Nanny cams are most effective in preventing your child from being beaten if THE NANNY KNOWS ITS THERE. Otherwise it's nothing more than more evidence after the fact, and probably entirely redundant evidence anyway.
The only reason I can think of for hiding a camera is that the parents are too embarrassed to admit they'd do such a thing. They shouldn't be, wanting your kids to be safe when they're in the hands of a third person is nothing to be ashamed of.
Of course, you could just put the cameras up with the full knowledge of the maid. That way the maid keeps their job (and you don't have to hire a new maid every few months), and you don't have anything stolen from you. Works out better for everyone, wouldn't you agree?
Of course, it deprives you of the ability to work yourself into a steaming fit of rightous fury, but some of us would say that's a good thing.
I don't know. Netscape 4.x wasn't any more complete and reliable as 6.x, and I could make similar comments about certain operating systems installed on a few hundred million desktops.
It's close enough, certainly closer to "prime time" than the majority of software products I see people putting up with day in day out. So it sounds like a good idea to me.
Tax advantages aside, you can't sell what you do not have. Any complaints to the effect that Amazon or anyone else are ripping off authors by not promoting new copies have to address the fact that so much material is OOP.
The difference between selling a paperback novel at $25 and selling it at $10 is one of seeing it sit gathering dust and seeing it sell. I agree the economics means that you'll want to price some books at more than others, but there's such a thing as excessive. I can honestly say I've never met anyone personally who's been willing to pay that much for a novel, unless there's something extra (if only that it's in hardback.) The second hand market thrives on such things, especially when the second hand market can provide much better alternatives. (Case in point: Asimov's Foundation and Earth: Available new, in paperback only, for over $20. I got a used copy - first edition, hardback, no dust-jacket and a few coffee stains on the covers for $1 + S&H. I wouldn't even have bothered otherwise - I mean, I wanted to read the complete series, but I'd have to be out of my effing tree to pay that amount for that book.)
There's an assumption that if we want to read a book, we'll pay anything because no other books are strictly speaking competitors (as you point out.) Well, sorry, but the world is full of wonderful novels, and one can only read one at a time. If I see a book I want at $25, I'll just move on to something else I want that I can afford right now, and get it second hand when I see it at a decent price.
I know I'm not the only one: I even know people who wont stump up $10, let alone $25.
I have no idea what you are talking about, and how it relates to anything I was writing. The person I was responding to proposed that Amazon both brokers and provides packaging and other materials for marketplace sellers. I was correcting that misunderstanding.
Nobody has suggested that Amazon is not responsible for the sales it facilitates, not me, not the person I was responding to, not Amazon, not anyone.
My understanding is that the topic under discussion, the thing the author's are complaining about, is the Amazon Marketplace thing, which indeed is nothing but a brokerage/credit system.
Are you perhaps refering to ZShops? I doubt the Authors Guild is worried about that, given that ZShops isn't just used books (new books as well), and isn't usually, in my experience, as prominent on basic Amazon listings as the marketplace links.
I haven't ever purchased anything from ZShops so I can't comment on it... the normal used book listings though on Amazon, the Marketplace system, I use frequently, and are as I described.
Amazon just broker, taking a small cut. They don't provide Amazon shipping materials to the seller. It's not dissimilar to eBay, except everything's "Buy it now for..." and the payment system is provided for you. Most of the sellers in my experience are "ordinary people", selling their collections, though there are a few companies that use the system too.
From what I can work out, B&N doesn't list sales from anything other than affiliated bookshops.
I've purchased second hand books from both Amazon and B&N, and that's been my experience. Oh, and a note to the authors and publishers: If you really don't want us to buy second hand books:
Keep your books in-print. That's, believe it or not, the #1 rule. People can't buy new copies if you refuse to sell them.
Don't try selling paperback fiction for $25. I don't care how good the book is, that's excessive.
Keep all types of your book (hardback, paperback, etc) in print, rather than just the MMP.
