To me, the argument has nothing at all to do with metaphysics; it's about knowledge, and the semantics of the argument are weak and kind of obvious. The "internalism versus externalism" debate from centuries of epistemological thought is probably wiser (as in wisdom of crowds) than a faddish notion posed by contemporary Euro-math-geek-elites.
I can accept the semantic difference between principles and observations, and I really don't understand why some people can't. This argument belongs to the same family of paradoxes like "proof of Divine existence," or "whether information can be destroyed." Arguing about the root of knowledge is like shouting to make the wind stop. It might be fun for some, but it just doesn't make sense.
I don't understand why it's hard to accept that certain points of knowledge are a priori factual, and others need to be supported by other facts. However, I can understand why some people could be anxious to discover (or invent) an ideological foothold that would allow for the irrelevancy of absolutes. To me, the "discovered or invented" argument resembles reconstructionist attempts to Inject connotations where none previously existed. The arrogance with which these reconstructionists would dispute their own contradictions makes me completely nauseous.
Yes, but the lack of perceived business maturity in open source communities gives many CIO organizations plenty of reason for pause. Just read some of the stuff in this thread for proof of that. The deal-breaker issues with FOSS, however, are really the same as for commercial-proprietary software:
* Chain of continuous support * Legal indemnification * Quality assurance
Most open-sourced projects don't care about supporting a release from three years ago--their position is that users should upgrade to the latest stable version. IT shops with reputations for being late adopters would crumble under the weight of this type of support cycle. It's easy to see a big opportunity for software consultants to step in and fill the void, but that will inevitably add to the cost of open source. I'm betting that in the next decade, the winner between open source and commercial software will be the one that solves the support issue in the most business-friendly manner.
My position on licensing complexity in open-sourced projects is the problem of legal indemnification. Acme, Inc. doesn't want to sue the Apache Foundation if all of their httpd processes suddenly launch SkyNet, but Acme, Inc. doesn't want to get sued, either. if the open-source adopters can't be reasonably indemnified, then quality and support issues will be moot.
A few months ago, my company hired a manager whose chief responsibility was to provide a liaison between the project management staff and the development teams. He also asked without prompting to make some contributions to coding standards and reviews. Because we had the need and desire to establish better processes, our VP readily agreed.
I interviewed this guy before we hired him. My only feedback: "Good management knowledge, but technical background is inconsistent." I gave him a thumbs-up, because I liked his approach to the business of producing software. Admittedly, though, there were many instances during the interview where his answer to a purely technical question made me cringe. A couple of quick examples:
Q: What's your preferred method of source control? A: "Well, Visual Source Safe is the best out there right now."
Q: How would you address code readability and code quality issues? A: "I like Hungarian Notation. Also, it's important that everybody use spaces instead of tabs."
I should probably point out that I don't work at Microsoft, and these answers were given in March of this year. Admittedly, both of his answers were based upon preference and experience, and I simply didn't like his taste. So I notified my boss of my objections and went on with life. And wouldn't you know, it wasn't long before his taste had become the law of the land, and it took months from real development to undo his bad input.
Here's the thing: I like working in a place where technical considerations always, ALWAYS win out over personal preference. Where this is the rule, there's no need to waste time quibbling over office politics. However, once you've introduced a manager into the organization that enjoys occasionally dabbling in the technical areas of software development, you've placed a political pandora's box right in the middle of the office.
In my situation, it will probably result in my self-enforced relocation to a new job. I'm too conceited and idealistic to work for a place that doesn't completely sell out on creating a winning development culture.
I think one of the reasons that most of us hate patent law generally is because when we take abstract mathematical concepts and prove them with specific applications, it's hard to conscionably assign ownership and dollar amounts to them. While it's probably fair to call Burst's labors "IP," Apple's attorneys are disputing this claim, and the court will have to make a ruling.
If I had to choose sides, I hope Burst wins -- their tech is cool, and they worked hard for it. Having said that, I wonder if this is a case of "too many geeks and not enough salesmen." I believe any reasonable company will license proprietary technology on the front-side of project if the proprietor appropriately clarifies the ground rules. It seems suspicious that Apple could distribute so much Burst-enabled tech without some sort of compensation agreement, and I think that a company like Apple would rather pay for tech than steal it, whether Burst has three employees or three thousand.
My mother can install memory, for crying out loud.
Yes, and I hope your mother likes your block-shaped head.
Here, maybe we can overcome your infirmity together. (Graciously extends hand...)
I bought my 14" iBook G4 two years ago. By the time I had received it, Apple announced a new model that replaced the one I had ordered. The 1.0 Ghz iBook model was bumped up to a 1.33 Ghz, and the newer model came with a SuperDrive instead of an optical combo drive. When I removed my laptop from its package and turned it on, it was DOA (which means "Dead on Arrival").
Wait, what's that? Why was it DOA? Oh, well, it was because the RAM wasn't seated correctly.
Now, pay attention, your Geekiness, because this next part's important: Normally, a misaligned RAM card won't cause a boot failure in an iBook G4.
Of course, you knew that, right? Because after all, you're the Original Geekster! With a Block-Shaped-Head! The iBook series, as you know, has 256 MB on-board RAM and one PC2100 slot. In the case of the 14" iBook G4 (early 2004), this slot could take up to a 512 MB chip, for a total of 768 MB. This was my BTO configuration. What should have happened is that the system should have booted just fine with the onboard RAM, but the PC2100 RAM shouldn't have been recognized. What did happen was that when I took the computer out of its box and turned it on, it didn't boot at all.
That's called DOA, and it means, "Dead on Arrival." As in, "no workee." Are you with me so far?
Now I've got my DOA laptop in my hands. I've got two choices:
1. Flip out the keyboard and loosen the retaining screw, then reseat the memory, hoping that the DOA condition wasn't some anomalous issue resulting in a logic board replacement.
2. Take it two miles to my local Apple Store and make sure it's not some anomalous issue resulting in a logic board replacement.
Since I pale in comparison to your legendary Nerdiness, I chose the option that only occurs to regular people--I took it in.
Thanks to the conditions of Apple's warranty and the fact that I'm a really, really good customer, I got to take advantage of a little speed bump and a SuperDrive. So, you know, Bonus for me. And my replacement laptop could upgrade to 1.25 MB of RAM instead of a paltry 768 MB, which I chose to do.
Oh, yeah, I forgot. I have a question for you -- how did I know that the RAM wasn't seated correctly? Hmmmm, that's a hard question for all, but you can flip out and like, totally answer it. And hey, good news! I just thought up another clever nickname for you! When you enter my realm henceforth, you shall be UberGeekster of the Cubed Skull!
If you don't know how to seat RAM properly you really don't belong on Slashdot.
Groan. Not funny. Here, this one's a lot better: if you insult people for taking advantage of warrantied service, you really don't belong in the free marketplace.
