The thought had crossed my mind. But if I remember correctly, isn't that what happened with Netscape / AOL? IIRC, when they bought out Netscape, AOL was mainly just interested in the Netscape.com portal site which at the time was something like the third or so most visited site on the internet. (After Microsoft.com and AOL.com, I think).
Re:A nice mail I received from VeriSign...
on
.biz Open For Biz
·
· Score: 1
That's downright disturbing... Especially the part about disputes being settled by "random selection" and the part about people registering multiple domains having them frozen.
But am I to understand that you ordered yourlastname.biz?
That doesn't seem a bit... not-quite-right to you?
I won't be. I run adult sites and also do web development for small to medium sized "bizes". And I've got to say... I wouldn't use a.biz domain for any of my adult sites and I certainly wouldn't recomend a.biz domain to any of my clients unless it was a VERY good fit like say, it's a site for a town't Chamber of Commerce? NewYork.biz, Seatle.biz, Boston.biz. Other than that, I can't think of any site where.biz might be anything but a last ditch option if.com,.net, and.org are taken.
Re:Damned Spammers..........
on
.biz Open For Biz
·
· Score: 5, Informative
So true... I run a lot of sites among them, some adult sites and what we've all been waiting for is some kind of adult oriented TLD..sex or.xxx or.whatever. I mean what does it take?
- The sex industry wants an adult TLD
- US Congress wants it
- Keep our kids safe censor the net extreamists want it.
I havn't heard anyone that DOESN'T want it! When ICANN had their little circle-jerk summit last year to discus something like 30 or so sudgested new TLDs, everyone was CERTAIN which ones they'd pick! And did they pick even one of the obviously most useful ones to giving ORDER to the net? No. It's times like this that I just want to go back to dialup BBSes! I wish that ICANN would handle domains the way that 800 numbers are handled. You CAN'T buy or sell them. If it's available, you can register it, but if you don't want it any more, you can't transfer it to another party, it just goes back into the pool. The only exception is if it's owned by a business and the business changes hands.
If you asked me, that's the way to do it. It'll take care of the cybersquating problem right there.
No, not really. But you must remember, that if you have a need and you wait until you have that need to develop a solution for it, you have developed the solution too late. Remember "640K sould be enough for anyone?" That's an example of not planning for the future adequately. So, no it you're looking for a here and now reason for it, you're not going to find it. But remember, that that's not the point.
Would someone, care to explain to me, how by any streach of the imagination the parent post is off topic? It makes a valid (while possibly disagreeable, completly subjective, though) point, and is directly in line with ont only it's parent post, but the subject of the article! Normaly I'm not one to bitch that "The moderation here sucks!" but this one is just plain absurd!
When the US revolutionaries revolted against the British, we had muskets, they had muskets.
If a Chinese citizen revolts against the Chinese government, the citizen has a stick, the government has a tank.
Okay, the second half could be true. But only if they do things diffrently than the American Revolution.
It all hinges on the fact that you're missing something in the first part. Durring the American Revolution, the British did have muskets, and so did The Americans. But they also had cannons, and ships, and so did The American Colonies! The Colonies got the cannons because it was American (which at the time ment they were technicaly British) forces that decided to join the "rebel" side rather than staying on the side of the crown. Likewise, we had ships. While few (if any) were regular British Navy that decided to join our cause, many were Privateers previously pledged to the crown, and some were British war ships that were captured while in port.
The point here is that if enough people in China decide to revolt, the military (which, remember, is in fact made up of Chineese citizens) may follow suit. And if a full blown revolution ever happens, it stands to reason that the military will split (as happened in America's own civil war) and the revolutionaries will in deed have tanks, etc. It is possible. Difficult to organize and highly unlikley, but who would have though a coup de ta could have occured in the Soviet Union? That is the perfect illistration of how someone other than the currently installed government can persuade the Military to bring it's forces to bear against that very government for the purposes of political upheval. Now, in that instance, the will of the people was also against it and it failed, but in a theoretical Chineese revolt things might go diffrently...
