First off, Netscape would not be in the (lack of) position is is today if MS had not had the advantage of an outside monopoly to back it up. It's entirely possible that, if MS had *only* been making web browsers, Netscape would still be around.
I'm not saying that Firefox is bad, just that Opera is, for the moment, still worth money (that's a reference to another post of mine on this thread).
Generally, I'd much rather use OpenSource software than non (I love openoffice), but in Opera's case, I think it's a pretty viable company, especially because, as others have pointed out, it has an embedded version. Ultimately, open source may (hopefully will) triumph over all; I was just reminding you that certain closed-source companies do provide valuable innovation, and it's not worth just kicking them to the roadside.
Aha! You, like a bunch of others in this thread, have pointed to exactly the reason that Opera is worth paying for - it offers the best straight-out-of-the-box convenience of any browser.
People say that iTMS is worth paying for because, while you could *find* the same music for "free," it's nice to be able to go and download stuff that just works, sounds good, etc. Opera is the same thing.
I've seen on this discussion already three extensions I would need to get to make Firefox have features that Opera already includes (gestures, better tabbing, and zooming). Now I understand that it's nice to be able to geek out and get *exactly* what you want with something - I built my own computer for exactly that reason. But most people don't have the time to geek out on every single thing they do - that's why I recommend most people just buy a preassembled computer with their operating system of choice on it. It takes a lot of time to customize every damned thing you use on a daily basis, and to me, when there's a web browser that works just the way I want, it's not worth it to run around trying to make Firefox behave the same way.
Besides the Opera download is 3.5 megs vs. 4.7 for Firefox, so it looks like they've managed to keep it lean and mean without the hassle.
I understand if you like the customization and price of Firefox, but I'm just saying that, for the moment, Opera is *worth* the money for those of us who just want a good browser out of the box.
I like opera (see my other posts on this page), but it does have trouble with that "certain group".
None of the browsers can handle the crappy, IE only coding unless they want to just copy the ridiculous way that microsoft fubared the standards. Sad are the webmasters who put out such shite.
Our hope is that people get frustrated enough with IE to migrate to different browsers as the rest of us did long ago, which will force webmasters to pay more attention. I have to say, I'm surprised at Microsoft for making the switch to an alternative so gratifying (everyone I've gotten to ditch IE has been happy about it), but I'm sure that they'll do a real upgrade of IE in longhorn just so they can advertise their new stolen features.
You know, you can make jokes about their business model, but you should at least appreciate that they've been there for the last few years. Firefox would not be nearly as good without Opera. Mouse gestures, which I now use throughout my desktop, are awesome. I believe (though I stand corrected) that Opera also had the first good pop-up blocking and tabbed browsing. For many years, it was absolutely the fastest browser on earth, as they say.
Firefox may be better, and it may be free, but it would be half of what it is without Opera to push it on (god knows that that IE hasn't provided any competition, features-wise).
I started using Opera about four years ago and quickly became hooked. Gestures, fast rendering, etc., made me an instant fan. The single (non-flashing) ad in the corner didn't really bother me.
At some point I'd used it enough that I figured it was worth paying some back, so I registered it (ironically, it looked wierd at first without the single ad block). Best $40 I've spent on software.
I haven't had to pay for an upgrade since then, and I've installed it on my computer at work, my laptop, and my new desktop. At some point I may have to kick down again and I'll probably do it, just like I bought Doom I after playing the hell out of it.
I've used Mozilla a little bit, but it was back when it was way more kludgy than I hear firefox is. I know that I could get a gesture patch and all, but I guess I'm happy with the way Opera handles just about everything (though I still have to load ol' IE to get at my bank's web page and my work's exchange server).
I appreciate the benefits of open source, and at some point I'll probably migrate to Firefox (at the very least it's good to know that if Opera goes under I have a great alternative). But for now, that's one for-profit organization that is building a very good piece of software and has brought some serious innovation to the browser world - I, for one, hope they are able to stick around...
...but it's okay to compare your love to the "love" involved in Brittney Spears' 15 minute wedding?
The government should have nothing to do with legislating love. Marriage, in a government sense, is just a set of economic stipulations and other allowances (like visitation rights). No marriage is the same - no one is in favor of the goverment "comparing" the love in yours with the love in anyone elses.
