In your original post, if you care to read it, you said precisely the following:
Performance is crap, and IE9 appears to fix, well, none of that.
A pointless comment when the only public viewing we have seen of IE9 to date is a pre-alpha preview of just the engine, uncomplete and unfinished as mentioned by the IE developers. Your above comment also implies you think IE9 is already a failure.
I'm glad for competition, as hopefully it will drive microsoft to compete more than the show they attempted with IE9. Competition is good for all.
Here you are commenting on IE9 in the past tense, which is stupid because as noted above its not even into alpha yet. Your comment above again implies that you think IE9 is already a failure.
I'm not being creative about anything, you are treating the little we have seen of IE9 as a finished product and dismissed it twice.
Read the part of his post I quoted, it specifically says 'code to the standard and you don't have to worry about the browser', and I give a specific up to date example of that being false, and even coding to the standard doesn't divorce you from browser specifics.
Yes, but had MS stuck to standards to begin with, you would have been able to just design your pages per the standard, and never had to worry about any browser.
Bollocks. Even following the standards you *still* have cross browser issues - take the HTML5 Browser Storage standard for example, part of which involves an event raised on field changes. The problem is, while the event handler is included in the spec, no requirement is placed on *where* the event handler listener is to be placed in the HTML.
Safari requires it to be placed on the body tag, IE on the document object, and Firefox doesn't really care where you put it. So again you have differences across browsers when its perfectly possible to put a single line in the standard and force conformity across all browsers.
There are examples of this across all web standards and all browsers. It's not as obvious as the standard IE vs everything else issues, but it's there.
You seem to be under the impression that IE9 is currently anything other than a pre-alpha preview, so I think you should reconsider your position on that basis.
I have no idea about Android (and thus am answering your question with a non-answer), but on Maemo on the N900 its trivial - open the browser, choose 'settings' from the titlebar drop down, choose 'add-ons', choose 'plugins', highlight Shockwave Flash and click disable.
As the definition of 'authorised persons' was one of the things disputed in the case, the only correct thing is to let the jury come to a definition themselves, with each side presenting reasons for their case.
Exactly, hes using the HTML5 argument against one portion of the Flash discussion, while completely ignoring the other half of said discussion - Flash native apps versus Cocoa native apps. Proprietary vs proprietary.
His point about Flash sites being built for hover overs, which isn't supported on touch capable devices, is also a bit strange since a lot of JavaScript requires hover overs as well - don't see him take issue with that, do we?
With a class action, the lawyers are bearing much of the risk of failure - you are welcome to employ your own lawyer and pay the full cost for a potentially better trade off if you so wish.
I've always considered PeerGuardian to be a false security - all it takes is for someone to rent an apartment somewhere cheap, get ADSL installed and they've bypassed PeerGuardians 'protection'. Protocol encryption also doesn't protect against the approach described in the article, since the 'attacker' is participating in the swarm alongside you.
I'm loving the N900, its a nice bit of kit - made the switch from the iPhone a couple of months ago nad haven't yet found a reason to go back (not that I am looking).
I switched from the iPhone to the N900 a few months ago, and have yet to even consider regretting it. Maemo is nice, and its open, and the N900 is a nice bit of kit too.
Why is further reading needed? Nothing in your article changes the fact that it was a civil action, there was no 'conviction' as it was not a criminal suit and the 'convicted monopolist' term remains a marketing one pushed by people like yourself.
Also the fact that Microsoft had any involvement in the SCO case is completely beside the point, as my original point was that Suns payment to SCO, and thus willing involvement, has been totally swept under the carpet.
You can repeat the 'Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft' mantra all you want, you are dancing around the original point without addressing it at all, and while you do it you make my point for me - Suns history in the case has been scrubbed clean, and the truth has been hidden because people like yourself have an agenda to push.
The fact that MS was found guilty under anti-trust law has nothing to do with this - there is no such thing as a 'convicted monopolist' as the lawsuit was a civil one, not a criminal one - the term is a marketing one created by the anti-MS crowd, nothing more.
Your post is a perfect example of this FUD, as it doesn't address the fact that the article completely fails to mention that Sun was involved as well.
I see this as something a Judge will strike down as spurious rather than an actual loophole - Judges love to come down harshly on people they think are deliberately trying to circumvent the law.
Slashdot Mirror
In your original post, if you care to read it, you said precisely the following:
Performance is crap, and IE9 appears to fix, well, none of that.
A pointless comment when the only public viewing we have seen of IE9 to date is a pre-alpha preview of just the engine, uncomplete and unfinished as mentioned by the IE developers. Your above comment also implies you think IE9 is already a failure.
I'm glad for competition, as hopefully it will drive microsoft to compete more than the show they attempted with IE9. Competition is good for all.