LOL. I never noticed that there. I *think* it's a reminent of a software package I looked into for offering dialup porn years ago. I never noticed that it made changes to IE though. A better question is "Why is the icon for 'Hot Sex' a pair of siscors?" Ouch! Not my idea of a hot night...
I'm using Mozilla 0.9.5 and it *seems* to render 100% fine. The only thing I noticed was that on the "tab" in the upper right where the search box it, there is a line where it goes at about 45 degrees like / You can just barley see where the edges of the graphic are, beacuse of a very minor color variation between the graphic and the background color of the table cells on either side of it. Other than that, everything seems fine.
Here (warning: 86K 24 bit PNG file) is a screen shot of how it renders in Mozilla. The cut off top of the logo is my fault from the capture.
Here (warning: 27K 24 bit PNG file) is how it renders in IE 5.5.
I'm not even going to attempt it in NS 4.7x
Re:Put the frickin' Home button back on the ...
on
Mozilla Bug Week
·
· Score: 1
Dude... I think it's time to check your blood pressure...
Seriously though, that bugs me too, but remember, Mozilla uses skins. All you have to do is hack the skin and you (should) be able to put the button back where it belongs. I haven't really had a chance to look into it, so ymmv.
Actually, I had the same thought. Only a bit more penetrating. MS already controls FrontPage... after all, they publish it. I wonder if all frontpage generated pages will use a bit of JavaScript soon to check for browsers MS deams "Noncompliant". That will make a helluva lot of small sites innaccessable to non-ms browsers.
Me thinks so. Read all the comments. Lots of people are having trouble.
I'm not getting through to it on Mozilla.95.
Netscape 4.77 works fine, though.
IE 5.5 is working fine too of course, anthough it seems to be having trouble with CSS (The windows XP logo in the upper left is partially covered by the "Making Music" picture)
From what I gather, it's not "Let's only let in IE" it's that MS is activly picking certain browsers and keeping them out based on their user-agent string.
I'd like to see W3 really penalize this type of behaviour, at least amoungst major companies.
Um... how? Perhaps I misunderstand the W3C but as I understand it, they have about as much power to penalize anyone for anything as I do to penalize you for posting that. In otherwords, they can say "shame on you" and generaly denounce it, but they have no real powers to *do* anything.
I find this strange. I build web sites for a living, so I have to use IE a lot even though I'm not too fond of it. And until this week, NS 4.76 was my browser of choice (I downloaded Mozilla.95 Monday and haven't looked back. I downloaded every milestone build since.2 and this is the first one I thought was more usable than what I was using.)
That said, I think it's clear that I use these browsers more than just once a week or so. All of them get heavy use from me so I can g et a lot of comparison time. My machine is a K6/2 450 running Win ME (I do lots of multimedia editing, hence ME is better for me than 98se)
Here's what I've found from my observations:
IE: SLOW AS MOLASAS (SP?). NS4 kicks it's ass hands down.IE is slow to render windows, slow to render HTML when a window has been rendered, and (most anoyingly) is slow to respond to UI. I have a habit when I am searching for something with google to do the following: Search google, open page in new window, hit ctrl+f and start typing what it was I was looking for so I can find WHERE the relavant thing is on the page. I consistantly type faster than IE can keep up. Ler's say I'm looking for "widget". I hit ctrl+f and then type w-i-d-g-e-t [ENTER]. I look up... only to see the "et" in the word "let" highlighted. The search window appears so slow that if I don't remember to wait for it (only about a second, but still...) then the leading characters get truncated. Consistantly.
NS4: Not bad... until I got a broadband connection. NS4 consistantly blew away, IE, NS6 and Mozilla. (Except in HTML rendering speed for Mozilla). It's biggest advantage was the fact that it's windows would render instantly on even the slowest system. The only problem was that once I got broadband and it started downloading larg web pages FAST, it would freeze... pause really before rendering the HTML. Some pages rendered faster when I was on 56K. I think NS4 just has a problem with parsing large HTML files rapidly. If it gets them spoon fed, it renders them as fast as it can, but if it gets a page of HTML dumped on it, it gags and chokes and generaly has a hard time. That's when I started using IE a little more than I had to...
