Re:great features, too late
on
Netscape 6.1
·
· Score: 2
It also doesn't matter how BAD a technology, as long as you don't take too long to produce it, and don't market it.
Look at everything MS does... including the luke-warm reponse to Win2k...
Re:I thought they said they were done with browser
on
Netscape 6.1
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Yeah, no more pesky end-table HTML tags...
we can finally kiss JAVA good bye.. everything will be VBScript!
W3C can finally disband... If people are only writing to the browser, then there's no need for a standard.
They say there's no Netscape Loyalists.. Bullsh*t! IE renders nicely. I'll give it that, but it's everything ELSE that SUCKS, and that's why I can't STAND to use it!
Why release before Mozilla?
on
Netscape 6.1
·
· Score: 2
Mozilla is still not production? Why would Netscape release their product when Mozilla hasn't released there?
Is this just to cover up the SCREWUP with Netscape 6.0(1)?
Will there be a 6.2 when Mozilla reaches 1.0?
So, you buy add-space on a web-site, or better yet, serve up pages on your OWN site, and you have to pay 'protection' money to keep your competitors from displaying pop-up ads over the top of YOUR webserver..
I'm thinking two things:
1) copyright enfringement?
and
2) I wonder if a guy named GUIDO sells the insurance..?
On May 23, 1995, John Gage, director of the Science Office for Sun Microsystems, and Marc Andreessen, cofounder and executive vice president at NetscapeTM, stepped onto a stage and announced to the SunWorldTM audience that JavaTM technology was real, it was official, and it was going to be incorporated into Netscape NavigatorTM, the world's portal to the Internet.
At that time, the entire Java technology team, not yet a division, numbered less than 30 people. It was the original members of this small group who created and nurtured a technology that would change the computing world.
The Set-Top TV You Never Saw
Java technology was created as a programming tool in a small, closed-door project initiated by Patrick Naughton, Mike Sheridan, and James Gosling of Sun in 1991. But creating a new language wasn't even the point of "the Green Project."
Seems to be snappier in 0.9.3 compared to 0.9.2, but I never saw the slowness you're seeing... At least not to that extreme (and I have an LDAP directory that will slowdown addressing)...
- Geeks buy LINUX. (Generalization, I know)
- Geeks deal with computers better than people (more generalizations), so they would order over the Web.
- Web ordering never allowed LINUX as an OS pick for desktops.
- Geeks never ordered LINUX.
If there are only two choices for back-bone providers, maybe that's just not enough competition to cause them to push the 'quality' button...
Back when I had choices of ISPs (cable modem is fairly limited on choice), if the ISP was crap, I'd bail. If enough people do that, then the supposed 'quality problem' should disappear...
"then they can build there own damn NET! call it biznet."
The problem is that, sure, they'll be on their own private network. Of course, their CUSTOMERS won't be on that network, 'cuz they can't afford it!
Personally, I find the Internet to be about as reliable as just about anything else in my life. That includes my electricity, my phone, my car, my cable television, my Celphone (ok, it's MORE reliable than my celphone), my PC (as long as it's not running Windows)...
Nothing in life is fool-proof, and you can't control EVERY ASPECT of your life. This guy needs to realize that.
Re:Is better TV definition needed ?
on
The Joys of HDTV
·
· Score: 2
You need to see to to believe it.
Even on a conventional TV, an HD signal is PHENOMINAL.
Several of the local stations don't have much true HD signals, so the just 'upconvert' their regular broadcasts... even THESE are better than the analog equivalent broadcasts...
And, if DirectTV gets more than 2 channels, it gets even BETTER, 'cuz DirectTV, IMHO, blows the DOORS off cable...!
You're paying WAY to much if you're paying $3500 for a 25" TV.
I have a 34", 16:9, Direct View (read TUBE) HDTV, and that was $3000. If you drop to a 32" 4:3 ratio tube, they drop to $1700.
Geez, I mean you can get a 51" 16:9 projection HDTV for about $4k-5k.
The kicker is the $500 HTDV/DirectTV reciever you have to by... Only RCA has a TV with a built-in HTDV Tuner, and that's $3500 (34", Direct View, 16:9 aspect ratio).
