I say we lock you up. Just have, what is essentially the 'secret police' come and hold you indefinitely. Oh, what's that? That law is meant for those 'other' guys?
If we want to stop terrorism we need to get it at the source. When we get attacked instead of concluding that it must be because they are jealous of our suburbs, or that they 'hate our freedom', or the classic claim that they are just inertly "evil", and therefore randomly decided to fly planes into our buildings; we need to look the real reasons why such a thing took place. And then do our best to correct the mistakes made, or at the very least don't repeat them again.
Let me give you a little timeline of events:
1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran - U.S. installs Shah as dictator. 1954: U.S. overthrows democratically elected President Aroenz of Guatemala - 200,000 civilians killed in the process (the equivalent of 50 September 11th attacks) 1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem 1963-1975: American military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia. (the equivalent of 1,000 September 11th attacks) 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile - Democratically-elected President Salvador Allende assassinated - Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed - 5,000 Chileans murdered under his rule 1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador - 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed by the U.S. backed military rulers (the equivalent of 17 September 11th attacks) 1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets - CIA gives them $3 billion 1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras" - 30,000 Nicaraguans are killed by the U.S. backed contras (the equivalent of 7 September 11th attacks) 1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians (he later uses these weapons to kill his own people, sheesh, If you can't trust an "evil," war criminal, homicidal, dictator, who can you trust?) 1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis 1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington - U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega - 3,000 Panamin civilians die in the process 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait using weapons provided by the United States. 1991: U.S. enters Iraq - Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait 2000-2001: U.S. gives Taliban ruled Afghanistan $450 million in 'aid' September 11th, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses expert CIA training to kill 3,000 Americans.
Yeah, it was because they 'hate our freedoms' *sigh*
What we need to do is stop this imperialistic shit, not start turning on our own people with 1984 style acts (e.g. the 'Patriot' Act). If the terrorists goal was to take away our freedom they supposedly hate so much, then, sadly enough, they have already won on many fronts.
"What you've done is set up a straw man. Yes, the page is standards-compliant, but the specific standards in use were apparently specifically chosen based on how badly IE renders them (and your script to detect when the user is running IE so you can provide unwanted zealotry to them removes any doubt that your design decisions weren't made with anti-IE bias in mind)."
I am sorry that you feel that way however you are mistaken. I would much rather IE simply support the standards, than bitch about it. If you think it is somehow enjoyable for me to work my ass of creating something, only for it to be viewable to less than 10% of the visitors, then you are sadly mistaken. However, I am not going to out of my way and write up 15 different JavaScript hacks to cater to a non w3c standards compliant browser. If Internet Explorer happens to fit in that category, then so be it.
I choose to write the page the way I did for two reasons. First it just looks kick ass if you ever see it in a standards compliant browser (at least in my opinion). Secondly, and most importantly, the code is much cleaner and easier to manage.
"Your page layout can be done in an equally standards-compliant form, and be IE-compatible to boot, simply by rearranging the page layout slightly."
I'd really like to see this done without using any cheap JavaScript hacks. Hell I'd like to see it done period. Feel free to enlighten me via example:-) You've got the pages code, feel free to "simply rearrange" it in such a way that is indistinguishable from the current page, yet runs fine under Internet Explorer.
"You've obviously missed the point of standards, which exist to allow usability by the widest user base possible; and instead perverted them into a weapon used to further your ideological goals. Shame on you."
It might be easy to say this on a page such as forever-hacking, where the page can be inaccessible to 90% of the people and I can not give a f00k. However, in most other cases I am unable to use the nice effects that are, to my knowledge, only obtainable using w3c standards that IE simply does not support. I am therefore unable to do it at all, as (for obvious reasons) I am unable to make the page inaccessible to over 90% of the users in most other cases.