Mozilla: The first thing I noticed when I first downloaded Mozilla (ditto for NS6) was WOW, these Windows render slow as hell! I could draw the windows with an etch-a-sketch faster than this! Then the next thing I noticed, blew me away. HTML rendering was blisteringly fast. I had read about how one of the goals of the Mozilla project was to create a wonderfuly standards compliant browser, so I ran some informal tests against old and new pages I had saved localy on my machine. Some were standards compliant and others were "real world" compliant. Amazing... the standards complient pages rendered just as they should! They were pages which I hade taken down from my sites (and replaced with non standards complient ones) because either NS4 or IE didn't render them correctly. Mozilla rendered both NS4 and IE's buggy pages right. It even rendered the nonstandard pages the way I wanted them to look! IT took me a bit of digging to figure out why... Mozilla includes a "buggy" mode that treats pages without a DTD declaration as non standards complient. That way IE's known bugs that were designed around, show up fine! Wonderful! Since then, I've downloaded every Mozilla milestone and now, at.95 (even though I think HTML rendering is a hair slower) the window rendering speed is now acceptable. I'd say faster than IE 5.x / 6.x but still a bit slower than NS 4.x. But that's okay. It's worlds ahead of NS4 in terms of stability and it's just a wonderful browser to use... especially for a developer.
If you've kept track of the history of Netscape, especially the history of AOL since buying NS, you'll quickley figure out that AOL has been using NS to have it's way with Microsoft. Whenever there is a dispute over AOL icon desktop placment with Windows, or whatnot, AOL quietly leaks that it is considering NS6 / Mozilla for it's next release.
I do support Mozilla, in fact I am writing this on Mozilla.95, which I am happy to report is the first version of Mozilla that I feel is 100% usable and I'm actually *happy* to use. (I run an old AMD K6/2 and previous versions ran too slow for my tastes, as did IE I just switched to Mozlla from NS4 early this week.) That said, I *hope* that AOL does decide to use Gecko for AOL and / or Compuserve, but I'm not holding my breath. After all, it may be more strategicly advantageous for them to continue using IE's engine.
No... wrong again. Reread the story. Carefuly this time. The manufacturers are prohibited from displaying the clock speed durring startup. Or, in AMD's own words:
"Motherboards will not pass AMD validation or be posted on the AMD recomended motherboard Web site, if the frequency is displayed by the BIOS durring bootup for AMD Athlon(TM) Model 6 desktop and multiprocessng (sic) processors." (emphisis mine)
It makes no mention of displaying the frequency in the BIOS config screens, where most of the L Users will never tred anyway, so AMD has no reason to want it kept out of there. Same goes for Windows Control Pannel. When't the last your grandmother went tweeking BIOS settings, or started changing IRQs in device dammager? AMD doesn't care it it's listed in those places because the people computer savy enough to venture there will probably already know what the clock speed is (unless they went there to find out, of course).
And as for Windows, they clearly showed a screen shot of Win XP (German) showing both the model number (1800+) AND the clock speed (1,53 GHz).
This is something that, right or wrong is aimed at the general consumer, who isn't buying AMD because of a precieved lack of speed. I'm not sure what a great idea it is, and I'm sure AMD is going to take some flack for it, but I know it's not going to affect me one bit.
I'm going to come over to your [house / apartment / refrigerator box] and shoot your [wife / husband / mother / father / sister / brother / son / daughter / whatever] in the head right in front of you.
If you go to the cops to try and find me, you're a hypocrite. And if that's the case, I'm going to come back and kill you.
Then again, if you don't go to the cops, what's stopping me from coming back and offing you anyway?
So I guess you should just sit on your hands after I commit a sensless act of violence, because after all, two wrongs don't make a right.
Slashdot Mirror
The thought had crossed my mind. But if I remember correctly, isn't that what happened with Netscape / AOL? IIRC, when they bought out Netscape, AOL was mainly just interested in the Netscape.com portal site which at the time was something like the third or so most visited site on the internet. (After Microsoft.com and AOL.com, I think).
