It most certainly does not make sense; for instance, Genesis 1 says the plants were made before the sun. To make the Bible fit the facts requires a very liberal reinterpretation.
I think there's a number of reasons; it's a good product, it's something that almost everyone with a computer has a use for and it's in a sector of the market that doesn't have a lot of competition. Nobody paid for IE and they probably haven't invested a lot of time learning it so it's easy for them to switch. Maybe I'm buying into the hype, but Firefox is in a position to hit the big-time.
As a Canadian I'm always amazed by American TV and its ads for prescription drugs. I mean, they're prescription, right? Presumably your doctor would give them to you if it was a good idea.
Torrents work excellently and can be extremely fast for recently released files, but since people only upload while they download old files often have only one or two people you can download from.
On one hand, folks like you say that Bush has failed to marshall world opinion and make the US the "respected leader of the community of nations." On the other hand, you pull out this silly rhetoric that "Bush think's he's president of the world." Well? What's it going to be?
There's nothing inconsistent about that; he (and you, apparently) thinks he's a respected world leader, I (and a large portion of the rest of the world) disagree.
Oh, come on. Spamming is about as morally bankrupt as stealing pennies from the "Leave a penny, take a penny" tin at the grocery store; not something that's going to make you popular, but nowhere near as wrong as murder or rape.
Being better than the next guy doesn't make you good. The fact that parts of Europe's history were exceedingly unpleasant history doesn't excuse the United States when it does the same things.
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
You shouldn't bother. Quit making your product, and one of 3 things will happen - nothing (ie. there was no real demand), someone else will make it, or people will pay you to continue making it.
Even though you view this masterpiece, this "Gaia", as having created itself, you too see nature as the beautiful mural that it is. You're just not willing to call the artist "God".
Show me where he put his signature and maybe I'll change my mind.
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
If I write music, code, literature or whatever intellectual work and not get any reward from it, wh on earth should I do it? For the sake of creativity? Nah, I'm a lazy person.
If this is your attitude, maybe you shouldn't be doing it. Find something you enjoy and do that instead.
We aren't at war with nature, "war" implies an active threat. Nature is more like an idiot who keeps picking fights with people because he doesn't know any better. When he attacks, you're perfectly justified in restraining him, but this doesn't mean that it's either morally acceptable or a good idea to antagonize or provoke him
There's obviously no way that anybody can stop people from writing browsers to whatever standards they like. I happen to think that a diverse and directed group like the W3C will do a better job of producing standards that are elegant, complete and useful than a company writing browsers with its own goals in mind (or worse, no goals at all).
If IE were even introducing its own standards I might be inclined to agree with you. As things stand, the web has stagnated because IE has as well. XHTML and CSS are headed in exciting directions; IE is heading towards supporting PNGs and:hover. If I have to choose a leader, it'll be the one who's going somewhere.
They didn't "elect this pre-historic creature", they elected his party. Parliamentary democracies like Australia, Canada, the UK, etc. don't elect their prime ministers - in fact, the Prime Minister never has any official power. In Canada at least, the office of Prime Minister is never mentioned in the documents that set out parliamentary procedures.
The head of state (equivalent of the US President) in these countries is generally a monarch of some sort. Sounds bad? Not really, if Her Majesty (or one of Her Governor Generals) were to actually exercise her powers against the will of the population she'd be strung up from a lamppost. The Head of State is a figurehead, and that's the way we like it; it boggles my mind that one man in the US is allowed so much power.
A maximum of 2 terms would be pointless in a parliamentary democracy, because the Prime Minister has no official power; he's simply the leader of the party or coalition with the largest number of seats in the lower house.
Nobody disputes that IE can view everything on the web. The issue at hand was whether it's an option that can be seriously considered by people in the know. If you had said "That's an exaggeration; there are some sites where IE is the only option." I feel quite confident that your comment would have been left alone. (god, I can't believe I'm defending Slashdot - not only that but claiming that its readers are reasonable people...)
Who in their right mind would say that IE is superior to Mozilla UI wise?
I'm glad you said that because it redeems my opinion of you. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people willing to say all kinds of stupid things; try reading some of the negative user reviews of Firefox at download.com.