The only way I know how to make alpha-transparent PNGs display properly in Internet Explorer is to use some cheap hack that involves IE only code. The only way to keep the menu statically on the left hand side of the page is to use some JavaScript hacks. And I do not know any trick to emulate the background effect that I have, with or without IE only code or JavaScript hacks. As I said, if you're willing to put your money where your mouth is feel free to show me. But I certainly am not going to go out of my way to cater to non standard compliant browsers. Especially, if the product is being produced by a multi-billion dollar company with resources that can only be defined as infinite, yet is unable to allocate a few coders to support some basic standards.
I am not going to start coding IE only crap, or Netscape only crap, or anything only crap for that matter. I am just going to use the set standards, and if a product happens to support them, great, if not, well I guess there's nothing I can do about it.
How is this not in direct violation of the consitution? What the hell good is it if the government can outright ignore it for whatever reason? Who the fuck is suppose to enforce it? Whomever, or whatever entity, that is should be removed from power as they are not protecting the very foundation this country was founded upon, that being our constitution, specifcally the Bill of Rights.
The UI is going to be less snappy due to the fact that it is not written using native widgets. However, it doesn't seem to be significantly slowing in my opinion.
I didn't go out of my way to do anything. I simply used w3c standards to create, what is in my opinion, a nice looking site. If Internet Explorer doesn't support the standards it isn't my fault. What I wont do is go out of my way to support a non-standard browser. If the browser supports the standards the page works, if not the page doesn't work so well. If IE happens to fit into the latter category it is not in my control.
I think he is reffering to certain people's suggestions that they should not be allowed to say those types of things 'in a time of war'. It appears to me that those are the people that he is confonting with that statement, not those who simply disagree Michael Moore, the Dixie Chicks, etc... but those who say that they should not be allowed to say those things.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. Nor, are they likely to end up with either."
-- Benjamin Franklin
"On the other hand, MS could keep a few modules proprietary, and the source wouldn't include the clipart and so on. So an OS version would perhaps have different features, or features which behave slightly differently."
That is exactly what SUN is doing with OpenOffice and StarOffice.
There are zealots everywhere. On Neowin you'll find your fair share of Microsoft zealots, on Slashdot you'll find your fair share of Anti-Microsoft zealots, on an Apple website you'd find your fair share of Apple zealots, etc...
People have their views. Sometimes people's views are based upon a line of logic that that person happens to agree with, and a lot of times people's views are based on other things. The people in the latter category are ignorant. You will find these groups of people everywhere. There is really nothing you can do about it. So I would suggest that you simply get used to it or you are going to have a very hard time in life.
Even you yourself appear to be quite ignorant. This is not necessarily an insult, as I am not attempting to challenge your intelligence. But based upon a lot of comments you made in your post you are very uninformed. Although your last comment pushes you into the arrogant (ignorance mixed with ego) category imho. My purpose in saying this is not to flame bit, but to show you that even you express zealousness. So you might want to be a bit more tolerant when you see others expressing that same quality, or you might come across as a hypocrite to some.
I actually liked Whisler's interface. It looked much more clean cut. It's too bad they scraped it. If they would have choosen a different look for the taskbar/start menu and the titlebars (e.g. Not being giant blobs of blue) Luna isn't that bad either. I like the look of the widgets, just not the titlebar or the start menu, they look almost out of place. So replace those and throw in a cool abstract background instead of teletubby land and it would look pretty nice.
I assume you are familiar with the Law of Supply and Demand. If someone is able to produce an exact copy of anything, then the supply begins to outweigh the demand for that product. Now, expand that out a thousand-fold, and you begin to see the problem.
Nice try but that makes no sense in this situation. Unless you are selling the viper, then there is no problem at all. A thousand people have something that they would not otherwise have, Dodge has to pay nothing to replace the product because it is a copy, and they are not loosing money in the form of loosing a customer because you could not afford it anyways. You can expand that million fold and there would be no problem. Now if people sold the vipers, which in a real world situation they would, then it would be wrong and f00k everything up. But for the purposes of this analogy they do not. Now if you are selling the music you are downloading for free, then that is definately wrong.
