If you were around in 2001, then your memory is very faulty. IE6 was lauded by the industry as being the most standards compliant browser. If you don't remember that, your memory is faulty.
More than likely, your memory is colored by your experience for the last 11 years, and that experience has clouded your memory of what things were like in 2001, and just how bad IE's competition really was.
Don't blame IE for being bad in 2001. Blame IE for being bad in 2006.
You are conflating cause and effect. IE6 was released in 2001. IE6 was the most standards conformant browser at that time. Mozilla had been in development for years and was still more than a year from a 1.0 release.
There was no Chrome, no Safari, no Firefox... Just Netscape and a TRULY HORRENDOUS, buggy, and unusable Mozilla beta. Sure, there was Opera, but nobody used it as it was expensive and not particularly compatible with actual sites on the web (this was also a problem early Mozilla versions had as well).
The problem, was that MS did not improve IE's standards conformance for another 6 years, and in that time more standards were released or clarified (CSS2 was clarified quite a bit after IE6's release, and thus things that had been unclear were now spelled out, which meant IE6 ws often in violation of a standard that was clarified after it was released)
If MS had improved IE, this would never have been a problem, and most people would have moved off of IE6 rather quickly. But since MS tied browser revs to OS revs, there was no new browser until Vista was released 6 years later.
That article is talking primarily about Office document compatibility, and the ability to view and edit Office documents directly in sharepoint. None of which is supportable in HTML directly and requires a native plug-in to work.
This is functionality that simply would not exist otherwise, not that MS was corrupting another standard by promoting their proprietary version instead.
That's like complaining that a browser that didn't support flash couldn't view videos (pre-HTML5). Without flash (or silverlight or similar tecnology) it simply wasn't possible otherwise.
The stuff that doesn't work on a mac is stuff that can't be made to work without a native plug-in. Without the native plug-in, you wouldn't have the feature at all.
Wow. Just... Wow. This is a complete load of crap.
Windows 7 has the same DRM as Vista. Nothing changed there. Vista was a failure for a lot of reasons, but most of it was marketing related. Vista had a bad reputation, and MS correctly addressed that in Windows 7.
IE has improved dramatically over the last few years, and IE10 is set to be quite competitive. MS's released software will never be up to whatever latest standard is out there because MS's development cycles are so long, and open source products can get partial support out there a lot faster.
OOXML actually was an improvement over ODF in many ways. For instance, the original ODF did not specify a standard for spreadsheet formulas, while OOXML did. ODF was also not logically compatible with legacy binary formats, while OOXML was (allowing legacy binary formats to be easily converted to XML formats). Much of what was written about MS's "methods" of standardization was hyperbole, hysteria, and utter BS, while nothing was made of IBM and Sun's underhanded tactics (for example, IBM Employees wrote the responses for a number of countries and they were rubberstamped.)
After all was said and done.. We still have OOXML and ODF, and both work just fine, and neither has caused the world to end. So what was all the fuss about?
Ogg Vorbis is not popular for one reason, and one reason alone. Apple doesn't support it. They own the market. non-apple media players account for only 25% of the market, while MS owned 2%. In fact, I can't think of a single thing MS may have done to intentionally destroy Ogg Vorbis. Can you back up that claim somehow?
Linux rules in places where the OS simply doesn't matter.
Android is all about the Java based API, they could run Android on BSD, or pretty much any OS and the apps would not be the wiser. That's hardly a win for Linux.
The thing is, the universe naturally moves toward equillibrium. Gas supplies dwindle, gas prices go up, people buy less gas, and equillibrium occurs.
Gas costs make it too expensive to ship food across the world, we start growing food locally, an equillibrium occurs.
Gas costs make it impossible to get to work for less than you make? You get a job closer to home, or telecommute, or any number of other things. No jobs close to home, you move closer to the jobs. An Equillibrium occurs.
