Just because you are harried and in a hurry does *not* give you the excuse to be rude, especially to some sap making damned close to minimum wage who's just there to help you. If she had been polite to start with, his response itself would've been rude. However, being rude in response to rudeness is perhaps the only valid response.
Both M. de Icaza and J. Waugh (director of the GNOME foundation) have made statements essentially endorsing OOXML. So, yes, official statements have been made in support of OOXML.
As far as support goes, people will support it to the extent legally possible. That's one of the major issues-- Microsoft hasn't pledged not to squash, via legal means, non-licensed implementations of OOXML. It's not just an issue of technical compatibility (which will never be 100% as long as Microsoft refuses to co-operate with the rest of the computer industry), but of legal impediments.
As customers, as community members, and as geeks, our best interest is to squash OOXML and pressure Microsoft into supporting ODF. Key members of the Gnome foundation are undermining our best interests by publicly supporting OOXML.
If you *want* the 2.0 kernel (first released in 1996, and last officially updated in 2004), you can still get it. If there is a known exploit, you can still fix it, or have it fixed. It's no longer off the table.
Can you get MS-Windows 95? '98 SP2? NT 3.5? Not officially. Nor will you be able to get known bugs fixed.
In 10 years, you'll *still* be able to get Linux 2.0. You won't be able to get MS-Windows Vista, nor XP, nor especially MS-Windows 98 SP2. Why you'd want MS-Windows in the first place, God only knows. But *you won't be able.*
And nobody's especially pushing the 2.6 kernel. That just happens to be the one shipped with most current distributions. And for most applications (though not all), 2.6 *is* better, which can't be said vis-a-vis MS-Windows Vista and XP.
See what I'm getting at? Microsoft is willing to push people into an operating system (not just a kernel) that has *less* perceived value than the OS it replaces. In other words, *they are willing to screw over their own customers.* Granted, this is not news to anyone who's watched Microsoft tear apart the computing industry for its own gain. But it's yet one more bit of evidence for those who still defend Microsoft.
If you like Microsoft and its products, fine. Just realize there's a vast difference between Linux and Microsoft Windows-- not just technically, but socially. (Hint: Linux wins on both counts. On the latter, MS-Windows didn't even show up for the race.)
What, is reading between the lines a lost art these days?
What the articles *states*, and what it *says*, are two different things. It states several things, but *says* a very specific thing.
The/. summary is damned close to what the article implies. You can almost see the thought process: "How do we get people to upgrade to Vista without coming out and saying XP is crap?"
It's kind of disingenuous of you to give a strictly-literal interpretation of the article to claim the/. summary is a troll.
Being a pragmatist, I just don't see the point in Microsoft spending so much time, money and energy developing thier own engine when they can just take another one, write a legacy wrapper and a few patches to maintain compatability with old stuff, deprecate that old stuff, and move on with life.
Microsoft doesn't want just another web browser. They want to control the interface to the internet. If they just re-used or re-created a standards-based web browser, they'd just be one more player.
Examine Microsoft's software products. Name *one* that is 100% compliant and compatible with another non-MS software system. Their goal isn't interoperability. It's non-interoperability. They want MS-Windows to be a live trap, a one-way door that traps users into their system. Otherwise, they couldn't compete. Whether from arrogant nihilism or fear, Microsoft has a strong not-invented-here mentality. If they don't own it, they don't want it.
Right now Microsoft is relying on their market dominance to sell software. If they were to give that up (say, by creating compatible, interoperable software), they'd have to build good software and compete on merits, not on document or protocol lock-in.
Macs are price competitive if you are comparing *exactly* the same PC configuration.
Are you suggesting we should compare them against a *different*, *cheaper* PC? Now, that's a fair comparison.
Macs are better. Period. For the same price as a comparable system (which you have admitted), you also get the added bonus of a better-designed computer. Macs are damned fine pieces of machinery for their price.
Sure, you don't have as many options. But really, who wants to fuck with their video card anyway? Geeks and gamers. So Macs aren't designed for geeks and gamers. They're designed for *everyday users.* Like my wife. Like my daughter. Like 90% of the population.
