I nearly had to decide to have a car other than the one I wanted, because the official site (Skoda UK) has a horrible "this site designed for IE, please get that" message.
Thankfully, I found some dealers who don't work from the standard site, and are compliant, so I'll be buying from one of those instead.
The people who run the site will be getting an email in the morning about why I won't be buying from them.
If more people did this, and threatened to boycott, there's a chance that people would respect browser choice more.
Sorry, but any business that is happy to simply shut out something between 5-10% of their business instead of either simplifying their site or adding an extra style sheet is nuts.
Bear this in mind too - the people using Mozilla are generally not the bottom feeders on the internet. They're mostly geeks, friends of geeks or knowledgable people.
I remember seeing Magnolia when it first came out in a large cinema with 5 people in. I went because it was directed by the guy who did Boogie Nights and was really blown away. Same story with Reservoir Dogs.
Wild horses wouldn't get people to go see it. The typical question was "who's in it?" or statements like "never heard of it".
Now, Magnolia is getting the recognition.
History has a habit of recalling the good stuff. Forgettable by-the-numbers shit like Independence Day gets forgotten, because there will always be by-the-numbers shit to replace it.
As for Hollywood making money, I'm sure that an economist would find it does all the wrong things. The movies that make huge returns on investment are films like The Full Monty, Four Weddings and a Funeral and the Blair Witch Project. Titanic cost $200,000,000 and had a worldwide gross of $2bn - ten times the investment. The Full Monty cost $3.5million and made back over $240million - nearly 80 times the investment.
I'd say he's a director who whilst he has the budget for lots of big stars, rarely uses them. Minority Report had only 1 big star.
He hasn't done that many sequels, and the merchandising of some films has been low-scale. Jurassic Park went very high, but Amistad, Schindlers List, Saving Private Ryan, AI. I don't recall any.
Sure, he makes popular films, but just maybe that's because he also happens to be a great filmmaker. And whilst he's made some duff movies, I'd overall count him pretty high in the "sincerely trying to make good movies" camp.
If he'd really wanted to just make money, he could have done it a lot easier than he did.
When I hear about the SCO case being dismissed with prejudice, why am I reminded of the bit in Apocalypse Now when the CIA agent says "Terminate...with extreme prejudice".
The issue with Microsoft stems from Microsoft Office.
People use MS Office because others use MS Office. You want to communicate with someone else in business? Chances are you need MS Office.
It isn't like most other giant businesses. I don't like Wal Mart? I can shop elsewhere. I don't like Starbucks? I'll find another coffee house. But with MS Office, it is about me having to have it because so do others. And to have MS Office, I have to have Windows.
Everything is about MS Office. But it's really not about the software, but the protocols. That is the real issue. That because the documents are machine readable, there's no way to easily enter the market and compete. Sure, you can write your own, but that "communication market" won't let you in, and no-one will buy because they can't talk to each other.
Now, think about it. You can talk to me, because we understand the protocols (english language) and it can be taught freely. We can send chess moves to each other because there's a defined protocol. We drive on the correct side of the road because of a protocol. In all those cases, we can read and understand them.
So, the problem is that there is a protocol, but it isn't defined and known by anyone but Microsoft.
Hidden binary protocols with no explanation are IMO counter free-market and therefore deserve no libertarian protection.
Thinking about it, we all have our choices of websites that review certain products. Over time, we realise which ones are converting to industry shills . There's no reason why the inspection can't be free market.
In the UK, too. Labour had a landsline victory, but got less than 50% of the vote.
The next 2 elections could be interesting. The Lib Dems are really catching up with the other 2 parties. A hung parliament would change everything. I think that the first thing the LDs would do is demand proportional representation as part of the deal to work with another party.
The problem with most political parties now is that they are wishy washy on principle. They have lots of policies, but none of them come down to some kind of simple principle.
Tony Blair here in the UK likes to talk about supporting business and will give a tax break on the one hand, and then pass on things like tax collection as a burden to business. The lack of a philosophical root means that policy is a mess.
This could be a forthcoming and very interesting battle.
Name the last Malaysian, Taiwanese or Russian movie you saw? (OK, The Battleship Potemkin, October, but how many guys watch much). The point is, there are countries for whom media creation scores around 0% compared to the size of their electronics industries.