Soon, the price that Dodge can charge for that Viper begins to plummet. Eventually, they are unable to turn a profit because the price point is so low that they cannot justify the cost of production. No more Vipers, and no more jobs for people that make Vipers.
That makes no sense. If you took a million people who are making money below poverty level (e.g. they could never afford one) and used the magical copying machine to give them each a copy of a viper, Dodge would loose nothing. It would not affect the price of a viper a single bit so long as they were not selling them (and again for the purposes of this analagy they aren't). A million people now of a magical copy of a product they would never be able to afford anyways, and would not otherwise have. It would not in any way affect the price of the viper.
So go ahead and tell yourself that you're not hurting anyone by downloading free music, but the fact remains that you're reducing the demand for a given product
How? How am I hurting the demand of the product? I have a few thousand songs, and there is way in hell I could afford the repective CD for each song. If I did not pirate them I would not have them on my computer. I would not have purchased them because I cannot afford it. So in situation A I download the songs and have them on my computer and do not buy the CD; in situation B I don't download the songs and I don't have them on my computer and I don't buy the CD. I don't see how I am reducing the demand for the product in either situation A or B. I buy as many CDs as I can afford, and of the songs I like the best. But I cannot afford the CD for *every* song I have downloaded, so it is just a matter of me having the song on my computer or not, because either way I would not have the CD. So with that, I ask you again: How am I reducing demand? Regardless of whether or not I am downloading it, it is not going to be purchased by me anyways, because I simply cannot afford it.
There is no way I could afford the CDs to all of the music I have. I honestly don't feel that there is anything morally wrong with what I do. It is illegal, yes, but morally wrong? I don't think so. I buy the CDs for most of the music I really like to show support for that artist, not necessarly to give them money, but just by the fact that by puchasing something you are voting for that something, in this case the artist, and I like to show my support when I like the music, and I still think that buying the CD is generally more convienient than downloading it.
I think of it this way. If you had a magical machine that could instantly make a copy of any product, and you went to a car dealership and made a copy of a dodge viper, and this was something you could never afford anyways, would it be wrong? Dodge is not loosing a product they need to pay to get replaced, because it is a copy, and they are not loosing money in the form of you getting something for free that you would have normally payed for without your copying machine, because you could never afford it anyways, and would not otherwise have it. Is that really morally wrong? Now it becomes morally wrong, imho, when you go and copy the car you can afford, but just don't want to pay for.
Now companies will bitch and moan, this is expected. I could very well be wrong, however I think by law they need to fight a legal battle to protect their IP, otherwise it could be argued later in court that they give up the rights to it by knowingly allowing people to "steal" it, without trying to do anything about it. And of course it is legally wrong, but taking into account my analogy above, do you honestly think it is morally wrong?
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. Nor, are they likely to end up with either."
-- Benjamin Franklin, one of our founding fathers
And you do this through betraying them by exposing them to harm from enemies?
By trying to protect my liberties I do no such thing.
I would rather live in a free United States, than a Soviet United States with an Orwellian style government, even if the latter is more secure, because the former is worth dying for. If the latter is something you are interested in go move to Communist China where everything and anything about you and what you do is able to be watched and controled by the government, and you have no access to any information regarding the government or what they have done, what they are planning, etc... Sounds like the type of country you are interested in.
This propaganda that you either have liberty or you have security is just that: propaganda bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
I say we lock you up. Just have, what is essentially the 'secret police' come and hold you indefinitely. Oh, what's that? That law is meant for those 'other' guys?
If we want to stop terrorism we need to get it at the source. When we get attacked instead of concluding that it must be because they are jealous of our suburbs, or that they 'hate our freedom', or the classic claim that they are just inertly "evil", and therefore randomly decided to fly planes into our buildings; we need to look the real reasons why such a thing took place. And then do our best to correct the mistakes made, or at the very least don't repeat them again.
Let me give you a little timeline of events:
1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran - U.S. installs Shah as dictator.
