Those days have just begun...
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 2
Wow, this is like chum to shark infested waters ^__^
"There are two major parts to science. Observation/experiment and theory as to why" Global warming has only been a science of serious observation for - let's be generous - a century. I guess you can even say the experiment is still in progress since the only real world one that I know of is the Earth itself. Using an inconclusive "experiment" and a very, very, very small slice of history has created the theory of "Global Warming".
"The research is usually done right. Why? Because science strives to ensure all experiments/observations are Reproducible and most are reproduced."
Oh, like cold fusion? Or data over AC? etc.. etc... History is rife with as many research failures as success. To say that "science" strives for anything is also inaccurate. People make up science and as we all know people have their own dreams, motivations and aspirations, some wholesome, some not some. And yes, these people even study under the broad label of science. Science is not nessisarily a well meaning entity that looks out for the good of humanity as you portray it to be. And since you mentioned that "good" science strives to ensure accuracy how can they even claim accuracy in a several million year old experiment that we've only seen and participated in one century of? tell me HOW they have even remotely REPRODUCED a fraction of this grand experiment? the most ambitious efforts that I know of have has been Biosphere 2 (a muddled failure) and another being built in England. If you have others that even remotely scratch the surface, then by all means...
"The theory on the other hand is rarely right, at least 100% right. But it is usually close."
No, let ME illustrate. being able to produce a result and actually knowing how it works are two entirely seperate things. Like Electrical Theory. Nobody can accurately explain quite a few aspects of what makes it work, but they can construct devices to use it. The same thing with your Relativity example, but even that's beside the point. You have far too few observable facts on a system that has been operating for far to long in which we are influencing to some degree. It's like popping your head into an hour long labratory experiment for one minute and forming your own conclusion based on that one minute. And you would still be ignoring the fact that this isn't the first time that the Earth has gone though warming and cooling trends. There's an observable result for you. Fossil record and sediment bountries support those numerous cycles of change, THEREFORE why can't it happen again?
You are right... Global warming because I said so or because it's a conspiracy ISN'T an argument, but neither are the "facts" supporting global warming given the conditions under which they have been obtained. None of the opponents of Global Warming are under the obligation to have to prove anything since it's "those other people" looking to bring about a massive change in economic, political and environental policy. It's like saying a meteor will hit the Earth tommorow and telling everybody else to prove you wrong. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You want to change the status quo? YOU CONVINCE US. You're obviously not doing a very good job.
Why is it wrong? See above.
Is there flaws in the data gathering? Plainly.
Do the theories not match the data? Pretty much.
If so, what is a better theory? Natural cycles, supported by sediment and fossile record.
Don't quote me on this, but it sounds like the "teleportation" speed is directly dependent upon the speed of the particals entangled. Thus you can entangle a laser to a radio wave, but you have to wait until you recieve the wave until you can reform the laser 'x' distance away (thus, the light speed limitation). The only advantage I could see would be non-Line Of Site transmission of what you are teleporting. As for how QE works, I can only give you a definition (search Mullet on the main thread). How it actually accomplishes the definition? It's going to take more than a quick search to find that out, but suffice to say it wasn't worth the time to wade through all the high level physics explanations I found.
Hell, according to theory you should "just" be able to entangle matter to a carrier and atomize it with the death-ray of your choice. After all, those sub-atomic particals should be bound to the carrier no matter where it goes (chuckle). Recombination, on the other hand....
Sorry, another post on the main, but there are applications far beyond encryption... Try non-line of sight laser bombardment. Still, they never mentioned what it took to re-create the laser anyway. And that's assuming this isn't just cold fusion or Internet though your AC outlet...
Hell, it was an outer limits episode too. Aliens gave humans teleporter technology, but the human operator finds out that the originals are actually destroyed while their copies go about their daily lives thinking nothing but transport has taken place. Of course, the guy went insane... Until you can quantify what truely makes us different from life without consciousness, you're not going to be able to answer that question. if we're just building blocks to be taken apart and put back together, then there shouldn't be much consequence at all. If there is more, something governing those blocks beyong the physical, then you'll be running into quite a few moral dillemas.
