What is your point? Should everyone shut up about unfair laws on Slashdot just because you don't like what they have to say?
Everyone else's point is that the law is unfair, and they are expressing their opinion on it. Punishing people for the crimes of others is unfair, full stop. Outlawing mod chips is nothing but bending over to an industry whose sole purpose is to screw over customers.
Don't try to reflect your own bad morals upon other people. Just because you are a morally crippled individual doesn't mean that everyone else is.
Outlawing a tool because it can be used for bad things is stupid. Hand guns are always used to kill people. Why are they not illegal in the US? What other purpose is there in having a hand gun, other than shooting people?
"Ted Bundy publicly stated that he started his warped thinking with reading soft-porn detective novels. He then got into the girlie magazines, and eventually started reading S&M and got into violent sex videos. Once he got that taste, it didn't stop. He assulted many women and eventually started brutally killing them."
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen! Detective novels create serial killers!
"ANY pornography changes the way one thinks, whether you start looking at women in a different view, or you start to look to different ways to "satisfy" your sexual urges, it still has a profound impact on your reasoning."
Sorry, but you are obviously a religious nut. As such, you have no rational arguments and must resort to the knee-jerk responses like "porn corrupts" and similar.
You cannot be reasoned with, so I'm not even going to try.
"The major difference seems to be that in the case of child porn, the pictures are a large factor in the abuse happening in the first case."
Can you show me any specific cases where this is true?
Thanks for the knee-jerk reaction to my perfectly valid questions. Of course, you probably think that porn showing consenting adults automatically leads to rape.
This makes one wonder... You'll never prevent people who want to download child porn from finding it.
But why is child porn illegal in the first place? Does a picture hurt the victim of child abuse? Isn't child porn simply evidence that child abuse took place? The same way a security camera can show a murder or robbery?
What if possession of child porn was legal? Wouldn't this mean that there would be more eyes to recognize people or locations? And that again might lead to the capture of a child molester. Right?
What hurts the child is the abuse in itself. Some weirdo getting off by looking at child porn doesn't hurt anyone does he? So why is child porn illegal?
It is not illegal to possess pictures of a murder or murder scene, is it? So how is child porn any different from that?
"can't figure out how to follow their procedure for removing old posts?"
Nice theory, but I have tried to get newsgroups postings made with an address I no longer have access to removed. They never even reply when I ask them to remove things manually.
The automatic tool is nice, but I may not be able to use it, and I may have perfectly legit reasons to remove it. Why won't they even respond when I contact them?
"Mozilla isn't 100% compliant with CSS 3 (a holy grail W3C standard, no less!)"
CSS3 is not an official recommendation yet, just a candidate.
Obviously Mozilla, Opera and other standards compliant browsers aren't 100% bug free, but that cannot even be compared to IE. IE can't even get basic stuff right. Not to mention all the non-standard extensions in IE.
That Mozilla isn't 100% standards compliant is just a strawman argument, and cannot defend the fact that IE doesn't even get the basic stuff right.
There's a difference with a good implementation with a few bugs and an implementation which is flawed from the ground up.
Get off your high horse, IE lover. Just because it is cool to defend IE against perfectly valid criticism these days, that doesn't mean that most of the arguments IE apologists use to justify IE's serious flaws are nonsense.
Check out Google Watch Watch before believing anything Google Watch has to say. GW was started because the owner of the site disagreed with his site's pagerank. His obscure page about Donald Rumsfeld got a low PR, and he made a big deal out of it. Obviously, since it didn't give him the #1 spot, it's Google which is at fault, right?
Daniel Brandt (GW owner) has no credibility what so ever when it comes to Google. His site contanins several blatant lies about Google which I have pointed out in earlier Slashdot discussions. The purpose of the site is a personal vendetta against Google for not giving his useless and paranoid page a higher PR.
Watching big and powerful companies is a good thing. Spreading lies about them because you disagree with them is pathetic at best.