I set you as foe previous to this little incident; mostly because you're also a friend-of-a-friend so I see everything you say and I've seen you say some things that I thought were pretty stupid. You're back to neutral, and I will read what you say in the future more carefully.
Slashdot Mirror
Is geology a religion because I can't create a mountain in the lab?
It's scary that you think these things, because there are tens of millions of people who agree.
If it can't get the verifiable things right, why should I take its advice on the unvarifiable?
It most certainly does not make sense; for instance, Genesis 1 says the plants were made before the sun. To make the Bible fit the facts requires a very liberal reinterpretation.
I think there's a number of reasons; it's a good product, it's something that almost everyone with a computer has a use for and it's in a sector of the market that doesn't have a lot of competition. Nobody paid for IE and they probably haven't invested a lot of time learning it so it's easy for them to switch. Maybe I'm buying into the hype, but Firefox is in a position to hit the big-time.
As a Canadian I'm always amazed by American TV and its ads for prescription drugs. I mean, they're prescription, right? Presumably your doctor would give them to you if it was a good idea.
Torrents work excellently and can be extremely fast for recently released files, but since people only upload while they download old files often have only one or two people you can download from.
I never used to have the problem until I started logging into Slashdot, rather than reading as an AC.
In 1812 there was no such thing as a Canadian.
There's nothing inconsistent about that; he (and you, apparently) thinks he's a respected world leader, I (and a large portion of the rest of the world) disagree.
Yeah, but the ones he killed weren't your fault. Having killed less innocent civilians than a brutal dictator isn't something to be proud of.
Oh, come on. Spamming is about as morally bankrupt as stealing pennies from the "Leave a penny, take a penny" tin at the grocery store; not something that's going to make you popular, but nowhere near as wrong as murder or rape.
Being better than the next guy doesn't make you good. The fact that parts of Europe's history were exceedingly unpleasant history doesn't excuse the United States when it does the same things.
You shouldn't bother. Quit making your product, and one of 3 things will happen - nothing (ie. there was no real demand), someone else will make it, or people will pay you to continue making it.
We aren't at war with nature, "war" implies an active threat. Nature is more like an idiot who keeps picking fights with people because he doesn't know any better. When he attacks, you're perfectly justified in restraining him, but this doesn't mean that it's either morally acceptable or a good idea to antagonize or provoke him
There's obviously no way that anybody can stop people from writing browsers to whatever standards they like. I happen to think that a diverse and directed group like the W3C will do a better job of producing standards that are elegant, complete and useful than a company writing browsers with its own goals in mind (or worse, no goals at all).
If IE were even introducing its own standards I might be inclined to agree with you. As things stand, the web has stagnated because IE has as well. XHTML and CSS are headed in exciting directions; IE is heading towards supporting PNGs and :hover. If I have to choose a leader, it'll be the one who's going somewhere.
They didn't "elect this pre-historic creature", they elected his party. Parliamentary democracies like Australia, Canada, the UK, etc. don't elect their prime ministers - in fact, the Prime Minister never has any official power. In Canada at least, the office of Prime Minister is never mentioned in the documents that set out parliamentary procedures.
The head of state (equivalent of the US President) in these countries is generally a monarch of some sort. Sounds bad? Not really, if Her Majesty (or one of Her Governor Generals) were to actually exercise her powers against the will of the population she'd be strung up from a lamppost. The Head of State is a figurehead, and that's the way we like it; it boggles my mind that one man in the US is allowed so much power.
A maximum of 2 terms would be pointless in a parliamentary democracy, because the Prime Minister has no official power; he's simply the leader of the party or coalition with the largest number of seats in the lower house.
Troll.
Nobody disputes that IE can view everything on the web. The issue at hand was whether it's an option that can be seriously considered by people in the know. If you had said "That's an exaggeration; there are some sites where IE is the only option." I feel quite confident that your comment would have been left alone. (god, I can't believe I'm defending Slashdot - not only that but claiming that its readers are reasonable people...)
I'm glad you said that because it redeems my opinion of you. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people willing to say all kinds of stupid things; try reading some of the negative user reviews of Firefox at download.com.
I set you as foe previous to this little incident; mostly because you're also a friend-of-a-friend so I see everything you say and I've seen you say some things that I thought were pretty stupid. You're back to neutral, and I will read what you say in the future more carefully.