Linux Netscape 4.7 doesn't seem to send the cookies back to the server. For instance, it registered that I was logged in to slashdot, but it wouldn't let me metamoderate because it said I wasn't logged in....
Oh, wait, that means Slashdot's programming is the problem. Anyway, you can't do everything on./ that way, and a lot of other sites will have problems as well, especially those that use cookies for session IDs.
Boss of nothin. Big deal. Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
The problem isn't just that email is too versatile, but that people are too damned stupid. I could send a malicious linux binary via "mutt", and some idiot somewhere would be stupid enough to execute it.
I'm sure this is true, but the fact that Windows makes so many decisions "for" its users, and that so many of those decisions are plain wrong, is really why this happens.
Taking a biological view of it, you can see that what many trumpet as "standardization of platform" may create efficiencies for developers, but also for viruses. Any biologist knows that a genetic monoculture is subject to sudden and massive extinction. Imagine a virus that simply and truly wiped disks clean of windows; that it was 100% virulent and contagious; if not for non-windows users, there could be no computers left running. Or take the recent hacking of AboveNet; it was characterized as a denial of service attack, but it wasn't bandwidth flood. It seems to have been something that allowed routers to be taken down; it's easy to see that the severity of the assault would be proportional to the uniformity of their routers.
Vive la difference or die.
Boss of nothin. Big deal. Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
I've always wondered whether the "Quantum Modem" thing would be possible... though I always thought of it as a pair of walkie talkies for some reason... You'd still have to come up with a way to make a useful network out of these things. Bandwidth is likely to be extremely low in the visible term. But if you wanted to really screw up the communications companies of the planets and make the supposedly borderless internet look like a walled prison, yeah, start networking those things! Wahh!
Boss of nothin. Big deal. Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
If hemp was so good, why would companies that could exploit it not want it.[sic]
Because they make MORE money selling the chemicals than they ever could from hemp paper, which doesn't need the chemicals. You can't apply free market thinking when the market isn't free; hemp growing is illegal, and no lobby wants to smear its own image by promoting something people associate with a drug, however harmless and widely used. Were it free, it probably would be a boon to farmers, as it is becoming in other countries.
Hemp does produce 4 times the paper fibre per acre that trees produce, but you are correct, that doesn't mean it should be wasted.
The oldest book I ever held in my hands was printed in 1784 on hemp paper. The pages were still snow-white. Wood paper sucks unless you use expensive acid-free stuff.
Because community libraries will be one of those places where everyone, on either side of the "digital divide" (god I hate that term already), will be able to download and view the LOC's collection on a fat pipe. In effect, every library in the nation (and perhaps most schools) will have searchable access to the entirety of the LOC's electronic collection.
Try putting a pricetag on that.
This is an excellent point and it should be moderated Insightful.
While it would be expensive, it can be done slowly, and the value to every local library in the US would be immense. And, many people could access from home as well. Moby Dick fits on a floppy, I still have it from when I downloaded it off a 14.4 modem, so I'm not buying the argument that giving hundreds of millions of people people access to the largest library in the world from their homes is elitist. It's elitist to make a policy that keeps smaller branch libraries in poorer or more remote neighborhoods from having the same quality of services and access to information found in better funded libraries.
The notion that it's "arrogant" to expect convenient access to information collected with our tax dollars is the most rabidly elitist thing I've heard from a government official in a long time. It sounds like he'd prefer we all begged at the altar of ILL and waited on 16th century time. Talk about arrogance!
The funny thing about trolls is that it's hard to denigrate them when they're funny... and other people buy it. This guy doesn't have a beef with anyone, except, perhaps, the gullible.
*sigh* I guess this is what happens when people post drunk.
Open source software, as represented by the recent Linux-related IPOs, was perhaps the last trend to arrive before the get-rich-quick atmosphere began to collapse. It has also suffered more in the aftermath (LIFO).
What impact do you think this will have on the creation of free software? If daytraders and similarly shallow-minded management turn their back on free software, how can we make sure that Linux, GNU, the BSDs, etc remain vital and growing?
