I don't see why I have to come up with any reason.
They are asking if it's acceptable if there site is MS-IE only.
The answer: No, its not.
Read their letter again. They are NOT asking whether requiring using MS-IE only on their site is acceptable. They are asking whether this requirement would cause any difficulty to potential users, and why.
This means that if you are planning on sending them a letter, you should include reasons as to why you think that you, or anybody else, would encounter problems in using Internet Explorer. As the grandparent posted, security concerns might be a major hindrance in using Internet Explorer.
If your reaction to their policy is "I do not like IE, so it is not acceptable to me", my guess is that they will respond with something along the lines of "So? Do you still have it in your computer? Can you use it? Then what is the problem?"
After reading TFA, its clear to me that the Office is not interested in whether you prefer using a different browser, or is seeking justifications for using open formats. They are asking if anybody would have a technical difficulty using Internet Explorer, and if so, why.
Their assumption is, I guess, that Internet Explorer its ubiquitous, a de facto standard, and so everybody should have access to it and be able to use it, if it becomes a requirement.
From TFA:
"Therefore, this notice seeks information whether any potential preregistration filers would have difficulties using Internet Explorer (version 5.1 or higher) to file preregistration claims, and if so, why. More generally, in the interest of achieving support for browsers in the Office's preregistration processing environment, this notice inquires whether (and why) an eligible party who anticipates preregistering a claim on the electronic-only form will not be able to use Internet Explorer to do so, or will choose not to preregister if it is necessary to use Internet Explorer."
This makes the arguments in favor of openness and non-proprietary formats moot, and takes out of the discussion any presumptions of choice.
Yes, and that is *precisely*, why every time we send a probe there, they shoot it down. I'd imagine them to be expecting us already. Besides, humans are frail and delicate, and require a very specific -- and universally rare -- set of conditions for survival.
Although I do agree that Nintendo has made many contributions to the industry throughout its long and varied lifetime, some of the things you mentioned have not actually been done by them. For instance:
. I had a "light-gun" on one of those "home computer systems" from Sears, back in the late 70s. I forgot the name, but it played many variations of Pong, that is, a moving block bouncing off squares. The gun was for the "Skeet Shooting" game, which was (you guessed it!) a white block moving across the black screen.
. There were many games "not fixed on one static screen" back "in the day". Hum, Defender comes to mind. How about Pole Position, Zaxxon, etc? Yes, they are arcade games, but they all had a "home" version for Atari, and I'm sure they came out before the Nintendo.
. My Commodore64 could be expanded. Heck my Intellivision had the IntelliVoice and IntelliPuter (whatever) adaptors. There was even a music module with a keyboard (which, sadly, I didn't have). I even read that Mattel came out with a CableTV adapter thingy that could download games "on-demand" (YES, "on-demand"!) broadcasted through the cable signal. It was out in the market, it worked, it just was expensive and didn't really took off. Oh! and don't forget the System-Changer module, which allowed it to play Atari 2600 games. I believe that the ColecoVision had the same, but built-in. Both before the Nintendo Famicon.
. The Commodore=128 was backwards compatible with the C=64. The C=64 was backwards compatible with the Vic=20. Ok, not strictly a "gaming console", then take the Intellivision II, it was backwards compatible with the original Intellivision.
. As a little kid, I had plenty of portable "gaming systems". They were mostly LCD display games, and were mostly variations of Pac-Man or Space Invaders, but came before the Nintendo Famicon. They were made by Casio or Texas Instruments. How about the (very) popular Atari Football, with the red-LEDs?
. The First analog stick for games was also not Nintendo's. Keep in mind that "analog sticks" were pretty much the norm before everything turned "digital" at some point, so it was "lo-tech" back then.
. The Directional Pad? The Intellivision had a 16 position "Control Disk", which worked in exactly the same way as the D-Pad, but not as comfortable.
. Wireless controllers, I'm afraid, were also there before Nintendo. They were expensive, had very limitted range, and were *BIG* and cumbersome, but they existed.