And hey, while we're being pals, swapping jokes and all, I'd like to give you a free clue stick so that you can whack your brain with it. If I hadn't taken my brand new $2500 laptop in for service because it was, you know, broken, I probably wouldn't have gotten it upgraded, would I? I always kinda thought that whole DOA clause in the warranty made a pretty good case for how I managed to get the laptop replaced with the newer model. Or did you bother reading my whole post before you flamed out?
Actually come to think of it, you're probably right -- I don't belong on Slashdot. Too many asshats to suit me.
Well, they prove to me that you don't care whether you're right or not.
Dell offers Dial-A-Geek phone support for the life of the warranty. Says so in the link. Gateway does not mention it -- and guess what, they don't offer Dial-A-Geek at all, unless you pay for it. Neither does IBM, which I believe was the other manufacturer you mentioned. You want to prove me wrong? Send me a link or stop baiting. Posting unsubstantiated claims is bad geek behavior. You said that Dell, Gateway, and IBM offer Dial-A-Geek support for one full year. That's not true. As in false. Stop saying "because I said so," and add some interesting content to the discussion that doesn't start with Thee or Me.
Apple customers get complimentary phone support from Apple for 90 days for all hardware. One exception is the iPod product line, which has single-incident phone support.
And, if you're really that paranoid about needing a human voice for the life of your warranty, drop two bills and buy some AppleCare.
On loyalty to the Apple brand, your response puts me in mind of an old MacAddict T-shirt that says, "It's a Mac thing -- you wouldn't understand." I think that's where this discussion has found its end.
Well, Dell, Gateway, and IBM certaintly do [have Dial-A-Geek tech support for the life of the warranty].
Prove it. Just about any one of the major vendors will have a 90-day, 1-year, 2-year, 3-year, and 4-year warranty. There are a number of quid pro quo issues with warranty information, and if you're concerned about fairness, then let's be fair. Actually, you smell like trollbait to me, but anyway...
Dell's one-year limited warranty. Here's how you can contact Gateway with your Technical Support issue. Notice the convenient link for upgrading your warranty. Wonder where it goes...DOH!
Here's the Gateway 1-year limited warranty (pdf).
And, for the record, here's Apple's one-year limited warranty.
Just compare and contrast the three warranties for a moment. They're mostly just legalese, but as far as legal documents go, I like something Apple's warranty lists in the first paragraph:
If a hardware defect arises and a valid claim is received within the Warranty Period, at its option, Apple will either:
(1) repair the hardware defect at no charge, using new or refurbished replacement parts, or
(2) exchange the product with a product that is new or which has been manufactured from new or serviceable used parts and is at least functionally equivalent to the original product, or
(3) refund the purchase price of the product.
Nice and easy. And not all that hard to read, considering it's legal information. By the way, I'm not going to waste my time surfing the horrid IBM website to pull up warranty information. Suffice to say that you ain't gonna get one year of free Dial-A-Geek access just because you bought a ThinkPad. You want to study more truth, go here and find the relevant warranty.
Dude when is the last time you have delt (sic) with Apple? The way you claim to be treated has NEVER been a policy with apple (sic).
The last time I dealt with Apple was November 2005, when I went into an Apple Store in Chicago to get replacement feet for my 14" iBook. Like I mentioned before, I walked out with two sets of replacement feet (that's 8 feet), still in the ServiceSource packages. I paid zilch (that's $0.00). I didn't fill out any paperwork, and I didn't get a receipt. All I did was bring my laptop and my request. Walked out satisfied.
And you're probably right. "Policy" is a strong word -- it would suggest that everyone should expect to be treated the same way. I rather think of it as "courtesy." Maybe only those who give courtesy get it, I don't know. Maybe I'm lucky. Or witty, clever, and charming. Or not. All I know for sure is that anytime I've needed anything from Apple (and that's been quite a lot -- I've been an Apple customer since 1981), I always came away satisfied. Maybe it's because I'm knowledgeable enough to avoid buying crappy Performa stuff or consumer-branded (read: low-end) also-ran products. I buy best-of-breed, and I've always gotten a satisfactory return in Apple's support response and product quality. And I really don't think my anecdotal experience is in any way unique. You and that other fellow, however...
You must be a master of persuasion.
Well, thank you. I am also rather good-looking.
I personally know several authorised service providers and none of them would offer this level of service. They pay for these feet. And they are giving them to you for free? Did you even buy the laptop from them? If it was an apple store, do you see what is going on here?
Let's recap your little tirade, or as you put it: "Sample of Apple customer policies/problems I've run into".
* No phone support after 90 days.
So, you wanna give me an example of one of the Big Three that offers a dial-a-geek phone service STANDARD after 90 days? Dell? Nope. Gateway? Not a chance. HP/Compaq? Not even an 800 number.
* If you post into the web forums about a problem Apple doesn't like to "discuss", expect it to be silently removed.
Okay. Quack conspiracy theory. What web forums? Macintouch? MacAddict? apple.com?
* 14 days, blah, blah...
This one's not even true. I received my iBook G4, which I'm typing this to you on, via UPS Ground. Took two weeks. The day I got it, the RAM wasn't seated correctly. Took it to my local Apple Store. Fixed on the premises, no charge. While the genius was looking it over, he said, "Wow, this is a bummer. Do you know that the new model just came out?" No, I didn't. He notified the store manager, and I walked out with the new model. No Charge.
* A guy that works at an Apple Store was less than knowledgeable and rude to you.
Really?? Rude to YOU!?? Why would ANYBODY be a jerk and lie about something like wobbly screens? Maybe you should take an etiquette class, but I digress.
* No reserving a spot via the web for the 'genius bar' unless you're a ProCare customer. At the local Apple store, that typically means a 30+ minute wait, and there's nowhere to sit.
Dude, I've been to Apple Stores on the East Coast, West Coast, and the Midwest. I've never seen an Apple Store that didn't have somewhere to sit. Besides which, you're in a MALL!! Sign in and go shopping.
* Various parts are not "covered" by Apple. Duckbills, feet, yada, yada...
This is really getting old. I've gotten two sets of replacement feet for my iBook (you know, the one I'm typing this to you on), mostly because the one time that I lost a foot, I flipped out and wanted LOTS of spares. Went to an Apple Store in Chicago. Got two sets of replacement feet. Still in the ServiceSource parts bag. For free. No paperwork. Really. Look, by now, either you're really just trolling, or people really don't like you very much. My heart goes out to you.
* Parts are not available. You're very certain. And you're mad about it..
Are you just impaired? You can't get parts for a Macintosh from Best Buy, but you can probably develop a relationship with your local independent Apple dealer (not an Apple Store). He'll probably sell you anything you need. I don't know what parts you'd need to buy that you couldn't purchase from a legitimate service channel.
I think you really need a vacation. And an AppleCare warranty.
You seem like a reasonable person. Maybe you can comment on this hypothetical:
Jim (a "natural-born" American citizen), age 35, is a member of a secret organization called Ar Khalizad. It is well-known by the world intelligence community that Ar Khalizad is planning a bomb attack on Detroit during Super Bowl week.
