Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away
Selective truth that is.
1. Because the Democrats don't want to be in Iraq - or invade Iran, they want to eliminate our military power? What?
Try the consistent removal of funds to support the military; not simply this administration.
2. Solyndra? Romney in the debate said that half the green energy investments failed. Nowhere near true. I imagine a failure rate comparable to or better than Bain Capital's typical rate.
I wasn't specifically speaking about the "green energy investments", but rather the numerous investments that were made, the vast majority of which were to companies that supported Obama's campaign. As to failure rates, quote numbers.
3. Bullshit. Dems do believe in progressive taxation, and don't believe in letting people fall through the cracks. The horror! What's your solution? Oh, I forgot. Trickle down. Works great - for the rich.
The Obama Administration is very much a "Robin Hood" taxation seeking administration. How much has it helped the economy?
Comparatively, Reagan's "Trick Down Economy" policies led to the prosperity of the 1990's. But let's ignore that fact, and look at the rest of what I said - they want you - and everyone you know, and everyone they know, etc - to be dependent upon the government; to let the government decide what is good for you, what you should do, etc. That is all very remeniscent of the Soviet Union where the government decided what job you had; gave you your paychecks, and decided what you could spend those pay checks on; decided what all the companies made, etc.
To be fair, not even the Democrats have voted for a number of Obama's initiatives
That's a tired old saw. When 1 democrat doesn't join, the right comes out and says 'Obama couldn't even get his own party to vote for this stuff'. Meanwhile there were usually sizable majorities for the bills in question. Just not filibuster-proof 60 vote majorities. No president has ever had to meet the 60 vote 'standard' that's being applied routinely today.
FYI - there were a number of initiatives by Obama that not even a single Democrat voted for.
I don't understand why so many people consider Windows 2000 "the best OS of all time." Windows 2000 was so wildly insecure that it was responsible for the several of the worst virus/worm outbreaks of all time.
Only due to how people used it, the Win32 API (present in all versions of Windows), and how people used it - e.g. using the Admin account by default. Win2k was a pretty good OS for Windows if you used it correctly. It was suppose to have a "Consumer Edition" too - but they released Windows ME instead (which was pretty good if and only if you had compliant hardware and software; if not, you were, along with the majority of Windows users, up shit creek).
Obama does suck, but Mitt Romney is a far more dangerous choice - not so much because of his policies, but because the far-right Republican party would have control of at least one, and possibly both houses of Congress. They are a party of war-mongers, elitists who favor the rich, and have a downright hatred of government.
So let's get this straight...
1. The Republicans (and Mitt by extension) are war mongers because they put deeds behind the political words of the US andthe UN?
2. The Republicans (and Mitt by extension) are elitists who favor the rich because they want to cut spending and taxes so as to promote economic growth Reagan style?
3. The Republicans (and Mitt by extensions) have a downright hatred of government because they favor States Rights, Smaller Government, and letting people solve their own problems?
I'm no fan of Mitt. I'd rather he not get elected. He is a far better choice than Obama and Biden.
For contrast:
1. The Democrats (and Obama by extension) are not war mongers because they want to pull back military, and eliminate our military power; leaving our allies to fend for themselves; our potential allies to their enemies, and encouraging our enemies to attack our own embassies on foreign soil (e.g. Libya).
2. The Democrats (and Obama by extension) are not elitists because they support the jobless Occupy movement? Yet, they spend trillions of dollars on failed policies, supporting their friends in known failing businesses (e.g. Solyndra), and would rather the citizenry be dependent on government hand outs via Food Stamps and Welfare than be put to work to make money and pay millions in taxes each year. (Food Stamps and Welfare are the Slavery of the 21st century!)
3. The Democrats (and Obama by extension) do not have a hatred for government because they want government to run every aspect of your life, take money from the rich, and give it to the poor - whom they then instruct on what to spend it on; knowing better how to spend it than you do.
To be clear, he's had every initiative he's proposed blocked by the Republicans in Congress. The jobs bills the Republicans are hammering him about 'not getting done'? They were filibustered to death so that the Republicans could try (over 30) times to repeal 'Obamacare'.
To be fair, not even the Democrats have voted for a number of Obama's initiatives. He's a lameduck President of the worse kind with failed policies both foreign and domestic who blames everything either on the Republicans in the House or on his predecessor instead of taking any responsibility for his own policies or actions.
