Ugh. Stop with the zealotry claims, it's retarded.
The OP was complaining that you CAN'T disable Javascript in IE. You can, sorry. Why you bothered jumping in with other things that you claim IE can't block, I can't figure out. But the fact is you can block them as well. I never claimed it was as easy as NoScript, I simply said you can. I also said most people don't care to have as fine-grained control as Noscript gives you. I believe that's also true.
Regarding the rest of your claims, IE either can do it (including the upcoming IE8), or just like with FF, you can get a plugin to do the same thing.
So please, stop with your zealotry rant... especially given the page you linked to, which smacks of zealotry itself. Instead realize that I had given up on IE a long time ago, but with 7 and much more-so 8, have been finding myself using IE more. I find it ironic that OSS zealots and anti-MS zealots have been far, far worse than any MS zealot I've encountered (of which, there are really very few).
Give me a break. That's nothing noscript does that you can't do via IE settings (or probably even FF settings). It just puts a menu to make changing those settings easier.
Well, not only that, but replacing existing, working software that's already been paid for somehow saves money? Does WebSphere only come in a subscription flavor?
Sure, you can save on licensing with new systems, but don't you just end up paying for support from Redhat anyway? So, where's the savings?
For dynamically loaded libraries, the OS doesn't 'load' the dll, it maps the dll into the app's address space, (you might like to check out rebasing to see what happens when the dll's conflicts with address range already used). Once mapped, only the parts that are needed are loaded in the usual manner (when there is a page fault) as the app uses part of the dll.
Well, I think the entire DLL is loaded into shared memory. What happens on the app level I'm not sure of, but it's "loaded." Whether nor not it's all mapped in another issue.
I do know that.NET apps load all their library code in, especially those that are secured with strong names - the loader has to load it all in order to verify that no-one has tampered with it, and it has to load all dependant libraries and they have... so sometimes your.NET load performance really sucks. Apparently they're going to do something about it (not sure what) but the WPF guys have said that if you want your WPF apps to perform, do not use strongly named assemblies.
That's actually the opposite of what.Net does. Fusion (the.Net assembly loader) lazy loads all assemblies, so it won't load an assembly until you attempt to run code within that assembly. I'm positive about this, because I've accidently built an EXE and one library required a particular version of a core library, and another library a different version of that same library. Depending on which library got loaded first, the other library would throw an exception because the core library loaded was not the one it wanted. But if you never hit the second library you'd never get an exception.
I've never heard any WPF people say not to sign or strong name your assemblies; could you provide a link? It doesn't make sense anyway; all assemblies are loaded the same way, whether or not you're building a WPF application. Also, I know that with 3.5SP1, WPF load time was dramatically improved. But that's likely due to the WPF team speeding up initialization of their assemblies, because no one building WPF applications had to do anything at all.
This destroys Microsoft's claim that their intimate knowledge of the OS that runs IE will increase performance.
Really? Where was this claimed?
This proves that Microsoft's intimate knowledge of their OS actually inhibits performance of IE and therefore all other Microsoft products.
That's quite the leap there. Where's your evidence to bridge those thoughts?
The issue is similar to the ones that have always plagued Java; you have to load massive libraries to do miniscule tasks and that causes noticeable overhead, when they were sadly intended to save time! Firefox is simply more minimal, and it is through their actively sought after security footprint that they deliver better performance by default.
I don't think anyone said using libraries increased performance. What it does do is allow you to build an application faster, because you don't need to re-invent the wheel. You're also acting like speed is the only important factor here. I've been using IE8 beta more because of the built in developer tools, and being able to switch between IE8 standards mode and IE7 mode... which means I don't have to check FF's rendering as much. Besides, IE8 is so fast, that it hardly seems worth if it FF is faster.. either will be great for browsing, because both are now really really fast. It's not like the ridiculously slow IE7.
Add with that experience, superior plugins like NoScript, and you also save bandwidth because Flash files don't load by default and scripts don't tie up resources unless you approve them to do so. NoScript was designed for security, but with the added benefit that you get faster performance with it.
Performance is not the end-all be-all of browsing. I'm sure someone so included could whip up an add-in like NoScript in IE as well.