There's no doubt in my mind that ADD is a real thing. But, by the same token, I think that there is a REAL possiblity that ADD is the condition that is the result of the massive influx of information that we receive.
If you are constantly jumping from one 'thing' to the next, you begin to be conditioned to expect that. I think that ADD is the result of ONLY being able to deal with that 'jumping', and not being able to STOP and deal with only one thing.
Am I a doctor, no. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a coorelation.
I also don't think drugs are the answer to ADD. I've seen my nephew on anti-ADD drugs, and where he does better in school, he's also not NEARLY has happy a kid as when he's OFF the medication...
But they didn't 'link' to it. There is no page on their web-server that has a link to Ford's site.
What they did do was define a DNS entry that points directly to Fords site. There is no linking. It is a DNS ENTRY. To assume it is a 'link' is to assume that the only protocol on the internet is HTTP.
Re:Geez, Ford couldn't buy publicity like that.
on
2600 v. Ford Motors
·
· Score: 2
Gee, you don't suppose that Ford OUTSOURCES the development, hosting and implementation of their website, do you? I mean, what to you suppose the odds are that Ford contracts an Ad Agency to develop and maintain their website...
Let's see:
$ host www.ford.com
www.ford.com has address 164.109.135.183
and Arin.net's whois says:
164.102.135.183 is owned by:
Business Internet, Inc. (NET-ICIX-MD-BLK1)
3625 Queen Palm Drive
Tampa, FL 33619
US
"There are thing in the universe that aren't the same as in your little corner of it..."
Slashdot Mirror
It also doesn't matter how BAD a technology, as long as you don't take too long to produce it, and don't market it.
Look at everything MS does... including the luke-warm reponse to Win2k...
Yeah, no more pesky end-table HTML tags...
we can finally kiss JAVA good bye.. everything will be VBScript!
W3C can finally disband... If people are only writing to the browser, then there's no need for a standard.
They say there's no Netscape Loyalists.. Bullsh*t! IE renders nicely. I'll give it that, but it's everything ELSE that SUCKS, and that's why I can't STAND to use it!
Mozilla is still not production? Why would Netscape release their product when Mozilla hasn't released there? Is this just to cover up the SCREWUP with Netscape 6.0(1)? Will there be a 6.2 when Mozilla reaches 1.0?
So, you buy add-space on a web-site, or better yet, serve up pages on your OWN site, and you have to pay 'protection' money to keep your competitors from displaying pop-up ads over the top of YOUR webserver..
I'm thinking two things:
1) copyright enfringement?
and
2) I wonder if a guy named GUIDO sells the insurance..?
Yup...but can you point to a web-based installer prior to 1998?
I think Java would REALLY fall under this category, wouldn't it? From the Java Technology History Page
On May 23, 1995, John Gage, director of the Science Office for Sun Microsystems, and Marc Andreessen, cofounder and executive vice president at NetscapeTM, stepped onto a stage and announced to the SunWorldTM audience that JavaTM technology was real, it was official, and it was going to be incorporated into Netscape NavigatorTM, the world's portal to the Internet.
At that time, the entire Java technology team, not yet a division, numbered less than 30 people. It was the original members of this small group who created and nurtured a technology that would change the computing world.
The Set-Top TV You Never Saw
Java technology was created as a programming tool in a small, closed-door project initiated by Patrick Naughton, Mike Sheridan, and James Gosling of Sun in 1991. But creating a new language wasn't even the point of "the Green Project."
.....
Go to http://www.mozilla.org/releases/ Download the FIRST item under the Win32. It's 8.5Mb, and it's the whole thing.
I which I could use 'em... But...
no IMAP and/or no LDAP means no good.
Seems to be snappier in 0.9.3 compared to 0.9.2, but I never saw the slowness you're seeing... At least not to that extreme (and I have an LDAP directory that will slowdown addressing)...
RPM's seem to work great under Linux... (RH 7.1)
5 minutes so far, Seems good!
- Geeks buy LINUX. (Generalization, I know)
- Geeks deal with computers better than people (more generalizations), so they would order over the Web.
- Web ordering never allowed LINUX as an OS pick for desktops.
- Geeks never ordered LINUX.
Thank you. Please drive through.
If there are only two choices for back-bone providers, maybe that's just not enough competition to cause them to push the 'quality' button...