So no, I don't think Google Watch should be mentioned, as it is not a serious site. It is a pure joke, and the man who created it is a pathetic liar with a personal agenda.
"Well care to show some examples of where Firefox doesn't work and Opera does??"
The menus on Starbucks.com doesn't work in Firefox. But what difference does it make? I don't keep track of pages like these. I use Opera most of the time anyway.
"And please no more whining about poor coding of web pages."
If anyone is whining here it's you. I have simply shown you that claiming that Opera has poor JS support is a load of rubbish.
I have shown you that most sites that don't work in Opera do so because they use browser sniffing and send Opera code which doesn't work properly - in any browser. But Opera is the only browser which gets it.
It is not about poor coding, it is about sites specifically blocking Opera.
"If you need to use a different browser to access the site, then Opera will essentially counting ZERO. So why not have a black list and spoof these sites if you are only going to have to use another browser anyway?"
Because people using Opera will visit the site and attempt to use it even if it doesn't work.
"Since I have to fire up firefox to do my banking, and read my Gmail, or get accurate results at other sites (for the record I sent email to all the webmasters originally to no avail), I am starting to think why not just use Firefox full time."
You'll have the same problems with compatibility in Firefox. Maybe not on the same sites, but it is a problem when you use Firefox.
"To think the world is going to change to accomodate a browser with ~1% market share is losing touch with the reality of things."
I don't think the world is going to change, but the only way to fix this problem is to make webmasters get a clue and stop blocking non-IE browsers.
"I think I will have much better luck getting fast caching in Firefox (the final missing piece) than compatability with Opera."
Opera is plenty compatible. As I said, it is not a problem with Opera's JavaScript implementation, but with sites blocking Opera.
"When new browsers like Firefox are much more compatible in Beta than mature Opera is."
I don't find this to be the case. Opera generally works with more sites than Firefox for my use. I don't see the point in making sweeping remarks about the compatibility of any of these, really. So claiming that "Firefox is more compatible than Opera" might be true for you, but not for everyone. For me, it is the opposite.
Oh, and Firefox uses Gecko, which has been out as stable releases for a long time.
In any case, the bottom line is that Opera's support for JavaScript is just fine, and that old myths need to die now.
"Philosophically I have to wonder why you need to identify something intended to be compatible?"
Bugs in browsers may cause problems that you want to work around. Different browsers may have different features/capabilities. You want to customize your site for different browsers. And so on.
"And there are technical options."
And most of them are just "hacks" or temporary solutions. Nex time the site is updated you might have to deal with it again, and by then, lots of people will have outdated info.
The real solution is to make these ignorant/incompetent webmasters fix their site once and for all.
"It is not like they are recording opera usage"
You would be surprised as to how many webmasters have said that they know about Opera but can't be bothered to support it (even if "support" means removing stupid browser sniffing scripts) because it makes up less than five per cent of their visitors.
So yeah, completely hiding Opera would hurt it and its users because the site would seemingly get no traffic what so ever from Opera users.
"Shouting that the world needs to change is not helping the market share."
The point here is that it is not Opera which is at fault, and the myth that Opera's JavaScript support is bad should have been dead ages ago.
"if Opera's only answer to broken pages is to suggest I fight to have them changed"
If the problem is caused by a bug in Opera, they'll fix it.
But if the page doesn't work because the site uses browser sniffing and sends Opera broken code there's nothing Opera can do about it apart from trying to get the site to fix its crappy code.
The bottom line is, Opera's JS support is more than good enough. Most sites that don't work use browser detection either with JS or server-side. MSNBC.com uses server side sniffing to send Opera a broken page. It did a few weeks ago at least. Just compare the source in Opera and other browsers and see for yourself.
"Nothing malicious from what I can tell, which almost seems to be what you are saying. It is not like they are serving broken code to Opera on purpose. I think only microsoft did that.:-)"
Well it does send broken code to Opera after detecting it. It is most likely incompetence, but in any case, it is not Opera's fault and not a weakness in Opera's JavaScript implementation. That was kind of my point.