I'm not trying to diminish Nintendo's contribution to the gaming industry, just trying to get some facts straight. Also, a lot of the technologies I mentioned weren't invented by Mattel on the Intellivision either; I just happened to have had one when I was a kid ("but da-aaaaaaad... I wanted an Atari!!"), so its one of the frames of reference I have.
No, but its OK to assume I live in an area where fiber lines are not available and the only cable provider has onerous restrictions on their over-priced access plans.
It is also safe to assume that I don't download music or movies via the Internet, so ~43Kb/s seems like an acceptable speed for browsing and downloading e-mail.
-dZ.
Re:I miss this one soooo badly.....
on
10 Technologies MIA
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Overrated. Take it from one who just heard it a few minutes ago upon waking up and booting to check e-mail.
After the "dot-com bust", everybody who lost money in stupid ways, including VCs, HTML "programmers", technology evangelists, among others; wrote a book on their experience through the rise and fall of their riches.
I refuse to read their books, as most of them amount to little more than another attempt at riding the "dot-com" wave and trying to cash in on it once more. Most of what they have to say is along the lines of "we suddenly had tons of cash, we burnt it like crazy, we didn't know what we were doing, and then we lost it all and learned our lesson. So now give me money to read the memoirs of my idiotic failure."
Those of us that were watching from the sidelines; who viewed with a critical eye as castles were built out of pure thin air; those of us who didn't buy into the whole so-called "New Economy"/"New Business Paradigms" crap; know *exactly* what happened and why, and do not need nor want to feed the coffers and egoes of the idiots involved.
That's why you should be wary of "online-aware" systems; so far, history shows that their original purpose gets overrun by more restrictive and unintended uses.
I watch CableTV (analog only), I buy music CDs (of the Compact-Disc format only), and I buy movie DVDs (compatible with my 7-year-old player only); because my stereo and my entertainment systems are completely offline, and will continue playing my media until the end of their productive lives.
The moment that DVDs and CDs *require* me to have a "connected" appliance, no matter how much "value" that connection is supposed to offer me, is the moment I'll stop buying them. As we all have seen with TiVo, iTunes, DirectTV, Digital Cable, and many other "network-aware" devices and applications, it all starts innocently enough as a way for the customer to get "on-demand" content, or stay "up-to-date" with vendor news and specials; but they always end up as a subterfuge for content-restrictions, DRM, imposed advertisment exposure, and other unwanted things like that.
Why is Obi-Wan depicted in the original trilogy to be one of the best Jedi
He wasn't. He just happened to be one of the only ones left.
Besides, consider this: "General Kenobi, years ago you served my father in the Clone Wars."
Notice any obvious lack of allusions to saving the galaxy or being the greates Jedi there ever lived? Notice also there is an implication that he another General that happen to had been a subordinate of Leia's father, General/Captain/Colonel/President/Whatever Organa?
-dZ.
So it's not that funny, but it's got plenty of Adams' deadpan humor. It's all good.
The review doesn't say it has "plenty of Adams' deadpan humor". I think it means that it doesn't have much funny parts in it, but those few that are there, shine with Adams' deadpan humour. So you see, it does not contradict itself.
Hum... This not really accurate. With the GPL you are only required to release the source of those modifications that were strictly based on the GPL'd source *AND* -- and this is key -- you distribute the modified code.
If you modified the GPL'd software for your own corporate needs, not for re-distribution, as seems to be the case with the target audience of the article, then you do *NOT* have to distribute any modified source.
Its lame! It works by inserting a "webbug" in the HTML e-mail. Spammers and "bulk commercial email marketers" (spammers!) have been doing this for a while now. Its no big deal. Nothing to see here. Move along.
All you have to do is disable the opening of web images in your mail client or set it to render as plain text -- most (good ones) do this by default anyway. And I think M$ even allows this to be done in the latest version of OE.
Slashdot Mirror
A habbit is a female hobbit.
-dZ.
Wow, that sounded surprisingly close to a Hallmark greeting card.
-dZ.
And still I wait for my jet pack, the preferred method of transportation of the 21st Century.
