How do you think the shipping containers get from the boats to their destination? Those bit things from boats get loaded directly on to trucks and trains.
Yes, "shipping containers" does bring visions of the dock, but seriously... this whole thread is rather depressing.
So in other words, as an end-user, you are powerless to stand against Microsoft's underhanded business practices. There is nothing "correct" about IE's rendering- it's wildly incorrect.
Simply put, website developers spend more time making sure that their _content_ displays correctly in IE, not that IE correctly displays their content. There is a big difference.
Basically, users like you are the major force slowing down web development, because any site that takes advantage of advanced (and STANDARDIZED) practices is killed by Microsoft's refusal to supply a browser that can render them.
I just bought an excellent book- Professional CSS. Every chapter ends with a section "Dealing with Internet Explorer". High profile case-studies are included, and in some cases they spend more effort "dealing" with the worthless capabilites of IE than developing the site in the first place.
Sure, if you need IE to access your bank account by all means use it. But refusing to use an alternate browser for general use just makes you a "tech-savvy" user contributing to the demise of tech-savvy websites.
"Companies that make a product you will never need another of go out of business."
Even in software, this isn't universally true. It's only true if your business model doesn't support it. Subscription-based software is a cash cow if you never have to update the software. Just sit back, support it, and cash the checks.
Of course, OS updates alone make no-new-versions virtually impossible for most software.
For $2000, you can get a top-of-the-line iMac with a 20-inch LCD monitor, 2Ghz processor, 512MB RAM, 250GB hard drive, SuperDrive, and a full 3-year warranty.
And no, spending the most you possibly can on your iMac (when they start at $1299) is not very efficient.
Tell me, please, where I can find a $300-$600 PC with a 2Ghz processor, monitor included (a nice LCD preferably), half a GB of RAM and a quarter terabyte of harddrive space. I'll take 2.
Or are you comparing a 2-year old iMac to a current PC? 'Cause that would make lots of sense.
It's about 4% of the entire piggy bank over 1 year.
Yes, they would survive. The question is what they have to gain by choosing to be fined. The fine itself IS harmful to even Microsoft who can't just throw away $2B / year. But if the $2B buys them something worth more than $2B, obviously they will go ahead and do it.
My ignorance still claims there are a lot more people reading this article who live SOMEWHERE in the USA and tend to call ANYWHERE else in the US.
Amen, there are lots of people who need international calling. All I was saying is that the service IS NOT ESSENTIALLY FREE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE.
I said this because the summary called the service ESSENTIALLY FREE with no qualifications to that remark. It didn't say "essentially free for calling from Qatar to Michigan".
Please, please don't try to make this have anything to do with my ignorance of international needs, because I NEVER claimed it wasn't useful for that.
How exactly is nearly 3 cents a minute to call a real phone "essentially free"? I've got calling cards that are no worse. For my $50/month cellular phone I don't need WiFi access to call and I use 2-3 thousand minutes a month, which would cost MORE at 2.6 cents a minute.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see this mature, but big whoop at this point!
You're joking, right? I'm a programmer. I have the hardest job in the world. Bugs aren't my fault because programming is hard.
Making cars is hard too. Building rocket ships is hard.
Yes, it is acceptable to have *some* bugs in released code. But programming doesn't get a special exemption over all other trades on earth. If you write code and it's unuseable due to a bug, it's just as defective as a bad seat belt.
It's simply a matter of severity: NO, you won't be chastized as a programmer if you write a bug that accidentally renders a button wrong. If you write a bug and it double charges people's credit cards, you are in trouble.
The problem with Windows is that it is unnacceptably buggy. Unfortunately, the average consumer doesn't know the difference.
Microsoft has gone on record in the past that they release early and often, and fix bugs later.
How would you feel if your car manufacturer did the same thing?
'Well, it's REALLY hard to make anti-lock brakes, and mechanics need to make a living...'
Microsoft software isn't buggy because it's hard to be a programmer. They have more money and more resources than everyone else, and yet their software is still inferior and more bug-ridden.
They CHOOSE to be that way because they can get away with it and it makes them lots of money.
Fact is, Microsoft doesn't know if it CAN compete based on the quality of their product. Shafting the customer is working very well for them.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you think the shipping containers get from the boats to their destination? Those bit things from boats get loaded directly on to trucks and trains.
Yes, "shipping containers" does bring visions of the dock, but seriously... this whole thread is rather depressing.
Right... except for the part where MySpace allows Javascript. They don't.