And that's my problem with whoever wrote this crap. It's obviously dumbed down for people who know nothing about quantum physics (me), but then doesn't even provide the clues for basic understanding. My half hour google search revealed:
Quantum Entanglement: The supposed link between particles that have once interacted, enabling them to influence each other instantaneously over indefinite distances.
Da Mullet's interpretation: Once the two mediums are "entangled" (how you do that is anybodies guess because the article sure as hell doesn't say), they are mysteriously anchored to one another, partical to partical regardless of distance. THEREFORE... While you can "destroy" the laser beam into a chaotic mess, those particals are still mysteriously anchored to their radio counterparts. According to this article, they have destroyed the laser and it's signal, but transmitted the radio to a reciever and have been able to recreate the laser via quantum entanglement effect. The radio partical's laser counterparts (supposively scattered around incoherently) are pulled back from ether to create the original laser signal at point B.
That's the best I can do. Hope it helps, cuz the author sure didn't.
"An encoded radio signal is embedded on an input laser, which is combined with entanglement and then scanned. The laser is destroyed in the process. But the radio signal survives and is sent electronically to a receiving station, where within a nanosecond an exact replica of the beam - with the radio signal intact - is retrieved and decoded."
First, a simplified definition from my very limited research into Quantum Entanglement: The supposed link between particles that have once interacted, enabling them to influence each other instantaneously over indefinite distances.
I'll mention before hand I'm not a quantum physics major of any sort, but if I'm reading this correctly, they have encoded a laser beam with a radio signal and "quantum entangled" the two mediums which is then "scanned" (whatever the hell that is) in which the laser is destroyed in the process. So now we should supposively have an intact radio signal with a "destroyed" laser sub-atomically anchored to it in ether somewhere. Sending this radio signal downrange to a receiver will recreate this signal and "pull" the laser back into reality (pardon my butchering of terms).
My problem here is perhapse not how unbelieveable this sound, but how damn vague the artical is. Scanning? How the hell was the beam recreated? Did it appear from thin air? Did it have to be "un" entangled? It doesn't seem as if the laser is infact destroyed at all... How do you go about "entangling" something to being with? This artical doesn't simply bog you down in scientific explanation; In fact it doesn't bog you down in ANY explanation for that matter-- it throws some words in and stirs them up with teleportation references. Hell, the only way I could figure out ANY details was independent research, and oh, how fun that was. The above definition was as easy as it got. After that? Whew... Maybe I'm just bitching, but I'm asssuming this article was written for the common man, but goes far beyond watering things down. It leaves out key pieces nessisary for understanding to occure. Jeez, that's shitty writing...
Well, what more can you say about the man who quantum entangled a rant on a 1 1/2 year old bad movie to the present day? Screw laser beams... We're teleporting cinema here on Slashdot.