Intelligence information obtained by the French government while spying on a Parisian terror cell indicates that Jim is the trigger-man for the terror event at the Super Bowl. Due to the abundance of intelligence, President Doe unilaterally authorizes a wire-tap of Jim's home phone, office phone, and wireless phone. As a result of clear and incriminating voice calls placed during the week of January 22, Jim is incarcerated by federal law enforcement under charges of espionage and treason.
Were Jim's Constitutional rights violated?
Could the President be impeached for taking improper action?
Does the President have the Constitutional authority to grant pardons for unlawful search and seizure to parties that may have broken Federal or local laws?
-----
Okay, so much for the hypothetical. By now, you're probably remembering why you never bothered to mail that law school application.
In case you are really wondering what the "Right answer" is, ask Judge Alito. I'm sure he'll give you a thoughtful and detailed explanation. And he probably won't even call you a homo-lovin' libertarian hippie fascist. At least not to your face.
And if that good man doesn't please your orgasmic sense of patriotism, ask Ginsberg. She will give a very accurate summation of where the Court stands on this issue. You will find that under the Executive orders clause of Article 2, and under the Commander-in-Chief clause, and under a dozen or so ruling precedents, the Court has found and maintained that a sitting President has the Constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence, especially during a time of war. So the real question, O Name-Caller, is do you believe A) that the "War on Terror" rises to the level of "Wartime", or B) that President Bush has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors and should be removed from office?
By the way, ad hominem attacks are easy, especially against the ignorant. Use your whole brain and solve the real problem. Or else, spare me your impressive dearth of Constitutional jurisprudence and go make a Ruby on Rails demo.
5 megabits up is enough to run a nice little web server so long as you don't get Slashdotted or DDOS'ed.
I've been using FiOS for several months now, and the only applications where I see a substantive difference over other broadband providers are when I'm transmitting data to/from a remote server that also has plenty of bandwidth.
I know of very few sites where I can pull data much faster than I did with cable, probably because of limitations on the server, not on FiOS. The "experience" of the internet is likely to only improve when both ends of the server/client connection are properly ready to handle more bandwidth. I'm afraid 15-30Mb connections will have to become ubiquitous before we see a substantial improvement in this regard.
And as to the hosting idea -- I think you may still need an asymmetric pipe. I uploaded some linux iso's to an off-site server last week. Each image is 500-600 MB. I could get really good transfer rates if I uploaded one image at a time, but by uploading all three of them in three separate FTP sessions reduced the transfer rate by a factor of three (in other words, they were sharing).
This won't matter for the web junky looking for a better user experience, and it probably won't matter for the geek who wants to host a weblog from his mom's basement. But the residential FiOS offering does not appear to be equipped to handle respectable amounts of upload traffic.
Note that Verizon's "business-grade" FiOS is available as a $50/mo upgrade. You can upgrade the connection speed and get up to 5 static IP's. Don't know all the details, but here is some more information.
Youre comment is about arrow splitters, REAL ARROW SPLITTERS. Youre comment is awesome. My name is Robert and I can't stop thinking about arrow splitters. You are cool, and by cool, I mean totally sweet.
Facts: 1. You are a mammal. 2. You split arrows ALL the time. 3. The purpose of arrow splitters like YOU is to flip out and kill people.
You can split any arrow you want! You split arrows ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. Arrow splitters like YOU are so crazy and awesome that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this arrow splitter who was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a match book the arrow splitter split the whole matches. My friend Mark said that he saw an arrow shooter totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window.
And that's what I call REAL ULTIMATE POWER!!
If you don't believe that arrow splitters like YOU have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or you will split your own arrows! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.
Arrow splitters like YOU are soooooooo sweet that I want to crap my pants. I can't believe it sometimes, but I feel it inside my heart. Arrow splitters like YOU are totally awesome, and that's a fact.
I hope you don't forget that soldiers are citizens, too. Perhaps where we differ is that I regard these young men and women as first-class citizens. I, on the other hand, who sit at home and freely criticize, am not. I regard their work as sacred. No kidding. I'm just a well-paid civilian programmer.
Please let me restate my premise -- freedom is borne of conflict. Freedom should ideally ennoble the Free to improve the state of humankind (feed the poor, etc), to protect the liberties which we have attained, and to seek freedom for others who are less free. All that "Preamble" stuff in the Constitution comes to mind.
I agree with you that no group of soldiers can prevent the "destruction of civil liberties" -- the purpose of soldiers is conquest, and using armies to prevent the surrendering of civil liberties would seem to contradict this outcome. I really don't see how "Democrat or Republican", or "Bush or Kennedy," or "Red or Blue" have anything relevant to present to the discourse.
Lay aside your presuppositions, and think about it logically: Richard Stallman is a soldier. He's just using tin foil instead of a gun and intellegence instead of ammo. His actions are every bit as patriotic as the 22-year-old father of four who spilled his guts on Omaha Beach. In fact, It's nice that so much sacrifice was paid through warfare that we could now wage war with such elegant and powerful weapons as symbols, words, and ideas. To disregard the former as criminal action while clinging dogmatically to the latter does something to cheapen the historical reality of the sacrifice.
And FWIW, I think I'll choose not to keep quiet when someone thinks they'd like to tread on the grave of a soldier.
Before you go flaming against patriots who care about the smallest freedoms, maybe you'd like to identify "we". You said "Westerners." Are you an Easterner? As in France? Greece? China? Maybe you're just trolling, Anonymous Coward. Or maybe you're actually that ignorant.
If "We" has been experiencing all the stuff that "We" said, how did "We" get onto Slashdot to complain about it? Why would "We" so passionately offer up "We"'s opinions into a public forum without showing respect to the soldiers' blood that bought the privilege?
Why not clear "We's" head from the cobwebs of all those anal probes and realize that every Free Person's freedom starts somewhere, and Stallman shows a highly idealized and ecclectic way of expressing it? Why is that not something worth celebrating, "We"?
All freedom is born of conflict, and Stallman's nonviolent middle-finger approach should be applauded. By the way, he's part of that "you in the West" group to which you so arrogantly refer. The removal of the smallest personal freedom leaves us all damaged, and free people have the responsibility of clinging to those freedoms. That's why "We in the west" don't have to go through all the vile crap that happened to your mom.
Stop being grumpy about your freedom. Go and enlist in the army. Fight against oppression. Or buy a roll of tin foil and wrap your brain in it. Or write a letter to the newspaper. Or join a democracy and vote. If "We" can post to an internet forum, "We" obviously has a measure of freedom, doesn't "We"?
Anyone can understand the outrage over the evils that "We" mentioned. But if "We" thinks that complaining about others' freedoms somehow rids the world of oppression, then "We" needs to spend some time worshipping on the shores of Normandy.
Re:Just use your Social Security number.
on
Too Many Passwords
·
· Score: 1
Just use your Social Security number. Good idea?
Well, considering that it's a NUMBER, and there are obvious and public rules that determine its composition, this is a very trivial brute-force crack waiting to happen.