Even when you look at Google Chrome, which is also a valid attempt at increasing performance (they flaunt security as a pillar of their design, but their cheerleading is unwarranted), the fact that you can't control scripts that are allowed to run, limits the user and make the user bound to the control of the webmaster, who typically controlled by a business or corporation that is only in it for the money and will infringe on rights of users without any form of conscience or compassion.
I'm not sure most users care as much as you about controling scripts. For example, I'm looking forward to see what features FF comes up with, because I think there are other new features in IE8 that look pretty compelling, like WebSlices and Extenders.
I'm in no way condoning the abortion clinic bombings and shootings, but they're a world apart from what we're seeing in the middle east. The goal of the anti-abortion killer is to attack a very specific target with the goal of preventing them from doing something that the killer thinks is morally worse than the attack. The goal of a suicide bomber is to spread terror throughout an entire society.
I'm sure in the head of a suicide bomber the goal is the same; to kill people who are disrespecting their god. Honestly, that's the worst rationalization I've heard here in quite a while. After all, the suicide bombers aren't bombing the other terrorists are they? And for the most part they seem to largely stay away from other muslims.
Now, both killers effect the same result: dead people. However, you can't pretend that a targeted attack against someone perceived as evil by the attacker is equivalent to an indiscriminate assault against innocents, including children.
As I said, I'm sure in the minds of the suicide bombers they aren't targetting innocent people either. Please, stop trying to justify murder when a christian does it. Stop pretending the abortion clinic bombing is somehow "less evil." People like you sicken me.
In all the establishment clause cases, the public display was tradition and voluntary and were sued to prevent the voluntary display. In most of these cases, the community supported the display.
So the arguement is basically that, we've always endorced religon, and if a majority of the community supports it, it's ok to spend tax payer money on it. Do I have that right?
I realize that no one choses to be blind... but at the same time, I don't see the need to spend a lot of money I won't get back. Sometimes, life just sucks. Sorry.
How about all the people who use something less popular, e.g. Konqueror? How about all the people who must use something that will never be popular, such as people with disabilities? Shall we just say "tough, get off the web"?
Pretty much, ya. If I'm paying to have a website built, I'm not going to spend a lot of money making a very small number of people happy. They choose to use an almost unknown browser, they need to live with the consequences of that choice.
Ahh.. so murder would be ok if it became acceptable to a large enough population?
There was a paper showing that piracy helped windows get a massive edge over alternatives in China, e.g. if it wasn't free they would NOT use it.
Interesting, but useless. Without a control group (which requires a version of Windows impossible to pirate), the paper doesn't prove anything. Windows became popular in the US without the need for massive piracy; China is no different.
Also it is not theft it is copyright infringemnt, there is a big differnce.
Semantics. You're taken someone's time and investment and not compensated them for it, when they clearly expectd compensation.
It is like advertizing when someone pirates windows, at zero cost.
Just a rationalization of theft. Stealing Gap jeans "advertises" them as well. The cost for MS though is the pay of it's employees and research. Or do you think each version of Windows magically appears at MS, ready for them to sell?
And yes linux is that good but quality doesn't matter much, it is all image. The average user does not try many OSes and decide which is best.
You're just rationalizing theft. If someone wants to sell something, and you're not willing to pay the price, then you need to go without. It's entirely likely that many of the pirates WOULD pay if they had no choice but to pay. They obviously see value in it, or why would you pirate when you can get an alternative for free? Or is Linux really not as good as people here claim?
No, not really. MS should have $200 more (or whatever price) any way you look at it. You're arguing semantics, but the effects are the same. You've used someone else's time and investment for free, when they clearly were intending to work for free.
If someone takes the website I'm working on now for a client, and replaces the business name and some of the text, they are using my work (time) without my permission. It's not right.
So you claim there are articles, but no studies. Very interesting... I can only assume that the articles are making baseless claims, just like you are.
No where do you even back up that sales aren't be impacted by piracy, yet you build your whole argument on that premise.
You also assume that every college student has a 100 gig MP3 collection.
So are there studies or aren't there? You claim I'm ignoring information available, but there's nothing but articles speculating. Why should those articles hold any more weight than your arguments, where you make up numbers?