Sorry, Zico, but your rampant MS apologism does stick out like a sore thumb to those of us who've encountered unpaid minions (and sticking out as an apologist of anything on/. is hard).
The revelation that the backdoor was "just" an unrelated buffer overflow is
no consolation to the folks who now have to repair their servers
discovered mere hours before the Raymond article, which is conclusive proof he knew about it only to the criminally insane
not very relevant, since it doesn't change the substance of his argument
no reassurance to the public, who are now realizing that MS will leave their customers out in the cold when their misdeeds do real damage to their CUSTOMERS
not very relevant, when you are weighing the reports of security experts that 99.999% of the public have never heard of against the ADMISSION of wrongdoing by a multi-billion dollar corporation as reported in 10 of 10 major news sources
How many free copies of W2K are you getting for your efforts? Or is it just the thrill of being an obnoxious asshole that keeps you going? Try it with actual logic and common sense when you get bored of wanking.
Re:Oh my god, they're stealing knowledge!
on
RMS On eBooks
·
· Score: 2
It doesn't take a technohippy to be alarmed by the way publishers are fscking up future technologies. Read the article, take some time to think about it, and you'll see that while it might be technically possible to make a sharing scheme like you discuss, that's not what they are doing at all. It's hard to do correctly, and involves a trusted broker's market (and even then, there's always a way of capturing the data stream, which is why they try to lock things up in proprietary hardware). And, they have no interest in doing it.
The schemes they are interested in make no such sharing possible. Frankly, I don't think it works very well, and consumers won't trust pure digital ownwership of books or whatever that they can lose with an errant mouse click, then have to buy all over again. But if somehow they do, then our culture will have been locked up by a new priesthood.
What this article does discuss is the fact that in the future that Michael Eisner and krew would like us to have, there will be no libraries, because they will not have the technological means to do it. Read Lessig's "Code"; this article is nothing more than proof that his fears are well grounded, and that the technoutopians are dangerous, not because they believe in piracy (most don't, but they do believe sharing a book with your friend ought not be a felony), but because they are wrong that "information wants to be free" (left to itself, information will rot); we want information and indeed our own culture to be free, while Corporatists want us to pay royalties if we dream about Mickey Mouse.
If you're going to leave long winded-posts, at least read the article.
That's pretty much the same as telling auto manufacturers to not condemn car theives.
Well, the funny thing about car manufacturers is that they don't generally run around screaming about car thieves ruining their business. For one thing, it makes people buy more cars, duh.
See, when you steal my car, I can't drive it. When you "steal" a copy of my record by taping it, I can still listen to it, and so can anyone else. Please go and read any number of intelligent posts on intellectual property issues before talking like an asshole.
For the record, I use Napster for getting copies of music I own onto my computer while I'm at work. Which is actually legal. I buy music directly from bands at shows whenever possible. See, they get more money that way.
Read a few of the posts here; no one is pissed at Metallica for being successful. They are in fact the people who own multiple Metallica albums from all eras; FANS, stupid. They are pissed at Metallica for being hypocrites. Bootleg taping is what made Metallica famous without having to sell their souls and their left nut to the record industry. We're pissed because they did anyway, and as their music gets more pretentious, they are turning into boring old farts defending the very institutions that they ignored and which ignored them on their way to stardom. It makes us wonder how many of their years of complaining about metal bands not winning grammys and shit were just a big whining lie. We should have known (most of us probably did) what the game was when they covered that stupid Bob Seger song whining about the hard life of a rock band on tour (and Metallica has more right to bitch about that than most). "We're doin this for the kids, man." Yeah, sure they are.
But seriously, if a large number of sites suddenly got hacked through this, it could spell a whole new wave of wrath and doom rolling over Redmond.
My favorite part in the ZD article is where Microsoft says, basically, "Oh, but wait, we were gonna tell you about that!" It's a classic response of a liar getting caught, and one that a naive 6yo wouldn't buy...
I dig a really big hole in my garden, maybe the neighbours won't notice that there are lots of little holes all around it?