1954: U.S. overthrows democratically elected President Aroenz of Guatemala - 200,000 civilians killed in the process (the equivalent of 50 September 11th attacks)
1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem
1963-1975: American military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia. (the equivalent of 1,000 September 11th attacks)
1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile - Democratically-elected President Salvador Allende assassinated - Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed - 5,000 Chileans murdered under his rule
1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador - 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed by the U.S. backed military rulers (the equivalent of 17 September 11th attacks)
1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets - CIA gives them $3 billion
1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras" - 30,000 Nicaraguans are killed by the U.S. backed contras (the equivalent of 7 September 11th attacks)
1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians (he later uses these weapons to kill his own people, sheesh, If you can't trust an "evil," war criminal, homicidal, dictator, who can you trust?)
1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis
1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington - U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega - 3,000 Panamin civilians die in the process
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait using weapons provided by the United States.
1991: U.S. enters Iraq - Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait
2000-2001: U.S. gives Taliban ruled Afghanistan $450 million in 'aid'
September 11th, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses expert CIA training to kill 3,000 Americans.
Yeah, it was because they 'hate our freedoms' *sigh*
What we need to do is stop this imperialistic shit, not start turning on our own people with 1984 style acts (e.g. the 'Patriot' Act). If the terrorists goal was to take away our freedom they supposedly hate so much, then, sadly enough, they have already won on many fronts.
disappear
transitive senses : to cause the disappearance of
© 2003 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
"What you've done is set up a straw man. Yes, the page is standards-compliant, but the specific standards in use were apparently specifically chosen based on how badly IE renders them (and your script to detect when the user is running IE so you can provide unwanted zealotry to them removes any doubt that your design decisions weren't made with anti-IE bias in mind)."
:-) You've got the pages code, feel free to "simply rearrange" it in such a way that is indistinguishable from the current page, yet runs fine under Internet Explorer.
I am sorry that you feel that way however you are mistaken. I would much rather IE simply support the standards, than bitch about it. If you think it is somehow enjoyable for me to work my ass of creating something, only for it to be viewable to less than 10% of the visitors, then you are sadly mistaken. However, I am not going to out of my way and write up 15 different JavaScript hacks to cater to a non w3c standards compliant browser. If Internet Explorer happens to fit in that category, then so be it.
I choose to write the page the way I did for two reasons. First it just looks kick ass if you ever see it in a standards compliant browser (at least in my opinion). Secondly, and most importantly, the code is much cleaner and easier to manage.
"Your page layout can be done in an equally standards-compliant form, and be IE-compatible to boot, simply by rearranging the page layout slightly."
I'd really like to see this done without using any cheap JavaScript hacks. Hell I'd like to see it done period. Feel free to enlighten me via example
"You've obviously missed the point of standards, which exist to allow usability by the widest user base possible; and instead perverted them into a weapon used to further your ideological goals. Shame on you."
It might be easy to say this on a page such as forever-hacking, where the page can be inaccessible to 90% of the people and I can not give a f00k. However, in most other cases I am unable to use the nice effects that are, to my knowledge, only obtainable using w3c standards that IE simply does not support. I am therefore unable to do it at all, as (for obvious reasons) I am unable to make the page inaccessible to over 90% of the users in most other cases.
The only way I know how to make alpha-transparent PNGs display properly in Internet Explorer is to use some cheap hack that involves IE only code. The only way to keep the menu statically on the left hand side of the page is to use some JavaScript hacks. And I do not know any trick to emulate the background effect that I have, with or without IE only code or JavaScript hacks. As I said, if you're willing to put your money where your mouth is feel free to show me. But I certainly am not going to go out of my way to cater to non standard compliant browsers. Especially, if the product is being produced by a multi-billion dollar company with resources that can only be defined as infinite, yet is unable to allocate a few coders to support some basic standards.
I am not going to start coding IE only crap, or Netscape only crap, or anything only crap for that matter. I am just going to use the set standards, and if a product happens to support them, great, if not, well I guess there's nothing I can do about it.