But am I to understand that you ordered yourlastname.biz ?
That doesn't seem a bit... not-quite-right to you?
I won't be. I run adult sites and also do web development for small to medium sized "bizes". And I've got to say... I wouldn't use a .biz domain for any of my adult sites and I certainly wouldn't recomend a .biz domain to any of my clients unless it was a VERY good fit like say, it's a site for a town't Chamber of Commerce? NewYork.biz, Seatle.biz, Boston.biz. Other than that, I can't think of any site where .biz might be anything but a last ditch option if .com, .net, and .org are taken.
So true... I run a lot of sites among them, some adult sites and what we've all been waiting for is some kind of adult oriented TLD. .sex or .xxx or .whatever. I mean what does it take?
- The sex industry wants an adult TLD
- US Congress wants it
- Keep our kids safe censor the net extreamists want it.
I havn't heard anyone that DOESN'T want it! When ICANN had their little circle-jerk summit last year to discus something like 30 or so sudgested new TLDs, everyone was CERTAIN which ones they'd pick! And did they pick even one of the obviously most useful ones to giving ORDER to the net? No. It's times like this that I just want to go back to dialup BBSes! I wish that ICANN would handle domains the way that 800 numbers are handled. You CAN'T buy or sell them. If it's available, you can register it, but if you don't want it any more, you can't transfer it to another party, it just goes back into the pool. The only exception is if it's owned by a business and the business changes hands.
If you asked me, that's the way to do it. It'll take care of the cybersquating problem right there.
So what you're saying is
.biz are resolve to 209.173.53.173?
All your
Okay, sorry, I couldn't resist! (:
No, not really. But you must remember, that if you have a need and you wait until you have that need to develop a solution for it, you have developed the solution too late. Remember "640K sould be enough for anyone?" That's an example of not planning for the future adequately. So, no it you're looking for a here and now reason for it, you're not going to find it. But remember, that that's not the point.
Would someone, care to explain to me, how by any streach of the imagination the parent post is off topic? It makes a valid (while possibly disagreeable, completly subjective, though) point, and is directly in line with ont only it's parent post, but the subject of the article! Normaly I'm not one to bitch that "The moderation here sucks!" but this one is just plain absurd!
If a Chinese citizen revolts against the Chinese government, the citizen has a stick, the government has a tank.
Okay, the second half could be true. But only if they do things diffrently than the American Revolution.
It all hinges on the fact that you're missing something in the first part. Durring the American Revolution, the British did have muskets, and so did The Americans. But they also had cannons, and ships, and so did The American Colonies! The Colonies got the cannons because it was American (which at the time ment they were technicaly British) forces that decided to join the "rebel" side rather than staying on the side of the crown. Likewise, we had ships. While few (if any) were regular British Navy that decided to join our cause, many were Privateers previously pledged to the crown, and some were British war ships that were captured while in port.
The point here is that if enough people in China decide to revolt, the military (which, remember, is in fact made up of Chineese citizens) may follow suit. And if a full blown revolution ever happens, it stands to reason that the military will split (as happened in America's own civil war) and the revolutionaries will in deed have tanks, etc. It is possible. Difficult to organize and highly unlikley, but who would have though a coup de ta could have occured in the Soviet Union? That is the perfect illistration of how someone other than the currently installed government can persuade the Military to bring it's forces to bear against that very government for the purposes of political upheval. Now, in that instance, the will of the people was also against it and it failed, but in a theoretical Chineese revolt things might go diffrently...
Oct as in 'Octal' (Base 8) Dec as in 'Decimal' (Base 10)
For those that still don't get it:
OCT DEC
0 | 0
1 | 1
2 | 2
3 | 3
4 | 4
5 | 5
6 | 6
7 | 7
10 | 8
11 | 9
12 | 10
13 | 11
14 | 12
15 | 13
16 | 14
17 | 15
20 | 16
21 | 17
22 | 18
23 | 19
24 | 20
25 | 21
26 | 22
27 | 23
30 | 24
31 | 25
Hence OCT 31 == DEC 25. Get it now... Oh, no wonder it's not funny. Nothing ever is if you have to explain it!! Oh never mind...
