When they say that people don't want this or that, or they want this or that, they aren't talking about you and I, or other individuals using Windows (if you are a Windows user, that is). Microsoft representatives keep talking about how they listen to their customers and get feedback from customers. When they say those things, they are talking about major corporations and development partners. Those are the customers Microsoft are listening to.
Firefox R&D for Microsoft?
on
IE7 Details Emerge
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Pray tell... What R&D has Firefox done "on behalf of Microsoft"? What fresh Firefox ideas are MS about to "steal"? Please be specific.
I'm not really a huge Star Wars fanatic. I do like the movies, and I find it to be an intriguing universe. However, I haven't even watched any of them at the cinema.
But maybe you are right. Maybe the movies take a bit more than just casual viewing to appreciate. Maybe you need to know about the OT (Original Trilogy), and all that. But so what? Some movies simply require you to look beneath the surface to really appreciate them. Those are the movies that force you to think if you want to get the most from them. Star Wars is a huge universe, and there's so much depth if you first start looking more closely at things. Maybe you wouldn't think that there's any depth to the movies just by watching them and not knowing anything about what's going on, but that's your loss. I know that the Star Wars universe has incredible depth, and there are so many aspects to discover.
On the surface, maybe Star Wars is crap. But I don't just scratch the surface, because I already know the Star Wars universe, and I appreciate what it seems that the new trilogy is trying to do. I think it's exciting to see Anakin before he turned into Darth Vader.
Kids and people who want to dive in and go below the surface may actually like the NT. Kids because it's fun, fans because it fills in quite a few holes in the OT. It explains a lot of things.
So why do these movies get huge audiences? Maybe because the OT did indeed intrigue many people, and they want to know what happened. They want to know more. You don't? That's fine by me, but I'll watch episode 3 with the same attitude I've had so far: They are movies that fit into a whole, and to fully appreciate them, you might want to keep that in mind.
He has created an entire universe you know. And anyway, hardcore SW fans will be quick to point out how he doesn't actually contradict himself anyway:) Try it. Post about it in a SW forum and you'll get lots and lots of explanations.
You are comparing apples and oranges here. The OT is a grand space soap Opera, whereas the NT is specifically created to show you how Darth Vader came to be. OT is about good vs. evil in the universe, NT is about Anakin's path from good to evil. Two completely different levels.
I quite enjoyed episode 1 and 2. I always kept Darth Vader in the back of my mind, and I could gradually see Anakin change - I could understand how he might end up on the dark side of the Force. And the NT constantly foreshadows what inevitably will happen in episode 3.
I think you are too caught up in the fact that the NT is not made the same way the OT is. It's not supposed to! The NT is telling a completely different story on a completely different level.
There was a discussion about Star Wars the other day, and amidst all the +5 insightful "SW used to rock, but now it sucks" comments, I found this gem, where the poster explains how things fit together, and why it's done this way. It makes a lot of sense!
The OT could be watched separately, but the NT is a real trilogy, where you won't get the whole picture, or indeed appreciate it all, until you actually see all the movies.
"Lucas even conflicts within his own films, and doesn't care."
Newsflash: They are movies. Entertainment. Fiction. Created by people for you to enjoy (or not, depending on your tastes). They are not supposed to be accurate descriptions of real world events. They are made by people. People make mistakes.
"On J2ME devices, they've not even gotten their browser small enough"
Not sure what this is all about, but why is J2ME relevant to Opera? And why wouldn't Opera be small enough?
"On BREW devices, they HAVE (finally) gotten small enough."
What do you mean? Opera has gotten small enough? It has always been small enough. It's been a matter of porting the program.
"On Linux, Opera is one of the most popular, but Dillo, Konqueror (!), and MiniMo are gunning for it (especially MiniMo, but so could Konq)."
Minimo is too bloated, and Konqueror is rarely seen anywhere. Opera has real sales people doing things to get Opera out there. I don't think Konq has that.
"On PocketPC, Pocket IE, and some others have the market cornered."
Opera isn't even available for Pocket PC, and Pocket IE is a terrible browser anyway. It is no competition to Opera.
"On Windows Smartphone, PIE still rules the roost"
See above. Saying that "PIE rules the roost" is a bit odd, since it insinuates that there is any competition for it. Again, Opera will devastate it when available.