Well, this is a technique for getting past censorship. An East German cabaret director told me they called this Weisse Hund, or white dog. They would deliberately put in jokes they knew the censors would reject. Having done his job, the censor would go home, forgetting about the dozen slightly more subtle jokes.
So the question is, who is looking over their shoulders and why are they trying to preserve backdoors?
It's a sign of the power of these so-called "not real" worlds (ever set up a business? ever noticed that the paperwork and hurdles seem arbitrary and "not real") that a real company ignores the fact that they themselves are taking this stuf way too seriously, not their customers. If their customers get pleasure out of getting a cloak of flames or some junk, who cares? So why the need to ban it if it's "not worth taking seriously?"
Or put another way, would it make sense if Ty "licensed" the beanie babies instead of selling them, and then tried to ban the market in beanie babies? Who would you make fun of then?
"It's just a game" is typically one of those things rarely said by someone losing that game, and therefore isn't worth much.
You aren't going to convince me until you produce concrete evidence underlying your assertion that Napster's sole purpose is to circumvent copyright laws.
Me either. It is true that most of the stuff up there is in violation of copyright laws, but that in itself is no argument against Napster, Inc., who has no control over what gets put up there. It's a red herring argument, because it does not demonstrate purpose or intent, which you need to show that the company and not the Internet itself is facilitating piracy.
I personally use Napster to retrieve freely-redistributable music, and music I have already purchased the rights to
So do I. Usually, stuff I have on vinyl and can't easily transfer to MP3 for playing while I work. I have a right to listen to this music, and the courts have repeatedly supported the view that it therefore cannot be piracy for me to own MP3s.
But there is some possibility that Napster, Inc. is taking some specific actions that could prove they are actively promoting piracy. When I do a search for certain bands, I will sometimes get hits for MP3s that are good hits for songs by that band, but which do not in themselves have the name of the band in title. This means that Napster servers are doing some kind of matching on other criteria; file lengths, file checksums, matching song titles to other filenames with the band name, MP3 header info. I don't know what it is, but if I were the RIAA, I'd be looking to discover information that Napster, Inc. is actively creating a database which allows this kind of matching.
If the means are the "blind" ones I suggested above, then such matching is totally passive and incidental, and Napster has done no wrong. But if they are actively creating such a database (if, for instance, they bought catalogue info from one of several companies compiling CD catalogs a la CDDB) in an active, deliberate manner, it looks much worse for them, since they are then actively aiding piracy by assisting searches specifically for (overwhelmingly) copyrighted material. Let's hope they kept their noses clean.
If you just want to make films for your own art or satisfaction, then our experience has shown that you can't beat a fast powerbook, a DV camera and final cut. it's a fabulous toy box, and only disk space holds it back. we're using the old sony dv1000 camera, but the canon xl1 is looking like a better investment these days. [...] personally i hate premiere, but i know a couple of editors who happily use it on their messing about system, so ymmv
This is certainly true. Adobe Premiere has never gotten tons of respect from professional editors, for good reason; the interface just doesn't conform to how most professional/good editors work. Too mouse-bound, not strong on redigitization (which is used for loading your sources at low res and doing edits, then 'redigitizing'/ at high res only what you need for the final cut and frame fucking. Avid has some peculiar flaws (especially some nonsensical interface modalities, which the cheaper runner-up Media100 does much better), but when you know your way around it, you can do everything with minimal keystrokes very quickly... But I do know professional editors using and loving the Powerbook/Final Cut/DV combo, and taking it on the road to edit travel videos as they go. It's becoming the 'at home' option of editors, even if the 'at work' options remains Avid or Sphere or something.
That's funny, I took offense to the fact that the poster is implying that those of us who live in cities don't matter. Me here in NYC:
Hey, let's go see the Northern Lights! Oh, damn, I can't see the sky, that's right. Let's try the roof (step, step, climb). Oh, that's better, now let's see, oops, that's a helicopter. There! That's it! No, it's just the Empire State Building inside a cloud. Look, there! No, that's a guy SMOKING Northern Lights in his living room. Oh, what's that couple doing? Yuck, the aliens
have landed. Time to go.