It really depends on the school. I was at 3 different schools with different results:
1. A private school where we had keyboards with cartridges hooked up to TVs even in Kindergarten, and we were learning how to type in the computer lab in 4th grade on Apple computers, as well as learning Logo. Networking wasn't a big thing yet, so no network.
2. A private school where we didn't have a computer lab for the first several years I was there; and when we did we had old i386 machines with 4 or 8 MB of RAM; and learned how to type (9th grade) and minimally use WordPerfect 5.2 (well after WordPerfect had moved to Win95). The network was in place, but it was just a decrepit.
3. A public high school where we had 3 PC computer labs with 25 computers each, 3 or so Mac labs with 25-30 computers each, and a number of Apple computers spread throughout the building; each teacher had at least one in their classroom for their own use. We had 4 programming classes - intro, and 3 language dedicated courses, etc. There were also a number of other classes that utilized the computer lab - e.g. nearly all the business classes.
The first was in a very different geographic location from 2 & 3 which were in the same geographic location.
So it really depends on where you are, and what schools have. #2 has probably gotten better since, but not likely by much. Where as #1 is probably on par or with or better than #3.
I have a cell plan with 4 phones, and unlimited calling in the US. I don't have a data plan on any of those phones.
However, I would pay for a data-only plan and then use VOIP; but I'm not going to play for both data and voice - at least at the exhorbant rates and rate policies they currently have.
Yes and everyone comes to a complete stop at a stoplight and signals 300' before any turn or lane changes, follows more than 2 seconds from the car in front of them, and is always traveling at or below the posted speed limit.
That, however, is not an excuse when you own actions (as the other vehicle) are also contributory.
The problem with Thunderbird is you can't push tasks to other people, which would probably be the #1 thing you want to do in a small business (delegation).
That said, as a small business you're probably not doing a lot of that stuff on-line - you're probably doing it mostly in meetings where things will be a lot more fluid depending on needs, etc and you don't likely have a secretary that can go in and update everyone's electronic copies. So it's probably more productive to not do the on-line task management thing regardless of what you're using.
He already paid the money for Microsoft Small Business Server. He gets Exchange and an Outlook client for each machine as part of the purchase.
j
So he has the software. Now he needs to hire someone that is knowledgeable about it to run it, maintain it, upgrade it, etc. Great for consultants as it is a constant revenue generator; but piss poor for a small business that needs to save money.
Oh, and don't forget about CALs. You only get 5 with Windows Server by default, and you have to get separate ones for Exchange, IIS, etc.
Or you could just get Google Apps for a lot cheaper (no extra personnel, flat fee per year), or setup your own PostFix server on Linux - no server or CAL licenses; minimum contractor support necessary (far less than Exchange would require).
Using Exchange is only going to cost you a lot more money than any of the alternatives. So if you have money to blow, go right ahead. If not, use something else.
1. Keep POP3/SMTP access; if necessary enable LDAP.
2. Use something like Google Apps for Business - includes e-mail (POP3/SMTP/LDAP) and Calendaring; $50/user/year.
3. Stay away from Outlook if you can help it; if you can't then at least stay as far away from Exchange as you possibly can. You'll save yourself a lot of headaches in the process. And if you can, enable your users to use Thunderbird (with Lightening if you want Calendaring); it can access LDAP and Directory Services for a unified address book too if you like.
Non-professional cyclists should follow regular pedestrian laws - moving against traffic, etc.
Actually moving against traffic on the sidewalk is the MOST dangerous way a bike can travel. Cars pulling out from side streets to make right turns do not see these cyclists. Riding in the road on the right side of the street is the actually safest. Even riding on the sidewalk going the correct direction is more dangerous for a cyclist than being in the road. Again, because people pull out of side streets and driveways and don't check the sidewalk, yet they always check the road.
And that my friend is bullshit. Vehicles - cars, trucks, etc. - are already required to look for Pedestrians coming from both sides, whether on bicycles, rollerblades, skates, skateboards, running, jogging, walking, or standing. And, btw, rollerbladers and skaters can move just as fast as bicycles, and have far less stopping capability. The only use the argument above is for is to make cyclists victims instead of owning up to their own fault those issues.