The key reason why alphanumeric passwords are conventional (often a network password policy requires a certain combination of numbers and letters), aside from over-the-shoulder obfuscation, is that they are harder to crack with a dictionary or brute-force approach.
Most private investigators could tell you a person's social security number for a fee; in fact, many internet sites offer this same service.
In general, pairing obvious personal information with your identity/alias/etc is a bad, bad, bad idea. I remember from my technical support years, seeing passwords that were obviously bank card pin numbers, or SSN serials, or daughter's name. If your password stores more information than a keyed access to your private/proprietary systems, it's a bad password.
How you get so nerdy talking words of this kind? Very unfocused you have become. Lost the topic you have. Finish what you have started. Must complete the training!
Always remember, the rules of the Force. Mass times acceleration you must have. Returned, the Principia is. I'm very it was returned as well. Happy, yes, happy! Wooo-hoo-hoo-heheheh.
Rants against Netscape 4 tread well beyond the scope of CSS, but it's commonly known that any webpage that implements a fair amount of CSS1 will not be supported correctly on NN4. Better yet, if the webpage implements ANYTHING from CSS2, it's very likely that Netscape 4 won't support it. And there's much, MUCH more:
NN4 doesn't support <DIV>. It supports <LAYER> instead.
NN4 doesn't like inline styles.
NN4 doesn't fully support the height attribute (e.g., table cells).
NN4 doesn't allow onclick events on every object, such as <img> and <div> (or, layer, if we want to be technically correct).
NN4 uses its own Document Object Model, which results in very poor DOM Level 1 support, and virtually no support for Level 2.
NN4 supports the onunload event, but it does so quite unconventionally. This results in strange behavior when resizing a window: content unloads and refreshes, which is very undesirable for persistent objects, such as applets.
I guess that's a good stopping place. The list goes on, but I hope you see my point. In fact, the word "unconventional" suits NN4 quite well.
Web developers who are serious about dynamic or heavily stylized content will quickly realize that full NN4 support requires either an insane dedication to little hacks and gimmicks or a text-only version of their website. The way to present cross-platform, stylized content today is to use Shockwa^H^H^H^H^H^H^H a plugin.
The fact that 5th and 6th (and now 7th) generation browsers are 95-99% standards compliant means that bleeding-edge content will target newer browsers, and Netscape 4 will be left to rot. Five years is an insane lifespan for a browser, and if you remember correctly, Netscape 4 was just getting off the ground five years ago. Internet life moves at the speed of normal time ^2, so your five years is really like 25.
Maybe I live in a parallel universe, but in my reality, NN4 is already dead. Or, at least it has a really bad case of leprosy.
If you're arguing that no bank mergers occurred in the 1980's, history and I politely disagree with you.
I never said that banking deregulation or any other form of financial divestiture occured in the 80's. But the FACT, Sparky, is that all kinds of financial institutions went nuts with mergers and acquisitions, especially following the S&L scandals of the late 1980's.
I don't know if you're intending to troll, so do you have a point to make, or did you just want to raise my ire?
Hmmm, perhaps like China outlawed Google? Or perhaps like the way international law has begun affecting American trade?
Look, America isn't the center of the universe, but as it happens, it is the wall around the center of me. This causes the precedents set in the United States code to be quite relevant to my experience as a citizen of the Internet, if not my American status. That's the reason why I care if Chinese citizens can't certain websites, yet I've never even stepped on Chinese soil. If it makes you indifferent because you're not a United States citizen, then you miss two very relevant points:
1. It sets a precedent/standard for the international community.
2. I'm probably not going to move to Finland so I can have better internet access, and I'm sure many other Americans feel the same way.
Freedom is freedom whether it originates in the United States or in a small village in Tibet, and I'm quite certain that if you wish to ignore it or minimize it, I'm not interested in what you have to say.
I don't think that anything is beyond chance, and perhaps I mistakenly read a premise into the review that wasn't really there. However, if the book leaves the impression that the Internet is finally beyond the grasp of the media monoliths, I would have to strongly disagree.
1. M & A Still Lives.
In the 1970's, small, independent state banks dotted the landscape. You could drive any two miles of any commercial strip of any mid-American town, and you'd see no less that ten different independent banks. Then, in the 1980's, the winds of change began. Chase Manhattan became JP Morgan Chase. Citicorp merged with Travelers and became Citigroup. To me, the most interesting merger showed up on radar around 1983, when NCNB of North Carolina started buying banks in the southeastern United States before merging with C&S/Sovran to form NationsBank. Nations then played hardball and aquired Boatmen's, a leading Midwestern bank, and Barnett, the top bank in Florida.
Meanwhile, BankAmerica also grew through acquisitions, operating mainly in California until the early 1980s, when it purchased Seafirst, a Seattle-based bank that operated in the Northwest. In the late 1980s, BankAmerica began purchasing failed savings and loans, and following its acquisition of Security Pacific Corp. in 1992, the bank had a major presence in 10 states.
After merging with NationsBank, Bank of America became the world's largest bank.
This story is completely relevant, because that is exactly what will continue to happen in the internet community. The media moguls will continue to jockey over key internet properties, and the whittling down of diverse sub-groups will be the result. Even venerable Slashdot became the property of a parent group, OSDN (although I happen to think that's a good thing).
2. Taming the Whirlwind is the ultimate challenge.
Just like Pecos Bill rode the cyclone into submission, you can bet there are many young, fresh MBA-types who want to be "the one who changed everything." Eventually, inevitably, someone will come out with a stronger business model or a more aggressive acquisition plan. The power-gobblers will try again.
3. The Unification Siren
I'm a web programmer by trade, and I'll admit that I'm a big fan of standardization. At the top of my wishlist are things like, one better-than-http protocol, one standard reference implementation of CSS, DHTML, Javascript, blah, blah. However, I fear that soon after the standardization cycle matures, we will witness the ownership of key pieces of the public internet pass from the hands of many to the hands of a few.
I realize I'm being a tad alarmist, and there are measures that prevent this scenario. For one, the OSS community is flourishing, which is excellent. New, serious players are entering the Linux community every day, which is a good thing.
But the diversity of power on the internet is still threatened by certain influential groups, like the RIAA. Legislative authority over internet and digital property is beginning to emerge, and as the constant stream of attorneys makes its way down the niches carved by the internet of the '90's, EULAs will get more aggressive. Serious debate about digital intellectual property will ensue. The next decade could be a very litigious time in the internet world. It may be that the virtual gunslingers of that coming era will parallel those who calmed the Western American frontier. I just hope the good guys win.
Slashdot Mirror
To me, the argument has nothing at all to do with metaphysics; it's about knowledge, and the semantics of the argument are weak and kind of obvious. The "internalism versus externalism" debate from centuries of epistemological thought is probably wiser (as in wisdom of crowds) than a faddish notion posed by contemporary Euro-math-geek-elites.