On the PC side, you have MS-Windows (which fuckin' sucks, and not in a good way). You have *BSD. You have Linux. Of those, none come close to OS X as an operating system. Not even close enough to frag with a sniper rifle.
Now, me I use Linux, because it's superior to MS-Windows, and better supported than *BSD. But for everyone else who is not a geek or a gamer, I recommend Macs. Why? Because they are *better.* Period. You can cover your ears and sing "La-la-la-la" all you want, but it doesn't change the FACT: Macs are better.
How do I know? Of all my friends with all their computers, who calls for help? MS-Windows users. I have *never* been called to help a Mac user to fix something fucked up with the OS. And I know a *lot* of Mac users. And of the two groups, the Mac users are *very* happy with their computers. The MS-Windows users are generally not. (Though they won't try a Mac.)
I compare MS-Windows users to Budweiser drinkers. They think because Bud is the best-selling beer, it's the best. They aren't willing to recognize that their drink of choice just fuckin' sucks. Same thing with Folgers drinkers. Oh, no. It's those people who are willing to pay a little bit more for a much better experience that are stupid. Not them.
Dear IE team: thanks for inventing AJAX. Now please go make everything else work. kthxbye.
Can we stop with this lie already?
The IE team did not invent AJAX. The XMLHttpRequest call (which Microsoft did create) was merely a shorthand for something developers had been doing for years: targeting an invisible iframe with an HTTP request, and then inspecting the contents of that iframe for data. I did at least a year before MS released XMLHttpRequest support, and *I* stole it from somebody else who had written a JS library to support it.
Microsoft did create a nice shorthand for it. That's nice. BUT THEY DID NOT INVENT AJAX!
Sorry for the rant. I just hate that Microsoft gets more credit than they deserve. (The did *not* create the personal computer revolution. Apple and Commodore did that long before MS purchased DOS for $10k from a gullible Seattle developer. Etc.)
ODF is an ISO standard, but ISO doesn't control ODF, Sun/OO.o does thru OASIS.
Your argument is extremely flawed. OASIS is much more than just Sun/OO.o. IBM, Novell, and Adobe are also on the ODF TC. This is a multi-vendor standardization group, with a real interest in cross-vendor interoperability.
There's also a huge difference between OASIS and Microsoft. Microsoft has tried to game the system to force ratification of their proposal. Microsoft has not proposed a standard that is fully implementable by any other vendor. Microsoft has shown itself resistant to cooperation.
Microsoft has not indicated they are willing to seek a true standard. They will remain solely in control. They will not provide full, free license to implement the standard. They will not promise to adhere to the standard themselves, or to refrain from introducing proprietary extensions of modifications.
That is, Microsoft appears to desire an ISO rubber stamp on their own document lock-in, rather than to pursue an open standard implementable by any other vendor.
Essentially, Microsoft has betrayed its trust. *This* is what Microsoft apologists ignore, to score political points.
Microsoft said they'd do one thing. Now, they have changed what they said. It is a bait and switch. Period.
OASIS is a group of many vendors. ODF is a specification and standard worked on by many vendors, with much assurance that the standard is implementable by multiple vendors (or anyone off the street, for that matter), with no surcharges or requirements for permission. That makes it a true standard.
OOXML is a format that is poorly-specified and fully implementable by exactly one vendor: Microsoft. There is only one vendor responsible for the specification. That vendor promised that ISO would have a modicum of control over maintenance of the standard. Now, that vendor has reversed that decision. That is, in any book, a "bait-and-switch." (As an aside-- it's a little disingenuous to claim the ECMA is the one proposing this change, as the ECMA has worked on the vendor's behalf since the beginning.)
If Microsoft is truly after a standard based on OOXML, it *must* release control to a multi-vendor group, with representatives from the free software crowd. It *must* remove all restrictions on implementation. It *must* provide patent grants non-gratis to all implementations that adhere to the standard. It *must* vow to adhere to the standard itself, without proprietary extensions.
Without these promises and actions, Microsoft is not proposing a standard, it is asking for an ISO number for itself. It is asking for industry approval of its document format lock-in.