You then claim that college kids won't spend "thousands of bucks on CDs," because they don't have that kind of money. Again assuming that all college kids are poor (a silly assumption), that all of them wouldn't spend any amount of money on music.
Your best assumption is that stealing is ok if you wouldn't have paid for it anyway. Ya, good logic there.
Don't get mad at me because I'm being honest about what's going on, and that I'm simply throwing out there that the truth is likely in the middle; piracy IS hurting sales, but not as much as the RIAA claims, but probably more than you admit.. which is pretty likely since you're whole argument is that they are losing $0.
Well, if people use software MS would have otherwise been paid for, they are costing Microsoft money. Your argument only holds provided people don't actually use software they didn't purchase.
Well, Express has been around for about four years now. And there's always an academic license.
Oddly enough, the Express versions were usable enough that I could start working at my new job while I wanted for them to purchase the full version for me, and I was pretty much as productive as I am with the purchased version. gcc + qt isn't even a development environment; even if you used Express as a text editor, you get color syntax highlighting, which is more than you'd get with pico. I suspect that you think the full version should just be 100% free, and ignored what features the Express versions did in fact offer. In other words, you're just a greedy Linux zealot.
Oh, and the same can be said for VS; you'd have to be interested in programming to even hear of it in the first place too! Duh.
Well, if he wanted to download visual studio, there's no need to pirate, since the Express versions are free. Also, there's Eclipse, which may be downloaded for free (legally) as well... I don't think your argument holds.
Someone doing A through D on your list is not being pragmatic. They may claim to be, but they are not, because no where in pragmatism do you only focus on the short term, or "discard all principles and ethics when it is convenient to [a] position."
Slashdot Mirror
Ugh. Stop with the zealotry claims, it's retarded.
The OP was complaining that you CAN'T disable Javascript in IE. You can, sorry. Why you bothered jumping in with other things that you claim IE can't block, I can't figure out. But the fact is you can block them as well. I never claimed it was as easy as NoScript, I simply said you can. I also said most people don't care to have as fine-grained control as Noscript gives you. I believe that's also true.
Regarding the rest of your claims, IE either can do it (including the upcoming IE8), or just like with FF, you can get a plugin to do the same thing.
So please, stop with your zealotry rant... especially given the page you linked to, which smacks of zealotry itself. Instead realize that I had given up on IE a long time ago, but with 7 and much more-so 8, have been finding myself using IE more. I find it ironic that OSS zealots and anti-MS zealots have been far, far worse than any MS zealot I've encountered (of which, there are really very few).
Well, hopefully they are going to replace Paint with Paint.Net. That alone would be a huge step in the right direction.
Give me a break. That's nothing noscript does that you can't do via IE settings (or probably even FF settings). It just puts a menu to make changing those settings easier.
Well, not only that, but replacing existing, working software that's already been paid for somehow saves money? Does WebSphere only come in a subscription flavor?
Sure, you can save on licensing with new systems, but don't you just end up paying for support from Redhat anyway? So, where's the savings?
Funny, because quite a few people seem to disagree with you.
For dynamically loaded libraries, the OS doesn't 'load' the dll, it maps the dll into the app's address space, (you might like to check out rebasing to see what happens when the dll's conflicts with address range already used). Once mapped, only the parts that are needed are loaded in the usual manner (when there is a page fault) as the app uses part of the dll.
Well, I think the entire DLL is loaded into shared memory. What happens on the app level I'm not sure of, but it's "loaded." Whether nor not it's all mapped in another issue.
I do know that .NET apps load all their library code in, especially those that are secured with strong names - the loader has to load it all in order to verify that no-one has tampered with it, and it has to load all dependant libraries and they have ... so sometimes your .NET load performance really sucks. Apparently they're going to do something about it (not sure what) but the WPF guys have said that if you want your WPF apps to perform, do not use strongly named assemblies.
That's actually the opposite of what .Net does. Fusion (the .Net assembly loader) lazy loads all assemblies, so it won't load an assembly until you attempt to run code within that assembly. I'm positive about this, because I've accidently built an EXE and one library required a particular version of a core library, and another library a different version of that same library. Depending on which library got loaded first, the other library would throw an exception because the core library loaded was not the one it wanted. But if you never hit the second library you'd never get an exception.