BTW, I've seen gay couples with ten times the love of many straight couples, so, to me, the way they choose to get off is none of my goddamned business. I don't care if a straight couple gets off with S&M or any of the other bizarre fetishes out there, so why would I care how two men or two women decide to get off? People are strange creatures - let them be.
Oh, and to any of the trolls out there: yes, I am a faggot-loving pinko who's contributing to the downfall of your society - fuck off, and thanks for asking.
I wouldn't be surprised if Bush & Co. decided on a major offensive Monday:
It's certainly interesting that a huge number of fresh troops just arrived in preparation for just that.
Would it work against the administration to do this? Polls say no.
Obviously, I'm not sure if they'd be that daring, but if they are, you heard it here first (if they're not, this comment, like most conspiracy theories, will just lapse into oblivion).
Re:This has been known on Slashdot for some time.
on
The Google News Dilemma
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In fact, commercial advertising, is exactly that. It's not strange for a company to expend effort on increasing brand awareness, nor is it good or evil.
The odd entanglement of the modern world is that what Google *does* make money on are the "loss leaders" of others.
This is a very valid concern. As another poster mentioned, it would be at the equator. I would assume that it wouldn't be hard to establish an internationally supported 100 mile "no fly zone" around the base. Supplies and people would need to be brought in by train (or by boat if it was on an island), and any aircraft entering the zone would simply need to be shot down.
It seems reasonable to me - if something like a space elevator is to provide that much benefit to humanity, it's worth protecting with some extreme measures.
Actually, I believe that the "question" or, rather, the questionable statement that the grandparent responded to was that attacking Iraq was essentially equivalent to attacking those who took out the twin towers.
All this BS about maintaining the power of UN resolutions seems like just more spin to me, on the order of the "but Iraq has WMD" or the "but Saddam is a bad man" statements - they have *nothing* to do with why we went to war with that country. There are plenty of evil dictators, plenty of countries with verified and *admitted* WMD, and at least a few countries that have *repeatedly* defied the UN (On that last one at least, Americans can look in the mirror).
The argument that we did this in the UN's best interests completely neglects the fact that most of the people who favor the war in Iraq have long *despised* the UN and have acted against the UN in word or deed for years. The people encouraging and/or justifying this war are the same people who will straight up say that they don't *want* the UN to be powerful.
Personally, I think it has a little something to do with oil, something to do with the fact that Bush Jr. didn't like Saddam trying to take out his old man, and a whole lot to do with the neoconservative ideal of what would happen to the middle east if they took out Saddam (see www.newamericancentury.com). They want America to be some kind of dynastic empire that protects itself by being mightier than everyone else, discounting the fact that such thinking has never worked in the past. I think they're just inept - if you read what they thought would happen in Iraq you could see before the war that it was a pipe dream. Iraq is a hotbed of radically different religions and cultures who have repeatedly not gotten along (to put it mildly), the people of Iraq have never *asked us* with any kind of coherant voice to revolutionize/occupy them, and the idea that they or any of the surrounding nations would look heroically upon an outside country that attacked them is unbelievably simplistic, if not downright insane. As if the neocons needed any help in their failure, calling their actions a "crusade" just about sealed the deal (while further revealing Bush's ignorant self-righteousness toward the peoples he was supposedly going to help).
I agree that Hussein being out of Iraqi leadership is a good thing in itself, though it's distinctly possible that even worse things may come of the way it was done, especially for America. As for the justifications, like "we gave strength to the voice of the world community," those will wear thin, if they haven't already. But, no doubt, more will be spun, equally thin and equally unbelievable to the families of the people we killed...
Meanwhile, the problems we really need to tackle, like security in America and security for people around the world, will continue to wait...
P.S. How exactly do you "prove" that you don't have something you don't have? If there was to be such a proof, wasn't that what the UN weapons inspectors were supposed to provide? If so, why did we attack Iraq before they had finished doing their jobs? The "proof" that we should be more upset about is the "proof" that our *own goverment* provided claiming that Iraq *did* have WMD. *That* was the proof that was supposed to convince the world that this was a "just war," and that was the false proof that will turn even more people against our country.
I know you think it's supposed to be funny, but all the sudden french-bashing that goes on in America comes from the same mentality that allowed people in other countries to cheer when the world trade centers went down. Do you not see that? That the simple-minded judging, the derogatory attitude, and the holier-than-thou attitude comes from the same place?