I have done my amount of web programming, for example, by doing Ajax, something Microsoft invented. Yes, IE6 is a broken piece of junk, but it is also an ancient piece of junk. At the time IE6 was released, every single browser "broke the web". There was no such thing as a standard way of doing anything.
If you said that the web as such was seriously broken back when IE6 was released, that would have been reasonably accurate. IE6 didn't do anything special to "break the web", but through inaction, Microsoft allowed IE6 to live significantly longer than it should have. The most likely reason for this was complacency. Yes, Microsoft made things hard by not upgrading IE6 as more modern technologies started permeating the competition, and it also did nothing as the rest of the world moved towards standards, but claiming they broke something in the years after 2001 with a product released in 2001 is absurd.
It was pretty common to use HTML3/4 in a very standard manner. Only, if you did it typically didn't work under IE - IE5 or IE6. It worked quite well under nearly everything else. A good bit of JavaScript could be done in a very standard manner with everything else too - except IE required special support.
IE was Microsoft's way to EEE the web - to try to tie it to the Microsoft platform through custom functionality in the browser so you had to have custom pages for IE, to ActiveX, and more. It was a major PITA even when IE6 was released and mainly due to IE6.
With IE5 and IE6 though, Microsoft made Ajax possible. How's that for breaking the web.
Yes, the XHTMLRequest functionality was a good contribution; one that they initially did internally and later became standard. But it didn't take off due to IE either.
You, sir, have apparently not done web programming.
Technically speaking it is correct. Microsoft didn't break the web with IE6.
I remember doing HTML and JavaScript stuff for IE6, vs Netscape, etc. Even then Netscape, Opera and others were more standardized in how you setup the DOM, how things interacted; and you had to have custom support for IE6. Sure, it was better than IE 5.5; but it was still a bastard to support compared to everything else.
At the time it came out it was the best browser, and it improved things for people trying to use CSS2.
Yes, IE 5.5 and IE6 both supported CSS2 - which was very new on the scene at that point. I wouldn't have expected Netscape 4 to support it very well. Netscape 6 did a good job; the problem was Netscape 6 was very slow. If it wasn't for the performance of Netscape 6 it would have taken off a lot better. Of course, that is also what let Netscape to create Mozilla with Phoenix (e.g. Netscape 7).
Netscape 4.x was still rotting, The newish Netscape 6 had wider CSS2 support but was practically unfinished and very buggy, and Mozilla 1.0 was yet to be released.
Yes, Netscape 4 was rotting; but it was still easier to program for and support than IE6, as was Netscape 6. You didn't have to do anything custom to support it, and IE6 required custom work to support.
Mozilla 1.0 was a suite of stuff from Mozilla which wasn't started until after Netscape 6 was released, and as a result of Netscape 6. Netscape decided they couldn't do it any more the way they were - so they started Phoenix (later Firefox), Thunderbird, SunBird, and several other projects. These projects now are at the top for their respective areas - but it did take time.
What 'broke the web' was not IE6 itself, but Microsoft leaving it to rot for 5 or 6 years.
What broke the web was having to do custom work to support HTML and JavaScript for IE; along with the ActiveX plug-ins, etc. that were IE only and heavily pushed by Microsoft and its partners. It didn't help that Microsoft "won" then left it all to rot.
Yes, but proprietary forks of open source are no longer open, are they?
True. But the point is that if Microsoft forks TypeScript in that manner - e.g. releases a version on Windows, for IE, etc. that is different from the open source version then they will break it as people will develop for their proprietary version instead of the standard version. Again the whole EEE philosophy.
That is my understanding. When MS releases source under GPL, I will be a little more inclined to trust MS.
Actually, maybe not even then. There are always patents.
Well, they do have some GPL software - for example Windows Installer XML is GPL last I checked, and sponsored by Microsoft, and is used for many of their own products. I think you can even trace the latest version of Visual Studio Installer to it via the light/dark programs included; could be wrong (I haven't check their output) but its very likely. (And no, they're not dual licensed; just GPL.)
Wow, insightful? Did all of today's mod points go to Redmond? You CANNOT get locked in to an open source platform.
That is true of licenses like the LGPL and GPL. It is not necessarily true of BSD, Mit, and Apache licenses as there is nothing keeping them from having their own proprietary, unpublished fork with additional features that are specific to what they want to do - nothing saying they have to tell everyone else either.
You, sir, have apparently not done web programming.