I can accept the semantic difference between principles and observations, and I really don't understand why some people can't. This argument belongs to the same family of paradoxes like "proof of Divine existence," or "whether information can be destroyed." Arguing about the root of knowledge is like shouting to make the wind stop. It might be fun for some, but it just doesn't make sense.
I don't understand why it's hard to accept that certain points of knowledge are a priori factual, and others need to be supported by other facts. However, I can understand why some people could be anxious to discover (or invent) an ideological foothold that would allow for the irrelevancy of absolutes. To me, the "discovered or invented" argument resembles reconstructionist attempts to Inject connotations where none previously existed. The arrogance with which these reconstructionists would dispute their own contradictions makes me completely nauseous.
Yes, but the lack of perceived business maturity in open source communities gives many CIO organizations plenty of reason for pause. Just read some of the stuff in this thread for proof of that. The deal-breaker issues with FOSS, however, are really the same as for commercial-proprietary software:
* Chain of continuous support
* Legal indemnification
* Quality assurance
Most open-sourced projects don't care about supporting a release from three years ago--their position is that users should upgrade to the latest stable version. IT shops with reputations for being late adopters would crumble under the weight of this type of support cycle. It's easy to see a big opportunity for software consultants to step in and fill the void, but that will inevitably add to the cost of open source. I'm betting that in the next decade, the winner between open source and commercial software will be the one that solves the support issue in the most business-friendly manner.
My position on licensing complexity in open-sourced projects is the problem of legal indemnification. Acme, Inc. doesn't want to sue the Apache Foundation if all of their httpd processes suddenly launch SkyNet, but Acme, Inc. doesn't want to get sued, either. if the open-source adopters can't be reasonably indemnified, then quality and support issues will be moot.
A few months ago, my company hired a manager whose chief responsibility was to provide a liaison between the project management staff and the development teams. He also asked without prompting to make some contributions to coding standards and reviews. Because we had the need and desire to establish better processes, our VP readily agreed.
I interviewed this guy before we hired him. My only feedback: "Good management knowledge, but technical background is inconsistent." I gave him a thumbs-up, because I liked his approach to the business of producing software. Admittedly, though, there were many instances during the interview where his answer to a purely technical question made me cringe. A couple of quick examples:
Q: What's your preferred method of source control?
A: "Well, Visual Source Safe is the best out there right now."
Q: How would you address code readability and code quality issues?
A: "I like Hungarian Notation. Also, it's important that everybody use spaces instead of tabs."
I should probably point out that I don't work at Microsoft, and these answers were given in March of this year. Admittedly, both of his answers were based upon preference and experience, and I simply didn't like his taste. So I notified my boss of my objections and went on with life. And wouldn't you know, it wasn't long before his taste had become the law of the land, and it took months from real development to undo his bad input.
Here's the thing: I like working in a place where technical considerations always, ALWAYS win out over personal preference. Where this is the rule, there's no need to waste time quibbling over office politics. However, once you've introduced a manager into the organization that enjoys occasionally dabbling in the technical areas of software development, you've placed a political pandora's box right in the middle of the office.
In my situation, it will probably result in my self-enforced relocation to a new job. I'm too conceited and idealistic to work for a place that doesn't completely sell out on creating a winning development culture.
.WMP -- Because Microsoft thought it would be cool to have a file format named after Bill.
I think one of the reasons that most of us hate patent law generally is because when we take abstract mathematical concepts and prove them with specific applications, it's hard to conscionably assign ownership and dollar amounts to them. While it's probably fair to call Burst's labors "IP," Apple's attorneys are disputing this claim, and the court will have to make a ruling.
If I had to choose sides, I hope Burst wins -- their tech is cool, and they worked hard for it. Having said that, I wonder if this is a case of "too many geeks and not enough salesmen." I believe any reasonable company will license proprietary technology on the front-side of project if the proprietor appropriately clarifies the ground rules. It seems suspicious that Apple could distribute so much Burst-enabled tech without some sort of compensation agreement, and I think that a company like Apple would rather pay for tech than steal it, whether Burst has three employees or three thousand.
My mother can install memory, for crying out loud.
Yes, and I hope your mother likes your block-shaped head.
Here, maybe we can overcome your infirmity together. (Graciously extends hand...)
I bought my 14" iBook G4 two years ago. By the time I had received it, Apple announced a new model that replaced the one I had ordered. The 1.0 Ghz iBook model was bumped up to a 1.33 Ghz, and the newer model came with a SuperDrive instead of an optical combo drive. When I removed my laptop from its package and turned it on, it was DOA (which means "Dead on Arrival").
Wait, what's that? Why was it DOA? Oh, well, it was because the RAM wasn't seated correctly.
Now, pay attention, your Geekiness, because this next part's important: Normally, a misaligned RAM card won't cause a boot failure in an iBook G4.
Of course, you knew that, right? Because after all, you're the Original Geekster! With a Block-Shaped-Head! The iBook series, as you know, has 256 MB on-board RAM and one PC2100 slot. In the case of the 14" iBook G4 (early 2004), this slot could take up to a 512 MB chip, for a total of 768 MB. This was my BTO configuration. What should have happened is that the system should have booted just fine with the onboard RAM, but the PC2100 RAM shouldn't have been recognized. What did happen was that when I took the computer out of its box and turned it on, it didn't boot at all.
That's called DOA, and it means, "Dead on Arrival." As in, "no workee." Are you with me so far?
Now I've got my DOA laptop in my hands. I've got two choices:
1. Flip out the keyboard and loosen the retaining screw, then reseat the memory, hoping that the DOA condition wasn't some anomalous issue resulting in a logic board replacement.
2. Take it two miles to my local Apple Store and make sure it's not some anomalous issue resulting in a logic board replacement.
Since I pale in comparison to your legendary Nerdiness, I chose the option that only occurs to regular people--I took it in.
Thanks to the conditions of Apple's warranty and the fact that I'm a really, really good customer, I got to take advantage of a little speed bump and a SuperDrive. So, you know, Bonus for me. And my replacement laptop could upgrade to 1.25 MB of RAM instead of a paltry 768 MB, which I chose to do.
Oh, yeah, I forgot. I have a question for you -- how did I know that the RAM wasn't seated correctly? Hmmmm, that's a hard question for all, but you can flip out and like, totally answer it. And hey, good news! I just thought up another clever nickname for you! When you enter my realm henceforth, you shall be UberGeekster of the Cubed Skull!
Huzzah!
If you don't know how to seat RAM properly you really don't belong on Slashdot.
Groan. Not funny. Here, this one's a lot better: if you insult people for taking advantage of warrantied service, you really don't belong in the free marketplace.
And hey, while we're being pals, swapping jokes and all, I'd like to give you a free clue stick so that you can whack your brain with it. If I hadn't taken my brand new $2500 laptop in for service because it was, you know, broken, I probably wouldn't have gotten it upgraded, would I? I always kinda thought that whole DOA clause in the warranty made a pretty good case for how I managed to get the laptop replaced with the newer model. Or did you bother reading my whole post before you flamed out?