"So why don't the Opera folks do real spoofing, that would seem to be a tenable solution."
Yeah, I'm sure webmasters who actually try to support Opera would be thrilled about that! Suddenly it would be impossible to detect if you are using Opera and not only that, Opera would suddenly vanish from all web logs and all browser statistics sites would report that Opera has 0% of the market. So even if Opera's market share did go up, it wouldn't show anywhere and webmasters would just go "why should we support a browser 0% uses?"
Yeah sure, a great solution indeed...
No, but seriously. That is the wrong approach. There are actually valid reasons for browser sniffing although it's been abused so far. This is not Opera's fault, and such sites needs to be fixed. Like Mozilla has evangelism, so does Opera. You can contact a page which is not working and ask them to support Opera or you can post in the Opera forums about it and get people to contact it too, or maybe someone from Opera steps in.
You can already get real spoofing by using the Proxomitron or other proxy filters. No need to wait for Opera to do it and destroy its own market.
"I had heard before that Opera had good standard Javascript, but MS had extended it for their own use."
That is correct, but Opera actually supports a number of IE-extensions to both DOM and JS, such as document.all.
"I have to wonder why all these sites crap on Opera but work with FF/Moz. Should they have the same issues as Opera with compatability?"
Which ones?
What I frequently see is that MSIE gest one page, Firefox gets another, and Opera a third, broken one. Even more common is probably scripts detecting Opera and sending it broken stuff, probably because they don't think Opera 7 can handle DOM. In these cases, simply preventing the page from detecting Opera will make it work, as if by magic.
On the other hand, Firefox has problems with lots of sites too, so it is definitely not exclusive to Opera.
"Now try to select the make of the car. Works in FF, doesn't work in Opera. Why?? I really doubt it is sending specific code to Opera at this point. It appears that again Opera just can't handle some JS or something. This happens too often. If FF can handle this why can't Opera?"
Actually, it is a matter of the page detecting Opera and sending broken code to it. View the source and notice how it looks for Opera? See the lines containing "agt.indexOf("opera")"? Cloak Opera as Firefoz, and it appears to works fine.
"Opera is best browser by far if you ignore the fact that it is the least compatible on the market."
I'm not so sure about that. There are plenty of sites that don't work in Firefox. Safari is even less compatible. And as demonstrated, most sites that don't work in Opera are not because of problems in Opera, but because the site sends broken code specifically to Opera.
"Actually, Netscape did this ages ago (at least as early as 95 or 96)."
Incorrect. I used Netscape until the late nineties, and it did not have tabs. Opera had MDI before anyone else (without tabs). Netcaptor was the first one with actual tabs, mind you. Opera introduced tabs in "mainstream" browsers, and others quickly followed.
Window home pages were dropped in Opera 7, IIRC. It was a confusing concept where you could define a homepage for each open window, and it would return to a different site depending on where you clicked "Home".
But ultimately, it was just confusing, and you can do better with bookmarks/nicknames, notes or sessions.
If you are thinking of some pages not working, then Firefox has the exact same problem, and it is usually caused by browser sniffing, not by JS problems in Opera.
Could you give me some specific examples where Opera "is a bit flaky on javascript"?
"Another thing I love about Opera is when you submit a form of some kind (like on my bank), you can go back and look at the previous page without any worries-- or what I often do is while I'm filling out the form go back and look at the previous page, then go forward and keep filling out the form without losing any data."
Actually, this is considered to be a "security flaw" by some banks. These fools block Opera because you can go back and get the previous page. They refuse to unblock it until it has been thoroughly crippled.
"Mainly because of Operas poor javascript implementation.
I can't read my Gmail with Opera, My online banking doesnt' work with Opera.
The "poor JavaScript implementation" in Opera is a myth. It dates back to when Opera didn't have proper DOM2 support, and didn't support dynamic reflow.