Minimo is trying to hype itself as the best mobile browser, but it's bloated and slow, and lacks things that Opera has been doing for years. Opera is way ahead of Minimo, both in performance and features.
I don't think it's accurate to say that "Opera's got competition". Opera is just getting started.
"The Internet is free, and a browser is the most basic componant to access the net, so it too, should be free."
Nothing is free. Not even Mozilla. Someone pays for Mozilla, you know. Huge companies like Nokia and IBM. Opera is an independent browser which doesn't rely on donations from huge corporations to survive. That's a plus in my book.
"Or... you know.... download Mozilla, and not pay $30 for what is free everywhere else in the world. (The ability to browse pages on a less crappy browser)"
Oh my. Not everyone thinks Mozilla is better than Opera. Opera is certainly smaller and faster than Mozilla, and runs comfortably on normal mobile phones today with all these features like proper zooming, small screen rendering, and so on. As opposed to Mozilla's struggle to get things right that Opera has done right for years.
"Leave Opera alone to battle PocketIE in the PDA browser market"
Actually, Opera runs comfortably on normal mobile phones. It doesn't need to battle any PDA browsers at all, since it seems to be very popular on mobiles.
"Some people object to the information that the toolbar uploads to Google in exchange for using the advanced features."
<sarcasm>Yeah... I mean, can't they just calculate the PageRank of a page without analyzing it first?! Surely, Google's PageRank database must be available for download so I can look it up locally!</sarcasm>
"Remember when Google focused on their search engine?"
Yeah. They just had a major update, which basically got rid of most spam results when searching for stuff. Try searching for graphics cards. You used to get lots of "buy from..." links. Now, the results show actual reviews and useful information.
So yeah, I remember when Google focused on their search engine. My short term memory isn't that bad.
You may like Opera's built in e-mail client "M2", then. Gmail was actually modeled after the way M2 works. Gmail is kind of the web equivalent of M2 in a way.
"Keyword: "wants". If the country doesn't like the agreements then they don't have to agree to them. Trading isn't a necessity, it just helps their economy."
Let's try to live in the real world here. Even the US can't survive on its own without foreign trading. You can't just pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist.
"Like I said earlier, there must be a considerable amount of doubt otherwise they would have been caught. Also, why does it matter? You hypothetical statement doesn't answer that question."
It matters because it hurt other people or businesses. It matters because it's illegal, and it's illegal for a reason.
Or maybe I should ask you: Why does it matter if I stab you to death?
"It wouldn't make it right (not that that really matters, the world isn't fair), but it would be a good thing to do. Would it be better to hoard the money?"
No, it would be better to not rob you in the first place!
"I know Bush isn't perfect, but I still prefer him to the alternatives,"
Why? He has proven to be an incompetent liar who uses his power to force his religion on everyone else. So what makes the alternatives so much worse?
"and it is my believe that he is trying to do a decent job. The reason I would have modded your statement down is because it is an emotional statement with no support. Your statement wasn't original or even useful."
There was nothing emotional about the statement. It was truthful and honest. And Bush has tried to do a decent job before, and failed. Every single company he has run has gone to hell.
"I said Bush is being picked on, was innocent, and I got defensive about it? Basically I just pointed out how your statements have no support and aren't helpful. If you want to criticize someone, at least be specific. Just saying Bush sucks doesn't cut it."
What on earth are you on about? Where does he say that Bush sucks? And are you going to respond to the statements like I asked if you could do in my previous post? And are you going to tell me if you think Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, and if you still think he had WMD?
Or are you going to continue being defensive and be unable to stand any criticism against Bush, dismissing it as "Bush bashing"?
BTW, are you a true Republican? If so, why do you support a guy whose actions are so anti-Republican? Remember, Republicans used to be about less interference from the Government, but these days Bush wants laws for this and that, dictated by a religious doctrine.
"In any case, governments are more powerful (at least within their borders) than corporations."
You have not paid attention. Read Gangs of America. Read up on how countries have trade agreements that give multinational corporations worldwide power. If a country wants to participate in the market, it has to sign those agreements, and thereby submit itself to corporate rule.