You're first problem is power output, as stated. I guess we can assume that we'll get portable high energy power sources around that size some day, so lets ignore that one for now. You're next problem would be beam confinement. Making a highly destructive beam is the easy part. Confining it to sword-like dimensions is a bit harder. I'm no partical physisist, but maybe you can use the same technique they use to cancel out soundwaves-- Have beam "B" become 180' out of phase to beam "A" at a range of, say, 2 1/2 feet from the projector. Feel free to poke holes in that one all day long:) Now, technology providing, we have a nice 2 1/2 foot partical sword with only one problem... A distinct lack of kinetic action when said beam encounters a similar beam. There would be no duels here, just simple slicing and dicing. Instead of the phased beams, I guess you could use a magnetic bottle to limit the beam... Somehow. Then maybe you could have actual physical blade contact. Jeez, what a pain in the ass. Maybe I'll just stick to ultra sonic virbrating blades:p
An interesting note on lightsabers; They are actually flash handles from 1940s press cameras. What bearing that has on copywrites, I'm not sure, but I think it'd be hard to licence a garage sale part for your movie, personally. Maybe this guy's calling them "lite sabers". Of course, you see dozens of toy replicas made in Mexico in any toy store... "Galactic Laser Swords inc." If you can get away with that level of duplication, then it can't be too hard for this guy. More power to him. Now he just needs to make a working one ^__^ "Batteries not included"
Um, Troll? Actually not. My comment wasn't a rant. It wasn't a baseless opinion. The BIOS story precisely parallels what everybody is ragging Microsoft about- Building a native browser without the ability to remove it. Well, I see somebody else stepping to the plate here but where is all the hate mail to accompany it? Switch the word "Phoenix" with "Microsoft" and this thread will become a hate-filled shit storm guaranteed. The words "Browser Monopoly" will be chanted in the streets. Call it a troll if you want, but building native hardware browser support has the possibility of trumping even the most stubborn OS. That's not worth discussion? You, my angery little moderator need some serious perspective.
Thanks for the interesting, dude. you know who you are.
So is putting a Browser native to the computers BIOS now considered anti-competitve practice? After all, you can't turn it off or remove it and you don't even need an OS to run it... But as long as it isn't MS, it's OK, right? Just some food for thought.
Before they start busting the classics out of cryogenic stasis again, I'd just like to see a few more good games to accompany the handful present. Not just kicking the dead horse, but harvesting it's corpse for organs and saying, "Giddyup!"
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows
A bug? Quite possibly. But they don't have to provide the ability to turn it off. I won't debate which version of NSN is faster. All I know is it began to suck. Hard. I'm not an MS fan, just a person who can't stand hippocrasy. IE was readily availible and began to show an appreciable difference in NSN for the better. I used it. End of story. For me, at least.
So does Ford now have to make their cars compliant with Toyota parts or aftermarket modifications? Are they required to include some small third parties speedometer in a addition to their own when you buy the car? Do they have to give "Ace Speedometers" a chance to represent? No, No and No. And guess what? Neither does MS. Does Sony have to make their PS2 compatible with Nintendo media? Are they about to? These are the real life examples I'm refering to.
Your right, MS doesn't have the right to do whatever the hell they want in the broadest sense of business, they do have a right to tailor their product anyway they see fit. BTW, their are alternatives to Windows, remember? And why did Netscape suffer in light of this? You tell me; Pertaining to the OS, of course.
Damn. that's actually not a bad idea. It deserves modding. Hell, you might even be able to make it self sustaining via solar power since the distance between repeaters isn't that great. Still, every light post has it's own power, so what's a few more watts? A lot of places along the highway that don't have cell coverage do have lightposts... You'd be outta luck on especially remote treks, but still... Anybody ever consider tethered balloons for those areas? High altitude, a not very noticable tether and you can color the balloon anyway you want...
If MS gives me IE to destroy netscape, thats illegal
Um, and how's that? Microsoft made the OS. It's theirs. THEIR OS. They OWN it. They can do whatever the hell they want to it because THEY MADE IT. Oh, did I mention they created IE too? It's THERE'S. They MADE it.
Now that we've firmly established that MS owns both the OS and Browser, HOW THE FUCKING HELL IS IT ILLEGLE FOR MS TO INTEGRATE THE TWO!??!? HUH!? Honestly, I'm so sick of this crap! Does that mean it's illegle for Adobe to add filters to it's Photoshop Product? No!!! Nor would it be illegle if they made it so the only filters that worked were 1st party ones! MS created and owns the Windows fucking OS and they have the RIGHT to do whatever the hell they want to it you ass-monkies! YES! THEY EVEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE IT HOSTILE TO OTHER APPLICATIONS!!! If you don't like it, if it oppresses your sensibilities, if you can't stand MS's iron curtain, VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET. Download something else!!! IT'S NOT ILLEGAL FOR MS TO GIVE YOU IE WITH WINDOWS TO DESTROY NETSCAPE!!! Just like Mcfucking Donalds doesn't have to offer you a Wopper with your value meal, but they sure as hell will throw in some McDonalds Fries!!! Stop being a mindless media drone and think for yourself for a change. I'm not saying MS doesn't play dirty, but for cryin out loud, what you're protesting is a fair business practice that occures everyday on a large scale across the world. I know it's a rant and I really don't care about anybodies reply on how the crusade for Netscape and against MS must continue. Save the whales and all that. Don't waste your time.
