Actually, it doesn't free the tabs' memory in Windows 2000, which I'm forced to use at work. It doesn't even free the memory when you close Firefox 1.5 unless I kill the process.
I'm not saying anyone should use IE, and I still love Firefox, but it's not perfect.
True, they could refuse to do business in China. But what will that accomplish? I can't see the Chinese government saying, "Oh, no! Google won't make a Chinese version! We'd better change the entire philosophy of the government and stop censoring everything!"
All that refusing to do business there will do is cost Google money. It won't change the world. Are we really going to ask Google to let the revenue from a country of over a billion get away just on principle? I think that's asking a lot.
How is obeying the laws of China when trying to do business in China "doing evil"? Personally, I'm opposed to censorship. But I'm also opposed to telling the Chinese government what to do, or advocating that Google break the country's laws just because the prevailing opinion in the US and most of the rest of the world is that the laws are wrong.
How would you feel if a company came to do business in your country without following the rules? I understand that with an internet company, it's a little different. But still, I don't think it's fair to ask that Google lead the crusade to liberate China from oppressive censorship.
Going ANYWHERE with IE is bad. I keep asking my team lead if we can stop supporting IE, but he rambles on about how "most of our users use IE" or some such nonsense.
Don't stop with making sure terrorists can't use cell phones to set off bombs on the subway. Why don't we just shoot every Muslim in the United States? Sure, over 99% of them are peaceful, law-abiding folks, but that fraction of a percentage might be terrorists. We can't be too safe!
What if I don't want a maid? What if I'd rather put that extra bit of money into my 401K? I know that putting more money in the pockets of consumers leads to a lot of things that can be beneficial to all, but "I have more money, therefore I will employ a recently fired cashier as a maid" is not the path everyone is going to take.
Ahh, a statement with some other statements to back it up. Now there's something to discuss.
I agree that lower cost of business operation should be good for everyone. But are you sure the costs are lower? You may be right, but while the grocery store saves $8 an hour times however many cashiers they used to employ, what do the RFID chips cost? What do the RFID readers cost? What kind of increased costs do you have maintaining this system?
There's a lot more to this than "technology saves money for businesses, and that savings is passed on to the consumer, and everyone wins".
I think that's a tremendous oversimplification. How is my life better off if I can just walk out of the grocery store and everything is automatically paid for? It saves me 2-10 minutes, on average, of waiting in line. Sure, that time has value for me. But what about the half dozen cashiers that store just fired? Does my 2-10 minutes of free time outweigh their loss of income? What else are they going to do? If they had extensive, valuable skillsets, they wouldn't be working as cashiers.
You can't just make a blanket statement that "in the long run better technology is a win-win" without offering some sort of support for the statement beyond "society will be better off in general".
I don't have a dictionary handy, but I believe that most dictionaries didn't recognize leverage as a verb until pretty recently. Leverage as a verb is something made up by middle managers to sound smart that has been accepted by (some of) society, and is now maybe considered a real word.
I still think that using it as a verb implies that you are trying to sound smarter and/or more important than you are, but if dictionaries are starting to include it, I guess I'll have to get over it.
I think the point being made was that it's not the engineers' fault, or the software guys' fault, because they didn't actually write the code. One could make the argument that they still had to integrate it into the system, but how bad would it have to be before you'd walk away from your job because your boss told you to do something you thought was immoral/unethical/whatever? I'd like to think that I'd draw the line at including something like this, but I don't really know. I like my job. Of course, my boss hasn't told me to do anything really evil yet.
And cutting taxes is going to mean cutting Homeland Security, right? Naturally, if we cut taxes right now, the first organization to feel those cuts is Bush's legacy.
I'm all for a less intrusive government, but simply cutting taxes is not going to do it.
Not if the requirements document says build this app for IE only and don't worry about interoperability.
And not if you got the requirement 6 hours before delivery.
This affects everything. And it could affect everything for the next 30 years. Imagine a worst-case scenario where Bush appoints an ultra-conservative Christian lunatic (As opposed to who he should appoint, a moderate with a knack for compromise with good moral values.), and they overturn Roe Vs Wade, allow the Patriot Act to be strengthened, steal more of our civil rights . ..
That's a good example of how it affects the nerds. What if they rule that all of the internet wiretaps they want aren't unconstitutional. Surely that would affect your average nerd.
We can't have it both ways. People get mad when we impose our will on Iraq, but then advocate doing the same thing to China?
I think the Chinese government is wrong. But I don't think we should step in and tell them how to run their country, just as I would expect them not to do that to us.