That's kind of odd, since OS/2 2.0 shipped in April of 1992, Windows 3.1 hadn't even shipped yet. How exactly did an article talk about Windows 95 being delayed when Windows95's predecessor hadn't even shipped?
You seem to have trouble reading. The person you were responding to was talking about Windows 3 and OS/2 1.x, not Windows 3.x and OS/2 2+.
This was 1987-89 timeframe. OS/2 was released until 1994, several years later. And OS/2 1.2 had a GUI, but was still limited to 16 bit code and could not handle Virtual 8086 mode on a 32 bit processor.
Where do you keep that sucker? Those 2950's have extremely loud fans in them, and they generate a good deal of heat. Do you have an air-conditioned, sound-proofed closet?
Don't expect HTML6 this decade, or CSS4 for that matter. HTML5 may be out but it's still a draft standard and isn't due to be finalized for several more years.
Hell, There may never even be an actual HTML6.. HTML5 might just be an evolving standard that is neverfinalized.
I keep hearing accounts like this, but the stats just don't bear it out. IE6 usage is now down to about 1%. It may be true that companies like GM are still using IE6, but my guess is they are doing so via virtualization and those IE6 instances are not allowed to browse the open internet.
That means, almost nobody cares about IE6 anymore.
The original 2001 release of XP, and it ran like crap in 64MB. As of SP2, 256 MB was pretty much the minimum. As of SP3, 256MB is awfully slow and 512MB is the bare minimum for usable.
1) No oxygen. Normal firearms require oxygen to ignite the gunpowder. It might be possible to come up with purely chemical explosives that don't require oxygen, but no guarantee on that.
2) Someone else mention "high explosive" rounds. Same problem as #1.
3) Recoil. Firing a bullet exerts as much energy on you as it does away from the vehicle. If it's a lightweight fighter of some kind, that has some serious effect. It also reduces the velocity of the bullet going out.
4) Problems 1, 2 and 3 might be solved usuing railgun technology. Railguns still have recoil, but not as much as traditional explosives. Still, they require a lot of power which must come from somewhere.
5) bullets add to the debris in a firefight, plus if they break stuff on the target that adds debris, all that debris turns into projectiles that you can fly into, thus damaging your own ship.
6) Weight.. Bullets are heavy. Plus you have to have the extra weight of the casings and explosive. Weight = money
Indeed. The thing to remember is that in the IT industry, if you're out of it for a few years, you're basically unhirable.
If you make a go at something else, then decide you want to get back into IT, you may not have any choice in the matter. IT will have moved on without you.
If you want to bail on IT, expect it to be a one-way trip. Unlike most other fields like carpentry or landscaping, a time off won't hurt in those industries. Fields like Electricians, Plumbers, Auto-repair, etc.. you can just go back to school and update your skillsets. The base work is all the same, it's just the laws and various other factors that change. That's a lot harder to do in IT.
My advice is to start working on your post-IT career WHILE you are working in IT. If you want to open your own Restaurant or Brewery, do it in your spare time until you have built up enough experience to do it. If you want to be a Welder, or Cabinet builder, then go to school while you are working and become competant.
THEN you can consider a change. But when you have nothing on the hook, you can't make a change without endangering you and your families future.
Those court cases occured at a time when Sealand was outside the internationally allowed limit for claimed waters. Since then, the limit has been increased and Sealand now is within the claimed jurisdiction of the UK.
The founder of sealand claims that since he claimed sovereignty before that happened, Sealand is still independant. But, since nobody recognized their sovereignty I doubt that flies.
What you're talking about is economic theory. That is, "it can be thought of" as creating money, because in some situations accounts can be "Kited", that is it can be charged on banks balance sheet but not show up on the other banks sheet for a period of time.
If a bank makes a loan, it *has* to offset that loan with cash from some other source. It can't just make the money appear. It can make "value" appear, such as with interest, and this value is considered an asset. But it's not creating that money, it's only creating the debt to the party that owes it. The actual money has to come from that person to cover the debt.