After Version 4.7, Netscape turned to solid crap. Yeah, it began to look better but it was slower than molassus and buggier than Aliens. Parent is right in that respect. All IE did was endure. Netscape killed itself and the other browsers were just crawling from under the rocks, still evolving into something actually worth competing with. IE won by defalt then fortified it's position by integrating it into Windows, which, contrary to popular belief is not monopolistic practice. It's their OS, their program. MS has the right to do whatever the hell they want to it; Even make it hostile to other applications. Their external business practices on the other hand...
The defender has the advantage. He is dug in, fortified, armed and expecting an attack. Microsoft is that defender. What does Mozilla have that will compel the average user to actually switch? Like AOL, IE may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but it's within easy reach and user friendly, where as everything else either has to be dug around for or is not as intuitive for AOL Joe to use. Yep, Mozilla may slice atoms, but would AOL Joe be comfortable using it? Say it with me-- "No". And as long as that situation exists, Mozilla and it's friends are SOL. I would think Netscape probably has the best chance (yes, I know. "Mo") at this game, but it needs something vital that IE doesn't have. Something everybody else wants. Until then? The guy is right. It's all MS+IE.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, this is like chum to shark infested waters ^__^
"There are two major parts to science. Observation/experiment and theory as to why"
Global warming has only been a science of serious observation for - let's be generous - a century. I guess you can even say the experiment is still in progress since the only real world one that I know of is the Earth itself. Using an inconclusive "experiment" and a very, very, very small slice of history has created the theory of "Global Warming".
"The research is usually done right. Why? Because science strives to ensure all experiments/observations are Reproducible and most are reproduced."
Oh, like cold fusion? Or data over AC? etc.. etc... History is rife with as many research failures as success. To say that "science" strives for anything is also inaccurate. People make up science and as we all know people have their own dreams, motivations and aspirations, some wholesome, some not some. And yes, these people even study under the broad label of science. Science is not nessisarily a well meaning entity that looks out for the good of humanity as you portray it to be. And since you mentioned that "good" science strives to ensure accuracy how can they even claim accuracy in a several million year old experiment that we've only seen and participated in one century of? tell me HOW they have even remotely REPRODUCED a fraction of this grand experiment? the most ambitious efforts that I know of have has been Biosphere 2 (a muddled failure) and another being built in England. If you have others that even remotely scratch the surface, then by all means...
"The theory on the other hand is rarely right, at least 100% right. But it is usually close."
No, let ME illustrate. being able to produce a result and actually knowing how it works are two entirely seperate things. Like Electrical Theory. Nobody can accurately explain quite a few aspects of what makes it work, but they can construct devices to use it. The same thing with your Relativity example, but even that's beside the point. You have far too few observable facts on a system that has been operating for far to long in which we are influencing to some degree. It's like popping your head into an hour long labratory experiment for one minute and forming your own conclusion based on that one minute. And you would still be ignoring the fact that this isn't the first time that the Earth has gone though warming and cooling trends. There's an observable result for you. Fossil record and sediment bountries support those numerous cycles of change, THEREFORE why can't it happen again?
You are right... Global warming because I said so or because it's a conspiracy ISN'T an argument, but neither are the "facts" supporting global warming given the conditions under which they have been obtained. None of the opponents of Global Warming are under the obligation to have to prove anything since it's "those other people" looking to bring about a massive change in economic, political and environental policy. It's like saying a meteor will hit the Earth tommorow and telling everybody else to prove you wrong. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You want to change the status quo? YOU CONVINCE US. You're obviously not doing a very good job.