Asking Amazon to make the second hand option less prominant will not help you, and cheap shots like this will only make you less popular. Less greed and more selling = more sales. More greed and forgetting to sell = less.
That monopolies existed does not prove that the absence of regulation somehow encourages them.
That fires existed does not prove that absense of water somehow encourages them. You're misusing the word encouraged, which is nowhere in sight of this argument. The point being made is that without regulation, monopolies occur. And to prove the point, a period of US History where regulation was virtually zilch is given where virtually every substantial industry was under the control of a monopoly.
There is not a single reason that you couldn't have two competing power grids, two competing rail systems, or two parallel sets of phone lines with different end points.
Not a single reason, except basic economics.
Railways: Required compulsory purchase of land to be completed, so required state intervention just to exist in the first place. The alternative was that railways would have wierd routes and never entered cities, or that they would have been too expensive to build, requiring obscene amounts of money to be paid to landowners.
Phone lines: There was competition, AT&T won. And once a company has a 100% market share/80-90% penetration of the phone service, how are you going to compete? Your unregulated competitor's not even likely to want to cooperate, so you'd create some phone service where the only people you can call would be those on your network. Who'd buy that? And assuming that by some pure luck you advertise your service and half the population switches over to it, isn't it in your best interests to merge with your rival so you/they jointly can charge more than you would under competitive circumstances, and only have one set of wires to maintain between the two of you?
Power - see above. One set of wires = cheaper maintenance. Mergers are inevitable, unless the people running the companies are complete idiots.
Quite simply, I doubt anyone would seriously invest capital into rival infrastructure-based services. Even the "deregulation" of long distance phone service in the US required maintaining a heavily regulated local system to allow long distance to work. In Britain, where BT was privatised, despite OFTEL tying it in knots the only competition has come from cable companies who were laying cables anyway. Nobody is building an alternative dedicated telephone network, despite the fact their chief competitor would be a short sighted, over-priced, third rate pile of crap.
Without regulation, either directly of the monopolies or indirectly trying to prevent the things occuring, you'll get monopolies. It's solely government intervention in the last 90 years that has prevented more of the things. And a good thing too.
You might want to read "The History of the Standard Oil Company", by Ida Tarbell, which is a contemporous account and by someone with no ideological axe to grind (insofar as she had an axe to grind it was a "How do I make my reputation as a journalist?" one. If you search for it, you'll find at least one location on the Internet which has the full text, as it's out of copyright.
Standard Oil's success had nothing to do with new technologies, which came about after it took over the market. The most famous technique used was to negotiate contracts with the railroads whereby SO would get a "rebate" for every barrel of oil shipped, even those shipped by its competitors, in exchange for SO not putting together a rival infrastructure. Competitors were squeezed out of the market, unable to compete because they were essentially subsidising their rival. Kind of like Bill Gates and the "We get paid for every PC you ship, even those with a rival operating system installed in place of DOS" regime promoted during the eighties.
It's certainly true that prices went down during SO's lifetime, but new technologies made it cheaper to do what SO wanted to do, rather than enabled SO to get ahead of its competitors, and SO needed the market to grow so wasn't going to keep prices sky high unnecessarily.
1. It was a throwaway comment. 2. It's generally a good thing when the installation package is small. Sure, it's not 1.44megs so you can't bung it on a floppy, but as part of a standard install in a company, or something on your backups of stuff, it's pretty nice. 3. Have you ever downloaded a multimegabyte file using a normal modem? No, didn't think so.
Geez. If I said "This car has some problems, but it corners well" you'd have been back at me with "Oooooooooh! The car's huge and all you care about is that it has a big steering wheel!"
Or "One thing I like about this way this chicken is cooked is that it's fairly spicy" would garner the response "Oh great. So you're eating this fattening chicken and risking botulism and all you care about is that it makes you sneeze!"