I've never heard any WPF people say not to sign or strong name your assemblies; could you provide a link? It doesn't make sense anyway; all assemblies are loaded the same way, whether or not you're building a WPF application. Also, I know that with 3.5SP1, WPF load time was dramatically improved. But that's likely due to the WPF team speeding up initialization of their assemblies, because no one building WPF applications had to do anything at all.
I believe going to the relevent Security Zone settings and disabling Active scripting will do the exact same thing.
This destroys Microsoft's claim that their intimate knowledge of the OS that runs IE will increase performance.
Really? Where was this claimed?
This proves that Microsoft's intimate knowledge of their OS actually inhibits performance of IE and therefore all other Microsoft products.
That's quite the leap there. Where's your evidence to bridge those thoughts?
The issue is similar to the ones that have always plagued Java; you have to load massive libraries to do miniscule tasks and that causes noticeable overhead, when they were sadly intended to save time! Firefox is simply more minimal, and it is through their actively sought after security footprint that they deliver better performance by default.
I don't think anyone said using libraries increased performance. What it does do is allow you to build an application faster, because you don't need to re-invent the wheel. You're also acting like speed is the only important factor here. I've been using IE8 beta more because of the built in developer tools, and being able to switch between IE8 standards mode and IE7 mode... which means I don't have to check FF's rendering as much. Besides, IE8 is so fast, that it hardly seems worth if it FF is faster.. either will be great for browsing, because both are now really really fast. It's not like the ridiculously slow IE7.
Add with that experience, superior plugins like NoScript, and you also save bandwidth because Flash files don't load by default and scripts don't tie up resources unless you approve them to do so. NoScript was designed for security, but with the added benefit that you get faster performance with it.
Performance is not the end-all be-all of browsing. I'm sure someone so included could whip up an add-in like NoScript in IE as well.
Even when you look at Google Chrome, which is also a valid attempt at increasing performance (they flaunt security as a pillar of their design, but their cheerleading is unwarranted), the fact that you can't control scripts that are allowed to run, limits the user and make the user bound to the control of the webmaster, who typically controlled by a business or corporation that is only in it for the money and will infringe on rights of users without any form of conscience or compassion.
I'm not sure most users care as much as you about controling scripts. For example, I'm looking forward to see what features FF comes up with, because I think there are other new features in IE8 that look pretty compelling, like WebSlices and Extenders.
I'm in no way condoning the abortion clinic bombings and shootings, but they're a world apart from what we're seeing in the middle east. The goal of the anti-abortion killer is to attack a very specific target with the goal of preventing them from doing something that the killer thinks is morally worse than the attack. The goal of a suicide bomber is to spread terror throughout an entire society.
I'm sure in the head of a suicide bomber the goal is the same; to kill people who are disrespecting their god. Honestly, that's the worst rationalization I've heard here in quite a while. After all, the suicide bombers aren't bombing the other terrorists are they? And for the most part they seem to largely stay away from other muslims.
Now, both killers effect the same result: dead people. However, you can't pretend that a targeted attack against someone perceived as evil by the attacker is equivalent to an indiscriminate assault against innocents, including children.
As I said, I'm sure in the minds of the suicide bombers they aren't targetting innocent people either. Please, stop trying to justify murder when a christian does it. Stop pretending the abortion clinic bombing is somehow "less evil." People like you sicken me.
In all the establishment clause cases, the public display was tradition and voluntary and were sued to prevent the voluntary display. In most of these cases, the community supported the display.
So the arguement is basically that, we've always endorced religon, and if a majority of the community supports it, it's ok to spend tax payer money on it. Do I have that right?
Well, it's not a suicide bombing... but it's a bombing:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/37363/
I can find such passages in the bible as well.. whats you're point? Or are you just trolling?
No, a company does NOT have the right to mess up when it's ME that will be hit hard with the consequences.
I realize that no one choses to be blind... but at the same time, I don't see the need to spend a lot of money I won't get back. Sometimes, life just sucks. Sorry.
How about all the people who use something less popular, e.g. Konqueror? How about all the people who must use something that will never be popular, such as people with disabilities? Shall we just say "tough, get off the web"?