Microsoft has squandered what little trust the industry had, gaming the ISO standardization processes, and now it wonders why everyone is suspicious? Microsoft has betrayed us too many times. If it wishes to regain our trust, they must make honest and open efforts to cooperate in a meaningful way, not just write smug, self-righteous blog entries.
Of course they did. Since it comes with the operating system, you pay for it when you purchase the OS.
If they gave IE away for free, I could legally download it and install it under Wine. But I can't legally do that. You have to have a copy of MS-Windows, which means you're really just getting an upgraded component (web browser) of the OS.
Now it seems that most kids have some type of allergy or asthma, yet we live in such sterile times.
*ding* *ding* *ding*
There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that allergies and asthma are related to the sterility of the environment in which we tend to raise kids. There's absolutely no evidence it's related to vaccines.
Now, I'm not entirely convinced we *need* all the vaccines we get. And there are sometimes side-effects that are glossed over. And you are certainly right-- big medical companies push vaccines to maximize their profits, just as they push drugs to maximize profits. That doesn't mean we should stop administering vaccines for high-risk diseases like hepatitis.
IE6 has serious CSS issues that increases the amount of work required for Javascript logic.
For instance, it's extremely flexible to assign multiple classes to an element to affect layout. Using Javascript to manipulate the various classes assigned to an element makes the Javascript logic easy to implement and easy to understand, and makes the CSS pretty simple, too. Selectors can look like:.class1.class2 {... stuff to do only when an element has both classes... }
Unfortunately, IE6 CSS selectors are seriously broken. IE6 selects *all* elements with class2, *not just* elements with both class1 and class2. This makes the Javascript much more convoluted, and less-obvious to write, as you have to do things like "class1_class2", and constantly manage your combined classes.
It sucks, it makes *much* more work, and it's harder to debug.
This is just one example of how it's not just a matter of carefully coding your CSS to work around IE6 layout issues. The repercussions are pretty extensive, from the DOM to the Javascript.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Aye, and there's the rub. This has happened so many times that it can no longer be adequately explained by stupidity. There is a *definite and undeniable* pattern of abuse that points to one primary explanation: malice.
It isn't because of marketing-- it's because of exclusionary deals with PC manufacturers back in the day when MS-DOS was the dominant "OS", and DR-DOS was its only competitor.
Microsoft has used exclusionary licensing deals with the distribution channel companies to ensure they are the only OS sold on PCs. That stranglehold has worked effectively, to the point where, when competition has arisen and MS is legally barred from such tactics, OEMs are still hesitant about crossing Microsoft. This is slowly changing (SEE Dell & HP for examples), but it's still dangerous for OEMs to cross Microsoft.
MS has known from the beginning that controlling the distribution chain is the key to maintaining a monopoly, not marketing. It's all about leaving the customer no choice whatsoever, which suits the customer fine-- choices mean they might make the wrong one. That's why there are so many fanbois out there, whether XBox vs. PS3 (they both suck), GNU/Linux vs MS-Windows vs Mac (they all three suck), etc.
Really, the computing world right now is a shit buffet. Every choice is a bad one.
Having never programmed Flash, I just have this question: since Flash is pretty much everywhere, wouldn't just programming your site in Flash be a better option?
A pox on thy house! May you and your family suffer from those fungal infestations that make your toenails look like cauliflower. For fuck's sake, FLASH?
Have you checked out Open Laszlo? It sounds like it might be what you're looking for. (I'm not affiliated with them in any way. I just think it's an interesting project.)
Seriously, it is an irresponsible decision to not use someone product just because you say that is a "devil" company. Have you evaluated and you rejected them? From the post it seems that not.
I believe you misunderstand his reasoning. It goes thusly: Microsoft has consistently made the worst browser out there, with regards to standards. Their browsers' non-compliance with standards has caused his company serious amounts of additional work and frustration.
It isn't that MS is a devil company. It's that their products suck. That's all he's sayin'. He's evaluating their general product quality based on the suckage that is IE. And really, he's right. Microsoft makes non-standard, sub-standard products, in general (with a few exceptions).
As long as they insist on doing things for the good of Microsoft to the detriment of the industry and the consumers-- no, they can't do anything right. As long as their intent is to maintain and extend their monopoly, they are not doing anything right.