It's true banks can borrow against that made-up asset, but again that money comes from someone else to count against the asset.
"In theory" this creates money, in practice it doesn't because the money suply is controlled and finite. Any made up debt must be paid by someone.
You really don't understand how leverage works. Leverage does not "create money" It's a technique to utlize the money the have.
A good example exists in the Foreign Exchange market. Where one can typically leverage their investment by as much as 10x.
What happens is that, on paper, they "control" 10x more currency than they actually own, and thus can take the profit or loss on 10x the amount of currency as the price fluctuates. However, if the loss meets or exceeds their physical assets their position is closed out and the controlled assets resold.
This generally only works because the assets are "liquid" and can be resold at any time for the current market price.
Leverage is a math game, but does not actually result in any money being "created". For those that don't really understand how it works, this can seem like someone magically has 10x or 20x their money. They don't. They just have *CONTROL* over that much. Someone does actually own that money, and they are the ones that get to make the commission on the sale and resale.
This is simply not true. Banks cannot issue money they don't have, either physically or electronically.
You are probably confusing the fact that much of the US money supply is electronic (with no physical paper money associated with it). And when a bank issues a loan, it's likely from money they have borrowed from the Fed. The Fed may or may not "create" the money.
A certain amount of the banks money it lends comes from money that banks get from it's customers. The reason banks pay interest on savings is so that they can use that money to lend to others.
Seriously, if every loan a bank made "magically created money", we'd be in such runaway inflation it would cost billions for a gallon of milk.
Slashdot Mirror
If you were around in 2001, then your memory is very faulty. IE6 was lauded by the industry as being the most standards compliant browser. If you don't remember that, your memory is faulty.
More than likely, your memory is colored by your experience for the last 11 years, and that experience has clouded your memory of what things were like in 2001, and just how bad IE's competition really was.
Don't blame IE for being bad in 2001. Blame IE for being bad in 2006.
You are conflating cause and effect. IE6 was released in 2001. IE6 was the most standards conformant browser at that time. Mozilla had been in development for years and was still more than a year from a 1.0 release.
There was no Chrome, no Safari, no Firefox... Just Netscape and a TRULY HORRENDOUS, buggy, and unusable Mozilla beta. Sure, there was Opera, but nobody used it as it was expensive and not particularly compatible with actual sites on the web (this was also a problem early Mozilla versions had as well).
The problem, was that MS did not improve IE's standards conformance for another 6 years, and in that time more standards were released or clarified (CSS2 was clarified quite a bit after IE6's release, and thus things that had been unclear were now spelled out, which meant IE6 ws often in violation of a standard that was clarified after it was released)
If MS had improved IE, this would never have been a problem, and most people would have moved off of IE6 rather quickly. But since MS tied browser revs to OS revs, there was no new browser until Vista was released 6 years later.
That article is talking primarily about Office document compatibility, and the ability to view and edit Office documents directly in sharepoint. None of which is supportable in HTML directly and requires a native plug-in to work.
This is functionality that simply would not exist otherwise, not that MS was corrupting another standard by promoting their proprietary version instead.
That's like complaining that a browser that didn't support flash couldn't view videos (pre-HTML5). Without flash (or silverlight or similar tecnology) it simply wasn't possible otherwise.
The stuff that doesn't work on a mac is stuff that can't be made to work without a native plug-in. Without the native plug-in, you wouldn't have the feature at all.
Uhh.. no. Outlook Web Access had nothing to do with Hotmail. It's a web front-end to your Exchange Server.
OWA and AJAX had nothing to do with the purchase of Hotmail.
Wow. Just... Wow. This is a complete load of crap.
Windows 7 has the same DRM as Vista. Nothing changed there. Vista was a failure for a lot of reasons, but most of it was marketing related. Vista had a bad reputation, and MS correctly addressed that in Windows 7.