So excuse me for not getting off my arse to experience life, but I haven't got $150 (sorry, US$150) for cab fare. Pretty pictures on the net are fine with me.
It's funny that few employers make the argument that they can search your purse because you are using their desk to rest it on, or do a cavity search because your ass is on their chair. Selling one's time does not mean selling one's right to privacy, nor does the corporation's ownership of computer equipment permit surveillance that would be illegal via phone or mail.
The unfettered powers that corporations have over individual lives cannot be remedied by the excuse that you can simply work somewhere else. There's too much power consolidated in too few corporations for this to be effective, and furthermore, that argument justifies such absurdities as having rationed bathroom breaks for your desk job.
That being said, I did move, because I didn't like my employer's attitudes about a lot of things; only my geek skills can afford me this luxury. People without geek skills deserve privacy, too.
And if you have a problem with how sexual harrassment is construed in the courts (I agree that the courts are in some ways forcing corporations to play Big Nanny), maybe it's time for you to stop running from problems and face them; serve for jury duty when you are called.
OK, it's a browser sniffing issue plus more. But the "more" in this case is standards compliance, and that's worth the temporary loss of functionality.
What really scares me here is that this thread is full of inaccurate complaints from self-proclaimed web designers who haven't done the first thing to examine the source of the problem. Then again, it doesn't surprise me, because I've been crossing my eyes at your flawed code for years.
Still, a browser that breaks existing pages is going to cause a lot of headaches. It's still beta, so there's hope for improvement.
But all you folks sniffing version>=4 will have to make some changes. Those of you assuming Dreamweaver takes care of everything (it doesn't, and there are thousands of non-robust sites to prove it) are going to have to start learning HTML. Considering your claimed profession, it's about time. While you are at it, try viewing your sites without Javascript and without images. If the site becomes unusuable or unnavigable, you have a lot to learn about building web pages.
Thankfully, the author of this parent goes quite a distance to adding some realistic detail. Writing three scripts will be a big pain; but I would consider checking webmonkey and your ten other favorite coding sites for someone to write a few asbstraction functions to simplify this.
Finally, this shows we've still got a couple more years before DHTML will be breeze, but it can't really be said to have a lot of essential uses now anyway.
Yes, you'd think Pinkerton's name would be dirty enough from the steelworker killings that they wouldn't need to go around looking for new ways to look like totalitarian ape-men, but there you have it....
The irony being that they both are also guilty of what microsoft tried to do with windows, make the internet seamless with the OS.
The difference being that I can run browsers side by side on a Mac without them constantly interfering with each other. Ever wonder why "mailto" links aren't very useful? Microsoft has been found guilty of using their control of the operating system to break others products. Apple has not. For one thing, they haven't had as much opportunity.
I'm disappointed at the focus on browsers, because it's really the intentional breaking of other people's products and monopolistic licensing schemes that should get the focus.
Personally, I would like to see some kind of API documentation as part of the remedy, and have them held accountable for it, as well as for unanounced changes in it. Anyone who has programmed to Microsoft APIs knows that what is in the SDK documentation is occasionally a very subtle and dangerous lie. In other cases, it just gives them wiggle room to monkey wrench the software of others later. In any case, this is far more feasible and useful than a breakup or forced opening of source code, which will get smacked down by the Supreme Court if necessary (Your Honour, it's our main asset, and we're being forced to give it away! It allows others to STEAL our work!)
That sounds about right, except that even marginal sysadmins are getting $60-80K. Start looking for a job. I just did for a laugh and there's plenty out there.
See, the dumb fuck suits have no problem paying jizzloads of money for some self-styled consultant or retarded fucking MBAs with dollar signs in their eyes who can barely use their e-mail, but the attitude at a lot of big companies is that computer folks are trade school assholes who can be treated like children, so they won't pay real money. Usually, they get what they pay for. Unless you want to work for the financial sector, where you watch dumbfuck MBAs who have the following skills 1) know spreadsheets 2) can be colossal assholes make 10 jizzloads of cash. I recommend getting some real knowledge and experience, then become one of those self-styled consultants.