Don't teach to an interface. That's silly, and leads to frustration. Every major release of every major piece of software has a different interface from the last. Even Adobe admits that Photoshop's interface is too complex, and so they are re-designing it for the next major release.
If you are teaching to an interface, you are doing your students a disservice.
Teach principles. For that, you can use pretty much anything-- Gimp, Krita, an old version of Photoshop, etc. It's the principles that matter, *not* the interface.
Or you could let them explore with both programs (for example, more advanced students might be able to do projects comparing the capabilities of two different programs).
Now you're talking! Avoid the false dichotomy entirely, and teach *both*, to drive the principles home, and teach them to think on their feet.
When you buy a book or, say, a video game, 90% of what you pay is the license.
That is *not* what you buy.
You purchase a copy. That copy is yours. You don't "use up" a license. You use a copy.
The whole idea of copyright is simple: allow the creator of a work to provide limited licenses on *copying.* The only rights the author has is the right to control copying of the creation. That's why it's called a "copy right."
This whole idea of licensing copyrighted works is from the software industry. It involves the *license* to create copies of the work. Of course, in most cases, the work is useless without copying onto a hard drive, so it kinda makes sense, in a strange way.
However, when you purchase a book, you are not making a copy. You are purchasing a copy, and that copy belongs to *you*. You may sell it, lend it, and even copy small sections for purposes of academia or research or review (SEE fair use). You can do anything you want, as long as you don't make a copy, because only the author has the right to authorize ("license") copies.
Please resist the urge to voluntarily give up your rights. Don't let them convince you that sharing is bad. It isn't. That book is yours. That console game is yours. You can sell them, lend them, or do anything else you can do with a physical object. Those are your *rights.*
At least, those are your rights in the United States, and in many other nations. Check with your local government to be sure.
I am actually pretty conservative but torture is wrong.
It's sad that conservatism has fallen into such disrepute. I used to think, "Hey, my conservative friends and I want the same things. We just have different ideas about how to accomplish those things."
Now, all my "conservative" friends are suddenly very liberal. They haven't changed. The terms have changed.
The $280 Xbox 360 is so badly crippled it might as well not exist.
Actually, it's a shame it *does* exist.
Game developers have to target the *lowest common denominator.* That means they have to target the non-HDD 360. That meanst they can't count on streaming game data, or anything else. So, the non-HDD version not only is crippled itself, but it cripples the potential of the games themselves.
Same thing with the lack of HD-DVD. Game data is at the point where it fills a DVD to capacity. Game developers have to over-compress textures, reduce level complexity, reduce the amount of cinematic content, and whatnot. (Yes, this is already happening. Check out comments by some of the Unreal Tournament 3 devs.)
I think this is the 360's biggest weakness. It gives Microsoft an early advantage, but as you pointed out, the price advantage is essentially gone. Now we'll see if the early lead is enough to overcome the technical deficiencies in their most-crippled console.
But they will do nothing about the drug smugglers and millions of illegals pouring over the southern boarders.
No matter what the media would like you to believe, there aren't "millions of illegals pouring over the southern boarders (sic)." And ask any construction company in Texas-- if it wasn't for illegal immigrants, you couldn't afford a house in Houston.
"Illegal immigration" is a distraction. It's like the bar of soap in the communal showers in prison: "Pick that up, Boy."
The only illegal entry is the government entering our asses. And I mean that literally. The checks at the border are getting *tough*.
There are real things that need to be fixed in this country, rather than worry about privacy!
I do agree that our medical system needs overhauled. And while I respect President Jimmy Carter more than any President we've had in the last 35 years, I think he made a big mistake when he shut down our mental institutes as he did. (Yes, there were problems, but they could've been solved without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.)
But, I worry about privacy as well. I don't think I should have to choose. Privacy does not run counter to *any* legitimate goal the federal government might have.
Slashdot Mirror
Really?
Just because you are harried and in a hurry does *not* give you the excuse to be rude, especially to some sap making damned close to minimum wage who's just there to help you. If she had been polite to start with, his response itself would've been rude. However, being rude in response to rudeness is perhaps the only valid response.
