IMO, Firefox renders the best out of all browsers( that is meant to be a provacative remark ).
And indeed is accurate - IIRC FireFox's rendering engine is the most standard compliant of the currently available browsers, as defined by the official W3C standards.
If you are concerned that Firefox does not handle MS proprietary widgetry crap correctly, then your remark is retarded.
Probably - however, I do care that it doesn't handle MS proprietary widgetry crap correctly - because if that means my 12yr old can't access her cartoon-character site, or my wife her cat online forum site, then they won't care that FireFox is technically superior, they will care that it doesn't work and that IE does
Why would anyone expect a standards based browser to render any proprierary crap? because this is the real world, not your fantasy one?
we are free to say "this site uses proprietary crap to do what PHP and HTML could do just as well, so I won't visit it" and trade off our desire to access the site against our principled stand against non-standards-compliant websites. Odds are good our girlfriends, daughters or wives will just nag until they get what they want - and what they wan't isn't a standards compliant browser, it is a browser that lets them visit the same sites their friends do.
What "media player market?" Is there a version of Windows Media Player that costs money? All they're doing is giving stuff away. They bundled IE not to get us hooked and jack up the prices, but because an OS should come with a browser. IE is free (as in beer). MediaPlayer is free.
Indeed MediaPlayer (and RealPlayer) are free - but the streaming servers for each are not (and the Real one runs on a Mac, so MS don't even get the server licence fee)
Something similar applies to IE - Netscape didn't live on its browser sales, but on its Server sales; and note that now the IE bundling is being used in reverse - IE6 will be the last version released for W2K or the Win9x range; if you want IE6.5 and beyond, you *must* upgrade your windows to XP or 2003. In a world where half the websites don't work properly (or at all) in FireFox, but you dare not use an *old* IE due to the security vunerabilities, how will you access your preferred sites without paying for the latest and greatest DRM enabled version of windows?
I am deliberately turning a bind eye to one of my user's use of putty (actually, not directly of putty, but of a SSH tunnel to his home ADSL machine - we both know that means he has unrestricted access to the internet without all that messy net-nanny stuff getting in the way, but my boss would freak if he knew:)
what makes you think he has made back his investment?
take a simple example - a minor improvement in technology. The average company will invest several million in new plant (leaving aside whatever research cost) and base their "cost" before profit on raw materials per item plus that capital "startup" cost averaged over three years of expected sales
If he gets a month or even three, then is undercut on the market, how does he make back that initial investment, never mind make a profit?
Without patent protection, it is not in anybody's interest to try and make or market anything new in the current world - not in the small inventor's interest as he will never see any money from it, and not in the big company's interest, as without innovation from outside sources, they can go on selling the same things forever.
What they have failed to realise is that this sort of thing is *ideal* for using and abusing the Internet Delphi effect.
Why not just post all *pending* patents onto the web? its in the best interests of all the competing companies to do the prior art checks for the patent office, using their own staff (who know the field intimately) and for free!
How exactly does he make it better or cheaper?
he can't make it better if they can just take his improved model and have it on shelves nationwide in a week, and he can't possibly undercut a retailer who not only gets price breaks on raw materials, but who can afford to sell at a loss for two years *in his area* if that's what it takes to put him out of business...
"What kind of message does that send to the developers who work for Gates?"
Um - an honest one?
Regardless though - nobody seriously expects MS to give more than lip service to security unless it affects sales - The only thing that matters is getting product out of the door and onto desktops, even if it is worse than what it is replacing.
I can't think of any real way to avoid this - if a machine can log into a local database unattended, there is a way to extract the login data and do the same (or directly manipulate the database files from code)
Admittedly the denormalization is a massive security problem - but that is database agnostic - and to be honest there is no real reason to *have* a local database; votes could have been recorded "raw" as a continually appending, PKI encrypted records file, preferably to WORM media; the same WORM media would then give you your recount "audit trail" and could be sealed by local observers once uploaded to the master server (which then counts and displays the votes)
Ok, you asked for it, for database flamewars. grin I know.
1. 90% of goverment database applications don't require any big DBMS. The rest might do, but they are typically are a top secret, so we don't know about it either (NSA, CIA, FBI and other Big Brothers).
Indeed so, yes - few if any databases need more than postgres can offer, in fact, few if any need more than MySQL can offer (think about what the backend to this server here is:)
2. Oracle's leadership is based on a mind inertion, not on real benefits. Among commercial DBMS vendors I can recall few cases when Sybase and DB/2 where more appropriate than Oracle. In many (90%) cases in goverment IT projects the cost/performance ratio of Oracle is way worse than of PostgreSQL.