LOL. I never noticed that there. I *think* it's a reminent of a software package I looked into for offering dialup porn years ago. I never noticed that it made changes to IE though. A better question is "Why is the icon for 'Hot Sex' a pair of siscors?" Ouch! Not my idea of a hot night...
But... it's not VA Linux any more.
Here (warning: 86K 24 bit PNG file) is a screen shot of how it renders in Mozilla. The cut off top of the logo is my fault from the capture.
Here (warning: 27K 24 bit PNG file) is how it renders in IE 5.5.
I'm not even going to attempt it in NS 4.7x
Dude... I think it's time to check your blood pressure...
Seriously though, that bugs me too, but remember, Mozilla uses skins. All you have to do is hack the skin and you (should) be able to put the button back where it belongs. I haven't really had a chance to look into it, so ymmv.
Actually, I had the same thought. Only a bit more penetrating. MS already controls FrontPage... after all, they publish it. I wonder if all frontpage generated pages will use a bit of JavaScript soon to check for browsers MS deams "Noncompliant". That will make a helluva lot of small sites innaccessable to non-ms browsers.
Me thinks so. Read all the comments. Lots of people are having trouble.
.95.
I'm not getting through to it on Mozilla
Netscape 4.77 works fine, though.
IE 5.5 is working fine too of course, anthough it seems to be having trouble with CSS (The windows XP logo in the upper left is partially covered by the "Making Music" picture)
From what I gather, it's not "Let's only let in IE" it's that MS is activly picking certain browsers and keeping them out based on their user-agent string.
I'd like to see W3 really penalize this type of behaviour, at least amoungst major companies.
Um... how? Perhaps I misunderstand the W3C but as I understand it, they have about as much power to penalize anyone for anything as I do to penalize you for posting that. In otherwords, they can say "shame on you" and generaly denounce it, but they have no real powers to *do* anything.
I find this strange. I build web sites for a living, so I have to use IE a lot even though I'm not too fond of it. And until this week, NS 4.76 was my browser of choice (I downloaded Mozilla .95 Monday and haven't looked back. I downloaded every milestone build since .2 and this is the first one I thought was more usable than what I was using.)
.95 (even though I think HTML rendering is a hair slower) the window rendering speed is now acceptable. I'd say faster than IE 5.x / 6.x but still a bit slower than NS 4.x. But that's okay. It's worlds ahead of NS4 in terms of stability and it's just a wonderful browser to use... especially for a developer.
That said, I think it's clear that I use these browsers more than just once a week or so. All of them get heavy use from me so I can g et a lot of comparison time. My machine is a K6/2 450 running Win ME (I do lots of multimedia editing, hence ME is better for me than 98se)
Here's what I've found from my observations:
IE: SLOW AS MOLASAS (SP?). NS4 kicks it's ass hands down.IE is slow to render windows, slow to render HTML when a window has been rendered, and (most anoyingly) is slow to respond to UI. I have a habit when I am searching for something with google to do the following: Search google, open page in new window, hit ctrl+f and start typing what it was I was looking for so I can find WHERE the relavant thing is on the page. I consistantly type faster than IE can keep up. Ler's say I'm looking for "widget". I hit ctrl+f and then type w-i-d-g-e-t [ENTER]. I look up... only to see the "et" in the word "let" highlighted. The search window appears so slow that if I don't remember to wait for it (only about a second, but still...) then the leading characters get truncated. Consistantly.
NS4: Not bad... until I got a broadband connection. NS4 consistantly blew away, IE, NS6 and Mozilla. (Except in HTML rendering speed for Mozilla). It's biggest advantage was the fact that it's windows would render instantly on even the slowest system. The only problem was that once I got broadband and it started downloading larg web pages FAST, it would freeze... pause really before rendering the HTML. Some pages rendered faster when I was on 56K. I think NS4 just has a problem with parsing large HTML files rapidly. If it gets them spoon fed, it renders them as fast as it can, but if it gets a page of HTML dumped on it, it gags and chokes and generaly has a hard time. That's when I started using IE a little more than I had to...