Why is it wrong? See above.
Is there flaws in the data gathering? Plainly.
Do the theories not match the data? Pretty much.
If so, what is a better theory? Natural cycles, supported by sediment and fossile record.
...Data modulated on your AC or a seprate physical line with your AC? Thought the former was a proven scam... Thanx for the update.
Don't quote me on this, but it sounds like the "teleportation" speed is directly dependent upon the speed of the particals entangled. Thus you can entangle a laser to a radio wave, but you have to wait until you recieve the wave until you can reform the laser 'x' distance away (thus, the light speed limitation). The only advantage I could see would be non-Line Of Site transmission of what you are teleporting. As for how QE works, I can only give you a definition (search Mullet on the main thread). How it actually accomplishes the definition? It's going to take more than a quick search to find that out, but suffice to say it wasn't worth the time to wade through all the high level physics explanations I found.
Hell, according to theory you should "just" be able to entangle matter to a carrier and atomize it with the death-ray of your choice. After all, those sub-atomic particals should be bound to the carrier no matter where it goes (chuckle). Recombination, on the other hand....
Sorry, another post on the main, but there are applications far beyond encryption... Try non-line of sight laser bombardment. Still, they never mentioned what it took to re-create the laser anyway. And that's assuming this isn't just cold fusion or Internet though your AC outlet...
Hell, it was an outer limits episode too. Aliens gave humans teleporter technology, but the human operator finds out that the originals are actually destroyed while their copies go about their daily lives thinking nothing but transport has taken place. Of course, the guy went insane... Until you can quantify what truely makes us different from life without consciousness, you're not going to be able to answer that question. if we're just building blocks to be taken apart and put back together, then there shouldn't be much consequence at all. If there is more, something governing those blocks beyong the physical, then you'll be running into quite a few moral dillemas.
And that's my problem with whoever wrote this crap. It's obviously dumbed down for people who know nothing about quantum physics (me), but then doesn't even provide the clues for basic understanding. My half hour google search revealed:
Quantum Entanglement: The supposed link between particles that have once interacted, enabling them to influence each other instantaneously over indefinite distances.
Da Mullet's interpretation: Once the two mediums are "entangled" (how you do that is anybodies guess because the article sure as hell doesn't say), they are mysteriously anchored to one another, partical to partical regardless of distance. THEREFORE... While you can "destroy" the laser beam into a chaotic mess, those particals are still mysteriously anchored to their radio counterparts. According to this article, they have destroyed the laser and it's signal, but transmitted the radio to a reciever and have been able to recreate the laser via quantum entanglement effect. The radio partical's laser counterparts (supposively scattered around incoherently) are pulled back from ether to create the original laser signal at point B.
That's the best I can do. Hope it helps, cuz the author sure didn't.
"An encoded radio signal is embedded on an input laser, which is combined with entanglement and then scanned. The laser is destroyed in the process. But the radio signal survives and is sent electronically to a receiving station, where within a nanosecond an exact replica of the beam - with the radio signal intact - is retrieved and decoded."
First, a simplified definition from my very limited research into Quantum Entanglement: The supposed link between particles that have once interacted, enabling them to influence each other instantaneously over indefinite distances.
I'll mention before hand I'm not a quantum physics major of any sort, but if I'm reading this correctly, they have encoded a laser beam with a radio signal and "quantum entangled" the two mediums which is then "scanned" (whatever the hell that is) in which the laser is destroyed in the process. So now we should supposively have an intact radio signal with a "destroyed" laser sub-atomically anchored to it in ether somewhere. Sending this radio signal downrange to a receiver will recreate this signal and "pull" the laser back into reality (pardon my butchering of terms).