That I dispute - yes, oracle loses a cost/performance comparison, but that is because it is unreasonably expensive for what it offers - but it still leads the field for large or excessively complex databases.
If you are saying that a lot of companies choose oracle when postgres would do nicely then yes - this is true. Most companies with oracle will never need to move to the sort of scaling or redundancy that pushes oracle out in front, so have bought a V8 (at V8 prices) for something a lawnmower engine could do as well at:)
3. PostgreSQL is never *noticably* inferior to MySql. There are some cases when MySQL can be 5-10% faster - such difference is hard to notice in real life. Most of (in)famouse benchmarks are made by switching off any integrity in MySQL, ignoring that you can switch some integrity off in PostgreSQL too. Well, enough about those myths. Just to add: PostgreSQL is well known as the most programmable DBMS on the market. MySQL cannot beat that either. Neither Oracle or MS SQL.
To be fair, MySQL doesn't claim to - on large, largely read-and-append databases with no complex multitable sql to handle, MySQL tends to be faster and have less problems. Again, look at what Slashdot use as a back end:)
Conclusion. Sometimes PostgreSQL is considered to do to Oracle in upcoming two-three years exactly the same as Linux to Microsoft Windows - getting the market from it. It doesn't have enough hype for it yet (is it b/c of its BSD license?). But giving it some goverment support - it can get that hype. Let's see.
I would love to see that happen - perhaps not actually crush oracle, but oracle has been far to complacent for far too long (they still see their biggest competitor as MS SQL, based on MS mindshare - and as a techical comparison its a joke, but unfortunately as you point out most companies don't *need* oracle, and MS SQL will work just as well for a much smaller ticket price. of course Postgres and MySQL will also both do just as well, but the old adage about IBM has been transferred to Microsoft with a vengence....
This is of course true - however, I also lived though the reverse transform (the move from central unix-based servers to windows) and the MS pitch there was on how easy it was to learn the new systems, and that the cost was much less than the saving from dropping all those expensive Unix boxes.
KDE or Gnome isn't much if any harder to learn than windows was, and indeed the transition windows>>xwindows should be much "cheaper" than unix>>windows and yet the savings to be had are much greater...
That's what I was wondering - ok, Oracle is still front leader out there, but MS SQL is worse than Postgres (and for certain applications, noticably inferior to MySql)
Companies invest in computers This incurs an immediate cost that the company has to recoop somehow
Company Automates one or more tasks As automation makes tasks either easier or faster, this leads to
Company downsizes part or all of skilled workforce part if the new job still requires skill, all if replacement with the same or lesser number of semi-skilled (cheaper) workers is possible.
I have noticed that, given the choice of a small number of skilled workers or a larger pool of unskilled, most companies tend to go for the unskilled - they may even cost slightly more (in aggregate) than the skilled workers would, but each individual is more easily replacable, and at much shorter notice, so that they can't leverage their company's dependence on them to get higher wages.
Changing the "loss and deskilling" trend would take changing the attitude of big corporations (particularly those currently "outsourcing" remaining technical jobs to the far east) who don't seem to realise that the pay they give skilled workers today is what is used to buy these largely luxury items tomorrow.....
the first is that the amount of space available for hardware drivers (particuarly those that require a custom kernel module, like nvidia) is restricted - so a live-cd of the game would be similarly restricted; within those limitations though, it is more than just possible, but has been done; UT2003 demo was released on a bootable linux cd, for gforce (and a small selection of supported sound cards) which worked as well if not better than the windows demo version.
the second would be - while you can standardize the gaming hardware (almost everyone will be using similar video and audio) online connectivity, controllers (joysticks/mice or trackballs/light guns/whatever) and so forth will vary more widely. If you standardize *everything* you are left with a gaming console, which is exactly what you are describing - a reboot-to-change-games box with limited local storage and standardized hardware.
The problem is - some of the unsupported cards using this chipset used to use a different (eg Orinoco or Prism) chipset and have not updated the name of the card so that you think you are buying a supported card (as listed in many howtos) but in fact are getting a newer model with no available linux driver.