Both M. de Icaza and J. Waugh (director of the GNOME foundation) have made statements essentially endorsing OOXML. So, yes, official statements have been made in support of OOXML.
As far as support goes, people will support it to the extent legally possible. That's one of the major issues-- Microsoft hasn't pledged not to squash, via legal means, non-licensed implementations of OOXML. It's not just an issue of technical compatibility (which will never be 100% as long as Microsoft refuses to co-operate with the rest of the computer industry), but of legal impediments.
As customers, as community members, and as geeks, our best interest is to squash OOXML and pressure Microsoft into supporting ODF. Key members of the Gnome foundation are undermining our best interests by publicly supporting OOXML.
That's why folks are a bit het up over the issue.
Or consider the Linux kernel.
Yes, lets.
If you *want* the 2.0 kernel (first released in 1996, and last officially updated in 2004), you can still get it. If there is a known exploit, you can still fix it, or have it fixed. It's no longer off the table.
Can you get MS-Windows 95? '98 SP2? NT 3.5? Not officially. Nor will you be able to get known bugs fixed.
In 10 years, you'll *still* be able to get Linux 2.0. You won't be able to get MS-Windows Vista, nor XP, nor especially MS-Windows 98 SP2. Why you'd want MS-Windows in the first place, God only knows. But *you won't be able.*
And nobody's especially pushing the 2.6 kernel. That just happens to be the one shipped with most current distributions. And for most applications (though not all), 2.6 *is* better, which can't be said vis-a-vis MS-Windows Vista and XP.
See what I'm getting at? Microsoft is willing to push people into an operating system (not just a kernel) that has *less* perceived value than the OS it replaces. In other words, *they are willing to screw over their own customers.* Granted, this is not news to anyone who's watched Microsoft tear apart the computing industry for its own gain. But it's yet one more bit of evidence for those who still defend Microsoft.
If you like Microsoft and its products, fine. Just realize there's a vast difference between Linux and Microsoft Windows-- not just technically, but socially. (Hint: Linux wins on both counts. On the latter, MS-Windows didn't even show up for the race.)
What, is reading between the lines a lost art these days?
/. summary is damned close to what the article implies. You can almost see the thought process: "How do we get people to upgrade to Vista without coming out and saying XP is crap?"
/. summary is a troll.
What the articles *states*, and what it *says*, are two different things. It states several things, but *says* a very specific thing.
The
It's kind of disingenuous of you to give a strictly-literal interpretation of the article to claim the
It's a sad state of affairs when Microsoft is its own biggest competitor.
We live in a strange, strange world. Fucked up, but strange.
Being a pragmatist, I just don't see the point in Microsoft spending so much time, money and energy developing thier own engine when they can just take another one, write a legacy wrapper and a few patches to maintain compatability with old stuff, deprecate that old stuff, and move on with life.
Microsoft doesn't want just another web browser. They want to control the interface to the internet. If they just re-used or re-created a standards-based web browser, they'd just be one more player.
Examine Microsoft's software products. Name *one* that is 100% compliant and compatible with another non-MS software system. Their goal isn't interoperability. It's non-interoperability. They want MS-Windows to be a live trap, a one-way door that traps users into their system. Otherwise, they couldn't compete. Whether from arrogant nihilism or fear, Microsoft has a strong not-invented-here mentality. If they don't own it, they don't want it.
Right now Microsoft is relying on their market dominance to sell software. If they were to give that up (say, by creating compatible, interoperable software), they'd have to build good software and compete on merits, not on document or protocol lock-in.
Like I said: name just one.
Macs are price competitive if you are comparing *exactly* the same PC configuration.
Are you suggesting we should compare them against a *different*, *cheaper* PC? Now, that's a fair comparison.
Macs are better. Period. For the same price as a comparable system (which you have admitted), you also get the added bonus of a better-designed computer. Macs are damned fine pieces of machinery for their price.
Sure, you don't have as many options. But really, who wants to fuck with their video card anyway? Geeks and gamers. So Macs aren't designed for geeks and gamers. They're designed for *everyday users.* Like my wife. Like my daughter. Like 90% of the population.