The reason we need toolkits like Mootools and others is to primarily mitigate the differences between Internet Explorer and everyone else as Internet Explorer would do things differently enough that it wouldn't work unless you customized it for Internet Explorer, but then it wouldn't work for everyone else. This is also the only reason why people started looking at the browser identifiers.
The roads were made for cars and truck to ride on not bikes. How many cyclists do you see on an major interstate?
I don't know about 'major' interstates, but I've ridden on interstates where it's allowed. Aside from the noise, which I suppress with ear plugs, I found interstates better than a lot of local roads I've ridden on. There are, of course, interstates where riding a bike isn't allowed or appropriate, but there are ones where it is, and they make damn fine roads for bicycling.
In the US all Freeways and Highways (aka Interstates) are posted for vehicular traffic only - mopeds, scooters, bicycles, and pedestrians are forbidden.
Now there are a lot of similar roads - two lane each way, etc. - that do allow them; but they typically have stop lights, lower speed, etc. too.
Do you even know any drivers who attempt to not exceed posted speed limits on roads by 5-10mph? This may be anecdotal, but almost all people I've met who bitch about cyclists have a history of rear ending other drivers and causing accidents, meaning they are terrible drivers.
You want cyclists to respect cars? Start by respecting the traffic laws. This works both ways.
Rear-ended one person once in well over 10 years of driving - bad sign posting for a construction area where the guy in front stopped due to no merge area when getting on the highway. Construction site was found partially at fault, but the officer claimed everything was as required. I typically hate cyclists because they are in the wrong place nearly all the time - blocking traffic, or acting in a way that is just asking for the slightest thing to go wrong and get hit.
I saw one cyclist get hit about 10 years ago - going on the side walk, didn't stop when he came to the intersection. The driver pulled up, missed the line by a foot or two, and had not chance to not hit the guy. While they were both technically at fault, if the cyclist simply stopped for a second before crossing he could have not gotten hit. (And no, it wouldn't have mattered whether he was in the lane, etc.)
Legally, cyclists have a right to be there, as does a guy with a horse and buggy or someone driving a backhoe or tractor
Then we need to change these laws.
If you cannot keep up with the flow of traffic, then, you should not be allowed on said roads....speed difference combined in this case, with significant mass difference...is just asking for trouble.
If there are bike lanes...then sure, they have their place, but if not...we shouldn't allow vehicles on roads that cannot keep up with the normal speeds of said road.
It just isn't safe.
100% agreed. The problem is all the lobbying by the cyclist organizations which typically represent professional cyclists.
The reason we don't have much specialized bicycling lanes and the like is.....bicycling is recreational, you generally drive a car for business (serious transportation, hauling things, going to / from work, shopping, etc).
A bicycle is mainly for recreational exercise....and the US is hurting for money for the infrastructure we need for commerce and basic needs...we don't have the spare cash to build bicycle additions to our roads.
And that's why we need to recognize professional vs. non-professional cyclists. Professional cyclists probably need to be licensed. Non-professional cyclists should follow 100% of the pedestrian laws - moving against traffic, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Important rule to learn about developing software: Never assume it will be used correctly. :P
Very very true. Someone will always find a way to break it.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away
Selective truth that is.
1. Because the Democrats don't want to be in Iraq - or invade Iran, they want to eliminate our military power? What?
Try the consistent removal of funds to support the military; not simply this administration.
2. Solyndra? Romney in the debate said that half the green energy investments failed. Nowhere near true. I imagine a failure rate comparable to or better than Bain Capital's typical rate.
I wasn't specifically speaking about the "green energy investments", but rather the numerous investments that were made, the vast majority of which were to companies that supported Obama's campaign. As to failure rates, quote numbers.
3. Bullshit. Dems do believe in progressive taxation, and don't believe in letting people fall through the cracks. The horror! What's your solution? Oh, I forgot. Trickle down. Works great - for the rich.
The Obama Administration is very much a "Robin Hood" taxation seeking administration. How much has it helped the economy?
Comparatively, Reagan's "Trick Down Economy" policies led to the prosperity of the 1990's. But let's ignore that fact, and look at the rest of what I said - they want you - and everyone you know, and everyone they know, etc - to be dependent upon the government; to let the government decide what is good for you, what you should do, etc. That is all very remeniscent of the Soviet Union where the government decided what job you had; gave you your paychecks, and decided what you could spend those pay checks on; decided what all the companies made, etc.