Actually come to think of it, you're probably right -- I don't belong on Slashdot. Too many asshats to suit me.
Your links prove nothing.
Well, they prove to me that you don't care whether you're right or not.
Dell offers Dial-A-Geek phone support for the life of the warranty. Says so in the link. Gateway does not mention it -- and guess what, they don't offer Dial-A-Geek at all, unless you pay for it. Neither does IBM, which I believe was the other manufacturer you mentioned. You want to prove me wrong? Send me a link or stop baiting. Posting unsubstantiated claims is bad geek behavior. You said that Dell, Gateway, and IBM offer Dial-A-Geek support for one full year. That's not true. As in false. Stop saying "because I said so," and add some interesting content to the discussion that doesn't start with Thee or Me.
Apple customers get complimentary phone support from Apple for 90 days for all hardware. One exception is the iPod product line, which has single-incident phone support.
And, if you're really that paranoid about needing a human voice for the life of your warranty, drop two bills and buy some AppleCare.
On loyalty to the Apple brand, your response puts me in mind of an old MacAddict T-shirt that says, "It's a Mac thing -- you wouldn't understand." I think that's where this discussion has found its end.
Later, d00d.
Well, Dell, Gateway, and IBM certaintly do [have Dial-A-Geek tech support for the life of the warranty].
Prove it. Just about any one of the major vendors will have a 90-day, 1-year, 2-year, 3-year, and 4-year warranty. There are a number of quid pro quo issues with warranty information, and if you're concerned about fairness, then let's be fair. Actually, you smell like trollbait to me, but anyway...
Dell's one-year limited warranty.
Here's how you can contact Gateway with your Technical Support issue. Notice the convenient link for upgrading your warranty. Wonder where it goes...DOH!
Here's the Gateway 1-year limited warranty (pdf).
And, for the record, here's Apple's one-year limited warranty.
Just compare and contrast the three warranties for a moment. They're mostly just legalese, but as far as legal documents go, I like something Apple's warranty lists in the first paragraph:
If a hardware defect arises and a valid claim is received within the Warranty Period, at its option, Apple will either:
(1) repair the hardware defect at no charge, using new or refurbished replacement parts, or
(2) exchange the product with a product that is new or which has been manufactured from new or serviceable used parts and is at least functionally equivalent to the original product, or
(3) refund the purchase price of the product.
Nice and easy. And not all that hard to read, considering it's legal information. By the way, I'm not going to waste my time surfing the horrid IBM website to pull up warranty information. Suffice to say that you ain't gonna get one year of free Dial-A-Geek access just because you bought a ThinkPad. You want to study more truth, go here and find the relevant warranty.
Dude when is the last time you have delt (sic) with Apple? The way you claim to be treated has NEVER been a policy with apple (sic).
The last time I dealt with Apple was November 2005, when I went into an Apple Store in Chicago to get replacement feet for my 14" iBook. Like I mentioned before, I walked out with two sets of replacement feet (that's 8 feet), still in the ServiceSource packages. I paid zilch (that's $0.00). I didn't fill out any paperwork, and I didn't get a receipt. All I did was bring my laptop and my request. Walked out satisfied.
And you're probably right. "Policy" is a strong word -- it would suggest that everyone should expect to be treated the same way. I rather think of it as "courtesy." Maybe only those who give courtesy get it, I don't know. Maybe I'm lucky. Or witty, clever, and charming. Or not. All I know for sure is that anytime I've needed anything from Apple (and that's been quite a lot -- I've been an Apple customer since 1981), I always came away satisfied. Maybe it's because I'm knowledgeable enough to avoid buying crappy Performa stuff or consumer-branded (read: low-end) also-ran products. I buy best-of-breed, and I've always gotten a satisfactory return in Apple's support response and product quality. And I really don't think my anecdotal experience is in any way unique. You and that other fellow, however...
You must be a master of persuasion.
Well, thank you. I am also rather good-looking.
I personally know several authorised service providers and none of them would offer this level of service. They pay for these feet. And they are giving them to you for free? Did you even buy the laptop from them? If it was an apple store, do you see what is going on here?
Uh, yeah. Free feet. Actually, that's no
So, you really ARE a troll. Pay attention, n00bz.
Let's recap your little tirade, or as you put it: "Sample of Apple customer policies/problems I've run into".
* No phone support after 90 days.
So, you wanna give me an example of one of the Big Three that offers a dial-a-geek phone service STANDARD after 90 days? Dell? Nope. Gateway? Not a chance. HP/Compaq? Not even an 800 number.
* If you post into the web forums about a problem Apple doesn't like to "discuss", expect it to be silently removed.
Okay. Quack conspiracy theory. What web forums? Macintouch? MacAddict? apple.com?
* 14 days, blah, blah...
This one's not even true. I received my iBook G4, which I'm typing this to you on, via UPS Ground. Took two weeks. The day I got it, the RAM wasn't seated correctly. Took it to my local Apple Store. Fixed on the premises, no charge. While the genius was looking it over, he said, "Wow, this is a bummer. Do you know that the new model just came out?" No, I didn't. He notified the store manager, and I walked out with the new model. No Charge.
* A guy that works at an Apple Store was less than knowledgeable and rude to you.
Really?? Rude to YOU!?? Why would ANYBODY be a jerk and lie about something like wobbly screens? Maybe you should take an etiquette class, but I digress.
* No reserving a spot via the web for the 'genius bar' unless you're a ProCare customer. At the local Apple store, that typically means a 30+ minute wait, and there's nowhere to sit.
Dude, I've been to Apple Stores on the East Coast, West Coast, and the Midwest. I've never seen an Apple Store that didn't have somewhere to sit. Besides which, you're in a MALL!! Sign in and go shopping.
* Various parts are not "covered" by Apple. Duckbills, feet, yada, yada...
This is really getting old. I've gotten two sets of replacement feet for my iBook (you know, the one I'm typing this to you on), mostly because the one time that I lost a foot, I flipped out and wanted LOTS of spares. Went to an Apple Store in Chicago. Got two sets of replacement feet. Still in the ServiceSource parts bag. For free. No paperwork. Really. Look, by now, either you're really just trolling, or people really don't like you very much. My heart goes out to you.
* Parts are not available. You're very certain. And you're mad about it..
Are you just impaired? You can't get parts for a Macintosh from Best Buy, but you can probably develop a relationship with your local independent Apple dealer (not an Apple Store). He'll probably sell you anything you need. I don't know what parts you'd need to buy that you couldn't purchase from a legitimate service channel.
I think you really need a vacation. And an AppleCare warranty.
...your air of superior smugness is no less of an ad hominem than any other
Ditto, babe.
You seem like a reasonable person. Maybe you can comment on this hypothetical:
Jim (a "natural-born" American citizen), age 35, is a member of a secret organization called Ar Khalizad. It is well-known by the world intelligence community that Ar Khalizad is planning a bomb attack on Detroit during Super Bowl week.