Well, enough ranting, I don't believe in classifications, qualifications, or experience that much. If you're depending on the knowledge someone already has, then you're dead meat and don't even know it yet. Some people are smart, and some ain't.
The one part where discussions about qualifications or academic background or experience make sense is hard-core programming. If you don't know why a quicksort is quick, you're going to have a hard time no matter what your so-called qualifications are. And the art of really good programming is about as far from a trade school experience or even a BS can get. It takes long-term dedication to get real depth.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, wait, that means Slashdot's programming is the problem. Anyway, you can't do everything on ./ that way, and a lot of other sites will have problems as well, especially those that use cookies for session IDs.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Taking a biological view of it, you can see that what many trumpet as "standardization of platform" may create efficiencies for developers, but also for viruses. Any biologist knows that a genetic monoculture is subject to sudden and massive extinction. Imagine a virus that simply and truly wiped disks clean of windows; that it was 100% virulent and contagious; if not for non-windows users, there could be no computers left running. Or take the recent hacking of AboveNet; it was characterized as a denial of service attack, but it wasn't bandwidth flood. It seems to have been something that allowed routers to be taken down; it's easy to see that the severity of the assault would be proportional to the uniformity of their routers.
Vive la difference or die.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
I've always wondered whether the "Quantum Modem" thing would be possible... though I always thought of it as a pair of walkie talkies for some reason... You'd still have to come up with a way to make a useful network out of these things. Bandwidth is likely to be extremely low in the visible term. But if you wanted to really screw up the communications companies of the planets and make the supposedly borderless internet look like a walled prison, yeah, start networking those things! Wahh!
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Hemp does produce 4 times the paper fibre per acre that trees produce, but you are correct, that doesn't mean it should be wasted.
The oldest book I ever held in my hands was printed in 1784 on hemp paper. The pages were still snow-white. Wood paper sucks unless you use expensive acid-free stuff.
While it would be expensive, it can be done slowly, and the value to every local library in the US would be immense. And, many people could access from home as well. Moby Dick fits on a floppy, I still have it from when I downloaded it off a 14.4 modem, so I'm not buying the argument that giving hundreds of millions of people people access to the largest library in the world from their homes is elitist. It's elitist to make a policy that keeps smaller branch libraries in poorer or more remote neighborhoods from having the same quality of services and access to information found in better funded libraries.
The notion that it's "arrogant" to expect convenient access to information collected with our tax dollars is the most rabidly elitist thing I've heard from a government official in a long time. It sounds like he'd prefer we all begged at the altar of ILL and waited on 16th century time. Talk about arrogance!
Actually, there's a lot of them.
The funny thing about trolls is that it's hard to denigrate them when they're funny... and other people buy it. This guy doesn't have a beef with anyone, except, perhaps, the gullible.
*sigh* I guess this is what happens when people post drunk.
Open source software, as represented by the recent Linux-related IPOs, was perhaps the last trend to arrive before the get-rich-quick atmosphere began to collapse. It has also suffered more in the aftermath (LIFO).
What impact do you think this will have on the creation of free software? If daytraders and similarly shallow-minded management turn their back on free software, how can we make sure that Linux, GNU, the BSDs, etc remain vital and growing?
The revelation that the backdoor was "just" an unrelated buffer overflow is
- no consolation to the folks who now have to repair their servers
- discovered mere hours before the Raymond article, which is conclusive proof he knew about it only to the criminally insane
- not very relevant, since it doesn't change the substance of his argument
- no reassurance to the public, who are now realizing that MS will leave their customers out in the cold when their misdeeds do real damage to their CUSTOMERS
- not very relevant, when you are weighing the reports of security experts that 99.999% of the public have never heard of against the ADMISSION of wrongdoing by a multi-billion dollar corporation as reported in 10 of 10 major news sources
How many free copies of W2K are you getting for your efforts? Or is it just the thrill of being an obnoxious asshole that keeps you going? Try it with actual logic and common sense when you get bored of wanking.It doesn't take a technohippy to be alarmed by the way publishers are fscking up future technologies. Read the article, take some time to think about it, and you'll see that while it might be technically possible to make a sharing scheme like you discuss, that's not what they are doing at all. It's hard to do correctly, and involves a trusted broker's market (and even then, there's always a way of capturing the data stream, which is why they try to lock things up in proprietary hardware). And, they have no interest in doing it.