"Also, why does it matter if the methods used were illegal or not, the consequences are the same (i.e. does it matter if someone kills you accidently or if it was murder)."
If Microsoft hadn't used illegal methods, it wouldn't have been where it is today. Heck, the company's entire fortune was founded on ripping off other people.
"Also, does it really matter how he obtained his money? If it were obviously illegal then he'd have been caught. All that matters now is that he has it, and he'd donating it to help people, what's wrong with that?"
So if I punch you in the face, rob you and your family of your belongings, then after a few years, I start giving a few dollars here and there. Does that make it right? Certainly not.
"BTW, with your signature, I also would have modded it down (probably not as flamebait though). The reason is that, in the beginning, it was alright/funny/enlightening to criticize Bush. Then it became cliché/boring, after the election it was being a sore looser, but now it's just pathetic."
Of course you would have modded it down. You can't handle the fact that people keep pointing out Bush's huge mistakes, lies, and inconvenient things like his strong ties with corporations like Enron and Halliburton. The latter got a huge defense contract without having to compete with anyone else.
You can dislike criticism of Bush as much as you like, but the simple fact remains that he has fucked up a lot of things, and he is now in a position where he can actually fuck up the whole planet.
You can't, can you? All you can manage to do when someone criticizes Bush is to either get all defensive about it, or going on about how poor, innocent Shrub is being picked on all the time. Frankly, that doesn't surprise me, considering that you were brainwashed enough to vote for him in the first place.
You probably still believe that Saddamn had something to do with 9-11, and that he really had WMD! Am I not right?
"What I'm saying is that any nation that is significantly affected by the actions of a computer company is probably advance enough to take care of their own people."
If it hadn't been for multi-national agreements that benefit multinational corporations. Did you know that corporations can sue countries for enforcing their own laws in some situations? That's right. Multinational corporations are raised above national governments and interests.
"In fact, one could just as easily argue that he is helping those people by his recent philanthropy."
Already answered by another post in this part of the discussion:
"It is exactly that attitude that has allowed the status quo to remain largely unchanged, despite the fact that humanity has had the resources and technical knowhow to end all poverty since about the 17th century."
"I seriously doubt anyone's life was "destroyed""
So what happens when someone has a lot of debt, and loses his job because Microsoft bankrupted the company he worked for by illegal means?
"What would you have preferred that he done, played completely nice and never succeed in the business world, give every penny he made to some poor nation (in which case why aren't you doing the same), or what?"
Uh, if he would only play nice, that would at least be a start! But the money he's giving away now is pocket change to him, and a result of his illegal business practices.
Please note: I am not saying that Mozilla is evil or anything like that. I am just concerned about some signals I am picking up, and I wish you would be more open about things like corporate sponsorship, and the fact that Firefox's development isn't really community-driven, as people are led to believe.
Mozilla has a public image as being the little David fighting Goliath (Microsoft), but the fact is that Mozilla is run by professionals, with paid and professional staff. And backing Mozilla is a list of huge corporations, such as Sun, IBM, Google and Nokia. There is a community, but you can find that for commercial software as well.
I think the public image of Mozilla is somewhat misleading. To a lot of people it's about "the nice Mozilla foundation", but you do real business, and you have been known to resort to saying things that are untrue. Example: A Minimo developer in an interview started talking about Opera, and how Opera wasn't as portable as Minimo. Now, Opera is already available for lots of mobile operating systems, while Minimo is only available for Linux. Also, the guy had no way of really knowing, as I doubt he had actually seen Opera's source code.
Also, with the recent IDN spoofing issue, Mozilla rushed out a bad hack which was supposed to be a fix, apparently just to make some nice headline in the press. And it got flamed by the rest of the world.
These kinds of questionable actions are quite different from the impression most people seem to have - that Mozilla is a non-protif organization that doesn't resort to dirty business practices.
But Mozilla does seem rather commercialized, doesn't it?
"Having said that, "open source" doesn't have to mean "everything that goes on is public". We have private security bugs, private staff meetings and confidential business deals - often because the other party wants it that way."
Something I've seen a few people comment about is the way the Mozilla organization sometimes behaves like a commercial entity. The definition of non-profit is:
(a) contributions of significant amounts of resources from providers who do not expect proportionate return, (b) operating purposes other than to provide goods or services at a profit, and (c) absence of ownership interests like those of business enterprises.