On the PC side, you have MS-Windows (which fuckin' sucks, and not in a good way). You have *BSD. You have Linux. Of those, none come close to OS X as an operating system. Not even close enough to frag with a sniper rifle.
Now, me I use Linux, because it's superior to MS-Windows, and better supported than *BSD. But for everyone else who is not a geek or a gamer, I recommend Macs. Why? Because they are *better.* Period. You can cover your ears and sing "La-la-la-la" all you want, but it doesn't change the FACT: Macs are better.
How do I know? Of all my friends with all their computers, who calls for help? MS-Windows users. I have *never* been called to help a Mac user to fix something fucked up with the OS. And I know a *lot* of Mac users. And of the two groups, the Mac users are *very* happy with their computers. The MS-Windows users are generally not. (Though they won't try a Mac.)
I compare MS-Windows users to Budweiser drinkers. They think because Bud is the best-selling beer, it's the best. They aren't willing to recognize that their drink of choice just fuckin' sucks. Same thing with Folgers drinkers. Oh, no. It's those people who are willing to pay a little bit more for a much better experience that are stupid. Not them.
Suckers.
Dear IE team: thanks for inventing AJAX. Now please go make everything else work. kthxbye.
Can we stop with this lie already?
The IE team did not invent AJAX. The XMLHttpRequest call (which Microsoft did create) was merely a shorthand for something developers had been doing for years: targeting an invisible iframe with an HTTP request, and then inspecting the contents of that iframe for data. I did at least a year before MS released XMLHttpRequest support, and *I* stole it from somebody else who had written a JS library to support it.
Microsoft did create a nice shorthand for it. That's nice. BUT THEY DID NOT INVENT AJAX!
Sorry for the rant. I just hate that Microsoft gets more credit than they deserve. (The did *not* create the personal computer revolution. Apple and Commodore did that long before MS purchased DOS for $10k from a gullible Seattle developer. Etc.)
ODF is an ISO standard, but ISO doesn't control ODF, Sun/OO.o does thru OASIS.
Your argument is extremely flawed. OASIS is much more than just Sun/OO.o. IBM, Novell, and Adobe are also on the ODF TC. This is a multi-vendor standardization group, with a real interest in cross-vendor interoperability.
There's also a huge difference between OASIS and Microsoft. Microsoft has tried to game the system to force ratification of their proposal. Microsoft has not proposed a standard that is fully implementable by any other vendor. Microsoft has shown itself resistant to cooperation.
Microsoft has not indicated they are willing to seek a true standard. They will remain solely in control. They will not provide full, free license to implement the standard. They will not promise to adhere to the standard themselves, or to refrain from introducing proprietary extensions of modifications.
That is, Microsoft appears to desire an ISO rubber stamp on their own document lock-in, rather than to pursue an open standard implementable by any other vendor.
Essentially, Microsoft has betrayed its trust. *This* is what Microsoft apologists ignore, to score political points.
How is this enlightening?
Microsoft said they'd do one thing. Now, they have changed what they said. It is a bait and switch. Period.
OASIS is a group of many vendors. ODF is a specification and standard worked on by many vendors, with much assurance that the standard is implementable by multiple vendors (or anyone off the street, for that matter), with no surcharges or requirements for permission. That makes it a true standard.
OOXML is a format that is poorly-specified and fully implementable by exactly one vendor: Microsoft. There is only one vendor responsible for the specification. That vendor promised that ISO would have a modicum of control over maintenance of the standard. Now, that vendor has reversed that decision. That is, in any book, a "bait-and-switch." (As an aside-- it's a little disingenuous to claim the ECMA is the one proposing this change, as the ECMA has worked on the vendor's behalf since the beginning.)
If Microsoft is truly after a standard based on OOXML, it *must* release control to a multi-vendor group, with representatives from the free software crowd. It *must* remove all restrictions on implementation. It *must* provide patent grants non-gratis to all implementations that adhere to the standard. It *must* vow to adhere to the standard itself, without proprietary extensions.
Without these promises and actions, Microsoft is not proposing a standard, it is asking for an ISO number for itself. It is asking for industry approval of its document format lock-in.