Pretty much, ya. If I'm paying to have a website built, I'm not going to spend a lot of money making a very small number of people happy. They choose to use an almost unknown browser, they need to live with the consequences of that choice.
It is the cultural norm is why.
Ahh.. so murder would be ok if it became acceptable to a large enough population?
There was a paper showing that piracy helped windows get a massive edge over alternatives in China, e.g. if it wasn't free they would NOT use it.
Interesting, but useless. Without a control group (which requires a version of Windows impossible to pirate), the paper doesn't prove anything. Windows became popular in the US without the need for massive piracy; China is no different.
Also it is not theft it is copyright infringemnt, there is a big differnce.
Semantics. You're taken someone's time and investment and not compensated them for it, when they clearly expectd compensation.
It is like advertizing when someone pirates windows, at zero cost.
Just a rationalization of theft. Stealing Gap jeans "advertises" them as well. The cost for MS though is the pay of it's employees and research. Or do you think each version of Windows magically appears at MS, ready for them to sell?
And yes linux is that good but quality doesn't matter much, it is all image. The average user does not try many OSes and decide which is best.
So it's ok to steal because you're lazy. Got ya.
You're just rationalizing theft. If someone wants to sell something, and you're not willing to pay the price, then you need to go without. It's entirely likely that many of the pirates WOULD pay if they had no choice but to pay. They obviously see value in it, or why would you pirate when you can get an alternative for free? Or is Linux really not as good as people here claim?
No, not really. MS should have $200 more (or whatever price) any way you look at it. You're arguing semantics, but the effects are the same. You've used someone else's time and investment for free, when they clearly were intending to work for free.
If someone takes the website I'm working on now for a client, and replaces the business name and some of the text, they are using my work (time) without my permission. It's not right.
So you claim there are articles, but no studies. Very interesting... I can only assume that the articles are making baseless claims, just like you are.
No where do you even back up that sales aren't be impacted by piracy, yet you build your whole argument on that premise.
You also assume that every college student has a 100 gig MP3 collection.
So are there studies or aren't there? You claim I'm ignoring information available, but there's nothing but articles speculating. Why should those articles hold any more weight than your arguments, where you make up numbers?
You then claim that college kids won't spend "thousands of bucks on CDs," because they don't have that kind of money. Again assuming that all college kids are poor (a silly assumption), that all of them wouldn't spend any amount of money on music.
Your best assumption is that stealing is ok if you wouldn't have paid for it anyway. Ya, good logic there.
Don't get mad at me because I'm being honest about what's going on, and that I'm simply throwing out there that the truth is likely in the middle; piracy IS hurting sales, but not as much as the RIAA claims, but probably more than you admit.. which is pretty likely since you're whole argument is that they are losing $0.
Well, if people use software MS would have otherwise been paid for, they are costing Microsoft money. Your argument only holds provided people don't actually use software they didn't purchase.
Well, Express has been around for about four years now. And there's always an academic license.
Oddly enough, the Express versions were usable enough that I could start working at my new job while I wanted for them to purchase the full version for me, and I was pretty much as productive as I am with the purchased version. gcc + qt isn't even a development environment; even if you used Express as a text editor, you get color syntax highlighting, which is more than you'd get with pico. I suspect that you think the full version should just be 100% free, and ignored what features the Express versions did in fact offer. In other words, you're just a greedy Linux zealot.
Oh, and the same can be said for VS; you'd have to be interested in programming to even hear of it in the first place too! Duh.
You are a dolt. Read what I said again, and understand. And stop pulling numbers out of your ass; it makes you look retarded.
Well, if he wanted to download visual studio, there's no need to pirate, since the Express versions are free. Also, there's Eclipse, which may be downloaded for free (legally) as well... I don't think your argument holds.
You're making the fallacy that most songs or movies copied would NOT be purchased at the current price, if it weren't available via a pirated version.
The truth is, we really don't know, because we can't form a control group of people that cannot pirate anything.
Someone doing A through D on your list is not being pragmatic. They may claim to be, but they are not, because no where in pragmatism do you only focus on the short term, or "discard all principles and ethics when it is convenient to [a] position."