Intelligence information obtained by the French government while spying on a Parisian terror cell indicates that Jim is the trigger-man for the terror event at the Super Bowl. Due to the abundance of intelligence, President Doe unilaterally authorizes a wire-tap of Jim's home phone, office phone, and wireless phone. As a result of clear and incriminating voice calls placed during the week of January 22, Jim is incarcerated by federal law enforcement under charges of espionage and treason.
Were Jim's Constitutional rights violated?
Could the President be impeached for taking improper action?
Does the President have the Constitutional authority to grant pardons for unlawful search and seizure to parties that may have broken Federal or local laws?
-----
Okay, so much for the hypothetical. By now, you're probably remembering why you never bothered to mail that law school application.
In case you are really wondering what the "Right answer" is, ask Judge Alito. I'm sure he'll give you a thoughtful and detailed explanation. And he probably won't even call you a homo-lovin' libertarian hippie fascist. At least not to your face.
And if that good man doesn't please your orgasmic sense of patriotism, ask Ginsberg. She will give a very accurate summation of where the Court stands on this issue. You will find that under the Executive orders clause of Article 2, and under the Commander-in-Chief clause, and under a dozen or so ruling precedents, the Court has found and maintained that a sitting President has the Constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence, especially during a time of war. So the real question, O Name-Caller, is do you believe A) that the "War on Terror" rises to the level of "Wartime", or B) that President Bush has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors and should be removed from office?
By the way, ad hominem attacks are easy, especially against the ignorant. Use your whole brain and solve the real problem. Or else, spare me your impressive dearth of Constitutional jurisprudence and go make a Ruby on Rails demo.
5 megabits up is enough to run a nice little web server so long as you don't get Slashdotted or DDOS'ed.
I've been using FiOS for several months now, and the only applications where I see a substantive difference over other broadband providers are when I'm transmitting data to/from a remote server that also has plenty of bandwidth.
I know of very few sites where I can pull data much faster than I did with cable, probably because of limitations on the server, not on FiOS. The "experience" of the internet is likely to only improve when both ends of the server/client connection are properly ready to handle more bandwidth. I'm afraid 15-30Mb connections will have to become ubiquitous before we see a substantial improvement in this regard.
And as to the hosting idea -- I think you may still need an asymmetric pipe. I uploaded some linux iso's to an off-site server last week. Each image is 500-600 MB. I could get really good transfer rates if I uploaded one image at a time, but by uploading all three of them in three separate FTP sessions reduced the transfer rate by a factor of three (in other words, they were sharing).
This won't matter for the web junky looking for a better user experience, and it probably won't matter for the geek who wants to host a weblog from his mom's basement. But the residential FiOS offering does not appear to be equipped to handle respectable amounts of upload traffic.
Note that Verizon's "business-grade" FiOS is available as a $50/mo upgrade. You can upgrade the connection speed and get up to 5 static IP's. Don't know all the details, but here is some more information.
Youre comment is about arrow splitters, REAL ARROW SPLITTERS. Youre comment is awesome. My name is Robert and I can't stop thinking about arrow splitters. You are cool, and by cool, I mean totally sweet.
Facts:
1. You are a mammal.
2. You split arrows ALL the time.
3. The purpose of arrow splitters like YOU is to flip out and kill people.
You can split any arrow you want! You split arrows ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. Arrow splitters like YOU are so crazy and awesome that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this arrow splitter who was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a match book the arrow splitter split the whole matches. My friend Mark said that he saw an arrow shooter totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window.
And that's what I call REAL ULTIMATE POWER!!
If you don't believe that arrow splitters like YOU have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or you will split your own arrows! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.
Arrow splitters like YOU are soooooooo sweet that I want to crap my pants. I can't believe it sometimes, but I feel it inside my heart. Arrow splitters like YOU are totally awesome, and that's a fact.
I agree with everything you said.
I hope you don't forget that soldiers are citizens, too. Perhaps where we differ is that I regard these young men and women as first-class citizens. I, on the other hand, who sit at home and freely criticize, am not. I regard their work as sacred. No kidding. I'm just a well-paid civilian programmer.
Please let me restate my premise -- freedom is borne of conflict. Freedom should ideally ennoble the Free to improve the state of humankind (feed the poor, etc), to protect the liberties which we have attained, and to seek freedom for others who are less free. All that "Preamble" stuff in the Constitution comes to mind.
I agree with you that no group of soldiers can prevent the "destruction of civil liberties" -- the purpose of soldiers is conquest, and using armies to prevent the surrendering of civil liberties would seem to contradict this outcome. I really don't see how "Democrat or Republican", or "Bush or Kennedy," or "Red or Blue" have anything relevant to present to the discourse.
Lay aside your presuppositions, and think about it logically: Richard Stallman is a soldier. He's just using tin foil instead of a gun and intellegence instead of ammo. His actions are every bit as patriotic as the 22-year-old father of four who spilled his guts on Omaha Beach. In fact, It's nice that so much sacrifice was paid through warfare that we could now wage war with such elegant and powerful weapons as symbols, words, and ideas. To disregard the former as criminal action while clinging dogmatically to the latter does something to cheapen the historical reality of the sacrifice.
And FWIW, I think I'll choose not to keep quiet when someone thinks they'd like to tread on the grave of a soldier.
Before you go flaming against patriots who care about the smallest freedoms, maybe you'd like to identify "we". You said "Westerners." Are you an Easterner? As in France? Greece? China? Maybe you're just trolling, Anonymous Coward. Or maybe you're actually that ignorant.
If "We" has been experiencing all the stuff that "We" said, how did "We" get onto Slashdot to complain about it? Why would "We" so passionately offer up "We"'s opinions into a public forum without showing respect to the soldiers' blood that bought the privilege?
Why not clear "We's" head from the cobwebs of all those anal probes and realize that every Free Person's freedom starts somewhere, and Stallman shows a highly idealized and ecclectic way of expressing it? Why is that not something worth celebrating, "We"?
All freedom is born of conflict, and Stallman's nonviolent middle-finger approach should be applauded. By the way, he's part of that "you in the West" group to which you so arrogantly refer. The removal of the smallest personal freedom leaves us all damaged, and free people have the responsibility of clinging to those freedoms. That's why "We in the west" don't have to go through all the vile crap that happened to your mom.
Stop being grumpy about your freedom. Go and enlist in the army. Fight against oppression. Or buy a roll of tin foil and wrap your brain in it. Or write a letter to the newspaper. Or join a democracy and vote. If "We" can post to an internet forum, "We" obviously has a measure of freedom, doesn't "We"?
Anyone can understand the outrage over the evils that "We" mentioned. But if "We" thinks that complaining about others' freedoms somehow rids the world of oppression, then "We" needs to spend some time worshipping on the shores of Normandy.
Just use your Social Security number. Good idea?
Well, considering that it's a NUMBER, and there are obvious and public rules that determine its composition, this is a very trivial brute-force crack waiting to happen.