So in other words, as an end-user, you are powerless to stand against Microsoft's underhanded business practices. There is nothing "correct" about IE's rendering- it's wildly incorrect.
Simply put, website developers spend more time making sure that their _content_ displays correctly in IE, not that IE correctly displays their content. There is a big difference.
Basically, users like you are the major force slowing down web development, because any site that takes advantage of advanced (and STANDARDIZED) practices is killed by Microsoft's refusal to supply a browser that can render them.
I just bought an excellent book- Professional CSS. Every chapter ends with a section "Dealing with Internet Explorer". High profile case-studies are included, and in some cases they spend more effort "dealing" with the worthless capabilites of IE than developing the site in the first place.
Sure, if you need IE to access your bank account by all means use it. But refusing to use an alternate browser for general use just makes you a "tech-savvy" user contributing to the demise of tech-savvy websites.
"Companies that make a product you will never need another of go out of business."
Even in software, this isn't universally true. It's only true if your business model doesn't support it. Subscription-based software is a cash cow if you never have to update the software. Just sit back, support it, and cash the checks.
Of course, OS updates alone make no-new-versions virtually impossible for most software.
For $2000, you can get a top-of-the-line iMac with a 20-inch LCD monitor, 2Ghz processor, 512MB RAM, 250GB hard drive, SuperDrive, and a full 3-year warranty. And no, spending the most you possibly can on your iMac (when they start at $1299) is not very efficient. Tell me, please, where I can find a $300-$600 PC with a 2Ghz processor, monitor included (a nice LCD preferably), half a GB of RAM and a quarter terabyte of harddrive space. I'll take 2. Or are you comparing a 2-year old iMac to a current PC? 'Cause that would make lots of sense.
It's about 4% of the entire piggy bank over 1 year. Yes, they would survive. The question is what they have to gain by choosing to be fined. The fine itself IS harmful to even Microsoft who can't just throw away $2B / year. But if the $2B buys them something worth more than $2B, obviously they will go ahead and do it.
You're confused and lost. According to the top 500 rankings referenced by the article, the highest ranking Cray (an X1) puts out less than 6 TFLOPS.
So try... a cluster of 25+ X1s and then we'll talk =)!
My ignorance still claims there are a lot more people reading this article who live SOMEWHERE in the USA and tend to call ANYWHERE else in the US.
Amen, there are lots of people who need international calling. All I was saying is that the service IS NOT ESSENTIALLY FREE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE.
I said this because the summary called the service ESSENTIALLY FREE with no qualifications to that remark. It didn't say "essentially free for calling from Qatar to Michigan".
Please, please don't try to make this have anything to do with my ignorance of international needs, because I NEVER claimed it wasn't useful for that.
- Brian
No, which is why I applied the example to myself, someone who makes almost only US-to-US calls.
I'm fairly sure that my comment applied to a few other people here, and negates a lot of the "essentially free" implied by the summary.
Yes, it's a good deal for calling Detroit from Qatar, for all of you out there with WiFi access in Qatar and relatives in Michigan.
- Brian
How exactly is nearly 3 cents a minute to call a real phone "essentially free"? I've got calling cards that are no worse. For my $50/month cellular phone I don't need WiFi access to call and I use 2-3 thousand minutes a month, which would cost MORE at 2.6 cents a minute.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see this mature, but big whoop at this point!
- Brian
You're joking, right? I'm a programmer. I have the hardest job in the world. Bugs aren't my fault because programming is hard.
Making cars is hard too.
Building rocket ships is hard.
Yes, it is acceptable to have *some* bugs in released code. But programming doesn't get a special exemption over all other trades on earth. If you write code and it's unuseable due to a bug, it's just as defective as a bad seat belt.
It's simply a matter of severity: NO, you won't be chastized as a programmer if you write a bug that accidentally renders a button wrong. If you write a bug and it double charges people's credit cards, you are in trouble.
The problem with Windows is that it is unnacceptably buggy. Unfortunately, the average consumer doesn't know the difference.
Microsoft has gone on record in the past that they release early and often, and fix bugs later.
How would you feel if your car manufacturer did the same thing?
'Well, it's REALLY hard to make anti-lock brakes, and mechanics need to make a living...'
Microsoft software isn't buggy because it's hard to be a programmer. They have more money and more resources than everyone else, and yet their software is still inferior and more bug-ridden.
They CHOOSE to be that way because they can get away with it and it makes them lots of money.
Fact is, Microsoft doesn't know if it CAN compete based on the quality of their product. Shafting the customer is working very well for them.