How is this not in direct violation of the consitution? What the hell good is it if the government can outright ignore it for whatever reason? Who the fuck is suppose to enforce it? Whomever, or whatever entity, that is should be removed from power as they are not protecting the very foundation this country was founded upon, that being our constitution, specifcally the Bill of Rights.
Where's the rating for speed and UI?
- 6.html?tag=st.sw.3227884-8-20005816-2.subdir.32278 84-8-20005816-6
The UI is going to be less snappy due to the fact that it is not written using native widgets. However, it doesn't seem to be significantly slowing in my opinion.
As for rendering speed goes, according to c|net, Mozilla beats IE in everything but Java applet preformance.
http://www.cnet.com/software/0-3227884-8-20005816
As for the other issues, not all of them are relevant. "Skinning"? Whoopee.
Some people (like me) appreciate the feature.
"Sidebar support"? Hmmm, isn't that a Mozilla unique feature?
Yes, as the "Media Bar" is an IE unique feature. I think both are cool. Mozilla has the sidebar, IE has the mediabar.
Seriously, though, through the power of...[list of add-ons and such]
The list is comparing the built-in features that come with the browser, not what you'll get if you download half a dozen add-ons.
I didn't go out of my way to do anything. I simply used w3c standards to create, what is in my opinion, a nice looking site. If Internet Explorer doesn't support the standards it isn't my fault. What I wont do is go out of my way to support a non-standard browser. If the browser supports the standards the page works, if not the page doesn't work so well. If IE happens to fit into the latter category it is not in my control.
I think he is reffering to certain people's suggestions that they should not be allowed to say those types of things 'in a time of war'. It appears to me that those are the people that he is confonting with that statement, not those who simply disagree Michael Moore, the Dixie Chicks, etc... but those who say that they should not be allowed to say those things.
Privacy is a civil liberty.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. Nor, are they likely to end up with either."
-- Benjamin Franklin
"They make a better browser."
http://forever-hacking.net/compare.html
This guy obviously has never played EverQuest before.
roflmfao!
"I am not impressed that a 'single 1.25 GHz G3' gets beat by a P4 3 GHz."
Actually it was a dual 1.25 GHz G4.
This is the stupidest Ask Slashdot I've seen in a while (excluding those posted by timothy).
Where do you go about purchasing one of these bad boys?
"On the other hand, MS could keep a few modules proprietary, and the source wouldn't include the clipart and so on. So an OS version would perhaps have different features, or features which behave slightly differently."
That is exactly what SUN is doing with OpenOffice and StarOffice.
There are zealots everywhere. On Neowin you'll find your fair share of Microsoft zealots, on Slashdot you'll find your fair share of Anti-Microsoft zealots, on an Apple website you'd find your fair share of Apple zealots, etc...
People have their views. Sometimes people's views are based upon a line of logic that that person happens to agree with, and a lot of times people's views are based on other things. The people in the latter category are ignorant. You will find these groups of people everywhere. There is really nothing you can do about it. So I would suggest that you simply get used to it or you are going to have a very hard time in life.
Even you yourself appear to be quite ignorant. This is not necessarily an insult, as I am not attempting to challenge your intelligence. But based upon a lot of comments you made in your post you are very uninformed. Although your last comment pushes you into the arrogant (ignorance mixed with ego) category imho. My purpose in saying this is not to flame bit, but to show you that even you express zealousness. So you might want to be a bit more tolerant when you see others expressing that same quality, or you might come across as a hypocrite to some.
As of now they appeared to have temperarly pulled the story as of now...
I actually liked Whisler's interface. It looked much more clean cut. It's too bad they scraped it. If they would have choosen a different look for the taskbar/start menu and the titlebars (e.g. Not being giant blobs of blue) Luna isn't that bad either. I like the look of the widgets, just not the titlebar or the start menu, they look almost out of place. So replace those and throw in a cool abstract background instead of teletubby land and it would look pretty nice.
What's more boring; Watching paint dry or grammar lessons on slashdot?