Jesus H. Christ. Read what I fucking say next time ok? Is that too much to ask? Or couldn't you find anything more controvertial you could twist out of context today? I'm surprised you didn't go further: "5 million Cambodians are dead and all you can care about is saving precious bytes in your download folder", "India and Pakistan are on the verge of nuking one another, and you think Mozilla rocks because it's got a good installer?" "Yeah, I know who else made compact installation packages too: Hitler. That was what Hitler did!"
Right now, I'm of the opinion Capital One are within their rights not to support a version 0.x browser. As soon as the 1.0 release candidate comes out (next month), I'll be letting them know that they better allow users of 1.0 in or I'm cutting up my credit cards.
It's not as if EVERY COMPETITOR OF THEIR'S IN THE COUNTRY isn't trying to get my business.
Anyone want to recommend any Mozilla-friendly credit card companies out of interest?
I use it on NT. I have a fairly nippy machine, I used to run it on a 166MMX with 64Mb of memory and it was slow. 4x that amount of RAM and a P-III makes a huge difference, and it actually goes from being slower than IE (much slower) to much faster. I don't know why, it doesn't make sense to me, but there you have it.
One thing though, opening new windows is something Moz is bad at. Try setting up the tabs feature which is both lightening fast, and in the opinion of everyone I've met a vast improvement. Again, this is one of those I don't know why things - if someone described the idea of tabs to me, I'd have said it sounds horrible. But it isn't.
Be aware that while Mozilla is physically slower and more memory hungry, it's still a lighter browser over all. It takes around 66% of the download space of a recent MSIE, despite also having email and IRC and whatever, and even manages to be smaller than Netscape.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here because you did say government approved monopoly rather than a government sponsored one.
The reason this is a big deal to me is that it's a central principle of a great deal of pseudo-libertarian propaganda that the only occasions on which any business gets a monopoly these days (or ever) are either if it has a really, really, good product that's the best, and recognised by consumers as such and is popular, or if governments have "granted" companies monopolies, as they have with patents and in the case of the Post Office.
In AT&T's case, this is patently (arf arf, geddit?) false. AT&T had a monopoly so independent and concrete that they actually willingly accepted regulation, knowing that the alternative would have meant the destruction of the company, or its nationalisation. AT&T built a very expensive network, and because they were first, it became impossible to compete against them. This goes right to the present day where cable companies have rolled out similar infrastructure and are able to provide local phone service over it, but the costs are still too prohibitive and involve too much cooperation from a competitor for it to be viable for them. [Yes, AT&T Cable looked into it, and ditched the idea]
Contracts are, by default, binding. It's the laws that governments introduce that weaken contracts, forcing parties to be reasonable and fair.
And, personally, as I suspect you do too, I think it's a good thing when government does that. Unfortunately, the current political climate seems to live in a consensus where every government intervention into the markets is seen as a bad thing. Sometimes the propaganda and assumptions that build that consensus needs to be challenged.
At line point AT&T owned the entire telephone network, being granted a government-approved monopoly.
Can we, at least, nail this myth on the head? AT&T never had a government-approved monopoly. What it had was a practical monopoly, competition was close to impossible because to compete, one had to dig up roads to areas where you might, in a fair world, get 50% market penetration, and where, without the active, supporting, help of AT&T you would have a network that would initially have nobody phonable.
AT&T accepted regulation, given it knew it faced potential structural changes or even wholesale nationalisation if it was seen by the voters, and thus the government, as anti-consumer. But whenever the government saw an opportunity to introduce competition with AT&T's active help, the government did step in and force the issue.
The reason for the successful break-up of AT&T wasn't that it had unlawfully obtained a monopoly or that the government had "given" it one and had changed its mind, it was that the government wanted to make use of new technologies to encourage competitors, and needed AT&T to proactively help those competitiors to work. Needless to say, Ma Bell wasn't happy about this, and stonewalled.
Having a monopoly because you're first, and it's just too difficult for others to get into the market without you actively helping, is very different from having one because the government has declared you the only rightful operator (as in, say, the Post Office, ironically constitutionally mandated so those pesky libertarians can't do a thing about it hehe, or through ownership of a patent, or whatever), or because, as in Microsoft's or Standard Oil's case, you've cut off the air supply to competitors, blackmailing your suppliers and customers to prevent potential competitors from being able to get off the ground.