There aren't really many all-round programs out there to touch Photoshop - and no free ones. Paint Shop Pro certainly comes close, if not level (that they can share plugins doesn't hurt, either) but the two have such different styles it is damned awkward to become proficient enough in both to give a fair comparison (and as always, checkbox feature listing is a waste of time and photons).
in each area that photoshop covers of course, there are specialised packages that leave it in the dust - but that is *all* they can do, while generalists like photoshop and psp are a more useful all-round toolbox. (I could be a little biassed here though as I have psp 8 and am still back on photoshop 5.5, although other users here in my office are up to date on photoshop)
*sigh*
Paypal don't *have* to claim innocent misrepresentation - you aren't forced to form a contract with them, they aren't forced to accept one with you. However, they are providing a service (as an agent for the payers, and as an agent for you in accepting money) so unless you have a valid contract with them they are legally obliged *not to* accept money on your behalf - therefore the money in "your account" isn't yours.
Where the innocent misrepresentation comes in is when *you* claim you didn't know accepting the T&C was illegal - and at best, that would prevent paypal sueing *you* to obtain every penny you ever withdrew from your account with them back as fraudulently obtained.
Ignorance of the law is a valid defence in NY then? The insurance industry does have a term for failure to declare due to lack of knowledge (innocent misrepresentation) but that is not ignorance of the law, but ignorance of a condition that, if declared, would have materially affected the contract.
They could make such a claim but you'd just ask the judge to look at these screen captures showing your 'account' status screen
The problem with that is that a legal contract (if invalidated) isn't suddenly resurrected if you produce a photocopy - you would simply be furnishing proof that you obtained goods or services from them by deception, not a good idea. their T&C are quite clear - you may *only* use their service if you agree to the T&C, therefore you could not possibly have legally used their service if you were not permitted to so agree. If you actually did use their services, you did so by apparently agreeing to their conditions despite your not being permitted to do so - which of course is deception.
Trying to get a bad-publicity lawsuit running against them could work - or they could decide its more productive to make an example of you by taking a "why you shouldn't agree to contracts you know you won't honour" slant (which few lawyers will want to be on the wrong side of)
I will assume there is a "aren't" in that sentence:)
I am just wondering if you actually have a contract (ie, if *they* are bound by the contract if you can't legally agree to any of the terms)
If not, they possibly could get away with it by claiming you don't *have* an account with them (as agreeing to the T&C is a precondition to having an account) and therefore that money isn't yours but held by them as an agent for the payers...
I had missed that bit, I admit - as an aside, would it be allowable to require the written offer (or a copy of it, intact) to accompany any such requests?
Slashdot Mirror
And indeed is accurate - IIRC FireFox's rendering engine is the most standard compliant of the currently available browsers, as defined by the official W3C standards.
If you are concerned that Firefox does not handle MS proprietary widgetry crap correctly, then your remark is retarded.
Probably - however, I do care that it doesn't handle MS proprietary widgetry crap correctly - because if that means my 12yr old can't access her cartoon-character site, or my wife her cat online forum site, then they won't care that FireFox is technically superior, they will care that it doesn't work and that IE does
Why would anyone expect a standards based browser to render any proprierary crap?
because this is the real world, not your fantasy one?
we are free to say "this site uses proprietary crap to do what PHP and HTML could do just as well, so I won't visit it" and trade off our desire to access the site against our principled stand against non-standards-compliant websites.
Odds are good our girlfriends, daughters or wives will just nag until they get what they want - and what they wan't isn't a standards compliant browser, it is a browser that lets them visit the same sites their friends do.
What "media player market?" Is there a version of Windows Media Player that costs money? All they're doing is giving stuff away. They bundled IE not to get us hooked and jack up the prices, but because an OS should come with a browser. IE is free (as in beer). MediaPlayer is free.
Indeed MediaPlayer (and RealPlayer) are free - but the streaming servers for each are not (and the Real one runs on a Mac, so MS don't even get the server licence fee)
Something similar applies to IE - Netscape didn't live on its browser sales, but on its Server sales; and note that now the IE bundling is being used in reverse - IE6 will be the last version released for W2K or the Win9x range; if you want IE6.5 and beyond, you *must* upgrade your windows to XP or 2003. In a world where half the websites don't work properly (or at all) in FireFox, but you dare not use an *old* IE due to the security vunerabilities, how will you access your preferred sites without paying for the latest and greatest DRM enabled version of windows?
:)
Wouldn't that make it impossible to get a patent in any new field reviewed by someone who knows that field for the first 15 years?
Unixware licences, not linux - but close enough :)
A director took "burrr beepbeep breedle whistle" as a personal insult?