To be fair, not even the Democrats have voted for a number of Obama's initiatives
That's a tired old saw. When 1 democrat doesn't join, the right comes out and says 'Obama couldn't even get his own party to vote for this stuff'. Meanwhile there were usually sizable majorities for the bills in question. Just not filibuster-proof 60 vote majorities. No president has ever had to meet the 60 vote 'standard' that's being applied routinely today.
FYI - there were a number of initiatives by Obama that not even a single Democrat voted for.
I don't understand why so many people consider Windows 2000 "the best OS of all time." Windows 2000 was so wildly insecure that it was responsible for the several of the worst virus/worm outbreaks of all time.
Only due to how people used it, the Win32 API (present in all versions of Windows), and how people used it - e.g. using the Admin account by default. Win2k was a pretty good OS for Windows if you used it correctly. It was suppose to have a "Consumer Edition" too - but they released Windows ME instead (which was pretty good if and only if you had compliant hardware and software; if not, you were, along with the majority of Windows users, up shit creek).
Obama does suck, but Mitt Romney is a far more dangerous choice - not so much because of his policies, but because the far-right Republican party would have control of at least one, and possibly both houses of Congress. They are a party of war-mongers, elitists who favor the rich, and have a downright hatred of government.
So let's get this straight...
1. The Republicans (and Mitt by extension) are war mongers because they put deeds behind the political words of the US andthe UN?
2. The Republicans (and Mitt by extension) are elitists who favor the rich because they want to cut spending and taxes so as to promote economic growth Reagan style?
3. The Republicans (and Mitt by extensions) have a downright hatred of government because they favor States Rights, Smaller Government, and letting people solve their own problems?
I'm no fan of Mitt. I'd rather he not get elected. He is a far better choice than Obama and Biden.
For contrast:
1. The Democrats (and Obama by extension) are not war mongers because they want to pull back military, and eliminate our military power; leaving our allies to fend for themselves; our potential allies to their enemies, and encouraging our enemies to attack our own embassies on foreign soil (e.g. Libya).
2. The Democrats (and Obama by extension) are not elitists because they support the jobless Occupy movement? Yet, they spend trillions of dollars on failed policies, supporting their friends in known failing businesses (e.g. Solyndra), and would rather the citizenry be dependent on government hand outs via Food Stamps and Welfare than be put to work to make money and pay millions in taxes each year. (Food Stamps and Welfare are the Slavery of the 21st century!)
3. The Democrats (and Obama by extension) do not have a hatred for government because they want government to run every aspect of your life, take money from the rich, and give it to the poor - whom they then instruct on what to spend it on; knowing better how to spend it than you do.
To be clear, he's had every initiative he's proposed blocked by the Republicans in Congress. The jobs bills the Republicans are hammering him about 'not getting done'? They were filibustered to death so that the Republicans could try (over 30) times to repeal 'Obamacare'.
To be fair, not even the Democrats have voted for a number of Obama's initiatives. He's a lameduck President of the worse kind with failed policies both foreign and domestic who blames everything either on the Republicans in the House or on his predecessor instead of taking any responsibility for his own policies or actions.
It really depends on the school. I was at 3 different schools with different results:
1. A private school where we had keyboards with cartridges hooked up to TVs even in Kindergarten, and we were learning how to type in the computer lab in 4th grade on Apple computers, as well as learning Logo. Networking wasn't a big thing yet, so no network.
2. A private school where we didn't have a computer lab for the first several years I was there; and when we did we had old i386 machines with 4 or 8 MB of RAM; and learned how to type (9th grade) and minimally use WordPerfect 5.2 (well after WordPerfect had moved to Win95). The network was in place, but it was just a decrepit.
3. A public high school where we had 3 PC computer labs with 25 computers each, 3 or so Mac labs with 25-30 computers each, and a number of Apple computers spread throughout the building; each teacher had at least one in their classroom for their own use. We had 4 programming classes - intro, and 3 language dedicated courses, etc. There were also a number of other classes that utilized the computer lab - e.g. nearly all the business classes.
The first was in a very different geographic location from 2 & 3 which were in the same geographic location.
So it really depends on where you are, and what schools have. #2 has probably gotten better since, but not likely by much. Where as #1 is probably on par or with or better than #3.