Back when I had choices of ISPs (cable modem is fairly limited on choice), if the ISP was crap, I'd bail. If enough people do that, then the supposed 'quality problem' should disappear...
"then they can build there own damn NET! call it biznet."
The problem is that, sure, they'll be on their own private network. Of course, their CUSTOMERS won't be on that network, 'cuz they can't afford it!
Personally, I find the Internet to be about as reliable as just about anything else in my life. That includes my electricity, my phone, my car, my cable television, my Celphone (ok, it's MORE reliable than my celphone), my PC (as long as it's not running Windows)...
Nothing in life is fool-proof, and you can't control EVERY ASPECT of your life. This guy needs to realize that.
You need to see to to believe it.
Even on a conventional TV, an HD signal is PHENOMINAL.
Several of the local stations don't have much true HD signals, so the just 'upconvert' their regular broadcasts... even THESE are better than the analog equivalent broadcasts...
And, if DirectTV gets more than 2 channels, it gets even BETTER, 'cuz DirectTV, IMHO, blows the DOORS off cable...!
You're paying WAY to much if you're paying $3500 for a 25" TV.
I have a 34", 16:9, Direct View (read TUBE) HDTV, and that was $3000. If you drop to a 32" 4:3 ratio tube, they drop to $1700.
Geez, I mean you can get a 51" 16:9 projection HDTV for about $4k-5k.
The kicker is the $500 HTDV/DirectTV reciever you have to by... Only RCA has a TV with a built-in HTDV Tuner, and that's $3500 (34", Direct View, 16:9 aspect ratio).
Not 7 days. And, they published an entire blow-by-blow timeline of what happened.
So, who's more responsible?
Like NEWBIES know what a command prompt is...
They're probably still looking for the 'Start' button...
There's no doubt in my mind that ADD is a real thing. But, by the same token, I think that there is a REAL possiblity that ADD is the condition that is the result of the massive influx of information that we receive.
If you are constantly jumping from one 'thing' to the next, you begin to be conditioned to expect that. I think that ADD is the result of ONLY being able to deal with that 'jumping', and not being able to STOP and deal with only one thing.
Am I a doctor, no. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a coorelation.
I also don't think drugs are the answer to ADD. I've seen my nephew on anti-ADD drugs, and where he does better in school, he's also not NEARLY has happy a kid as when he's OFF the medication...
WordPerfect 6 format?!?!?! What's up with that? Were they afraid to publish in Word format?!?!?!!?
So, the difference between a software upgrade and a virus would be.... what... something you want vs. something you don't want?
That's like saying that the definition of a 'weed' is a plant that grows where you DON'T want it to.
Sorry, but it's nieve to think that keeping silent will stop this 'FUD' attack from Microsoft.
FUD works because people don't want to think or make their own decisions. If someone 'important enough' says it, then it must be true...
I hope they counter with intelligent, thoughtful arguments that will make people at least DOUBT Ballmer and begin thinking for themselves.
3 or 4 DAYS for a WINDOWS PC? I was upset when it took 3 days (elapsed time. About 4 hours dedicated time) in install RH7.1 on a Dell Laptop.
Redirect it where?
If Ford feels that it's wrong to redirect it in the first place, where should they redirect it to?
2600? That's hypocrytical.
To their own webpage? That makes it look like it IS theirs....
www.whitehouse.com?
There's two IP addresses in there... which is the typo?
But they didn't 'link' to it. There is no page on their web-server that has a link to Ford's site.
What they did do was define a DNS entry that points directly to Fords site. There is no linking. It is a DNS ENTRY. To assume it is a 'link' is to assume that the only protocol on the internet is HTTP.
Gee, you don't suppose that Ford OUTSOURCES the development, hosting and implementation of their website, do you? I mean, what to you suppose the odds are that Ford contracts an Ad Agency to develop and maintain their website...
Let's see:
$ host www.ford.com
www.ford.com has address 164.109.135.183
and Arin.net's whois says:
164.102.135.183 is owned by:
Business Internet, Inc. (NET-ICIX-MD-BLK1)
3625 Queen Palm Drive
Tampa, FL 33619
US
"There are thing in the universe that aren't the same as in your little corner of it..."