Opera 7 handles dynamic content beautifully, though. If your online banking doesn't work, it is either blocking Opera completely, or it is probably using some outdated script which detects Opera and sends it broken code. This has got nothing to do with Opera's JS implementation, but with browser sniffing and sending crappy code to Opera, which is not Opera's fault at all.
As for Gmail, what does that have to do with JavaScript? Gmail blocks Opera doesn't it? There has been some talk about XMLHttpRequest, but that's hardly JavaScript. More like some non-standard DOM extension.
So your comment about "Opera's poor JavaScript implementation" is wrong. It has an excellent JS implementation. The problem is usually browser sniffing. You wouldn't believe how many sites detect Opera and send it broken code.
Opera 7.5 is far less cluttered than 7.23. And the address bar is supposed to be at the top, thank you very much. And you don't need that extra toolbar. Use the address bar for buttons instead.
Sounds to me like your setup is more cluttered than the default one in 7.5:)
Slashdot Mirror
It beats ATI at Doom 3 because it's been optimized for the game. How do they compare when you use other games for benchmarking? Half-Life 2?
Everyone else's point is that the law is unfair, and they are expressing their opinion on it. Punishing people for the crimes of others is unfair, full stop. Outlawing mod chips is nothing but bending over to an industry whose sole purpose is to screw over customers.
Don't try to reflect your own bad morals upon other people. Just because you are a morally crippled individual doesn't mean that everyone else is.
Outlawing a tool because it can be used for bad things is stupid. Hand guns are always used to kill people. Why are they not illegal in the US? What other purpose is there in having a hand gun, other than shooting people?
Time to wake up and smell reality, crippled one.
You cannot be reasoned with, so I'm not even going to try.
Thanks for the knee-jerk reaction to my perfectly valid questions. Of course, you probably think that porn showing consenting adults automatically leads to rape.
But why is child porn illegal in the first place? Does a picture hurt the victim of child abuse? Isn't child porn simply evidence that child abuse took place? The same way a security camera can show a murder or robbery?
What if possession of child porn was legal? Wouldn't this mean that there would be more eyes to recognize people or locations? And that again might lead to the capture of a child molester. Right?
What hurts the child is the abuse in itself. Some weirdo getting off by looking at child porn doesn't hurt anyone does he? So why is child porn illegal?
It is not illegal to possess pictures of a murder or murder scene, is it? So how is child porn any different from that?
Isn't murder a worse crime than rape anyway?
Gartner? The Microsoft sponsored "analysts"? Bwahah..
The automatic tool is nice, but I may not be able to use it, and I may have perfectly legit reasons to remove it. Why won't they even respond when I contact them?
Obviously Mozilla, Opera and other standards compliant browsers aren't 100% bug free, but that cannot even be compared to IE. IE can't even get basic stuff right. Not to mention all the non-standard extensions in IE.
That Mozilla isn't 100% standards compliant is just a strawman argument, and cannot defend the fact that IE doesn't even get the basic stuff right.
There's a difference with a good implementation with a few bugs and an implementation which is flawed from the ground up.
Get off your high horse, IE lover. Just because it is cool to defend IE against perfectly valid criticism these days, that doesn't mean that most of the arguments IE apologists use to justify IE's serious flaws are nonsense.
Orkut is not an official Google service. It was created by one guy who works at Google.
Check out Google Watch Watch before believing anything Google Watch has to say. GW was started because the owner of the site disagreed with his site's pagerank. His obscure page about Donald Rumsfeld got a low PR, and he made a big deal out of it. Obviously, since it didn't give him the #1 spot, it's Google which is at fault, right?
Daniel Brandt (GW owner) has no credibility what so ever when it comes to Google. His site contanins several blatant lies about Google which I have pointed out in earlier Slashdot discussions. The purpose of the site is a personal vendetta against Google for not giving his useless and paranoid page a higher PR.
Watching big and powerful companies is a good thing. Spreading lies about them because you disagree with them is pathetic at best.