It's no accident that the simplest DVD players to hack weren't made by companies with a foot in both camps.
I heard someone else (I think Jack Straw) saying something about how we couldn't keep troops there indefinitely (or for the very long term), but no-one has explained why.
It's also very hard to measure the size of the "leftfield" because it's often not about chart sales (or in the case of some indian music in the UK, sold in places which don't count towards chart sales.
What's right and left, and where did the term come from?
One thing I know, I know people who call themselves "right-wing" who are basically libertarian - they believe in the state having little power except in protecting the people. But, they are very much against extremists who are hate-filled bastards and also called "right-wing".
That's exactly the problem, and whenever I hear a director or producer pushing the tech, you know they've lost the point.
It's all about the script, characters and dialogue. Design really helps, but no-one will care if the story and characters aren't there. No-one really cares what happens to anyone in EP1 and EP2.
A shell? What, a whole one? That couldn't just be a shell mislaid from earlier times? Hardly a significant cache of weapons to justify thousands of dead civilians and destabilise a region.
The best argument I heard of why weapons wouldn't be there was from Scott Ritter, ex-inspector who basically said that they destroyed the capability and there was no evidence that Saddam had recreated the capability.
In my book, that left the job to the government to prove.
What evidence was ever produced except a post-graduate report? There wasn't anything like testimony from scientists working, or photographs that could be verified.
Worst of all, we didn't need to attack Iraq. We had Blix inside, troops massed on Iraqs borders. Any chemical attack, and we'd have been right to go right in. But Bush really wanted this war, and Blair was happy to go along with it to protect the "special relationship". I'm still not convinced that Blair didn't want this war, thinking it would have a "Churchillian" effect on his premiership.
Bollocks to this revisionist, apologising bullshit.
I see it all the time. Britain apologising for slavery 200 years ago. Well sorry, but that's not our fault. We were all born after it happened and so are not responsible.
If there was a question over Dresden, it should have been dealt with then, but maybe people considered it as necessary to the destruction of the nazi regime, or at worst a mistake.
How about a bit of pride over the fact that tyranny was defeated and the world became a better place?
Slashdot Mirror
There's lots of other lovely stouts and porters that a lot lower alcohol.
It's not a "Real Ale", at least not here in the UK. Given the choice, most CAMRA members would choose something better.
Thankfully, I found some dealers who don't work from the standard site, and are compliant, so I'll be buying from one of those instead.
The people who run the site will be getting an email in the morning about why I won't be buying from them.
If more people did this, and threatened to boycott, there's a chance that people would respect browser choice more.
Bear this in mind too - the people using Mozilla are generally not the bottom feeders on the internet. They're mostly geeks, friends of geeks or knowledgable people.
I remember seeing Magnolia when it first came out in a large cinema with 5 people in. I went because it was directed by the guy who did Boogie Nights and was really blown away. Same story with Reservoir Dogs.
Wild horses wouldn't get people to go see it. The typical question was "who's in it?" or statements like "never heard of it".
Now, Magnolia is getting the recognition.
History has a habit of recalling the good stuff. Forgettable by-the-numbers shit like Independence Day gets forgotten, because there will always be by-the-numbers shit to replace it.
As for Hollywood making money, I'm sure that an economist would find it does all the wrong things. The movies that make huge returns on investment are films like The Full Monty, Four Weddings and a Funeral and the Blair Witch Project. Titanic cost $200,000,000 and had a worldwide gross of $2bn - ten times the investment. The Full Monty cost $3.5million and made back over $240million - nearly 80 times the investment.
I'd say he's a director who whilst he has the budget for lots of big stars, rarely uses them. Minority Report had only 1 big star.
He hasn't done that many sequels, and the merchandising of some films has been low-scale. Jurassic Park went very high, but Amistad, Schindlers List, Saving Private Ryan, AI. I don't recall any.
Sure, he makes popular films, but just maybe that's because he also happens to be a great filmmaker. And whilst he's made some duff movies, I'd overall count him pretty high in the "sincerely trying to make good movies" camp.
If he'd really wanted to just make money, he could have done it a lot easier than he did.
The Microsoft article doesn't mention the patents that apply.