Now, clearly, Mozilla has paid employees. It is also heavily involved in business deals, such as the one with Google. It also protects its trademarks vigorously, and so on.
What is it that makes Mozilla a real non-profit organization? I'm really wondering, because it seems that it is backed by quite a few major corporations, and those are clearly profiting from this. Can a non-profit really do business deals?
I probably shouldn't be feeding the cannuck troll, but it needs to be pointed out that the ads are clearly marked as such, and completely separated from the actual search index.
The actual search results are not affected by who paid for what.
"When Google will port Picasa to a web-interface, followed by a small word processor, and offer their customers 1 GB to store their data, they will need to have their fingers in at least one big browser. Not to pump it full with ads, but to make sure it is a good enough thin client for their purposes."
Then why didn't they go with Opera or Konqueror/KHTML? Both engines are arguably smaller (slimmer) and faster than Gecko. Opera is already available for normal mobile phones, while work is still being done on making Minimo slim enough to fit on high-end devices.
Wouldn't it be cool if Google took KHTML and released a Windows browser based on Konqueror's engine? It is sorely needed.
Slashdot Mirror
When they say that people don't want this or that, or they want this or that, they aren't talking about you and I, or other individuals using Windows (if you are a Windows user, that is). Microsoft representatives keep talking about how they listen to their customers and get feedback from customers. When they say those things, they are talking about major corporations and development partners. Those are the customers Microsoft are listening to.
Pray tell... What R&D has Firefox done "on behalf of Microsoft"? What fresh Firefox ideas are MS about to "steal"? Please be specific.
But maybe you are right. Maybe the movies take a bit more than just casual viewing to appreciate. Maybe you need to know about the OT (Original Trilogy), and all that. But so what? Some movies simply require you to look beneath the surface to really appreciate them. Those are the movies that force you to think if you want to get the most from them. Star Wars is a huge universe, and there's so much depth if you first start looking more closely at things. Maybe you wouldn't think that there's any depth to the movies just by watching them and not knowing anything about what's going on, but that's your loss. I know that the Star Wars universe has incredible depth, and there are so many aspects to discover.
On the surface, maybe Star Wars is crap. But I don't just scratch the surface, because I already know the Star Wars universe, and I appreciate what it seems that the new trilogy is trying to do. I think it's exciting to see Anakin before he turned into Darth Vader.
Kids and people who want to dive in and go below the surface may actually like the NT. Kids because it's fun, fans because it fills in quite a few holes in the OT. It explains a lot of things.
So why do these movies get huge audiences? Maybe because the OT did indeed intrigue many people, and they want to know what happened. They want to know more. You don't? That's fine by me, but I'll watch episode 3 with the same attitude I've had so far: They are movies that fit into a whole, and to fully appreciate them, you might want to keep that in mind.
He has created an entire universe you know. And anyway, hardcore SW fans will be quick to point out how he doesn't actually contradict himself anyway :) Try it. Post about it in a SW forum and you'll get lots and lots of explanations.
I quite enjoyed episode 1 and 2. I always kept Darth Vader in the back of my mind, and I could gradually see Anakin change - I could understand how he might end up on the dark side of the Force. And the NT constantly foreshadows what inevitably will happen in episode 3.
I think you are too caught up in the fact that the NT is not made the same way the OT is. It's not supposed to! The NT is telling a completely different story on a completely different level.
There was a discussion about Star Wars the other day, and amidst all the +5 insightful "SW used to rock, but now it sucks" comments, I found this gem, where the poster explains how things fit together, and why it's done this way. It makes a lot of sense!
The OT could be watched separately, but the NT is a real trilogy, where you won't get the whole picture, or indeed appreciate it all, until you actually see all the movies.
Presumably :)
Minimo is trying to hype itself as the best mobile browser, but it's bloated and slow, and lacks things that Opera has been doing for years. Opera is way ahead of Minimo, both in performance and features.
I don't think it's accurate to say that "Opera's got competition". Opera is just getting started.
So yeah, I remember when Google focused on their search engine. My short term memory isn't that bad.
I guess your short term memory is terrible, then?