Mozilla: The first thing I noticed when I first downloaded Mozilla (ditto for NS6) was WOW, these Windows render slow as hell! I could draw the windows with an etch-a-sketch faster than this! Then the next thing I noticed, blew me away. HTML rendering was blisteringly fast. I had read about how one of the goals of the Mozilla project was to create a wonderfuly standards compliant browser, so I ran some informal tests against old and new pages I had saved localy on my machine. Some were standards compliant and others were "real world" compliant. Amazing... the standards complient pages rendered just as they should! They were pages which I hade taken down from my sites (and replaced with non standards complient ones) because either NS4 or IE didn't render them correctly. Mozilla rendered both NS4 and IE's buggy pages right. It even rendered the nonstandard pages the way I wanted them to look! IT took me a bit of digging to figure out why... Mozilla includes a "buggy" mode that treats pages without a DTD declaration as non standards complient. That way IE's known bugs that were designed around, show up fine! Wonderful! Since then, I've downloaded every Mozilla milestone and now, at
If you've kept track of the history of Netscape, especially the history of AOL since buying NS, you'll quickley figure out that AOL has been using NS to have it's way with Microsoft. Whenever there is a dispute over AOL icon desktop placment with Windows, or whatnot, AOL quietly leaks that it is considering NS6 / Mozilla for it's next release.
.95, which I am happy to report is the first version of Mozilla that I feel is 100% usable and I'm actually *happy* to use. (I run an old AMD K6/2 and previous versions ran too slow for my tastes, as did IE I just switched to Mozlla from NS4 early this week.) That said, I *hope* that AOL does decide to use Gecko for AOL and / or Compuserve, but I'm not holding my breath. After all, it may be more strategicly advantageous for them to continue using IE's engine.
I do support Mozilla, in fact I am writing this on Mozilla
Wait a second... I just re-read it again and I realized that what I said can't be right. Scratch that. You're right, though something is odd there.
I think the error is the word "higiest" not the numbers. Perhaps they ment "lowest".
Just a semi-educated guess, I have little to no knowlege in this field.
Lets start a pool. (Who ever picks the date (or gets closest to the date) takes the pot, blah blah blah...)
I've got $10 on August 9, 2002.
Dude, Half-Life doesn't "work fine" over modems. Let alone Half-Life + VoIP!!! Yikes, what must your lag be like!?!?
No... wrong again. Reread the story. Carefuly this time. The manufacturers are prohibited from displaying the clock speed durring startup. Or, in AMD's own words:
"Motherboards will not pass AMD validation or be posted on the AMD recomended motherboard Web site, if the frequency is displayed by the BIOS durring bootup for AMD Athlon(TM) Model 6 desktop and multiprocessng (sic) processors." (emphisis mine)
It makes no mention of displaying the frequency in the BIOS config screens, where most of the L Users will never tred anyway, so AMD has no reason to want it kept out of there. Same goes for Windows Control Pannel. When't the last your grandmother went tweeking BIOS settings, or started changing IRQs in device dammager? AMD doesn't care it it's listed in those places because the people computer savy enough to venture there will probably already know what the clock speed is (unless they went there to find out, of course).
And as for Windows, they clearly showed a screen shot of Win XP (German) showing both the model number (1800+) AND the clock speed (1,53 GHz).
This is something that, right or wrong is aimed at the general consumer, who isn't buying AMD because of a precieved lack of speed. I'm not sure what a great idea it is, and I'm sure AMD is going to take some flack for it, but I know it's not going to affect me one bit.
I'm going to come over to your [house / apartment / refrigerator box] and shoot your [wife / husband / mother / father / sister / brother / son / daughter / whatever] in the head right in front of you.
If you go to the cops to try and find me, you're a hypocrite. And if that's the case, I'm going to come back and kill you.
Then again, if you don't go to the cops, what's stopping me from coming back and offing you anyway?
So I guess you should just sit on your hands after I commit a sensless act of violence, because after all, two wrongs don't make a right.