Good point. What if, instead of Microsoft, it was a company based in some (imaginary) country where hardcore pornography was considered acceptable in public. This company typically has hardcore pornography on their main website, viewable by anyone. Now let's say this company wants a presence in the US, for obvious financial reasons. If they put up a US site that complies with typical US standards of decency, would everyone be complaining then? Nevermind your opinions on hardcore pornography, think of the opinions of the average American.
Just because we think words like "democracy" and "freedom" are standard and acceptable doesn't mean any other country has to. Personally, I think the Chinese government should relax the censorship. But I'm not Chinese, so I don't have much say in the matter.
And those who value their time more than the money they save by looking at those sites can pay a bit more. I don't see anything wrong with this. If a consumer is willing to pay $100 for item X, then he will buy it. If not, he won't. If he still really wants it, maybe he'll do some research, and maybe find it for $90, and then buy it. But for some people, that time spent researching is worth more than the $10 they could save, and they won't do it.
Nowhere is it written that retailers must sell at the lowest possible price to every customer, and that's the way it should be.
Internet access is not, never has been, and should not be considered a basic public service.
Why not? It wasn't 10 years ago, and maybe it isn't now, but it sure will be soon. What percentage of your shopping do you do online? When was the last time you picked up a phone book? It will take some time, but soon those who don't have internet access will be at a severe disadvantage to those who do. Are you advocating that we deny the government the right to provide this service to those who can't afford it for themselves?
Allowing public WiFi provided by the government doesn't mean you have to use the service. It means that those who can't afford to pay Verizon or the cable company or whoever can have another option. Those who are unhappy with the public service and can afford private service won't lose that right. The government doesn't confiscate your car because they added a new bus route that goes right past your house.
I guess I didn't spend enough time in San Jose. If you really want Americans in Costa Rica, try Playa Tamarindo in Guanacaste. There are plenty there surfing and drinking.
Okay, I agree with most of what you said, but do most Americans really go there for prostitution? What about the beaches and cloud forests, the laid back atmosphere, friendly locals, low cost of living? If Americans think that the only thing worthwhile in Costa Rica is prostitutes, there are some travel agents that need to be fired.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying anyone should use IE, and I still love Firefox, but it's not perfect.
All that refusing to do business there will do is cost Google money. It won't change the world. Are we really going to ask Google to let the revenue from a country of over a billion get away just on principle? I think that's asking a lot.
How would you feel if a company came to do business in your country without following the rules? I understand that with an internet company, it's a little different. But still, I don't think it's fair to ask that Google lead the crusade to liberate China from oppressive censorship.
Going ANYWHERE with IE is bad. I keep asking my team lead if we can stop supporting IE, but he rambles on about how "most of our users use IE" or some such nonsense.
Don't stop with making sure terrorists can't use cell phones to set off bombs on the subway. Why don't we just shoot every Muslim in the United States? Sure, over 99% of them are peaceful, law-abiding folks, but that fraction of a percentage might be terrorists. We can't be too safe!
What if I don't want a maid? What if I'd rather put that extra bit of money into my 401K? I know that putting more money in the pockets of consumers leads to a lot of things that can be beneficial to all, but "I have more money, therefore I will employ a recently fired cashier as a maid" is not the path everyone is going to take.
Yeah, but where does that get me? It doesn't save me money on my groceries, and it doesn't employ the cashier who got fired.
Ahh, a statement with some other statements to back it up. Now there's something to discuss.
I agree that lower cost of business operation should be good for everyone. But are you sure the costs are lower? You may be right, but while the grocery store saves $8 an hour times however many cashiers they used to employ, what do the RFID chips cost? What do the RFID readers cost? What kind of increased costs do you have maintaining this system?
There's a lot more to this than "technology saves money for businesses, and that savings is passed on to the consumer, and everyone wins".
I think that's a tremendous oversimplification. How is my life better off if I can just walk out of the grocery store and everything is automatically paid for? It saves me 2-10 minutes, on average, of waiting in line. Sure, that time has value for me. But what about the half dozen cashiers that store just fired? Does my 2-10 minutes of free time outweigh their loss of income? What else are they going to do? If they had extensive, valuable skillsets, they wouldn't be working as cashiers.
You can't just make a blanket statement that "in the long run better technology is a win-win" without offering some sort of support for the statement beyond "society will be better off in general".
The Department of Justice is completely out of control -- nearly 99% of the Department is unconstitutional and unnecessary at the federal level.