Also, US$0.019/min isn't cheap enough for you?
I have a cell plan with 4 phones, and unlimited calling in the US. I don't have a data plan on any of those phones.
However, I would pay for a data-only plan and then use VOIP; but I'm not going to play for both data and voice - at least at the exhorbant rates and rate policies they currently have.
Yes and everyone comes to a complete stop at a stoplight and signals 300' before any turn or lane changes, follows more than 2 seconds from the car in front of them, and is always traveling at or below the posted speed limit.
That, however, is not an excuse when you own actions (as the other vehicle) are also contributory.
Seems like that's possible - just a matter of assigning which calendar it goes on, and with Lightening you can have multiple calendars. Of course, you might run into the issue where the Calendar software you are using doesn't support tasks. There is a bug open for Google Calendar Task Support though...and there is a plug-in - haven't tried it though.
That said, as a small business you're probably not doing a lot of that stuff on-line - you're probably doing it mostly in meetings where things will be a lot more fluid depending on needs, etc and you don't likely have a secretary that can go in and update everyone's electronic copies. So it's probably more productive to not do the on-line task management thing regardless of what you're using.
j So he has the software. Now he needs to hire someone that is knowledgeable about it to run it, maintain it, upgrade it, etc. Great for consultants as it is a constant revenue generator; but piss poor for a small business that needs to save money.
Oh, and don't forget about CALs. You only get 5 with Windows Server by default, and you have to get separate ones for Exchange, IIS, etc.
Or you could just get Google Apps for a lot cheaper (no extra personnel, flat fee per year), or setup your own PostFix server on Linux - no server or CAL licenses; minimum contractor support necessary (far less than Exchange would require).
Using Exchange is only going to cost you a lot more money than any of the alternatives. So if you have money to blow, go right ahead. If not, use something else.
1. Keep POP3/SMTP access; if necessary enable LDAP.
2. Use something like Google Apps for Business - includes e-mail (POP3/SMTP/LDAP) and Calendaring; $50/user/year.
3. Stay away from Outlook if you can help it; if you can't then at least stay as far away from Exchange as you possibly can. You'll save yourself a lot of headaches in the process. And if you can, enable your users to use Thunderbird (with Lightening if you want Calendaring); it can access LDAP and Directory Services for a unified address book too if you like.
http://www.asterisk.org
Please look around there if you haven't already before buying a multi-thousand dollar PBX or contract.
And you can always contract with Digium to support it too.
Non-professional cyclists should follow regular pedestrian laws - moving against traffic, etc.
Actually moving against traffic on the sidewalk is the MOST dangerous way a bike can travel. Cars pulling out from side streets to make right turns do not see these cyclists. Riding in the road on the right side of the street is the actually safest. Even riding on the sidewalk going the correct direction is more dangerous for a cyclist than being in the road. Again, because people pull out of side streets and driveways and don't check the sidewalk, yet they always check the road.
And that my friend is bullshit. Vehicles - cars, trucks, etc. - are already required to look for Pedestrians coming from both sides, whether on bicycles, rollerblades, skates, skateboards, running, jogging, walking, or standing. And, btw, rollerbladers and skaters can move just as fast as bicycles, and have far less stopping capability. The only use the argument above is for is to make cyclists victims instead of owning up to their own fault those issues.
I have done my amount of web programming, for example, by doing Ajax, something Microsoft invented. Yes, IE6 is a broken piece of junk, but it is also an ancient piece of junk. At the time IE6 was released, every single browser "broke the web". There was no such thing as a standard way of doing anything.
If you said that the web as such was seriously broken back when IE6 was released, that would have been reasonably accurate. IE6 didn't do anything special to "break the web", but through inaction, Microsoft allowed IE6 to live significantly longer than it should have. The most likely reason for this was complacency. Yes, Microsoft made things hard by not upgrading IE6 as more modern technologies started permeating the competition, and it also did nothing as the rest of the world moved towards standards, but claiming they broke something in the years after 2001 with a product released in 2001 is absurd.
It was pretty common to use HTML3/4 in a very standard manner. Only, if you did it typically didn't work under IE - IE5 or IE6. It worked quite well under nearly everything else. A good bit of JavaScript could be done in a very standard manner with everything else too - except IE required special support.
