Do you have a link that documents how the company does this in the post-Enron/Adelphia/WorldCom era? Something that's not eight years old might be useful and actually informative. Especially considering they switched to granting shares instead of options a long time ago.
A link that illustrates how Microsoft is (or was) the only company to do this in the planet (as you seem to be implying) at the time or now would also be helpful.
That imposes a burden on the company, and that won't fly. Not under the "but we made it standards-compliant" banner. Like I said, in the corporate world no one gives a crap about standards. No one. Why? Because companies standardize on a single browser, and as long as everything works with that then life is good. Even upgrades from IE4->IE5->IE6->IE7 were peanuts in most cases compared to what would happen if IE suddenly decided to try and render every single page as mandated by the W3C.
If IE8 works as advertised and renders in standards-compliance mode, then I suspect eventually no one will care. My existing apps don't break, and any new development I do can be standards-specific as well. If you're developing correctly then you can add that header from a centralized location to all your pages and be done with it. But I don't see how Microsoft cannot set the default engine to behave as IE6 does. That would simply break too many things. They have no choice but to find a balance. This is again a situation they contributed a lot to, but complaining about it won't make it go away. Inside the corporate world people could give a rat's ass about standards or browser-agnostic code or pixel-perfect CSS positioning. They just want their payroll/purchasing/inventory system to work.
If IE8 doesn't deliver on the standards thing and doesn't render the same (or sufficiently close) to Firefox and Opera (not to mention DOM fixes), then this whole thing is moot anyway. I can understand IE7 not being perfectly compliant, but IE8 better be.
Do you want to add a single tag that all other browsers will ignore, or do you want to spend all your time hacking workarounds? I ask because Microsoft is not about to drop compatibility with billions of pages that unfortunately rely on IE6-specific shortcomings and rendering quirks. So you can accept that IE is not going anywhere soon and that this is the only realistic way to handle this problem (admittedly created by Microsoft themselves), or you can go back to the previous crap situation.
The comments on the blog to the tone of "break the web" are amusing. I'd like to see the face of a CIO when his architect tells him that the corporate-wide upgrade to IE8 broke half the apps on the intranet because, you know, some technorati bloggers with snazzy-looking web sites signed the W3C suicide pact and wanted everyone to do the same.
Or, use Firefox and convince everyone to do as well. That's what I've been doing lately. Maybe IE8 will pull me back, but IE7 sure has heck didn't.
look at the suffering caused by the political ideas of atheists
Like I said in another response, I'm not suggesting that religion is the root of all evil, but at the same time this banding about of Hitler and Stalin is risible at best. Religions have done a lot of good, but they have also been causing suffering for three thousand years. The number of people who have died in the last three or four major wars is a blip against all those centuries.
The vast majority of PEOPLE in the world are poor and uneducated. In many poor countries Catholics tend to be better educated because the church runs schools and cares about education.
Clearly you haven't been much to Latin America, where all countries are ~90% Roman Catholic. Given the demographics and economic situations of those nations (for the past 200 years) I think that the tiny number of well-educated Catholics is irrelevant at best. Religions prey on the poor and uneducated. They always have and they always will.
What neither the church nor the atheists (for different reasons) like to admit was the historical fact that Galileo was not punished for that [...] He was really punished for adding a passage to his book that made the pope look like an idiot
Oh wow. No, actually Galileo questioned papal authority in scientific matters, which is why he was accused of heresy. But I guess you think that's OK. My GOD, even if he had called the Pope a bloated stinking pig after suggesting the Earth orbited around the Sun and not the other way around, how exactly do you justify any type of censorship? Much less threat of torture as punishment to recant from his views?
I'm a agnostic that does not accept your rationalization of human evil. Your answer is too easy and shared by so many and repeated so often that it has become pure mantra with no more credibility to me than sky daddy talk. A cop out.
Evil will always exist where there are men who covet what they don't have or feel uncomfortable with the way other people think. Religion is simply (and has always been) an excellent and convenient excuse for it.
When I talk about damage I'm not referring to body counts. It's the accumulated centuries of forced ignorance and violent resistance to change and progress. But I'm sure that if you actually add up corpses since 100 AD or so your 20th century despots would look tame by comparison.
Oh, and the most violent regime in history was never "anti-God". The Mongols would actually let conquered nations to keep their religions. Assuming they weren't wiped off the face of the planet first.
I suggest you brush up on your history. It encompasses more than the last 100 years.
You know twitter, now that both your sockpuppets are in karma hell I'm actually enjoying *reading* Slashdot a lot more than I used to. So thanks. Maybe one day you'll get over your obsessive compulsive, maniacal belief that Microsoft is out to get you personally and you'll become a member of this community again. The first step would be to understand that no one here dislikes the message. Not even people like me, who you so amusingly accuse of working for Microsoft. They are just (rightly) shooting the messenger because he's so incredibly annoying and dishonest.