The telephone network in the US, at least, was built using private investment, predominantly by AT&T. The bulk of the increadibly expensive bit though was done 50-100 years ago, whereas the CATV lines are 20-30 years old.
Do you have anything at all to back this up? Or is this a Montana Militia style "The Feds are out to get us, they're installing listening devices in people's heads and marking the backs of road signs for the oncoming military coup" style tosh?
What the hell went up in price 20% last year? Did the dollar lose that much in value, if so who to? My phone bill still seems to be the same, my electricity bill seems to be lower if anything, gas prices have been up and down like a yo-yo, but 2001 certainly wasn't worse than 2000.
My food bill barely changed and my browse through the supermarkets didn't notice anything rocketing by those kinds of prices. My rent went up a whopping 2.5%. The dollar is up against the GBP and the Euro.
So what the hell went up in price, not merely by 20%, but by the gazillion % needed to make up for the fact that nothing else was going up in price, and some things actually dropped?
You're using quite strong and dismissive language, but no reasoning.
Oh really? I'm not the one that just encouraged 250,000 geeks to stuff the ballot box to make the Mozilla team implement something on the basis that "MSIE had it."
And "no reasoning"? The fact that one can make one's strongest point in 5 or 6 words doesn't make it "no reasoning." And resubmission of forms is not "FUD" or "no more dangerous than going back in session history". A good browser allows you to cancel a potentially dangerous operation like going back to a page that's a non cached form submission, or skip that page altogether. What do you propose, that opening a window under the same circumstances should cause some kludged, confusing, ugly set of dialogs to be navigated before something as simple as a blank window appears?
I'm perfectly happy for the feature to be customisable. You should calm down: I never proposed anything different.
Great! Another kludge! If it has to be implemented, it should be done this way, and the default should, as you show, be for the bug to be off, but...
Did I say that it did? I don't think so.
I took your comments about MSIE implementing it as being that it was the right way. Sorry if that was not intended.
It's a shame there isn't a mechanism to vote against the introduction of a bug like this.
What an utterly useless, pointless, and potentially dangerous (resubmit details for an uncached page anyone?) "feature" to want in a browser. If the Mozilla team are boneheaded enough to implement it, I do hope they at least make it a turn-offable feature, otherwise I'm switching to another browser.
Just because Microsoft does it doesn't make it right.
The Hurd uses a microkernel architecture, and currently runs over Mach. In this architecture, operating system services are provided by "servers" that provide those services to conventional applications. For instance, there's a "file server" which apps communicate with for access to files.
Slashdot Mirror
If you put the camera up and let her (or him) know about it, it'll make it easier not to have your money taken in the first place!
Why does everyone want the most confrontational options?
Nanny cams are most effective in preventing your child from being beaten if THE NANNY KNOWS ITS THERE. Otherwise it's nothing more than more evidence after the fact, and probably entirely redundant evidence anyway.
The only reason I can think of for hiding a camera is that the parents are too embarrassed to admit they'd do such a thing. They shouldn't be, wanting your kids to be safe when they're in the hands of a third person is nothing to be ashamed of.
Of course, you could just put the cameras up with the full knowledge of the maid. That way the maid keeps their job (and you don't have to hire a new maid every few months), and you don't have anything stolen from you. Works out better for everyone, wouldn't you agree?
Of course, it deprives you of the ability to work yourself into a steaming fit of rightous fury, but some of us would say that's a good thing.
I don't know. Netscape 4.x wasn't any more complete and reliable as 6.x, and I could make similar comments about certain operating systems installed on a few hundred million desktops.
It's close enough, certainly closer to "prime time" than the majority of software products I see people putting up with day in day out. So it sounds like a good idea to me.
Surely the 13 year-olds didn't take part in the survey, being waaaaaaaaaay too busy playing games to start surfing the 'net to answer questions...