IE has improved dramatically over the last few years, and IE10 is set to be quite competitive. MS's released software will never be up to whatever latest standard is out there because MS's development cycles are so long, and open source products can get partial support out there a lot faster.
OOXML actually was an improvement over ODF in many ways. For instance, the original ODF did not specify a standard for spreadsheet formulas, while OOXML did. ODF was also not logically compatible with legacy binary formats, while OOXML was (allowing legacy binary formats to be easily converted to XML formats). Much of what was written about MS's "methods" of standardization was hyperbole, hysteria, and utter BS, while nothing was made of IBM and Sun's underhanded tactics (for example, IBM Employees wrote the responses for a number of countries and they were rubberstamped.)
After all was said and done.. We still have OOXML and ODF, and both work just fine, and neither has caused the world to end. So what was all the fuss about?
Ogg Vorbis is not popular for one reason, and one reason alone. Apple doesn't support it. They own the market. non-apple media players account for only 25% of the market, while MS owned 2%. In fact, I can't think of a single thing MS may have done to intentionally destroy Ogg Vorbis. Can you back up that claim somehow?
I have pretty much one thing to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQb_Q8WRL_g
Dude,
Myhrvold hasn't worked for MS for 12 years.
Where do you get that this is MS trying to rewrite history? It's entirely Myhrvold, plumping up his feathers.
Linux rules in places where the OS simply doesn't matter.
Android is all about the Java based API, they could run Android on BSD, or pretty much any OS and the apps would not be the wiser. That's hardly a win for Linux.
The thing is, the universe naturally moves toward equillibrium. Gas supplies dwindle, gas prices go up, people buy less gas, and equillibrium occurs.
Gas costs make it too expensive to ship food across the world, we start growing food locally, an equillibrium occurs.
Gas costs make it impossible to get to work for less than you make? You get a job closer to home, or telecommute, or any number of other things. No jobs close to home, you move closer to the jobs. An Equillibrium occurs.
You're forgetting about the third dimension. Lots of people live vertically on top of each other in this world.
Yes, it's just you.
That's kind of odd, since OS/2 2.0 shipped in April of 1992, Windows 3.1 hadn't even shipped yet. How exactly did an article talk about Windows 95 being delayed when Windows95's predecessor hadn't even shipped?
You seem to have trouble reading. The person you were responding to was talking about Windows 3 and OS/2 1.x, not Windows 3.x and OS/2 2+.
This was 1987-89 timeframe. OS/2 was released until 1994, several years later. And OS/2 1.2 had a GUI, but was still limited to 16 bit code and could not handle Virtual 8086 mode on a 32 bit processor.
Where do you keep that sucker? Those 2950's have extremely loud fans in them, and they generate a good deal of heat. Do you have an air-conditioned, sound-proofed closet?
Don't expect HTML6 this decade, or CSS4 for that matter. HTML5 may be out but it's still a draft standard and isn't due to be finalized for several more years.
Hell, There may never even be an actual HTML6.. HTML5 might just be an evolving standard that is neverfinalized.
I keep hearing accounts like this, but the stats just don't bear it out. IE6 usage is now down to about 1%. It may be true that companies like GM are still using IE6, but my guess is they are doing so via virtualization and those IE6 instances are not allowed to browse the open internet.
That means, almost nobody cares about IE6 anymore.
The original 2001 release of XP, and it ran like crap in 64MB. As of SP2, 256 MB was pretty much the minimum. As of SP3, 256MB is awfully slow and 512MB is the bare minimum for usable.
Guns.. in space...
Ok, let's throw just a few problems out there.
1) No oxygen. Normal firearms require oxygen to ignite the gunpowder. It might be possible to come up with purely chemical explosives that don't require oxygen, but no guarantee on that.
2) Someone else mention "high explosive" rounds. Same problem as #1.
3) Recoil. Firing a bullet exerts as much energy on you as it does away from the vehicle. If it's a lightweight fighter of some kind, that has some serious effect. It also reduces the velocity of the bullet going out.