While I am the first to admit that religions have a good side, the amount of damage (direct and indirect) that has been perpetrated on humanity in the name of vague ethereal omnipotent beings is so stunning that very few people even realize it. But we shouldn't be surprised at Ratzinger's stance, even if we say to ourselves that it's the 21st century and what are these people smoking? The catholic church is desperate to hold on to its constituency and one of the ways to do that is to harden their stance on issues like these. You see, the vast majority of catholics in the world are poor, uneducated people for whom religion is a refuge from the usually harsh reality of existence. By essentially going back in time, Ratzinger is clinging to the good old days where the Holy Church was always right even if it was wrong, because it derives its wisdom from divinity. This in turn reaffirms the trust that people place in the church's judgment.
Ratzinger was elected for two very specific reasons. First, he is already old so he won't spend 30 years on the throne. That's important to the church hierarchy because they don't want another John Paul II setting policy for that long and progressively going soft on them. The second is that he's essentially a hardcore, old-school catholic. You'll see a lot more of this crap in the next few years, along with a resurgence of the more traditional major and minor orders within the church organization, slowly displacing the more enlightened groups that gained a lot of power during John Paul's tenure.
We'll have to wait about a decade or so to see if this new angle will work for them. Personally I don't think it will. The world has largely moved on. But so much power (most of it very subtle) concentrated in the hands of a group of people who think it wasn't so bad to punish people for claiming that earth is not the center of the universe cannot be good. To paraphrase someone, it's not God I dislike - it's his fan club that scares the crap out of me.
If everyone donated to the FOSS projects they use commercial software would have been surpassed long ago. Think about the value that something like Apache or MySQL provides and monetize it. Vim? Emacs? That's a lot of money.
Human nature being what it is however, donations are a revenue system that generally does not work well (with few exceptions like WP), and probably never will.
Few people actually know that and no one really cares.
Actually twitter, millions of developers who work on Windows with Microsoft (oh, I'm sorry - "M$") tools know exactly what MSXML is.
Since your self-appointed holy goal is to evangelize to them, I suggest you stick with OOXML, otherwise you'll just confuse them. That is of course if they actually give a rat's ass about what someone like you has to say.
vim is pretty much the only thing I compile on Linux nowadays, and one of the few things I do compile on Windows. I turn off arabic support, IME, ballon eval (for Sun compilers anyway), multi-byte, multi-lang, OLE and a few other things, and enable Python.
I have a rather large ~/vimfiles tree (under both Windows and Linux) with a few custom color schemes, syntax and compiler support files, init scripts, mappings and the like.
It loads instantly on my P4 (both on Windows XP SP2 and Fedora Core) and uses very little memory, so I have no idea what you might be doing wrong. I'm pretty sure even a non-custom build loads immediately. It just isn't that heavy. Compare that to say, XEmacs?
You might also want to look into the 'server' functionality that allows you to re-use a VIM instance instead of opening another one.
No, it's not well deserved. Clearly you didn't read through those comments. And the people working on IE7/8 are not the same as the ones that shipped IE5/6, and while the company might deserve the criticism, the individual developers and managers don't.
I bet it's really hard to manage a project when you post an incidental blog entry about an icon change and you get 300 puerile comments about how you should be working on OMG CSS OMG STANDARDS when the roadmap for the product and what it would support based on time constraints and backwards compat requirments was laid out at the beginning of the project quite openly.
You expect a lot but apparently don't really bother reading TFA. That would deny you the chance to tie this into the evil Microsoft, and that's probably unacceptable.
I am a back-end programmer and a founder of a start-up. I can tell you categorically that my team won't download and play with Google Gears... won't build a Google widget... won't consider any Google search or ad products in the future.
The above is actually true, BTW. Replace Google with whatever you want. If "dk" can stick it to Microsoft, then so can I.
Random people posting on teh internets, for great justice.
Slashdot Mirror
A link that illustrates how Microsoft is (or was) the only company to do this in the planet (as you seem to be implying) at the time or now would also be helpful.
Wow, troll. I guess I'm not trying hard enough here.
Yes, this a great idea someone mentioned. I think it would work beautifully.
Well I doubt Microsoft can do a lot about that, other than perhaps convincing more people to use their newer tools which output valid [X]HTML.
That imposes a burden on the company, and that won't fly. Not under the "but we made it standards-compliant" banner. Like I said, in the corporate world no one gives a crap about standards. No one. Why? Because companies standardize on a single browser, and as long as everything works with that then life is good. Even upgrades from IE4->IE5->IE6->IE7 were peanuts in most cases compared to what would happen if IE suddenly decided to try and render every single page as mandated by the W3C.
If IE8 doesn't deliver on the standards thing and doesn't render the same (or sufficiently close) to Firefox and Opera (not to mention DOM fixes), then this whole thing is moot anyway. I can understand IE7 not being perfectly compliant, but IE8 better be.
The comments on the blog to the tone of "break the web" are amusing. I'd like to see the face of a CIO when his architect tells him that the corporate-wide upgrade to IE8 broke half the apps on the intranet because, you know, some technorati bloggers with snazzy-looking web sites signed the W3C suicide pact and wanted everyone to do the same.