Will all the memory chips huddle around it on Monday mornings discussing Sunday night's episode of Sienfeld?
Sorry, I'll just stop now.
The difference between selling a paperback novel at $25 and selling it at $10 is one of seeing it sit gathering dust and seeing it sell. I agree the economics means that you'll want to price some books at more than others, but there's such a thing as excessive. I can honestly say I've never met anyone personally who's been willing to pay that much for a novel, unless there's something extra (if only that it's in hardback.) The second hand market thrives on such things, especially when the second hand market can provide much better alternatives. (Case in point: Asimov's Foundation and Earth: Available new, in paperback only, for over $20. I got a used copy - first edition, hardback, no dust-jacket and a few coffee stains on the covers for $1 + S&H. I wouldn't even have bothered otherwise - I mean, I wanted to read the complete series, but I'd have to be out of my effing tree to pay that amount for that book.)
There's an assumption that if we want to read a book, we'll pay anything because no other books are strictly speaking competitors (as you point out.) Well, sorry, but the world is full of wonderful novels, and one can only read one at a time. If I see a book I want at $25, I'll just move on to something else I want that I can afford right now, and get it second hand when I see it at a decent price.
I know I'm not the only one: I even know people who wont stump up $10, let alone $25.
I have no idea what you are talking about, and how it relates to anything I was writing. The person I was responding to proposed that Amazon both brokers and provides packaging and other materials for marketplace sellers. I was correcting that misunderstanding.
Nobody has suggested that Amazon is not responsible for the sales it facilitates, not me, not the person I was responding to, not Amazon, not anyone.
My understanding is that the topic under discussion, the thing the author's are complaining about, is the Amazon Marketplace thing, which indeed is nothing but a brokerage/credit system.
Are you perhaps refering to ZShops? I doubt the Authors Guild is worried about that, given that ZShops isn't just used books (new books as well), and isn't usually, in my experience, as prominent on basic Amazon listings as the marketplace links.
I haven't ever purchased anything from ZShops so I can't comment on it... the normal used book listings though on Amazon, the Marketplace system, I use frequently, and are as I described.
From what I can work out, B&N doesn't list sales from anything other than affiliated bookshops.
I've purchased second hand books from both Amazon and B&N, and that's been my experience. Oh, and a note to the authors and publishers: If you really don't want us to buy second hand books:
- Keep your books in-print. That's, believe it or not, the #1 rule. People can't buy new copies if you refuse to sell them.
- Don't try selling paperback fiction for $25. I don't care how good the book is, that's excessive.
- Keep all types of your book (hardback, paperback, etc) in print, rather than just the MMP.
Asking Amazon to make the second hand option less prominant will not help you, and cheap shots like this will only make you less popular. Less greed and more selling = more sales. More greed and forgetting to sell = less.Correct. That's what the beeping is on the recordings of the last moments before "the Eagle landed".
One of those great bits of trivia that isn't well known enough.
That fires existed does not prove that absense of water somehow encourages them. You're misusing the word encouraged, which is nowhere in sight of this argument. The point being made is that without regulation, monopolies occur. And to prove the point, a period of US History where regulation was virtually zilch is given where virtually every substantial industry was under the control of a monopoly.
Not a single reason, except basic economics.
Railways: Required compulsory purchase of land to be completed, so required state intervention just to exist in the first place. The alternative was that railways would have wierd routes and never entered cities, or that they would have been too expensive to build, requiring obscene amounts of money to be paid to landowners.
Phone lines: There was competition, AT&T won. And once a company has a 100% market share/80-90% penetration of the phone service, how are you going to compete? Your unregulated competitor's not even likely to want to cooperate, so you'd create some phone service where the only people you can call would be those on your network. Who'd buy that? And assuming that by some pure luck you advertise your service and half the population switches over to it, isn't it in your best interests to merge with your rival so you/they jointly can charge more than you would under competitive circumstances, and only have one set of wires to maintain between the two of you?
Power - see above. One set of wires = cheaper maintenance. Mergers are inevitable, unless the people running the companies are complete idiots.