Microsoft has squandered what little trust the industry had, gaming the ISO standardization processes, and now it wonders why everyone is suspicious? Microsoft has betrayed us too many times. If it wishes to regain our trust, they must make honest and open efforts to cooperate in a meaningful way, not just write smug, self-righteous blog entries.
Of course they did. Since it comes with the operating system, you pay for it when you purchase the OS.
If they gave IE away for free, I could legally download it and install it under Wine. But I can't legally do that. You have to have a copy of MS-Windows, which means you're really just getting an upgraded component (web browser) of the OS.
Now it seems that most kids have some type of allergy or asthma, yet we live in such sterile times.
*ding* *ding* *ding*
There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that allergies and asthma are related to the sterility of the environment in which we tend to raise kids. There's absolutely no evidence it's related to vaccines.
Now, I'm not entirely convinced we *need* all the vaccines we get. And there are sometimes side-effects that are glossed over. And you are certainly right-- big medical companies push vaccines to maximize their profits, just as they push drugs to maximize profits. That doesn't mean we should stop administering vaccines for high-risk diseases like hepatitis.
IE6 has serious CSS issues that increases the amount of work required for Javascript logic.
.class1.class2 { ... stuff to do only when an element has both classes ... }
For instance, it's extremely flexible to assign multiple classes to an element to affect layout. Using Javascript to manipulate the various classes assigned to an element makes the Javascript logic easy to implement and easy to understand, and makes the CSS pretty simple, too. Selectors can look like:
Unfortunately, IE6 CSS selectors are seriously broken. IE6 selects *all* elements with class2, *not just* elements with both class1 and class2. This makes the Javascript much more convoluted, and less-obvious to write, as you have to do things like "class1_class2", and constantly manage your combined classes.
It sucks, it makes *much* more work, and it's harder to debug.
This is just one example of how it's not just a matter of carefully coding your CSS to work around IE6 layout issues. The repercussions are pretty extensive, from the DOM to the Javascript.
In the end, IE6 *is* hard to code for.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Aye, and there's the rub. This has happened so many times that it can no longer be adequately explained by stupidity. There is a *definite and undeniable* pattern of abuse that points to one primary explanation: malice.
It isn't because of marketing-- it's because of exclusionary deals with PC manufacturers back in the day when MS-DOS was the dominant "OS", and DR-DOS was its only competitor.
Microsoft has used exclusionary licensing deals with the distribution channel companies to ensure they are the only OS sold on PCs. That stranglehold has worked effectively, to the point where, when competition has arisen and MS is legally barred from such tactics, OEMs are still hesitant about crossing Microsoft. This is slowly changing (SEE Dell & HP for examples), but it's still dangerous for OEMs to cross Microsoft.
MS has known from the beginning that controlling the distribution chain is the key to maintaining a monopoly, not marketing. It's all about leaving the customer no choice whatsoever, which suits the customer fine-- choices mean they might make the wrong one. That's why there are so many fanbois out there, whether XBox vs. PS3 (they both suck), GNU/Linux vs MS-Windows vs Mac (they all three suck), etc.
Really, the computing world right now is a shit buffet. Every choice is a bad one.
Having never programmed Flash, I just have this question: since Flash is pretty much everywhere, wouldn't just programming your site in Flash be a better option?
A pox on thy house! May you and your family suffer from those fungal infestations that make your toenails look like cauliflower. For fuck's sake, FLASH?
Have you checked out Open Laszlo? It sounds like it might be what you're looking for. (I'm not affiliated with them in any way. I just think it's an interesting project.)
Seriously, it is an irresponsible decision to not use someone product just because you say that is a "devil" company. Have you evaluated and you rejected them? From the post it seems that not.
I believe you misunderstand his reasoning. It goes thusly: Microsoft has consistently made the worst browser out there, with regards to standards. Their browsers' non-compliance with standards has caused his company serious amounts of additional work and frustration.
It isn't that MS is a devil company. It's that their products suck. That's all he's sayin'. He's evaluating their general product quality based on the suckage that is IE. And really, he's right. Microsoft makes non-standard, sub-standard products, in general (with a few exceptions).