Here you are commenting on IE9 in the past tense, which is stupid because as noted above its not even into alpha yet. Your comment above again implies that you think IE9 is already a failure.
I'm not being creative about anything, you are treating the little we have seen of IE9 as a finished product and dismissed it twice.
Read the part of his post I quoted, it specifically says 'code to the standard and you don't have to worry about the browser', and I give a specific up to date example of that being false, and even coding to the standard doesn't divorce you from browser specifics.
If you meant IE8 then say that you meant it, don't try and make your argument progressive simply because you already believe IE9 will fail.
Yes, but had MS stuck to standards to begin with, you would have been able to just design your pages per the standard, and never had to worry about any browser.
Bollocks. Even following the standards you *still* have cross browser issues - take the HTML5 Browser Storage standard for example, part of which involves an event raised on field changes. The problem is, while the event handler is included in the spec, no requirement is placed on *where* the event handler listener is to be placed in the HTML.
Safari requires it to be placed on the body tag, IE on the document object, and Firefox doesn't really care where you put it. So again you have differences across browsers when its perfectly possible to put a single line in the standard and force conformity across all browsers.
There are examples of this across all web standards and all browsers. It's not as obvious as the standard IE vs everything else issues, but it's there.
You seem to be under the impression that IE9 is currently anything other than a pre-alpha preview, so I think you should reconsider your position on that basis.
How is that information not already considered to be public then?
You could always ... not use Facebook. What they don't have, they can't use.
Yes, it does.
I have no idea about Android (and thus am answering your question with a non-answer), but on Maemo on the N900 its trivial - open the browser, choose 'settings' from the titlebar drop down, choose 'add-ons', choose 'plugins', highlight Shockwave Flash and click disable.
As the definition of 'authorised persons' was one of the things disputed in the case, the only correct thing is to let the jury come to a definition themselves, with each side presenting reasons for their case.
Exactly, hes using the HTML5 argument against one portion of the Flash discussion, while completely ignoring the other half of said discussion - Flash native apps versus Cocoa native apps. Proprietary vs proprietary.
His point about Flash sites being built for hover overs, which isn't supported on touch capable devices, is also a bit strange since a lot of JavaScript requires hover overs as well - don't see him take issue with that, do we?
And also Android is "free", which means that whatever HP produced would have to be "free" also - maybe they want to have the option to not do that?
People around here seem to think that Android is the magical solution to all ills and ailments...
With a class action, the lawyers are bearing much of the risk of failure - you are welcome to employ your own lawyer and pay the full cost for a potentially better trade off if you so wish.
Plus disposal of ash and mining waste...
I've always considered PeerGuardian to be a false security - all it takes is for someone to rent an apartment somewhere cheap, get ADSL installed and they've bypassed PeerGuardians 'protection'. Protocol encryption also doesn't protect against the approach described in the article, since the 'attacker' is participating in the swarm alongside you.
I'm loving the N900, its a nice bit of kit - made the switch from the iPhone a couple of months ago nad haven't yet found a reason to go back (not that I am looking).
I switched from the iPhone to the N900 a few months ago, and have yet to even consider regretting it. Maemo is nice, and its open, and the N900 is a nice bit of kit too.
And yet MS has enjoyed quite some success on the patent litigation front recently...
Why is further reading needed? Nothing in your article changes the fact that it was a civil action, there was no 'conviction' as it was not a criminal suit and the 'convicted monopolist' term remains a marketing one pushed by people like yourself.
Also the fact that Microsoft had any involvement in the SCO case is completely beside the point, as my original point was that Suns payment to SCO, and thus willing involvement, has been totally swept under the carpet.
You can repeat the 'Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft' mantra all you want, you are dancing around the original point without addressing it at all, and while you do it you make my point for me - Suns history in the case has been scrubbed clean, and the truth has been hidden because people like yourself have an agenda to push.
The fact that MS was found guilty under anti-trust law has nothing to do with this - there is no such thing as a 'convicted monopolist' as the lawsuit was a civil one, not a criminal one - the term is a marketing one created by the anti-MS crowd, nothing more.
Your post is a perfect example of this FUD, as it doesn't address the fact that the article completely fails to mention that Sun was involved as well.
I love how that Wikipedia article doesn't even mention the money Sun paid SCO...
Well, if that's the case then all those peering network providers are also attempting to skirt the law.
The difference lies in intention, and that was the point of my original post.
Its easier to upsell when you have a human being selling the product rather than a web page.
An ISP having no customers but plenty of peering communications providers at residential addresses is a deliberate attempt to skirt the law.
I see this as something a Judge will strike down as spurious rather than an actual loophole - Judges love to come down harshly on people they think are deliberately trying to circumvent the law.