Quite simply, I doubt anyone would seriously invest capital into rival infrastructure-based services. Even the "deregulation" of long distance phone service in the US required maintaining a heavily regulated local system to allow long distance to work. In Britain, where BT was privatised, despite OFTEL tying it in knots the only competition has come from cable companies who were laying cables anyway. Nobody is building an alternative dedicated telephone network, despite the fact their chief competitor would be a short sighted, over-priced, third rate pile of crap.
Without regulation, either directly of the monopolies or indirectly trying to prevent the things occuring, you'll get monopolies. It's solely government intervention in the last 90 years that has prevented more of the things. And a good thing too.
It's certainly true that prices went down during SO's lifetime, but new technologies made it cheaper to do what SO wanted to do, rather than enabled SO to get ahead of its competitors, and SO needed the market to grow so wasn't going to keep prices sky high unnecessarily.
Erm, ok:
1. It was a throwaway comment.
2. It's generally a good thing when the installation package is small. Sure, it's not 1.44megs so you can't bung it on a floppy, but as part of a standard install in a company, or something on your backups of stuff, it's pretty nice.
3. Have you ever downloaded a multimegabyte file using a normal modem? No, didn't think so.
Geez. If I said "This car has some problems, but it corners well" you'd have been back at me with "Oooooooooh! The car's huge and all you care about is that it has a big steering wheel!"
Or "One thing I like about this way this chicken is cooked is that it's fairly spicy" would garner the response "Oh great. So you're eating this fattening chicken and risking botulism and all you care about is that it makes you sneeze!"
Jesus H. Christ. Read what I fucking say next time ok? Is that too much to ask? Or couldn't you find anything more controvertial you could twist out of context today? I'm surprised you didn't go further: "5 million Cambodians are dead and all you can care about is saving precious bytes in your download folder", "India and Pakistan are on the verge of nuking one another, and you think Mozilla rocks because it's got a good installer?" "Yeah, I know who else made compact installation packages too: Hitler. That was what Hitler did!"
Geez.
Where did I say disk space?
Also take a look at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89853, the Mozilla bug assigned to getting the bastards to support Mozilla.
Right now, I'm of the opinion Capital One are within their rights not to support a version 0.x browser. As soon as the 1.0 release candidate comes out (next month), I'll be letting them know that they better allow users of 1.0 in or I'm cutting up my credit cards.
It's not as if EVERY COMPETITOR OF THEIR'S IN THE COUNTRY isn't trying to get my business.
Anyone want to recommend any Mozilla-friendly credit card companies out of interest?
I use it on NT. I have a fairly nippy machine, I used to run it on a 166MMX with 64Mb of memory and it was slow. 4x that amount of RAM and a P-III makes a huge difference, and it actually goes from being slower than IE (much slower) to much faster. I don't know why, it doesn't make sense to me, but there you have it.
One thing though, opening new windows is something Moz is bad at. Try setting up the tabs feature which is both lightening fast, and in the opinion of everyone I've met a vast improvement. Again, this is one of those I don't know why things - if someone described the idea of tabs to me, I'd have said it sounds horrible. But it isn't.
Be aware that while Mozilla is physically slower and more memory hungry, it's still a lighter browser over all. It takes around 66% of the download space of a recent MSIE, despite also having email and IRC and whatever, and even manages to be smaller than Netscape.
Beautiful, just beautiful.
That wasn't a hijacking, or an attempt at a hijacking.
The reason this is a big deal to me is that it's a central principle of a great deal of pseudo-libertarian propaganda that the only occasions on which any business gets a monopoly these days (or ever) are either if it has a really, really, good product that's the best, and recognised by consumers as such and is popular, or if governments have "granted" companies monopolies, as they have with patents and in the case of the Post Office.