So no, I don't think Google Watch should be mentioned, as it is not a serious site. It is a pure joke, and the man who created it is a pathetic liar with a personal agenda.
I have shown you that most sites that don't work in Opera do so because they use browser sniffing and send Opera code which doesn't work properly - in any browser. But Opera is the only browser which gets it.
It is not about poor coding, it is about sites specifically blocking Opera.
Oh, and Firefox uses Gecko, which has been out as stable releases for a long time.
In any case, the bottom line is that Opera's support for JavaScript is just fine, and that old myths need to die now.
The real solution is to make these ignorant/incompetent webmasters fix their site once and for all.
You would be surprised as to how many webmasters have said that they know about Opera but can't be bothered to support it (even if "support" means removing stupid browser sniffing scripts) because it makes up less than five per cent of their visitors.So yeah, completely hiding Opera would hurt it and its users because the site would seemingly get no traffic what so ever from Opera users.
The point here is that it is not Opera which is at fault, and the myth that Opera's JavaScript support is bad should have been dead ages ago. If the problem is caused by a bug in Opera, they'll fix it.But if the page doesn't work because the site uses browser sniffing and sends Opera broken code there's nothing Opera can do about it apart from trying to get the site to fix its crappy code.
The bottom line is, Opera's JS support is more than good enough. Most sites that don't work use browser detection either with JS or server-side. MSNBC.com uses server side sniffing to send Opera a broken page. It did a few weeks ago at least. Just compare the source in Opera and other browsers and see for yourself.
Yeah sure, a great solution indeed...
No, but seriously. That is the wrong approach. There are actually valid reasons for browser sniffing although it's been abused so far. This is not Opera's fault, and such sites needs to be fixed. Like Mozilla has evangelism, so does Opera. You can contact a page which is not working and ask them to support Opera or you can post in the Opera forums about it and get people to contact it too, or maybe someone from Opera steps in.
You can already get real spoofing by using the Proxomitron or other proxy filters. No need to wait for Opera to do it and destroy its own market.
What I frequently see is that MSIE gest one page, Firefox gets another, and Opera a third, broken one. Even more common is probably scripts detecting Opera and sending it broken stuff, probably because they don't think Opera 7 can handle DOM. In these cases, simply preventing the page from detecting Opera will make it work, as if by magic.
On the other hand, Firefox has problems with lots of sites too, so it is definitely not exclusive to Opera.
Actually, it is a matter of the page detecting Opera and sending broken code to it. View the source and notice how it looks for Opera? See the lines containing "agt.indexOf("opera")"? Cloak Opera as Firefoz, and it appears to works fine. I'm not so sure about that. There are plenty of sites that don't work in Firefox. Safari is even less compatible. And as demonstrated, most sites that don't work in Opera are not because of problems in Opera, but because the site sends broken code specifically to Opera.But ultimately, it was just confusing, and you can do better with bookmarks/nicknames, notes or sessions.
If you are thinking of some pages not working, then Firefox has the exact same problem, and it is usually caused by browser sniffing, not by JS problems in Opera.
Could you give me some specific examples where Opera "is a bit flaky on javascript"?
Opera 7 handles dynamic content beautifully, though. If your online banking doesn't work, it is either blocking Opera completely, or it is probably using some outdated script which detects Opera and sends it broken code. This has got nothing to do with Opera's JS implementation, but with browser sniffing and sending crappy code to Opera, which is not Opera's fault at all.
As for Gmail, what does that have to do with JavaScript? Gmail blocks Opera doesn't it? There has been some talk about XMLHttpRequest, but that's hardly JavaScript. More like some non-standard DOM extension.
So your comment about "Opera's poor JavaScript implementation" is wrong. It has an excellent JS implementation. The problem is usually browser sniffing. You wouldn't believe how many sites detect Opera and send it broken code.
Sounds to me like your setup is more cluttered than the default one in 7.5 :)