Come on, where are you getting that number? If the answer is anything but "Out of my ass", I'll anonymously flame myself and press charges.
I don't have a dictionary handy, but I believe that most dictionaries didn't recognize leverage as a verb until pretty recently. Leverage as a verb is something made up by middle managers to sound smart that has been accepted by (some of) society, and is now maybe considered a real word.
I still think that using it as a verb implies that you are trying to sound smarter and/or more important than you are, but if dictionaries are starting to include it, I guess I'll have to get over it.
And you pretty much have to be a kid to be able to use those tiny little buttons.
I think the point being made was that it's not the engineers' fault, or the software guys' fault, because they didn't actually write the code. One could make the argument that they still had to integrate it into the system, but how bad would it have to be before you'd walk away from your job because your boss told you to do something you thought was immoral/unethical/whatever? I'd like to think that I'd draw the line at including something like this, but I don't really know. I like my job. Of course, my boss hasn't told me to do anything really evil yet.
And cutting taxes is going to mean cutting Homeland Security, right? Naturally, if we cut taxes right now, the first organization to feel those cuts is Bush's legacy.
I'm all for a less intrusive government, but simply cutting taxes is not going to do it.
So, in the end, Microsoft does give away free licenses, but makes money off it anyways...
Isn't that the whole point of free giveaways? To generate more sales?
As much as people (myself included) may hate Microsoft, some of the things they do are just good business.
Mod parent STFU for going on about modding parents.
Not if the requirements document says build this app for IE only and don't worry about interoperability. And not if you got the requirement 6 hours before delivery.
This affects everything. And it could affect everything for the next 30 years. Imagine a worst-case scenario where Bush appoints an ultra-conservative Christian lunatic (As opposed to who he should appoint, a moderate with a knack for compromise with good moral values.), and they overturn Roe Vs Wade, allow the Patriot Act to be strengthened, steal more of our civil rights . . .
That's a good example of how it affects the nerds. What if they rule that all of the internet wiretaps they want aren't unconstitutional. Surely that would affect your average nerd.
We can't have it both ways. People get mad when we impose our will on Iraq, but then advocate doing the same thing to China?
I think the Chinese government is wrong. But I don't think we should step in and tell them how to run their country, just as I would expect them not to do that to us.
Good point. What if, instead of Microsoft, it was a company based in some (imaginary) country where hardcore pornography was considered acceptable in public. This company typically has hardcore pornography on their main website, viewable by anyone. Now let's say this company wants a presence in the US, for obvious financial reasons. If they put up a US site that complies with typical US standards of decency, would everyone be complaining then? Nevermind your opinions on hardcore pornography, think of the opinions of the average American.
Just because we think words like "democracy" and "freedom" are standard and acceptable doesn't mean any other country has to. Personally, I think the Chinese government should relax the censorship. But I'm not Chinese, so I don't have much say in the matter.
And those who value their time more than the money they save by looking at those sites can pay a bit more. I don't see anything wrong with this. If a consumer is willing to pay $100 for item X, then he will buy it. If not, he won't. If he still really wants it, maybe he'll do some research, and maybe find it for $90, and then buy it. But for some people, that time spent researching is worth more than the $10 they could save, and they won't do it.
Nowhere is it written that retailers must sell at the lowest possible price to every customer, and that's the way it should be.
Internet access is not, never has been, and should not be considered a basic public service.
Why not? It wasn't 10 years ago, and maybe it isn't now, but it sure will be soon. What percentage of your shopping do you do online? When was the last time you picked up a phone book? It will take some time, but soon those who don't have internet access will be at a severe disadvantage to those who do. Are you advocating that we deny the government the right to provide this service to those who can't afford it for themselves?
Allowing public WiFi provided by the government doesn't mean you have to use the service. It means that those who can't afford to pay Verizon or the cable company or whoever can have another option. Those who are unhappy with the public service and can afford private service won't lose that right. The government doesn't confiscate your car because they added a new bus route that goes right past your house.
I hope the article was translated from another language, because if the person who wrote that is a native English speaker, I'm never reading again.
I guess I didn't spend enough time in San Jose. If you really want Americans in Costa Rica, try Playa Tamarindo in Guanacaste. There are plenty there surfing and drinking.
Okay, I agree with most of what you said, but do most Americans really go there for prostitution? What about the beaches and cloud forests, the laid back atmosphere, friendly locals, low cost of living? If Americans think that the only thing worthwhile in Costa Rica is prostitutes, there are some travel agents that need to be fired.