4) Problems 1, 2 and 3 might be solved usuing railgun technology. Railguns still have recoil, but not as much as traditional explosives. Still, they require a lot of power which must come from somewhere.
5) bullets add to the debris in a firefight, plus if they break stuff on the target that adds debris, all that debris turns into projectiles that you can fly into, thus damaging your own ship.
6) Weight.. Bullets are heavy. Plus you have to have the extra weight of the casings and explosive. Weight = money
7) This number left intentionaly blank
Indeed. The thing to remember is that in the IT industry, if you're out of it for a few years, you're basically unhirable.
If you make a go at something else, then decide you want to get back into IT, you may not have any choice in the matter. IT will have moved on without you.
If you want to bail on IT, expect it to be a one-way trip. Unlike most other fields like carpentry or landscaping, a time off won't hurt in those industries. Fields like Electricians, Plumbers, Auto-repair, etc.. you can just go back to school and update your skillsets. The base work is all the same, it's just the laws and various other factors that change. That's a lot harder to do in IT.
My advice is to start working on your post-IT career WHILE you are working in IT. If you want to open your own Restaurant or Brewery, do it in your spare time until you have built up enough experience to do it. If you want to be a Welder, or Cabinet builder, then go to school while you are working and become competant.
THEN you can consider a change. But when you have nothing on the hook, you can't make a change without endangering you and your families future.
Well, certainly Apple makes awesome profit margins.. I'm not so sure about Android makers.
Those court cases occured at a time when Sealand was outside the internationally allowed limit for claimed waters. Since then, the limit has been increased and Sealand now is within the claimed jurisdiction of the UK.
The founder of sealand claims that since he claimed sovereignty before that happened, Sealand is still independant. But, since nobody recognized their sovereignty I doubt that flies.
What you're talking about is economic theory. That is, "it can be thought of" as creating money, because in some situations accounts can be "Kited", that is it can be charged on banks balance sheet but not show up on the other banks sheet for a period of time.
If a bank makes a loan, it *has* to offset that loan with cash from some other source. It can't just make the money appear. It can make "value" appear, such as with interest, and this value is considered an asset. But it's not creating that money, it's only creating the debt to the party that owes it. The actual money has to come from that person to cover the debt.
It's true banks can borrow against that made-up asset, but again that money comes from someone else to count against the asset.
"In theory" this creates money, in practice it doesn't because the money suply is controlled and finite. Any made up debt must be paid by someone.
Wow. Just. Wow.
You really don't understand how leverage works. Leverage does not "create money" It's a technique to utlize the money the have.
A good example exists in the Foreign Exchange market. Where one can typically leverage their investment by as much as 10x.
What happens is that, on paper, they "control" 10x more currency than they actually own, and thus can take the profit or loss on 10x the amount of currency as the price fluctuates. However, if the loss meets or exceeds their physical assets their position is closed out and the controlled assets resold.
This generally only works because the assets are "liquid" and can be resold at any time for the current market price.
Leverage is a math game, but does not actually result in any money being "created". For those that don't really understand how it works, this can seem like someone magically has 10x or 20x their money. They don't. They just have *CONTROL* over that much. Someone does actually own that money, and they are the ones that get to make the commission on the sale and resale.
This is simply not true. Banks cannot issue money they don't have, either physically or electronically.
You are probably confusing the fact that much of the US money supply is electronic (with no physical paper money associated with it). And when a bank issues a loan, it's likely from money they have borrowed from the Fed. The Fed may or may not "create" the money.
A certain amount of the banks money it lends comes from money that banks get from it's customers. The reason banks pay interest on savings is so that they can use that money to lend to others.
Seriously, if every loan a bank made "magically created money", we'd be in such runaway inflation it would cost billions for a gallon of milk.
Lobbying may or may not include raising funds for the candidate. Just because you lobby a member of the government doesn't mean you're bribing them.
When you write a letter to your congressman, that's lobbying.