Or, use Firefox and convince everyone to do as well. That's what I've been doing lately. Maybe IE8 will pull me back, but IE7 sure has heck didn't.
Like I said in another response, I'm not suggesting that religion is the root of all evil, but at the same time this banding about of Hitler and Stalin is risible at best. Religions have done a lot of good, but they have also been causing suffering for three thousand years. The number of people who have died in the last three or four major wars is a blip against all those centuries.
Clearly you haven't been much to Latin America, where all countries are ~90% Roman Catholic. Given the demographics and economic situations of those nations (for the past 200 years) I think that the tiny number of well-educated Catholics is irrelevant at best. Religions prey on the poor and uneducated. They always have and they always will.
Oh wow. No, actually Galileo questioned papal authority in scientific matters, which is why he was accused of heresy. But I guess you think that's OK. My GOD, even if he had called the Pope a bloated stinking pig after suggesting the Earth orbited around the Sun and not the other way around, how exactly do you justify any type of censorship? Much less threat of torture as punishment to recant from his views?
Evil will always exist where there are men who covet what they don't have or feel uncomfortable with the way other people think. Religion is simply (and has always been) an excellent and convenient excuse for it.
Oh, and the most violent regime in history was never "anti-God". The Mongols would actually let conquered nations to keep their religions. Assuming they weren't wiped off the face of the planet first.
I suggest you brush up on your history. It encompasses more than the last 100 years.
You know twitter, now that both your sockpuppets are in karma hell I'm actually enjoying *reading* Slashdot a lot more than I used to. So thanks. Maybe one day you'll get over your obsessive compulsive, maniacal belief that Microsoft is out to get you personally and you'll become a member of this community again. The first step would be to understand that no one here dislikes the message. Not even people like me, who you so amusingly accuse of working for Microsoft. They are just (rightly) shooting the messenger because he's so incredibly annoying and dishonest.
Ratzinger was elected for two very specific reasons. First, he is already old so he won't spend 30 years on the throne. That's important to the church hierarchy because they don't want another John Paul II setting policy for that long and progressively going soft on them. The second is that he's essentially a hardcore, old-school catholic. You'll see a lot more of this crap in the next few years, along with a resurgence of the more traditional major and minor orders within the church organization, slowly displacing the more enlightened groups that gained a lot of power during John Paul's tenure.
We'll have to wait about a decade or so to see if this new angle will work for them. Personally I don't think it will. The world has largely moved on. But so much power (most of it very subtle) concentrated in the hands of a group of people who think it wasn't so bad to punish people for claiming that earth is not the center of the universe cannot be good. To paraphrase someone, it's not God I dislike - it's his fan club that scares the crap out of me.
Human nature being what it is however, donations are a revenue system that generally does not work well (with few exceptions like WP), and probably never will.
Actually twitter, millions of developers who work on Windows with Microsoft (oh, I'm sorry - "M$") tools know exactly what MSXML is.
Since your self-appointed holy goal is to evangelize to them, I suggest you stick with OOXML, otherwise you'll just confuse them. That is of course if they actually give a rat's ass about what someone like you has to say.
Right, that's what's he's saying... right?
I don't doubt that. Of course shit happens elsewhere as well.
I have a rather large ~/vimfiles tree (under both Windows and Linux) with a few custom color schemes, syntax and compiler support files, init scripts, mappings and the like.
It loads instantly on my P4 (both on Windows XP SP2 and Fedora Core) and uses very little memory, so I have no idea what you might be doing wrong. I'm pretty sure even a non-custom build loads immediately. It just isn't that heavy. Compare that to say, XEmacs?
You might also want to look into the 'server' functionality that allows you to re-use a VIM instance instead of opening another one.
Cool, so not only do you make up tripe about what they don't do, now you're dreaming up tripe about things they haven't done.
DRM... on the browser? What?
I bet it's really hard to manage a project when you post an incidental blog entry about an icon change and you get 300 puerile comments about how you should be working on OMG CSS OMG STANDARDS when the roadmap for the product and what it would support based on time constraints and backwards compat requirments was laid out at the beginning of the project quite openly.
The IE team is tired of all the adolescent crap that gets posted in their blog. I know I would.
That's because he was quoting Stallman, who stopped doing that in highschool.
You expect a lot but apparently don't really bother reading TFA. That would deny you the chance to tie this into the evil Microsoft, and that's probably unacceptable.
Is it difficult to keep the sockpuppets straight, or do you just forget?
Oh wait, the other account is in karma hell, so you can only post twice a day with it. I guess that explains it.
Does that include the puerile dollar signs and the "ha ha" bit, or should those be ignored?
After all, the troll made a valid point until he linked to a shock site or whatever it is.
The above is actually true, BTW. Replace Google with whatever you want. If "dk" can stick it to Microsoft, then so can I.
Random people posting on teh internets, for great justice.