-dZ.
RE' * puhg * nant - (n):
An aesthetically challenged, disturbing, biological clone. Usage: "Damn that's an ugly replicant -- No, that's a repugnant."
-dZ.
You mean, you have to submit the original in (an increasingly innaccurate) triplicate of 5 copies?
-dZ.
They are asking if it's acceptable if there site is MS-IE only.
The answer: No, its not.
Read their letter again. They are NOT asking whether requiring using MS-IE only on their site is acceptable. They are asking whether this requirement would cause any difficulty to potential users, and why .
This means that if you are planning on sending them a letter, you should include reasons as to why you think that you, or anybody else, would encounter problems in using Internet Explorer. As the grandparent posted, security concerns might be a major hindrance in using Internet Explorer.
If your reaction to their policy is "I do not like IE, so it is not acceptable to me", my guess is that they will respond with something along the lines of "So? Do you still have it in your computer? Can you use it? Then what is the problem?"
After reading TFA, its clear to me that the Office is not interested in whether you prefer using a different browser, or is seeking justifications for using open formats. They are asking if anybody would have a technical difficulty using Internet Explorer, and if so, why.
Their assumption is, I guess, that Internet Explorer its ubiquitous, a de facto standard, and so everybody should have access to it and be able to use it, if it becomes a requirement.
From TFA:This makes the arguments in favor of openness and non-proprietary formats moot, and takes out of the discussion any presumptions of choice.
>> It's survival of the fittest.
Yes, and that is *precisely*, why every time we send a probe there, they shoot it down. I'd imagine them to be expecting us already. Besides, humans are frail and delicate, and require a very specific -- and universally rare -- set of conditions for survival.
I know on whom I'm putting my money!
-dZ.
Oh no... We're ruining *another* planet??!
And then you all complain when martians, or any other extraterrestial species, come to exterminate us...
jeez.
-dZ.
...as it was with the chips in pinter ink cartridges.
You misspelled "Pink Panther" (Panther Pink?). He, he, he.
-dZ.
Although I do agree that Nintendo has made many contributions to the industry throughout its long and varied lifetime, some of the things you mentioned have not actually been done by them. For instance:
. I had a "light-gun" on one of those "home computer systems" from Sears, back in the late 70s. I forgot the name, but it played many variations of Pong, that is, a moving block bouncing off squares. The gun was for the "Skeet Shooting" game, which was (you guessed it!) a white block moving across the black screen.
. There were many games "not fixed on one static screen" back "in the day". Hum, Defender comes to mind. How about Pole Position, Zaxxon, etc? Yes, they are arcade games, but they all had a "home" version for Atari, and I'm sure they came out before the Nintendo.
. My Commodore64 could be expanded. Heck my Intellivision had the IntelliVoice and IntelliPuter (whatever) adaptors. There was even a music module with a keyboard (which, sadly, I didn't have). I even read that Mattel came out with a CableTV adapter thingy that could download games "on-demand" (YES, "on-demand"!) broadcasted through the cable signal. It was out in the market, it worked, it just was expensive and didn't really took off. Oh! and don't forget the System-Changer module, which allowed it to play Atari 2600 games. I believe that the ColecoVision had the same, but built-in. Both before the Nintendo Famicon.
. The Commodore=128 was backwards compatible with the C=64. The C=64 was backwards compatible with the Vic=20. Ok, not strictly a "gaming console", then take the Intellivision II, it was backwards compatible with the original Intellivision.
. As a little kid, I had plenty of portable "gaming systems". They were mostly LCD display games, and were mostly variations of Pac-Man or Space Invaders, but came before the Nintendo Famicon. They were made by Casio or Texas Instruments. How about the (very) popular Atari Football, with the red-LEDs?
. The First analog stick for games was also not Nintendo's. Keep in mind that "analog sticks" were pretty much the norm before everything turned "digital" at some point, so it was "lo-tech" back then.
. The Directional Pad? The Intellivision had a 16 position "Control Disk", which worked in exactly the same way as the D-Pad, but not as comfortable.