I assume you are familiar with the Law of Supply and Demand. If someone is able to produce an exact copy of anything, then the supply begins to outweigh the demand for that product. Now, expand that out a thousand-fold, and you begin to see the problem.
Nice try but that makes no sense in this situation. Unless you are selling the viper, then there is no problem at all. A thousand people have something that they would not otherwise have, Dodge has to pay nothing to replace the product because it is a copy, and they are not loosing money in the form of loosing a customer because you could not afford it anyways. You can expand that million fold and there would be no problem. Now if people sold the vipers, which in a real world situation they would, then it would be wrong and f00k everything up. But for the purposes of this analogy they do not. Now if you are selling the music you are downloading for free, then that is definately wrong.
Soon, the price that Dodge can charge for that Viper begins to plummet. Eventually, they are unable to turn a profit because the price point is so low that they cannot justify the cost of production. No more Vipers, and no more jobs for people that make Vipers.
That makes no sense. If you took a million people who are making money below poverty level (e.g. they could never afford one) and used the magical copying machine to give them each a copy of a viper, Dodge would loose nothing. It would not affect the price of a viper a single bit so long as they were not selling them (and again for the purposes of this analagy they aren't). A million people now of a magical copy of a product they would never be able to afford anyways, and would not otherwise have. It would not in any way affect the price of the viper.
So go ahead and tell yourself that you're not hurting anyone by downloading free music, but the fact remains that you're reducing the demand for a given product
How? How am I hurting the demand of the product? I have a few thousand songs, and there is way in hell I could afford the repective CD for each song. If I did not pirate them I would not have them on my computer. I would not have purchased them because I cannot afford it. So in situation A I download the songs and have them on my computer and do not buy the CD; in situation B I don't download the songs and I don't have them on my computer and I don't buy the CD. I don't see how I am reducing the demand for the product in either situation A or B. I buy as many CDs as I can afford, and of the songs I like the best. But I cannot afford the CD for *every* song I have downloaded, so it is just a matter of me having the song on my computer or not, because either way I would not have the CD. So with that, I ask you again: How am I reducing demand? Regardless of whether or not I am downloading it, it is not going to be purchased by me anyways, because I simply cannot afford it.
There is no way I could afford the CDs to all of the music I have. I honestly don't feel that there is anything morally wrong with what I do. It is illegal, yes, but morally wrong? I don't think so. I buy the CDs for most of the music I really like to show support for that artist, not necessarly to give them money, but just by the fact that by puchasing something you are voting for that something, in this case the artist, and I like to show my support when I like the music, and I still think that buying the CD is generally more convienient than downloading it.
I think of it this way. If you had a magical machine that could instantly make a copy of any product, and you went to a car dealership and made a copy of a dodge viper, and this was something you could never afford anyways, would it be wrong? Dodge is not loosing a product they need to pay to get replaced, because it is a copy, and they are not loosing money in the form of you getting something for free that you would have normally payed for without your copying machine, because you could never afford it anyways, and would not otherwise have it. Is that really morally wrong? Now it becomes morally wrong, imho, when you go and copy the car you can afford, but just don't want to pay for.
Now companies will bitch and moan, this is expected. I could very well be wrong, however I think by law they need to fight a legal battle to protect their IP, otherwise it could be argued later in court that they give up the rights to it by knowingly allowing people to "steal" it, without trying to do anything about it. And of course it is legally wrong, but taking into account my analogy above, do you honestly think it is morally wrong?
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. Nor, are they likely to end up with either."
-- Benjamin Franklin, one of our founding fathers
And you do this through betraying them by exposing them to harm from enemies?
By trying to protect my liberties I do no such thing.
I would rather live in a free United States, than a Soviet United States with an Orwellian style government, even if the latter is more secure, because the former is worth dying for. If the latter is something you are interested in go move to Communist China where everything and anything about you and what you do is able to be watched and controled by the government, and you have no access to any information regarding the government or what they have done, what they are planning, etc... Sounds like the type of country you are interested in.
This propaganda that you either have liberty or you have security is just that: propaganda bullshit.