My problem here is perhapse not how unbelieveable this sound, but how damn vague the artical is. Scanning? How the hell was the beam recreated? Did it appear from thin air? Did it have to be "un" entangled? It doesn't seem as if the laser is infact destroyed at all... How do you go about "entangling" something to being with? This artical doesn't simply bog you down in scientific explanation; In fact it doesn't bog you down in ANY explanation for that matter-- it throws some words in and stirs them up with teleportation references. Hell, the only way I could figure out ANY details was independent research, and oh, how fun that was. The above definition was as easy as it got. After that? Whew... Maybe I'm just bitching, but I'm asssuming this article was written for the common man, but goes far beyond watering things down. It leaves out key pieces nessisary for understanding to occure. Jeez, that's shitty writing...
Well, what more can you say about the man who quantum entangled a rant on a 1 1/2 year old bad movie to the present day? Screw laser beams... We're teleporting cinema here on Slashdot.
You're first problem is power output, as stated. I guess we can assume that we'll get portable high energy power sources around that size some day, so lets ignore that one for now. You're next problem would be beam confinement. Making a highly destructive beam is the easy part. Confining it to sword-like dimensions is a bit harder. I'm no partical physisist, but maybe you can use the same technique they use to cancel out soundwaves-- Have beam "B" become 180' out of phase to beam "A" at a range of, say, 2 1/2 feet from the projector. Feel free to poke holes in that one all day long :) Now, technology providing, we have a nice 2 1/2 foot partical sword with only one problem... A distinct lack of kinetic action when said beam encounters a similar beam. There would be no duels here, just simple slicing and dicing. Instead of the phased beams, I guess you could use a magnetic bottle to limit the beam... Somehow. Then maybe you could have actual physical blade contact. Jeez, what a pain in the ass. Maybe I'll just stick to ultra sonic virbrating blades :p
The street lights are on little boy. Go home.
(!) "This isn't the company we're looking to sue..."
"Let's move along and make another sequel."
An interesting note on lightsabers; They are actually flash handles from 1940s press cameras. What bearing that has on copywrites, I'm not sure, but I think it'd be hard to licence a garage sale part for your movie, personally. Maybe this guy's calling them "lite sabers". Of course, you see dozens of toy replicas made in Mexico in any toy store... "Galactic Laser Swords inc." If you can get away with that level of duplication, then it can't be too hard for this guy. More power to him. Now he just needs to make a working one ^__^ "Batteries not included"
Oh, I agree they're guilty.. Just not in the arena of OS manipulation. ^__^
When will Pizza Hut start building chips into the Pizza Boxes?
Um, Troll? Actually not. My comment wasn't a rant. It wasn't a baseless opinion. The BIOS story precisely parallels what everybody is ragging Microsoft about- Building a native browser without the ability to remove it. Well, I see somebody else stepping to the plate here but where is all the hate mail to accompany it? Switch the word "Phoenix" with "Microsoft" and this thread will become a hate-filled shit storm guaranteed. The words "Browser Monopoly" will be chanted in the streets. Call it a troll if you want, but building native hardware browser support has the possibility of trumping even the most stubborn OS. That's not worth discussion? You, my angery little moderator need some serious perspective.
Thanks for the interesting, dude. you know who you are.
You're assuming they actually review the submissions in the first place. I'm thinking it's a script, personally... Nah, a script can spell.
So is putting a Browser native to the computers BIOS now considered anti-competitve practice? After all, you can't turn it off or remove it and you don't even need an OS to run it... But as long as it isn't MS, it's OK, right? Just some food for thought.
Before they start busting the classics out of cryogenic stasis again, I'd just like to see a few more good games to accompany the handful present. Not just kicking the dead horse, but harvesting it's corpse for organs and saying, "Giddyup!"
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows
A bug? Quite possibly. But they don't have to provide the ability to turn it off. I won't debate which version of NSN is faster. All I know is it began to suck. Hard. I'm not an MS fan, just a person who can't stand hippocrasy. IE was readily availible and began to show an appreciable difference in NSN for the better. I used it. End of story. For me, at least.
