I plan on seeing Star Wars many times, but I'm also expecting that it will garner few if any good reviews. Our society has become so jaded, cynical and arrogant in the past 10 years, and it loves to see the fall from grace of major figures. Because of this, there will be a concerted effort to utterly trash The Phantom Menace (it's already started - see David Ansen's perfunctory review at Newsweek. However, the kids will love it, just like we did when we were young. And that's all that really matters.
You won't have to. Mozilla will be built both with and without the functionality. It would pay to actually do some reading on a subject before you run at the mouth.
Like every other Open Source project, you work according to your needs. If you don't need an Open Source, standards compliant browser for your OS of choice, then don't help.
Mozilla doesn't need a full volunteer corps of programmers. It needs people to fill in the gaps. AOL *is* funding the effort. But they're also allowing you complete access to their work. They're giving you code. You think you could be grateful.
If you don't want to "work for AOL", that's fine. However, confining Open Source to only "completely volunteer" efforts is silly.
IE5 is horrible. Its install is horrible, and if you manage to get it installed, it still does things you asked it not to do (like become your default browser). It's bloated, and not even as stable as IE4.
Where have the "serfs" and "peasants" gone? They're still here, toiling in textile factories, slaughterhouses, desperately scraping by in Appalachia, on Indian reservations, on migrant farms in California, in the inner cities. They're not called "serfs" or "peasants" anymore, but those terms could apply with little or no modification.
Sure, there's a middle class. but despite it the wealth is becoming more and more concentrated in 1% of the population The average gap between CEO wage and worker wage is at a high of 365%. Do you *really* think the middle class has ahold of the reigns of power?
>If power has been growing for 1000 years, what >happened to the serfs? What happened to peasants >in America? How has the middle class arisen? Your >premise is countered by the facts.
America has created a successful formula for suppressing revolt; no revolutionary changes will pop out of the heads of Princeton University professors. They can sit on the sidelines of revolution and guess at how the poor will innovate using the technology of the moment, but just as quickly will come the technological authoritarian suppressant that will keep them servile and miserable in abject poverty.
The past 1000 years has culminated in an ascendant power structure that has no bounds, no controls, no limits to the accrual of wealth and influence. To think they will be put down by third-world Internet surfers is nonsensical.
From the article, "'I think he deserves a lot of credit,' Farber said in a telephone interview, explaining that legislation that Gore introduced in Congress while a member of the Senate nearly a decade ago provided critically needed funding and research. 'Also, more than any other politician, Gore helped popularize it,' Farber said."
Doesn't seem too funny to me, Taco. Didn't you release the source to/.'s back-end?
I believe they are talking about the admin to the site, that maintains the database, etc. You should really check into things before you start laughing and flaming. They request that you write for info regarding the source. Maybe you should do that.
I noticed an error with an image that was on their site and cleaned it up and sent a fix. I got a letter back within an hour thanking me for the cleanup.
Regarding "Gore creating the Internet", in fact he played an important role in the privatization of government controlled networks. If you consider the Internet as it is today (private, commercial, booming), Gore played a significant role (as a legislator) in bringing about changes to make it happen. He was a big proponent of the capabilities of the 'Net, and was an Internet user early on.
There was an NPR story regarding this recently, and I believe News.com mentions this fact in their piece regarding his site.
As far as websites go, his beats the other candidates' websites hands-down.
People seem to forget that AOL is a computer company that survives while making no direct revenues from their software product.
To AOL, Mozilla will be the equivalent of their AOL software for the Internet user, with one big difference: it will be positioned towards Internet users, not AOL users. AOL knows that to win in the Internet marketplace, you have to be willing to play by their rules. That's why they're taking a hands-off approach to Mozilla.
Microsoft has railed about how Mozilla is bound to be the default browser in the AOL software sooner or later. I disagree. I think Mozilla, with it's extendable UI, will *become* the AOL software.
Slashdot Mirror
You can install what you want. You can leave off mail/news. Or Java. Or AIM. You can install just the browser, if you like.
I plan on seeing Star Wars many times, but I'm also expecting that it will garner few if any good reviews. Our society has become so jaded, cynical and arrogant in the past 10 years, and it loves to see the fall from grace of major figures. Because of this, there will be a concerted effort to utterly trash The Phantom Menace (it's already started - see David Ansen's perfunctory review at Newsweek. However, the kids will love it, just like we did when we were young. And that's all that really matters.
too bad that no one of import will see it.