I am deliberately turning a bind eye to one of my user's use of putty (actually, not directly of putty, but of a SSH tunnel to his home ADSL machine - we both know that means he has unrestricted access to the internet without all that messy net-nanny stuff getting in the way, but my boss would freak if he knew :)
take a simple example - a minor improvement in technology. The average company will invest several million in new plant (leaving aside whatever research cost) and base their "cost" before profit on raw materials per item plus that capital "startup" cost averaged over three years of expected sales
If he gets a month or even three, then is undercut on the market, how does he make back that initial investment, never mind make a profit?
Without patent protection, it is not in anybody's interest to try and make or market anything new in the current world - not in the small inventor's interest as he will never see any money from it, and not in the big company's interest, as without innovation from outside sources, they can go on selling the same things forever.
What they have failed to realise is that this sort of thing is *ideal* for using and abusing the Internet Delphi effect.
Why not just post all *pending* patents onto the web? its in the best interests of all the competing companies to do the prior art checks for the patent office, using their own staff (who know the field intimately) and for free!
How exactly does he make it better or cheaper?
he can't make it better if they can just take his improved model and have it on shelves nationwide in a week, and he can't possibly undercut a retailer who not only gets price breaks on raw materials, but who can afford to sell at a loss for two years *in his area* if that's what it takes to put him out of business...
Um - an honest one?
Regardless though - nobody seriously expects MS to give more than lip service to security unless it affects sales - The only thing that matters is getting product out of the door and onto desktops, even if it is worse than what it is replacing.
Admittedly the denormalization is a massive security problem - but that is database agnostic - and to be honest there is no real reason to *have* a local database; votes could have been recorded "raw" as a continually appending, PKI encrypted records file, preferably to WORM media; the same WORM media would then give you your recount "audit trail" and could be sealed by local observers once uploaded to the master server (which then counts and displays the votes)
grin I know.
1. 90% of goverment database applications don't require any big DBMS. The rest might do, but they are typically are a top secret, so we don't know about it either (NSA, CIA, FBI and other Big Brothers). :)
Indeed so, yes - few if any databases need more than postgres can offer, in fact, few if any need more than MySQL can offer (think about what the backend to this server here is
2. Oracle's leadership is based on a mind inertion, not on real benefits. Among commercial DBMS vendors I can recall few cases when Sybase and DB/2 where more appropriate than Oracle. In many (90%) cases in goverment IT projects the cost/performance ratio of Oracle is way worse than of PostgreSQL. :)
That I dispute - yes, oracle loses a cost/performance comparison, but that is because it is unreasonably expensive for what it offers - but it still leads the field for large or excessively complex databases.
If you are saying that a lot of companies choose oracle when postgres would do nicely then yes - this is true. Most companies with oracle will never need to move to the sort of scaling or redundancy that pushes oracle out in front, so have bought a V8 (at V8 prices) for something a lawnmower engine could do as well at
3. PostgreSQL is never *noticably* inferior to MySql. There are some cases when MySQL can be 5-10% faster - such difference is hard to notice in real life. Most of (in)famouse benchmarks are made by switching off any integrity in MySQL, ignoring that you can switch some integrity off in PostgreSQL too. Well, enough about those myths. Just to add: PostgreSQL is well known as the most programmable DBMS on the market. MySQL cannot beat that either. Neither Oracle or MS SQL.
To be fair, MySQL doesn't claim to - on large, largely read-and-append databases with no complex multitable sql to handle, MySQL tends to be faster and have less problems. Again, look at what Slashdot use as a back end
Conclusion. Sometimes PostgreSQL is considered to do to Oracle in upcoming two-three years exactly the same as Linux to Microsoft Windows - getting the market from it. It doesn't have enough hype for it yet (is it b/c of its BSD license?). But giving it some goverment support - it can get that hype. Let's see.
I would love to see that happen - perhaps not actually crush oracle, but oracle has been far to complacent for far too long (they still see their biggest competitor as MS SQL, based on MS mindshare - and as a techical comparison its a joke, but unfortunately as you point out most companies don't *need* oracle, and MS SQL will work just as well for a much smaller ticket price. of course Postgres and MySQL will also both do just as well, but the old adage about IBM has been transferred to Microsoft with a vengence....
This is of course true - however, I also lived though the reverse transform (the move from central unix-based servers to windows) and the MS pitch there was on how easy it was to learn the new systems, and that the cost was much less than the saving from dropping all those expensive Unix boxes.
KDE or Gnome isn't much if any harder to learn than windows was, and indeed the transition windows>>xwindows should be much "cheaper" than unix>>windows and yet the savings to be had are much greater...