You may like Opera's built in e-mail client "M2", then. Gmail was actually modeled after the way M2 works. Gmail is kind of the web equivalent of M2 in a way.
Or maybe I should ask you: Why does it matter if I stab you to death?
No, it would be better to not rob you in the first place! Why? He has proven to be an incompetent liar who uses his power to force his religion on everyone else. So what makes the alternatives so much worse? There was nothing emotional about the statement. It was truthful and honest. And Bush has tried to do a decent job before, and failed. Every single company he has run has gone to hell. What on earth are you on about? Where does he say that Bush sucks? And are you going to respond to the statements like I asked if you could do in my previous post? And are you going to tell me if you think Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, and if you still think he had WMD?Or are you going to continue being defensive and be unable to stand any criticism against Bush, dismissing it as "Bush bashing"?
BTW, are you a true Republican? If so, why do you support a guy whose actions are so anti-Republican? Remember, Republicans used to be about less interference from the Government, but these days Bush wants laws for this and that, dictated by a religious doctrine.
You can dislike criticism of Bush as much as you like, but the simple fact remains that he has fucked up a lot of things, and he is now in a position where he can actually fuck up the whole planet.
Since you are so damn confident in Bush's abilities, why don't you point out exactly which of these statements aren't true?
You can't, can you? All you can manage to do when someone criticizes Bush is to either get all defensive about it, or going on about how poor, innocent Shrub is being picked on all the time. Frankly, that doesn't surprise me, considering that you were brainwashed enough to vote for him in the first place.
You probably still believe that Saddamn had something to do with 9-11, and that he really had WMD! Am I not right?
Tinfoil hat off, please.
There's no need for Google to change, since they have clearly labelled the sponsored results as such.
Ok, thanks for the info :) It is not an ideal solution, but if the registrars of the world are fine with it, who am I to complain ;)
"It is exactly that attitude that has allowed the status quo to remain largely unchanged, despite the fact that humanity has had the resources and technical knowhow to end all poverty since about the 17th century."
So what happens when someone has a lot of debt, and loses his job because Microsoft bankrupted the company he worked for by illegal means? Uh, if he would only play nice, that would at least be a start! But the money he's giving away now is pocket change to him, and a result of his illegal business practices.Please note: I am not saying that Mozilla is evil or anything like that. I am just concerned about some signals I am picking up, and I wish you would be more open about things like corporate sponsorship, and the fact that Firefox's development isn't really community-driven, as people are led to believe.
Mozilla has a public image as being the little David fighting Goliath (Microsoft), but the fact is that Mozilla is run by professionals, with paid and professional staff. And backing Mozilla is a list of huge corporations, such as Sun, IBM, Google and Nokia. There is a community, but you can find that for commercial software as well.
I think the public image of Mozilla is somewhat misleading. To a lot of people it's about "the nice Mozilla foundation", but you do real business, and you have been known to resort to saying things that are untrue. Example: A Minimo developer in an interview started talking about Opera, and how Opera wasn't as portable as Minimo. Now, Opera is already available for lots of mobile operating systems, while Minimo is only available for Linux. Also, the guy had no way of really knowing, as I doubt he had actually seen Opera's source code.
Also, with the recent IDN spoofing issue, Mozilla rushed out a bad hack which was supposed to be a fix, apparently just to make some nice headline in the press. And it got flamed by the rest of the world.
These kinds of questionable actions are quite different from the impression most people seem to have - that Mozilla is a non-protif organization that doesn't resort to dirty business practices.
But Mozilla does seem rather commercialized, doesn't it?
(a) contributions of significant amounts of resources from providers who do not expect proportionate return, (b) operating purposes other than to provide goods or services at a profit, and (c) absence of ownership interests like those of business enterprises.
Now, clearly, Mozilla has paid employees. It is also heavily involved in business deals, such as the one with Google. It also protects its trademarks vigorously, and so on.What is it that makes Mozilla a real non-profit organization? I'm really wondering, because it seems that it is backed by quite a few major corporations, and those are clearly profiting from this. Can a non-profit really do business deals?
The actual search results are not affected by who paid for what.
Wouldn't it be cool if Google took KHTML and released a Windows browser based on Konqueror's engine? It is sorely needed.