You won't have to. Mozilla will be built both with and without the functionality. It would pay to actually do some reading on a subject before you run at the mouth.
You can do this with Mozilla too. You obviously haven't been paying enough attention to the project to have developed any coherent, rational opinions.
OK, well, when you can't have a competitive browser for your platform, you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
Like every other Open Source project, you work according to your needs. If you don't need an Open Source, standards compliant browser for your OS of choice, then don't help.
Mozilla doesn't need a full volunteer corps of programmers. It needs people to fill in the gaps. AOL *is* funding the effort. But they're also allowing you complete access to their work. They're giving you code. You think you could be grateful.
If you don't want to "work for AOL", that's fine. However, confining Open Source to only "completely volunteer" efforts is silly.
>it doesn't seem to be 'open source' enough that
>teams of Linux developers can write competing
>browsers around it.
oh, they certainly could. There's not even a question about it. Developers could snag the code now and start building a competing browser.
IE5 is horrible. Its install is horrible, and if you manage to get it installed, it still does things you asked it not to do (like become your default browser). It's bloated, and not even as stable as IE4.
Where have the "serfs" and "peasants" gone? They're still here, toiling in textile factories, slaughterhouses, desperately scraping by in Appalachia, on Indian reservations, on migrant farms in California, in the inner cities. They're not called "serfs" or "peasants" anymore, but those terms could apply with little or no modification.
Sure, there's a middle class. but despite it the wealth is becoming more and more concentrated in 1% of the population The average gap between CEO wage and worker wage is at a high of 365%. Do you *really* think the middle class has ahold of the reigns of power?
>If power has been growing for 1000 years, what
>happened to the serfs? What happened to peasants
>in America? How has the middle class arisen? Your
>premise is countered by the facts.
America has created a successful formula for suppressing revolt; no revolutionary changes will pop out of the heads of Princeton University professors. They can sit on the sidelines of revolution and guess at how the poor will innovate using the technology of the moment, but just as quickly will come the technological authoritarian suppressant that will keep them servile and miserable in abject poverty.
The past 1000 years has culminated in an ascendant power structure that has no bounds, no controls, no limits to the accrual of wealth and influence. To think they will be put down by third-world Internet surfers is nonsensical.
We aren't out of the bloodletting phase yet.
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,34749,00.html?st .ne.140.head
From the article, "'I think he deserves a lot of credit,' Farber said in a telephone interview, explaining that legislation that Gore introduced in Congress while a member of the Senate nearly a decade ago provided critically needed funding and research. 'Also, more than any other politician, Gore helped popularize it,' Farber said."
Well, this sounds like a perfect excuse to fix up the HTML and resubmit it to them.
Exercise your freedom. Take responsibility.
Doesn't seem too funny to me, Taco. Didn't you release the source to /.'s back-end?
I believe they are talking about the admin to the site, that maintains the database, etc. You should really check into things before you start laughing and flaming. They request that you write for info regarding the source. Maybe you should do that.
I noticed an error with an image that was on their site and cleaned it up and sent a fix. I got a letter back within an hour thanking me for the cleanup.
Regarding "Gore creating the Internet", in fact he played an important role in the privatization of government controlled networks. If you consider the Internet as it is today (private, commercial, booming), Gore played a significant role (as a legislator) in bringing about changes to make it happen. He was a big proponent of the capabilities of the 'Net, and was an Internet user early on.
There was an NPR story regarding this recently, and I believe News.com mentions this fact in their piece regarding his site.
As far as websites go, his beats the other candidates' websites hands-down.
People seem to forget that AOL is a computer company that survives while making no direct revenues from their software product.
To AOL, Mozilla will be the equivalent of their AOL software for the Internet user, with one big difference: it will be positioned towards Internet users, not AOL users. AOL knows that to win in the Internet marketplace, you have to be willing to play by their rules. That's why they're taking a hands-off approach to Mozilla.
Microsoft has railed about how Mozilla is bound to be the default browser in the AOL software sooner or later. I disagree. I think Mozilla, with it's extendable UI, will *become* the AOL software.