I didn't think that's what America was about, but it seems that a surprisingly large majority of America's people think in the exact same way as the people they most despise...
Not to mention that those pads are so slippery that my signature on them is even more random than normal. I've gotten to where I don't even bother trying to sign my name and just throw some squiggles and loops on the pad.
Jeez, safety shmafty - I felt deeply the loss of the Columbia, even more so than the Challenger (probably because I was older), but really all those astronauts knew the risks and I'd wager that most would have gone even knowing that they wouldn't make it back (at least it burned up on the way *down*).
I think that anyone who has gone to space has been fulfilling a dream, and that's worth more than the danger. People die all the time for pointless reasons - isn't it better to allow people to risk it? Hell make the Hubble mission a volunteer mission and I'll bet that 10 out of 10 astronauts would do it in a heartbeat.
It's a risky business, true, but let's get real - 56 American soldiers died in July for the war in Iraq, something that has gotten the US and all of humanity much less than a Hubble service mission. We're willing to let people die all the time in the service of what we think is right - I don't understand why we treat our losses in space so differently. Exploration involves danger, and if we're not willing to take risks we may as well just hand our space leadership to some other country, one that actually recognizes that.
Obviously we should fix as many of the problems in NASA as we can, make safety for our astronauts one of our top concerns, but we also need to pay attention to what's inspiring, good, and worthwhile in the world, and I'd say that letting people do something they'd want to do anyway in the name of our country and science is damned well worth it.
Besides, they don't call them "brave astronauts" for no reason...
Obviously the spacecraft that's being dragged by the sail (presumably with the intersteller travelers in it) needs to have some kind of lander if that's your intent... but we've already been there, done that; there's not even a need for new tech.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, Netscape would not be in the (lack of) position is is today if MS had not had the advantage of an outside monopoly to back it up. It's entirely possible that, if MS had *only* been making web browsers, Netscape would still be around.
I'm not saying that Firefox is bad, just that Opera is, for the moment, still worth money (that's a reference to another post of mine on this thread).
Generally, I'd much rather use OpenSource software than non (I love openoffice), but in Opera's case, I think it's a pretty viable company, especially because, as others have pointed out, it has an embedded version. Ultimately, open source may (hopefully will) triumph over all; I was just reminding you that certain closed-source companies do provide valuable innovation, and it's not worth just kicking them to the roadside.
Aha! You, like a bunch of others in this thread, have pointed to exactly the reason that Opera is worth paying for - it offers the best straight-out-of-the-box convenience of any browser.
People say that iTMS is worth paying for because, while you could *find* the same music for "free," it's nice to be able to go and download stuff that just works, sounds good, etc. Opera is the same thing.
I've seen on this discussion already three extensions I would need to get to make Firefox have features that Opera already includes (gestures, better tabbing, and zooming). Now I understand that it's nice to be able to geek out and get *exactly* what you want with something - I built my own computer for exactly that reason. But most people don't have the time to geek out on every single thing they do - that's why I recommend most people just buy a preassembled computer with their operating system of choice on it. It takes a lot of time to customize every damned thing you use on a daily basis, and to me, when there's a web browser that works just the way I want, it's not worth it to run around trying to make Firefox behave the same way.
Besides the Opera download is 3.5 megs vs. 4.7 for Firefox, so it looks like they've managed to keep it lean and mean without the hassle.
I understand if you like the customization and price of Firefox, but I'm just saying that, for the moment, Opera is *worth* the money for those of us who just want a good browser out of the box.
I like opera (see my other posts on this page), but it does have trouble with that "certain group".
None of the browsers can handle the crappy, IE only coding unless they want to just copy the ridiculous way that microsoft fubared the standards. Sad are the webmasters who put out such shite.
Our hope is that people get frustrated enough with IE to migrate to different browsers as the rest of us did long ago, which will force webmasters to pay more attention. I have to say, I'm surprised at Microsoft for making the switch to an alternative so gratifying (everyone I've gotten to ditch IE has been happy about it), but I'm sure that they'll do a real upgrade of IE in longhorn just so they can advertise their new stolen features.
You know, you can make jokes about their business model, but you should at least appreciate that they've been there for the last few years. Firefox would not be nearly as good without Opera. Mouse gestures, which I now use throughout my desktop, are awesome. I believe (though I stand corrected) that Opera also had the first good pop-up blocking and tabbed browsing. For many years, it was absolutely the fastest browser on earth, as they say.