The schemes they are interested in make no such sharing possible. Frankly, I don't think it works very well, and consumers won't trust pure digital ownwership of books or whatever that they can lose with an errant mouse click, then have to buy all over again. But if somehow they do, then our culture will have been locked up by a new priesthood.
What this article does discuss is the fact that in the future that Michael Eisner and krew would like us to have, there will be no libraries, because they will not have the technological means to do it. Read Lessig's "Code"; this article is nothing more than proof that his fears are well grounded, and that the technoutopians are dangerous, not because they believe in piracy (most don't, but they do believe sharing a book with your friend ought not be a felony), but because they are wrong that "information wants to be free" (left to itself, information will rot); we want information and indeed our own culture to be free, while Corporatists want us to pay royalties if we dream about Mickey Mouse.
If you're going to leave long winded-posts, at least read the article.
Well, the funny thing about car manufacturers is that they don't generally run around screaming about car thieves ruining their business. For one thing, it makes people buy more cars, duh.
See, when you steal my car, I can't drive it. When you "steal" a copy of my record by taping it, I can still listen to it, and so can anyone else. Please go and read any number of intelligent posts on intellectual property issues before talking like an asshole.
For the record, I use Napster for getting copies of music I own onto my computer while I'm at work. Which is actually legal. I buy music directly from bands at shows whenever possible. See, they get more money that way.
Read a few of the posts here; no one is pissed at Metallica for being successful. They are in fact the people who own multiple Metallica albums from all eras; FANS, stupid. They are pissed at Metallica for being hypocrites. Bootleg taping is what made Metallica famous without having to sell their souls and their left nut to the record industry. We're pissed because they did anyway, and as their music gets more pretentious, they are turning into boring old farts defending the very institutions that they ignored and which ignored them on their way to stardom. It makes us wonder how many of their years of complaining about metal bands not winning grammys and shit were just a big whining lie. We should have known (most of us probably did) what the game was when they covered that stupid Bob Seger song whining about the hard life of a rock band on tour (and Metallica has more right to bitch about that than most). "We're doin this for the kids, man." Yeah, sure they are.
But seriously, if a large number of sites suddenly got hacked through this, it could spell a whole new wave of wrath and doom rolling over Redmond.
My favorite part in the ZD article is where Microsoft says, basically, "Oh, but wait, we were gonna tell you about that!" It's a classic response of a liar getting caught, and one that a naive 6yo wouldn't buy...
So the question is, who is looking over their shoulders and why are they trying to preserve backdoors?
Or put another way, would it make sense if Ty "licensed" the beanie babies instead of selling them, and then tried to ban the market in beanie babies? Who would you make fun of then?
"It's just a game" is typically one of those things rarely said by someone losing that game, and therefore isn't worth much.
But there is some possibility that Napster, Inc. is taking some specific actions that could prove they are actively promoting piracy. When I do a search for certain bands, I will sometimes get hits for MP3s that are good hits for songs by that band, but which do not in themselves have the name of the band in title. This means that Napster servers are doing some kind of matching on other criteria; file lengths, file checksums, matching song titles to other filenames with the band name, MP3 header info. I don't know what it is, but if I were the RIAA, I'd be looking to discover information that Napster, Inc. is actively creating a database which allows this kind of matching.
If the means are the "blind" ones I suggested above, then such matching is totally passive and incidental, and Napster has done no wrong. But if they are actively creating such a database (if, for instance, they bought catalogue info from one of several companies compiling CD catalogs a la CDDB) in an active, deliberate manner, it looks much worse for them, since they are then actively aiding piracy by assisting searches specifically for (overwhelmingly) copyrighted material. Let's hope they kept their noses clean.