That's what I was wondering - ok, Oracle is still front leader out there, but MS SQL is worse than Postgres (and for certain applications, noticably inferior to MySql)
- Companies invest in computers
- Company Automates one or more tasks
- Company downsizes part or all of skilled workforce
I have noticed that, given the choice of a small number of skilled workers or a larger pool of unskilled, most companies tend to go for the unskilled - they may even cost slightly more (in aggregate) than the skilled workers would, but each individual is more easily replacable, and at much shorter notice, so that they can't leverage their company's dependence on them to get higher wages.This incurs an immediate cost that the company has to recoop somehow
As automation makes tasks either easier or faster, this leads to
part if the new job still requires skill, all if replacement with the same or lesser number of semi-skilled (cheaper) workers is possible.
Changing the "loss and deskilling" trend would take changing the attitude of big corporations (particularly those currently "outsourcing" remaining technical jobs to the far east) who don't seem to realise that the pay they give skilled workers today is what is used to buy these largely luxury items tomorrow.....
the first is that the amount of space available for hardware drivers (particuarly those that require a custom kernel module, like nvidia) is restricted - so a live-cd of the game would be similarly restricted; within those limitations though, it is more than just possible, but has been done; UT2003 demo was released on a bootable linux cd, for gforce (and a small selection of supported sound cards) which worked as well if not better than the windows demo version.
the second would be - while you can standardize the gaming hardware (almost everyone will be using similar video and audio) online connectivity, controllers (joysticks/mice or trackballs/light guns/whatever) and so forth will vary more widely. If you standardize *everything* you are left with a gaming console, which is exactly what you are describing - a reboot-to-change-games box with limited local storage and standardized hardware.
SCO is accusing someone else of filing a lawsuit containing Unsubstantiated Allegations? This is from the Onion isn't it?
The problem is - some of the unsupported cards using this chipset used to use a different (eg Orinoco or Prism) chipset and have not updated the name of the card so that you think you are buying a supported card (as listed in many howtos) but in fact are getting a newer model with no available linux driver.
There aren't really many all-round programs out there to touch Photoshop - and no free ones. Paint Shop Pro certainly comes close, if not level (that they can share plugins doesn't hurt, either) but the two have such different styles it is damned awkward to become proficient enough in both to give a fair comparison (and as always, checkbox feature listing is a waste of time and photons). in each area that photoshop covers of course, there are specialised packages that leave it in the dust - but that is *all* they can do, while generalists like photoshop and psp are a more useful all-round toolbox. (I could be a little biassed here though as I have psp 8 and am still back on photoshop 5.5, although other users here in my office are up to date on photoshop)
*sigh*
Paypal don't *have* to claim innocent misrepresentation - you aren't forced to form a contract with them, they aren't forced to accept one with you. However, they are providing a service (as an agent for the payers, and as an agent for you in accepting money) so unless you have a valid contract with them they are legally obliged *not to* accept money on your behalf - therefore the money in "your account" isn't yours. Where the innocent misrepresentation comes in is when *you* claim you didn't know accepting the T&C was illegal - and at best, that would prevent paypal sueing *you* to obtain every penny you ever withdrew from your account with them back as fraudulently obtained.
Ignorance of the law is a valid defence in NY then?
The insurance industry does have a term for failure to declare due to lack of knowledge (innocent misrepresentation) but that is not ignorance of the law, but ignorance of a condition that, if declared, would have materially affected the contract.
The problem with that is that a legal contract (if invalidated) isn't suddenly resurrected if you produce a photocopy - you would simply be furnishing proof that you obtained goods or services from them by deception, not a good idea. their T&C are quite clear - you may *only* use their service if you agree to the T&C, therefore you could not possibly have legally used their service if you were not permitted to so agree. If you actually did use their services, you did so by apparently agreeing to their conditions despite your not being permitted to do so - which of course is deception.
Trying to get a bad-publicity lawsuit running against them could work - or they could decide its more productive to make an example of you by taking a "why you shouldn't agree to contracts you know you won't honour" slant (which few lawyers will want to be on the wrong side of)
I am just wondering if you actually have a contract (ie, if *they* are bound by the contract if you can't legally agree to any of the terms)
If not, they possibly could get away with it by claiming you don't *have* an account with them (as agreeing to the T&C is a precondition to having an account) and therefore that money isn't yours but held by them as an agent for the payers...
I had missed that bit, I admit - as an aside, would it be allowable to require the written offer (or a copy of it, intact) to accompany any such requests?