In AT&T's case, this is patently (arf arf, geddit?) false. AT&T had a monopoly so independent and concrete that they actually willingly accepted regulation, knowing that the alternative would have meant the destruction of the company, or its nationalisation. AT&T built a very expensive network, and because they were first, it became impossible to compete against them. This goes right to the present day where cable companies have rolled out similar infrastructure and are able to provide local phone service over it, but the costs are still too prohibitive and involve too much cooperation from a competitor for it to be viable for them. [Yes, AT&T Cable looked into it, and ditched the idea]
Contracts are, by default, binding. It's the laws that governments introduce that weaken contracts, forcing parties to be reasonable and fair.
And, personally, as I suspect you do too, I think it's a good thing when government does that. Unfortunately, the current political climate seems to live in a consensus where every government intervention into the markets is seen as a bad thing. Sometimes the propaganda and assumptions that build that consensus needs to be challenged.
AT&T accepted regulation, given it knew it faced potential structural changes or even wholesale nationalisation if it was seen by the voters, and thus the government, as anti-consumer. But whenever the government saw an opportunity to introduce competition with AT&T's active help, the government did step in and force the issue.
The reason for the successful break-up of AT&T wasn't that it had unlawfully obtained a monopoly or that the government had "given" it one and had changed its mind, it was that the government wanted to make use of new technologies to encourage competitors, and needed AT&T to proactively help those competitiors to work. Needless to say, Ma Bell wasn't happy about this, and stonewalled.
Having a monopoly because you're first, and it's just too difficult for others to get into the market without you actively helping, is very different from having one because the government has declared you the only rightful operator (as in, say, the Post Office, ironically constitutionally mandated so those pesky libertarians can't do a thing about it hehe, or through ownership of a patent, or whatever), or because, as in Microsoft's or Standard Oil's case, you've cut off the air supply to competitors, blackmailing your suppliers and customers to prevent potential competitors from being able to get off the ground.
The telephone network in the US, at least, was built using private investment, predominantly by AT&T. The bulk of the increadibly expensive bit though was done 50-100 years ago, whereas the CATV lines are 20-30 years old.
20% inflation?
Do you have anything at all to back this up? Or is this a Montana Militia style "The Feds are out to get us, they're installing listening devices in people's heads and marking the backs of road signs for the oncoming military coup" style tosh?
What the hell went up in price 20% last year? Did the dollar lose that much in value, if so who to? My phone bill still seems to be the same, my electricity bill seems to be lower if anything, gas prices have been up and down like a yo-yo, but 2001 certainly wasn't worse than 2000.
My food bill barely changed and my browse through the supermarkets didn't notice anything rocketing by those kinds of prices. My rent went up a whopping 2.5%. The dollar is up against the GBP and the Euro.
So what the hell went up in price, not merely by 20%, but by the gazillion % needed to make up for the fact that nothing else was going up in price, and some things actually dropped?
Oh really? I'm not the one that just encouraged 250,000 geeks to stuff the ballot box to make the Mozilla team implement something on the basis that "MSIE had it."
And "no reasoning"? The fact that one can make one's strongest point in 5 or 6 words doesn't make it "no reasoning." And resubmission of forms is not "FUD" or "no more dangerous than going back in session history". A good browser allows you to cancel a potentially dangerous operation like going back to a page that's a non cached form submission, or skip that page altogether. What do you propose, that opening a window under the same circumstances should cause some kludged, confusing, ugly set of dialogs to be navigated before something as simple as a blank window appears?
Great! Another kludge! If it has to be implemented, it should be done this way, and the default should, as you show, be for the bug to be off, but...
I took your comments about MSIE implementing it as being that it was the right way. Sorry if that was not intended.
What an utterly useless, pointless, and potentially dangerous (resubmit details for an uncached page anyone?) "feature" to want in a browser. If the Mozilla team are boneheaded enough to implement it, I do hope they at least make it a turn-offable feature, otherwise I'm switching to another browser.
Just because Microsoft does it doesn't make it right.
The Hurd uses a microkernel architecture, and currently runs over Mach. In this architecture, operating system services are provided by "servers" that provide those services to conventional applications. For instance, there's a "file server" which apps communicate with for access to files.