So does Ford now have to make their cars compliant with Toyota parts or aftermarket modifications? Are they required to include some small third parties speedometer in a addition to their own when you buy the car? Do they have to give "Ace Speedometers" a chance to represent? No, No and No. And guess what? Neither does MS. Does Sony have to make their PS2 compatible with Nintendo media? Are they about to? These are the real life examples I'm refering to.
Your right, MS doesn't have the right to do whatever the hell they want in the broadest sense of business, they do have a right to tailor their product anyway they see fit. BTW, their are alternatives to Windows, remember? And why did Netscape suffer in light of this? You tell me; Pertaining to the OS, of course.
Damn. that's actually not a bad idea. It deserves modding. Hell, you might even be able to make it self sustaining via solar power since the distance between repeaters isn't that great. Still, every light post has it's own power, so what's a few more watts? A lot of places along the highway that don't have cell coverage do have lightposts... You'd be outta luck on especially remote treks, but still... Anybody ever consider tethered balloons for those areas? High altitude, a not very noticable tether and you can color the balloon anyway you want...
If MS gives me IE to destroy netscape, thats illegal
Um, and how's that? Microsoft made the OS. It's theirs. THEIR OS. They OWN it. They can do whatever the hell they want to it because THEY MADE IT. Oh, did I mention they created IE too? It's THERE'S. They MADE it.
Now that we've firmly established that MS owns both the OS and Browser, HOW THE FUCKING HELL IS IT ILLEGLE FOR MS TO INTEGRATE THE TWO!??!? HUH!? Honestly, I'm so sick of this crap! Does that mean it's illegle for Adobe to add filters to it's Photoshop Product? No!!! Nor would it be illegle if they made it so the only filters that worked were 1st party ones! MS created and owns the Windows fucking OS and they have the RIGHT to do whatever the hell they want to it you ass-monkies! YES! THEY EVEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE IT HOSTILE TO OTHER APPLICATIONS!!! If you don't like it, if it oppresses your sensibilities, if you can't stand MS's iron curtain, VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET. Download something else!!! IT'S NOT ILLEGAL FOR MS TO GIVE YOU IE WITH WINDOWS TO DESTROY NETSCAPE!!! Just like Mcfucking Donalds doesn't have to offer you a Wopper with your value meal, but they sure as hell will throw in some McDonalds Fries!!! Stop being a mindless media drone and think for yourself for a change. I'm not saying MS doesn't play dirty, but for cryin out loud, what you're protesting is a fair business practice that occures everyday on a large scale across the world. I know it's a rant and I really don't care about anybodies reply on how the crusade for Netscape and against MS must continue. Save the whales and all that. Don't waste your time.
After Version 4.7, Netscape turned to solid crap. Yeah, it began to look better but it was slower than molassus and buggier than Aliens. Parent is right in that respect. All IE did was endure. Netscape killed itself and the other browsers were just crawling from under the rocks, still evolving into something actually worth competing with. IE won by defalt then fortified it's position by integrating it into Windows, which, contrary to popular belief is not monopolistic practice. It's their OS, their program. MS has the right to do whatever the hell they want to it; Even make it hostile to other applications. Their external business practices on the other hand...
The defender has the advantage. He is dug in, fortified, armed and expecting an attack. Microsoft is that defender. What does Mozilla have that will compel the average user to actually switch? Like AOL, IE may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but it's within easy reach and user friendly, where as everything else either has to be dug around for or is not as intuitive for AOL Joe to use. Yep, Mozilla may slice atoms, but would AOL Joe be comfortable using it? Say it with me-- "No". And as long as that situation exists, Mozilla and it's friends are SOL. I would think Netscape probably has the best chance (yes, I know. "Mo") at this game, but it needs something vital that IE doesn't have. Something everybody else wants. Until then? The guy is right. It's all MS+IE.