Firefox may be better, and it may be free, but it would be half of what it is without Opera to push it on (god knows that that IE hasn't provided any competition, features-wise).
I started using Opera about four years ago and quickly became hooked. Gestures, fast rendering, etc., made me an instant fan. The single (non-flashing) ad in the corner didn't really bother me.
At some point I'd used it enough that I figured it was worth paying some back, so I registered it (ironically, it looked wierd at first without the single ad block). Best $40 I've spent on software.
I haven't had to pay for an upgrade since then, and I've installed it on my computer at work, my laptop, and my new desktop. At some point I may have to kick down again and I'll probably do it, just like I bought Doom I after playing the hell out of it.
I've used Mozilla a little bit, but it was back when it was way more kludgy than I hear firefox is. I know that I could get a gesture patch and all, but I guess I'm happy with the way Opera handles just about everything (though I still have to load ol' IE to get at my bank's web page and my work's exchange server).
I appreciate the benefits of open source, and at some point I'll probably migrate to Firefox (at the very least it's good to know that if Opera goes under I have a great alternative). But for now, that's one for-profit organization that is building a very good piece of software and has brought some serious innovation to the browser world - I, for one, hope they are able to stick around...
Just so you know, slashcode puts that space in there for long entries - any (long) url will get one.
It's not your fault, in other words (but it would have been nice if you'd just included a link).
Very nice post. Thanks.
...but it's okay to compare your love to the "love" involved in Brittney Spears' 15 minute wedding?
The government should have nothing to do with legislating love. Marriage, in a government sense, is just a set of economic stipulations and other allowances (like visitation rights). No marriage is the same - no one is in favor of the goverment "comparing" the love in yours with the love in anyone elses.
BTW, I've seen gay couples with ten times the love of many straight couples, so, to me, the way they choose to get off is none of my goddamned business. I don't care if a straight couple gets off with S&M or any of the other bizarre fetishes out there, so why would I care how two men or two women decide to get off? People are strange creatures - let them be.
Oh, and to any of the trolls out there: yes, I am a faggot-loving pinko who's contributing to the downfall of your society - fuck off, and thanks for asking.
Nicotine and alcohol only...
I wouldn't be surprised if Bush & Co. decided on a major offensive Monday:
It's certainly interesting that a huge number of fresh troops just arrived in preparation for just that.
Would it work against the administration to do this? Polls say no.
Obviously, I'm not sure if they'd be that daring, but if they are, you heard it here first (if they're not, this comment, like most conspiracy theories, will just lapse into oblivion).
I don't know the answers to your questions, but check this out:
/.ed!
cat falling in zero g
It's a video of a cat on the "vomit comit". Most amusing. Get it before it's
That means they violated TFT.
If they violated it once, they can violate it again, sacrificing themselves to get back in your favor (like real life).
...it would be China's 8th largest trading partner.
scary.
Too bad it's a repeat of a repeat of a repeat of a repeat
In fact, commercial advertising, is exactly that. It's not strange for a company to expend effort on increasing brand awareness, nor is it good or evil.
The odd entanglement of the modern world is that what Google *does* make money on are the "loss leaders" of others.
This is a very valid concern. As another poster mentioned, it would be at the equator. I would assume that it wouldn't be hard to establish an internationally supported 100 mile "no fly zone" around the base. Supplies and people would need to be brought in by train (or by boat if it was on an island), and any aircraft entering the zone would simply need to be shot down.
It seems reasonable to me - if something like a space elevator is to provide that much benefit to humanity, it's worth protecting with some extreme measures.
Interesting... a "troll" mod.
I guess I was trolling and didn't know it. A flamebait mod I could have maybe understood, but troll? I was actually trying to make a point. Hmmm...
Maybe this comment will get an "Overrated" mod right off the bat. One can only hope.
Actually, I believe that the "question" or, rather, the questionable statement that the grandparent responded to was that attacking Iraq was essentially equivalent to attacking those who took out the twin towers.
All this BS about maintaining the power of UN resolutions seems like just more spin to me, on the order of the "but Iraq has WMD" or the "but Saddam is a bad man" statements - they have *nothing* to do with why we went to war with that country. There are plenty of evil dictators, plenty of countries with verified and *admitted* WMD, and at least a few countries that have *repeatedly* defied the UN (On that last one at least, Americans can look in the mirror).