It's funny that few employers make the argument that they can search your purse because you are using their desk to rest it on, or do a cavity search because your ass is on their chair. Selling one's time does not mean selling one's right to privacy, nor does the corporation's ownership of computer equipment permit surveillance that would be illegal via phone or mail.
The unfettered powers that corporations have over individual lives cannot be remedied by the excuse that you can simply work somewhere else. There's too much power consolidated in too few corporations for this to be effective, and furthermore, that argument justifies such absurdities as having rationed bathroom breaks for your desk job.
That being said, I did move, because I didn't like my employer's attitudes about a lot of things; only my geek skills can afford me this luxury. People without geek skills deserve privacy, too.
And if you have a problem with how sexual harrassment is construed in the courts (I agree that the courts are in some ways forcing corporations to play Big Nanny), maybe it's time for you to stop running from problems and face them; serve for jury duty when you are called.
But you've got a point; they should make the first non-beta release have NN4 appearance as the default skin.
What really scares me here is that this thread is full of inaccurate complaints from self-proclaimed web designers who haven't done the first thing to examine the source of the problem. Then again, it doesn't surprise me, because I've been crossing my eyes at your flawed code for years.
Still, a browser that breaks existing pages is going to cause a lot of headaches. It's still beta, so there's hope for improvement.
But all you folks sniffing version>=4 will have to make some changes. Those of you assuming Dreamweaver takes care of everything (it doesn't, and there are thousands of non-robust sites to prove it) are going to have to start learning HTML. Considering your claimed profession, it's about time. While you are at it, try viewing your sites without Javascript and without images. If the site becomes unusuable or unnavigable, you have a lot to learn about building web pages.
Thankfully, the author of this parent goes quite a distance to adding some realistic detail. Writing three scripts will be a big pain; but I would consider checking webmonkey and your ten other favorite coding sites for someone to write a few asbstraction functions to simplify this.
Finally, this shows we've still got a couple more years before DHTML will be breeze, but it can't really be said to have a lot of essential uses now anyway.
Yes, you'd think Pinkerton's name would be dirty enough from the steelworker killings that they wouldn't need to go around looking for new ways to look like totalitarian ape-men, but there you have it....
I'm disappointed at the focus on browsers, because it's really the intentional breaking of other people's products and monopolistic licensing schemes that should get the focus.
Personally, I would like to see some kind of API documentation as part of the remedy, and have them held accountable for it, as well as for unanounced changes in it. Anyone who has programmed to Microsoft APIs knows that what is in the SDK documentation is occasionally a very subtle and dangerous lie. In other cases, it just gives them wiggle room to monkey wrench the software of others later. In any case, this is far more feasible and useful than a breakup or forced opening of source code, which will get smacked down by the Supreme Court if necessary (Your Honour, it's our main asset, and we're being forced to give it away! It allows others to STEAL our work!)
See, the dumb fuck suits have no problem paying jizzloads of money for some self-styled consultant or retarded fucking MBAs with dollar signs in their eyes who can barely use their e-mail, but the attitude at a lot of big companies is that computer folks are trade school assholes who can be treated like children, so they won't pay real money. Usually, they get what they pay for. Unless you want to work for the financial sector, where you watch dumbfuck MBAs who have the following skills 1) know spreadsheets 2) can be colossal assholes make 10 jizzloads of cash. I recommend getting some real knowledge and experience, then become one of those self-styled consultants.
Well, enough ranting, I don't believe in classifications, qualifications, or experience that much. If you're depending on the knowledge someone already has, then you're dead meat and don't even know it yet. Some people are smart, and some ain't.
The one part where discussions about qualifications or academic background or experience make sense is hard-core programming. If you don't know why a quicksort is quick, you're going to have a hard time no matter what your so-called qualifications are. And the art of really good programming is about as far from a trade school experience or even a BS can get. It takes long-term dedication to get real depth.