact that copyright infringement is illegal.
I'm willing to suffer though rebooting to windows to play games and then reboot to a different OS to get actual work done. If I had an OS that was good for both purposes, I wouldn't have to do that, but in the meantime, I do.
Consoles suck for most of the types of games that I enjoy playing on my PC. Conversely, games that I enjoy on a console tend to not impress me very much if/when I play them on a PC. About the only game that I have played and enjoyed on both platforms was GTA3, but even then, it was almost like playing a completely different game with the same plot.
And lastly, your stereotype is about 5-10 years out of date. As the generation of kids that grew up with Ataris and Nintendos ages, they are bringing the age of the gaming market segment right along with them. The average gamer is now in his late twenties or early thirties. Only about 30% of gamers are under the age of 20.
The HP guy wasn't saying that IBM and Sun should open source their proprietary software products. He merely said that in order to reduce confusion, when IBM and Sun release do release programs as Open Source, they should use an existing Free/Open source license like the GPL, rather than the CDDL or whatever IBM's Open Source license is. So he is not in any way asking them to do something that HP doesn't already do.
(I agree with another poster that the headline would have been much clearer if they had said "HP Calls For Sun and IBM to Remove OSS Licenses" rather than "HP Calls For Sun and IBM to Remove OS Licenses".)
I don't get this one though. I write open source software so people can use it. "leaching" is what they're doing by nature.
This depends on the perspective of the developer though. An individual developer who just wants his code to be out there for anyone to use may not have any issue with a company selling a product based on his code, but a company like IBM, who sells a lot of products and services around open source code that they have released, probably doesn't want HP, Sun, et al. making and selling closed source improved versions of their products. In that case, GPL makes more sense than BSD to the developer (IBM) because it ensures that any improvements that are made to the code by other companies are also available to IBM to be incorporated back into their own version.
By that reason, nothing at all should be patentable, i.e., patents shouldn't exist for anything. That argument isn't even worthy of discussion.
I don't quite see how that follows from what I said. Portable music players have existed at least since the early 1980's. The fact that the iPod uses a magnetic disk for starage rather than a magnetic tape or an optical disk is not really revolutionary, especially considering that many other devices that used magnetic tapes were already switching over to magnetic disks around the time that portable music players were invented.
Likewise, as many other posters have said, knobs and dials have been around forever. When someone can figure out how to pump music directly into my brain without wires or headphones/speakers, or adjust the controls without having to actually touch them, then that would be something patent worthy. But a music player that plays music through a pair of headphones or speakers and is controlled by manipulating wheels and knobs? Sorry, nothing new here.
I realize that I may have oversimplified my original statement slightly, but my point was that most of the software patents that people complain about wouldn't suddenly be ok if they were implemented in hardware rather than in software. I was using the parent posters example of a music player implemented in hardware vs software to make that point.
You seem to have a problem with that. Yet if I invent a portable music player that somehow does it all in hardware, you're presumeably OK with that.
I don't know that he ever says he is ok with that. I'm certainly not. I see no reason why any lump of plastic and wires that plays music should be patentable, regardless of whether it's functionality is implemented in hardware or software.
I am not really agains the idea of software patents in theory, but I am very much against them in practice because I can't remember ever hearing of a single software patent that I really think would be non-obvious to an experienced software developer. Of course this also applies to most non-software patents issued these days as well.
And don't even get me started on people trying to patent business practices...
If they can't use the family computer (and learn to share it with everyone else that has to use it) they can save up the money to buy their own.
For me, that will be right after I buy my kid a car....
I would take the digital. Last time my wife and I went to Europe we filled up two CF cards and that was after we deleted about half the pictures due to dupes, poor light conditions, lack of space, etc.
I'd rather not think about how many rolls of film we would have had to carry around with us on that trip if we had a regular camera, or how much it would have cost us to have them all develop when we got home. I'll take a plug adaptor or two over a dozen rolls of film, any day.
BTW, most battery chargers and AC-DC adaptors will work just fine under a very wide variety of voltages and frequencies, so for just about anything that uses DC power you only need the plug adaptor, and not a transformer. It should be trivial to find out by reading the label on te back of the charger.
And you know that those pictures are of actual Mac devkits because...?
The MiG-25 wasn't designed to intercept the SR-71; it was designed to intercept the B-70. The B-70 maxed out just over mach 3 (3.08 I believe was the maximum speed ever attianed in flight testing), and while it could maintain top speed for a much longer time, it also had 6 engines that were among the largest ever fitted to an airframe. The XB-70 was large fast and extremely heavy, built for straight line speed above all else, and thus any plane designed to brng it down would likely have had to be the same. The XB-70 was a fascinating airplane in many repsects, but had it ever made it to production, I suspect the MiG-25 would have been more than a match for it.
Moreover, as a ground based interceptor, the MiG-25 had much different requirements than either the SR-71 or the XB-70. It could only fly at top speed for about a half hour because that's all the farther it would ever need to fly to intercept an enemy plane entering it's airspace. The other two planes which were designed to fly halfway around the world and their only defense was to fly as high and fast as possible any time they were within enemy airspace.
how long until somebody fixes photoshop's user interface to work like the gimp? that's what i'm waiting for. photoshop's awful mdi interface drives me absolutely batty.
I think many of these Corporations are starting to get the message that they will get caught eventually if they continue to play dirty, with Spitzer working the beat. They may breath a huge sigh of relief if they can get him in a position where he cannot weild so much power over them.
Yeah, a lot of big corporations breathed a huge sigh of relief when Teddy Roosevelt went from being Governor of New York to Vice President, too. Didn't last long...
> > Customers are no good to you when they're mangled and decapitated. :-)
.. Although I suppose he could hope that the next of kin see the billboard when fishing the mangled corpse of their loved one out of the ravine.
> The undertaker begs to differ
Sorry to nitpick, but I'm pretty sure the mangled and decapitated guy isn't the undertakers customer.
I'm just waiting for the lawsuits. I'm sure that some offended conservative group is trying to find distress Moms who's little babies downloaded the patch to modify the game and were sullied. Poor little Johnny.
I think this guy said it best:
http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/002552.html
Me, I'm just amused by the thought of class action attorneys trolling for a named plaintiff parent who will testify that, while she was okay for her little Johnny to buy a game involving drug dealing, gambling, carjacking, cop-shooting, prostitution, throat-slashing, baseball-bat beatings, drive-by shootings, street-racing, gang wars, profanity-laced rap music, homosexual lovers' quarrels, blood and gore, and "Strong Sexual Content," she is shocked, shocked to learn that the game also includes an animation at about the level of a Ken doll rubbing up against an unclothed Barbie doll with X-rated sound effects, and is thus a victim of both consumer fraud and intense emotional distress, entitled to actual and punitive damages totalling $74,999 per identically-situated class member in the state.
neat idea... terrible website.
almost as bewildering to me as women are to some Slashdotters. ...not to mention almost 50% of non-slashdotters.
Developers should ensure that their sites are ready for the IE 7 user agent string and treat IE 7 just like they would IE 6,
Damn. And here I thought they were going to be making IE 7 more standards compliant.