. Wireless controllers, I'm afraid, were also there before Nintendo. They were expensive, had very limitted range, and were *BIG* and cumbersome, but they existed.
I'm not trying to diminish Nintendo's contribution to the gaming industry, just trying to get some facts straight. Also, a lot of the technologies I mentioned weren't invented by Mattel on the Intellivision either; I just happened to have had one when I was a kid ("but da-aaaaaaad... I wanted an Atari!!"), so its one of the frames of reference I have.
-dZ.
In mother Russia, Florida goes back to your shuttle!
(Sorry, couldn't resist!)
-dZ.
No, but its OK to assume I live in an area where fiber lines are not available and the only cable provider has onerous restrictions on their over-priced access plans.
It is also safe to assume that I don't download music or movies via the Internet, so ~43Kb/s seems like an acceptable speed for browsing and downloading e-mail.
-dZ.
Overrated. Take it from one who just heard it a few minutes ago upon waking up and booting to check e-mail.
-dZ.
After the "dot-com bust", everybody who lost money in stupid ways, including VCs, HTML "programmers", technology evangelists, among others; wrote a book on their experience through the rise and fall of their riches.
I refuse to read their books, as most of them amount to little more than another attempt at riding the "dot-com" wave and trying to cash in on it once more. Most of what they have to say is along the lines of "we suddenly had tons of cash, we burnt it like crazy, we didn't know what we were doing, and then we lost it all and learned our lesson. So now give me money to read the memoirs of my idiotic failure."
Those of us that were watching from the sidelines; who viewed with a critical eye as castles were built out of pure thin air; those of us who didn't buy into the whole so-called "New Economy"/"New Business Paradigms" crap; know *exactly* what happened and why, and do not need nor want to feed the coffers and egoes of the idiots involved.
-dZ.
This is not an "article", but someone's utterly biased rant (blog entry?) against Microsoft critics. I would imagine most would dismiss it as that.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
-dZ.
They were at least as likely to dye from malnutrition during the trip...
Hum... yellow's for liver deseases, blue is for lack of oxygen, and green's for envy. What color's for malnutrition? -dZ.
Google!
Oh no, wait...
-dZ.
That's why you should be wary of "online-aware" systems; so far, history shows that their original purpose gets overrun by more restrictive and unintended uses.
I watch CableTV (analog only), I buy music CDs (of the Compact-Disc format only), and I buy movie DVDs (compatible with my 7-year-old player only); because my stereo and my entertainment systems are completely offline, and will continue playing my media until the end of their productive lives.
The moment that DVDs and CDs *require* me to have a "connected" appliance, no matter how much "value" that connection is supposed to offer me, is the moment I'll stop buying them. As we all have seen with TiVo, iTunes, DirectTV, Digital Cable, and many other "network-aware" devices and applications, it all starts innocently enough as a way for the customer to get "on-demand" content, or stay "up-to-date" with vendor news and specials; but they always end up as a subterfuge for content-restrictions, DRM, imposed advertisment exposure, and other unwanted things like that.
-dZ.
The review doesn't say it has "plenty of Adams' deadpan humor". I think it means that it doesn't have much funny parts in it, but those few that are there, shine with Adams' deadpan humour. So you see, it does not contradict itself.
After watching the movie, I must agree.
-dZ.
Hum... This not really accurate. With the GPL you are only required to release the source of those modifications that were strictly based on the GPL'd source *AND* -- and this is key -- you distribute the modified code.
If you modified the GPL'd software for your own corporate needs, not for re-distribution, as seems to be the case with the target audience of the article, then you do *NOT* have to distribute any modified source.
-dZ.
Its lame! It works by inserting a "webbug" in the HTML e-mail. Spammers and "bulk commercial email marketers" (spammers!) have been doing this for a while now. Its no big deal. Nothing to see here. Move along.
All you have to do is disable the opening of web images in your mail client or set it to render as plain text -- most (good ones) do this by default anyway. And I think M$ even allows this to be done in the latest version of OE.
-dZ.