The argument that we did this in the UN's best interests completely neglects the fact that most of the people who favor the war in Iraq have long *despised* the UN and have acted against the UN in word or deed for years. The people encouraging and/or justifying this war are the same people who will straight up say that they don't *want* the UN to be powerful.
Personally, I think it has a little something to do with oil, something to do with the fact that Bush Jr. didn't like Saddam trying to take out his old man, and a whole lot to do with the neoconservative ideal of what would happen to the middle east if they took out Saddam (see www.newamericancentury.com). They want America to be some kind of dynastic empire that protects itself by being mightier than everyone else, discounting the fact that such thinking has never worked in the past. I think they're just inept - if you read what they thought would happen in Iraq you could see before the war that it was a pipe dream. Iraq is a hotbed of radically different religions and cultures who have repeatedly not gotten along (to put it mildly), the people of Iraq have never *asked us* with any kind of coherant voice to revolutionize/occupy them, and the idea that they or any of the surrounding nations would look heroically upon an outside country that attacked them is unbelievably simplistic, if not downright insane. As if the neocons needed any help in their failure, calling their actions a "crusade" just about sealed the deal (while further revealing Bush's ignorant self-righteousness toward the peoples he was supposedly going to help).
I agree that Hussein being out of Iraqi leadership is a good thing in itself, though it's distinctly possible that even worse things may come of the way it was done, especially for America. As for the justifications, like "we gave strength to the voice of the world community," those will wear thin, if they haven't already. But, no doubt, more will be spun, equally thin and equally unbelievable to the families of the people we killed...
Meanwhile, the problems we really need to tackle, like security in America and security for people around the world, will continue to wait...
P.S. How exactly do you "prove" that you don't have something you don't have? If there was to be such a proof, wasn't that what the UN weapons inspectors were supposed to provide? If so, why did we attack Iraq before they had finished doing their jobs? The "proof" that we should be more upset about is the "proof" that our *own goverment* provided claiming that Iraq *did* have WMD. *That* was the proof that was supposed to convince the world that this was a "just war," and that was the false proof that will turn even more people against our country.
Have you even *been* to France?
I know you think it's supposed to be funny, but all the sudden french-bashing that goes on in America comes from the same mentality that allowed people in other countries to cheer when the world trade centers went down. Do you not see that? That the simple-minded judging, the derogatory attitude, and the holier-than-thou attitude comes from the same place?
I didn't think that's what America was about, but it seems that a surprisingly large majority of America's people think in the exact same way as the people they most despise...
Not to mention that those pads are so slippery that my signature on them is even more random than normal. I've gotten to where I don't even bother trying to sign my name and just throw some squiggles and loops on the pad.
Jeez, safety shmafty - I felt deeply the loss of the Columbia, even more so than the Challenger (probably because I was older), but really all those astronauts knew the risks and I'd wager that most would have gone even knowing that they wouldn't make it back (at least it burned up on the way *down*).
I think that anyone who has gone to space has been fulfilling a dream, and that's worth more than the danger. People die all the time for pointless reasons - isn't it better to allow people to risk it? Hell make the Hubble mission a volunteer mission and I'll bet that 10 out of 10 astronauts would do it in a heartbeat.
It's a risky business, true, but let's get real - 56 American soldiers died in July for the war in Iraq, something that has gotten the US and all of humanity much less than a Hubble service mission. We're willing to let people die all the time in the service of what we think is right - I don't understand why we treat our losses in space so differently. Exploration involves danger, and if we're not willing to take risks we may as well just hand our space leadership to some other country, one that actually recognizes that.
Obviously we should fix as many of the problems in NASA as we can, make safety for our astronauts one of our top concerns, but we also need to pay attention to what's inspiring, good, and worthwhile in the world, and I'd say that letting people do something they'd want to do anyway in the name of our country and science is damned well worth it.
Besides, they don't call them "brave astronauts" for no reason...
Obviously the spacecraft that's being dragged by the sail (presumably with the intersteller travelers in it) needs to have some kind of lander if that's your intent... but we've already been there, done that; there's not even a need for new tech.
Umm... turn around.
I hope that was intended to be funny.
You apparently didn't, though, go to a school that *taught* you how to use the past tense.
Do you have a source for that doubling of fatalities? I'd love to see it (really, I'm not being disingenuous).