As long as they insist on doing things for the good of Microsoft to the detriment of the industry and the consumers-- no, they can't do anything right. As long as their intent is to maintain and extend their monopoly, they are not doing anything right.
Don't teach to an interface. That's silly, and leads to frustration. Every major release of every major piece of software has a different interface from the last. Even Adobe admits that Photoshop's interface is too complex, and so they are re-designing it for the next major release.
If you are teaching to an interface, you are doing your students a disservice.
Teach principles. For that, you can use pretty much anything-- Gimp, Krita, an old version of Photoshop, etc. It's the principles that matter, *not* the interface.
Or you could let them explore with both programs (for example, more advanced students might be able to do projects comparing the capabilities of two different programs).
Now you're talking! Avoid the false dichotomy entirely, and teach *both*, to drive the principles home, and teach them to think on their feet.
When you buy a book or, say, a video game, 90% of what you pay is the license.
That is *not* what you buy.
You purchase a copy. That copy is yours. You don't "use up" a license. You use a copy.
The whole idea of copyright is simple: allow the creator of a work to provide limited licenses on *copying.* The only rights the author has is the right to control copying of the creation. That's why it's called a "copy right."
This whole idea of licensing copyrighted works is from the software industry. It involves the *license* to create copies of the work. Of course, in most cases, the work is useless without copying onto a hard drive, so it kinda makes sense, in a strange way.
However, when you purchase a book, you are not making a copy. You are purchasing a copy, and that copy belongs to *you*. You may sell it, lend it, and even copy small sections for purposes of academia or research or review (SEE fair use). You can do anything you want, as long as you don't make a copy, because only the author has the right to authorize ("license") copies.
Please resist the urge to voluntarily give up your rights. Don't let them convince you that sharing is bad. It isn't. That book is yours. That console game is yours. You can sell them, lend them, or do anything else you can do with a physical object. Those are your *rights.*
At least, those are your rights in the United States, and in many other nations. Check with your local government to be sure.
I am actually pretty conservative but torture is wrong.
It's sad that conservatism has fallen into such disrepute. I used to think, "Hey, my conservative friends and I want the same things. We just have different ideas about how to accomplish those things."
Now, all my "conservative" friends are suddenly very liberal. They haven't changed. The terms have changed.
Of *course* we're not equivalent to terrorists.
The terrorists are organized.
*rimshot*
The $280 Xbox 360 is so badly crippled it might as well not exist.
Actually, it's a shame it *does* exist.
Game developers have to target the *lowest common denominator.* That means they have to target the non-HDD 360. That meanst they can't count on streaming game data, or anything else. So, the non-HDD version not only is crippled itself, but it cripples the potential of the games themselves.
Same thing with the lack of HD-DVD. Game data is at the point where it fills a DVD to capacity. Game developers have to over-compress textures, reduce level complexity, reduce the amount of cinematic content, and whatnot. (Yes, this is already happening. Check out comments by some of the Unreal Tournament 3 devs.)
I think this is the 360's biggest weakness. It gives Microsoft an early advantage, but as you pointed out, the price advantage is essentially gone. Now we'll see if the early lead is enough to overcome the technical deficiencies in their most-crippled console.
But they will do nothing about the drug smugglers and millions of illegals pouring over the southern boarders.
No matter what the media would like you to believe, there aren't "millions of illegals pouring over the southern boarders (sic)." And ask any construction company in Texas-- if it wasn't for illegal immigrants, you couldn't afford a house in Houston.
"Illegal immigration" is a distraction. It's like the bar of soap in the communal showers in prison: "Pick that up, Boy."
The only illegal entry is the government entering our asses. And I mean that literally. The checks at the border are getting *tough*.
There are real things that need to be fixed in this country, rather than worry about privacy!
I do agree that our medical system needs overhauled. And while I respect President Jimmy Carter more than any President we've had in the last 35 years, I think he made a big mistake when he shut down our mental institutes as he did. (Yes, there were problems, but they could've been solved without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.)
But, I worry about privacy as well. I don't think I should have to choose. Privacy does not run counter to *any* legitimate goal the federal government might have.