The key reason why alphanumeric passwords are conventional (often a network password policy requires a certain combination of numbers and letters), aside from over-the-shoulder obfuscation, is that they are harder to crack with a dictionary or brute-force approach.
Most private investigators could tell you a person's social security number for a fee; in fact, many internet sites offer this same service.
In general, pairing obvious personal information with your identity/alias/etc is a bad, bad, bad idea. I remember from my technical support years, seeing passwords that were obviously bank card pin numbers, or SSN serials, or daughter's name. If your password stores more information than a keyed access to your private/proprietary systems, it's a bad password.
Not that a guy would want to date a babe that was constantly groping fish.
:P
D'oh!
How you get so nerdy talking words of this kind? Very unfocused you have become. Lost the topic you have. Finish what you have started. Must complete the training!
Always remember, the rules of the Force. Mass times acceleration you must have. Returned, the Principia is. I'm very it was returned as well. Happy, yes, happy! Wooo-hoo-hoo-heheheh.
Do you realize that you posted, like, 23 times, TODAY!? You're even more maniacal! :D
Until you get your blinders removed, just change your slashdot bookmark to www.arstechnica.com.
"Please don't take this as a flame," it's just that you're posting in the wrong section of Slashdot if you expect anyone to care.
Have a great day, Sparky.
Rants against Netscape 4 tread well beyond the scope of CSS, but it's commonly known that any webpage that implements a fair amount of CSS1 will not be supported correctly on NN4. Better yet, if the webpage implements ANYTHING from CSS2, it's very likely that Netscape 4 won't support it. And there's much, MUCH more:
NN4 doesn't support <DIV>. It supports <LAYER> instead.
NN4 doesn't like inline styles.
NN4 doesn't fully support the height attribute (e.g., table cells).
NN4 doesn't allow onclick events on every object, such as <img> and <div> (or, layer, if we want to be technically correct).
NN4 uses its own Document Object Model, which results in very poor DOM Level 1 support, and virtually no support for Level 2.
NN4 supports the onunload event, but it does so quite unconventionally. This results in strange behavior when resizing a window: content unloads and refreshes, which is very undesirable for persistent objects, such as applets.
I guess that's a good stopping place. The list goes on, but I hope you see my point. In fact, the word "unconventional" suits NN4 quite well.
Web developers who are serious about dynamic or heavily stylized content will quickly realize that full NN4 support requires either an insane dedication to little hacks and gimmicks or a text-only version of their website. The way to present cross-platform, stylized content today is to use Shockwa^H^H^H^H^H^H^H a plugin.
The fact that 5th and 6th (and now 7th) generation browsers are 95-99% standards compliant means that bleeding-edge content will target newer browsers, and Netscape 4 will be left to rot. Five years is an insane lifespan for a browser, and if you remember correctly, Netscape 4 was just getting off the ground five years ago. Internet life moves at the speed of normal time ^2, so your five years is really like 25.
Maybe I live in a parallel universe, but in my reality, NN4 is already dead. Or, at least it has a really bad case of leprosy.
If you're arguing that no bank mergers occurred in the 1980's, history and I politely disagree with you.
I never said that banking deregulation or any other form of financial divestiture occured in the 80's. But the FACT, Sparky, is that all kinds of financial institutions went nuts with mergers and acquisitions, especially following the S&L scandals of the late 1980's.
I don't know if you're intending to troll, so do you have a point to make, or did you just want to raise my ire?
Hmmm, perhaps like China outlawed Google? Or perhaps like the way international law has begun affecting American trade?
Look, America isn't the center of the universe, but as it happens, it is the wall around the center of me. This causes the precedents set in the United States code to be quite relevant to my experience as a citizen of the Internet, if not my American status. That's the reason why I care if Chinese citizens can't certain websites, yet I've never even stepped on Chinese soil. If it makes you indifferent because you're not a United States citizen, then you miss two very relevant points:
1. It sets a precedent/standard for the international community.
2. I'm probably not going to move to Finland so I can have better internet access, and I'm sure many other Americans feel the same way.
Freedom is freedom whether it originates in the United States or in a small village in Tibet, and I'm quite certain that if you wish to ignore it or minimize it, I'm not interested in what you have to say.
I don't think that anything is beyond chance, and perhaps I mistakenly read a premise into the review that wasn't really there. However, if the book leaves the impression that the Internet is finally beyond the grasp of the media monoliths, I would have to strongly disagree.
1. M & A Still Lives.
In the 1970's, small, independent state banks dotted the landscape. You could drive any two miles of any commercial strip of any mid-American town, and you'd see no less that ten different independent banks. Then, in the 1980's, the winds of change began. Chase Manhattan became JP Morgan Chase. Citicorp merged with Travelers and became Citigroup. To me, the most interesting merger showed up on radar around 1983, when NCNB of North Carolina started buying banks in the southeastern United States before merging with C&S/Sovran to form NationsBank. Nations then played hardball and aquired Boatmen's, a leading Midwestern bank, and Barnett, the top bank in Florida.
Meanwhile, BankAmerica also grew through acquisitions, operating mainly in California until the early 1980s, when it purchased Seafirst, a Seattle-based bank that operated in the Northwest. In the late 1980s, BankAmerica began purchasing failed savings and loans, and following its acquisition of Security Pacific Corp. in 1992, the bank had a major presence in 10 states.
After merging with NationsBank, Bank of America became the world's largest bank.
This story is completely relevant, because that is exactly what will continue to happen in the internet community. The media moguls will continue to jockey over key internet properties, and the whittling down of diverse sub-groups will be the result. Even venerable Slashdot became the property of a parent group, OSDN (although I happen to think that's a good thing).
2. Taming the Whirlwind is the ultimate challenge.
Just like Pecos Bill rode the cyclone into submission, you can bet there are many young, fresh MBA-types who want to be "the one who changed everything." Eventually, inevitably, someone will come out with a stronger business model or a more aggressive acquisition plan. The power-gobblers will try again.
3. The Unification Siren
I'm a web programmer by trade, and I'll admit that I'm a big fan of standardization. At the top of my wishlist are things like, one better-than-http protocol, one standard reference implementation of CSS, DHTML, Javascript, blah, blah. However, I fear that soon after the standardization cycle matures, we will witness the ownership of key pieces of the public internet pass from the hands of many to the hands of a few.
I realize I'm being a tad alarmist, and there are measures that prevent this scenario. For one, the OSS community is flourishing, which is excellent. New, serious players are entering the Linux community every day, which is a good thing.
But the diversity of power on the internet is still threatened by certain influential groups, like the RIAA. Legislative authority over internet and digital property is beginning to emerge, and as the constant stream of attorneys makes its way down the niches carved by the internet of the '90's, EULAs will get more aggressive. Serious debate about digital intellectual property will ensue. The next decade could be a very litigious time in the internet world. It may be that the virtual gunslingers of that coming era will parallel those who calmed the Western American frontier. I just hope the good guys win.