When I hear about the SCO case being dismissed with prejudice, why am I reminded of the bit in Apocalypse Now when the CIA agent says "Terminate...with extreme prejudice".
People use MS Office because others use MS Office. You want to communicate with someone else in business? Chances are you need MS Office.
It isn't like most other giant businesses. I don't like Wal Mart? I can shop elsewhere. I don't like Starbucks? I'll find another coffee house. But with MS Office, it is about me having to have it because so do others. And to have MS Office, I have to have Windows.
Everything is about MS Office. But it's really not about the software, but the protocols. That is the real issue. That because the documents are machine readable, there's no way to easily enter the market and compete. Sure, you can write your own, but that "communication market" won't let you in, and no-one will buy because they can't talk to each other.
Now, think about it. You can talk to me, because we understand the protocols (english language) and it can be taught freely. We can send chess moves to each other because there's a defined protocol. We drive on the correct side of the road because of a protocol. In all those cases, we can read and understand them.
So, the problem is that there is a protocol, but it isn't defined and known by anyone but Microsoft.
Hidden binary protocols with no explanation are IMO counter free-market and therefore deserve no libertarian protection.
Thinking about it, we all have our choices of websites that review certain products. Over time, we realise which ones are converting to industry shills . There's no reason why the inspection can't be free market.
The next 2 elections could be interesting. The Lib Dems are really catching up with the other 2 parties. A hung parliament would change everything. I think that the first thing the LDs would do is demand proportional representation as part of the deal to work with another party.
Tony Blair here in the UK likes to talk about supporting business and will give a tax break on the one hand, and then pass on things like tax collection as a burden to business. The lack of a philosophical root means that policy is a mess.
It's a question of "what can joe public do to change this?". I suppose voting for small parties is one thing. What else?
The thing is, people won't jump because of a few small features - you have to make a sufficient jump in quality.
The only way that they will be able to add DRM is with HDTV. I'm not even sure how many people will want HDTV.
Name the last Malaysian, Taiwanese or Russian movie you saw? (OK, The Battleship Potemkin, October, but how many guys watch much). The point is, there are countries for whom media creation scores around 0% compared to the size of their electronics industries.
It's no accident that the simplest DVD players to hack weren't made by companies with a foot in both camps.
I heard someone else (I think Jack Straw) saying something about how we couldn't keep troops there indefinitely (or for the very long term), but no-one has explained why.
It's also very hard to measure the size of the "leftfield" because it's often not about chart sales (or in the case of some indian music in the UK, sold in places which don't count towards chart sales.
One thing I know, I know people who call themselves "right-wing" who are basically libertarian - they believe in the state having little power except in protecting the people. But, they are very much against extremists who are hate-filled bastards and also called "right-wing".
It's all about the script, characters and dialogue. Design really helps, but no-one will care if the story and characters aren't there. No-one really cares what happens to anyone in EP1 and EP2.
The best argument I heard of why weapons wouldn't be there was from Scott Ritter, ex-inspector who basically said that they destroyed the capability and there was no evidence that Saddam had recreated the capability.
In my book, that left the job to the government to prove.
What evidence was ever produced except a post-graduate report? There wasn't anything like testimony from scientists working, or photographs that could be verified.
Worst of all, we didn't need to attack Iraq. We had Blix inside, troops massed on Iraqs borders. Any chemical attack, and we'd have been right to go right in. But Bush really wanted this war, and Blair was happy to go along with it to protect the "special relationship". I'm still not convinced that Blair didn't want this war, thinking it would have a "Churchillian" effect on his premiership.
If NK attack Beijing, there won't be a NK except for a large crater. The chinese undoubtedly have more.
I see it all the time. Britain apologising for slavery 200 years ago. Well sorry, but that's not our fault. We were all born after it happened and so are not responsible.
If there was a question over Dresden, it should have been dealt with then, but maybe people considered it as necessary to the destruction of the nazi regime, or at worst a mistake.
How about a bit of pride over the fact that tyranny was defeated and the world became a better place?
The point of Dresden was to get the Nazis to retaliate and bomb the UK cities instead of UK airfields.
Unless there's some proven link between Iraq and North Korea or Iraq and Cuba.