IE was Microsoft's way to EEE the web - to try to tie it to the Microsoft platform through custom functionality in the browser so you had to have custom pages for IE, to ActiveX, and more. It was a major PITA even when IE6 was released and mainly due to IE6.
With IE5 and IE6 though, Microsoft made Ajax possible. How's that for breaking the web.
Yes, the XHTMLRequest functionality was a good contribution; one that they initially did internally and later became standard. But it didn't take off due to IE either.
Technically speaking it is correct. Microsoft didn't break the web with IE6.
I remember doing HTML and JavaScript stuff for IE6, vs Netscape, etc. Even then Netscape, Opera and others were more standardized in how you setup the DOM, how things interacted; and you had to have custom support for IE6. Sure, it was better than IE 5.5; but it was still a bastard to support compared to everything else.
At the time it came out it was the best browser, and it improved things for people trying to use CSS2.
Yes, IE 5.5 and IE6 both supported CSS2 - which was very new on the scene at that point. I wouldn't have expected Netscape 4 to support it very well. Netscape 6 did a good job; the problem was Netscape 6 was very slow. If it wasn't for the performance of Netscape 6 it would have taken off a lot better. Of course, that is also what let Netscape to create Mozilla with Phoenix (e.g. Netscape 7).
Netscape 4.x was still rotting, The newish Netscape 6 had wider CSS2 support but was practically unfinished and very buggy, and Mozilla 1.0 was yet to be released.
Yes, Netscape 4 was rotting; but it was still easier to program for and support than IE6, as was Netscape 6. You didn't have to do anything custom to support it, and IE6 required custom work to support.
Mozilla 1.0 was a suite of stuff from Mozilla which wasn't started until after Netscape 6 was released, and as a result of Netscape 6. Netscape decided they couldn't do it any more the way they were - so they started Phoenix (later Firefox), Thunderbird, SunBird, and several other projects. These projects now are at the top for their respective areas - but it did take time.
What 'broke the web' was not IE6 itself, but Microsoft leaving it to rot for 5 or 6 years.
What broke the web was having to do custom work to support HTML and JavaScript for IE; along with the ActiveX plug-ins, etc. that were IE only and heavily pushed by Microsoft and its partners. It didn't help that Microsoft "won" then left it all to rot.
Yes, but proprietary forks of open source are no longer open, are they?
True. But the point is that if Microsoft forks TypeScript in that manner - e.g. releases a version on Windows, for IE, etc. that is different from the open source version then they will break it as people will develop for their proprietary version instead of the standard version. Again the whole EEE philosophy.
err...Go here. Stupid /...
That is my understanding. When MS releases source under GPL, I will be a little more inclined to trust MS.
Actually, maybe not even then. There are always patents.
Well, they do have some GPL software - for example Windows Installer XML is GPL last I checked, and sponsored by Microsoft, and is used for many of their own products. I think you can even trace the latest version of Visual Studio Installer to it via the light/dark programs included; could be wrong (I haven't check their output) but its very likely. (And no, they're not dual licensed; just GPL.)
Wow, insightful? Did all of today's mod points go to Redmond? You CANNOT get locked in to an open source platform.
That is true of licenses like the LGPL and GPL. It is not necessarily true of BSD, Mit, and Apache licenses as there is nothing keeping them from having their own proprietary, unpublished fork with additional features that are specific to what they want to do - nothing saying they have to tell everyone else either.
Microsoft broke the web about a decade ago
What a load of rubbish. Seriously. Rubbish.
You, sir, have apparently not done web programming.
The reason we need toolkits like Mootools and others is to primarily mitigate the differences between Internet Explorer and everyone else as Internet Explorer would do things differently enough that it wouldn't work unless you customized it for Internet Explorer, but then it wouldn't work for everyone else. This is also the only reason why people started looking at the browser identifiers.
The roads were made for cars and truck to ride on not bikes. How many cyclists do you see on an major interstate?
I don't know about 'major' interstates, but I've ridden on interstates where it's allowed. Aside from the noise, which I suppress with ear plugs, I found interstates better than a lot of local roads I've ridden on. There are, of course, interstates where riding a bike isn't allowed or appropriate, but there are ones where it is, and they make damn fine roads for bicycling.
In the US all Freeways and Highways (aka Interstates) are posted for vehicular traffic only - mopeds, scooters, bicycles, and pedestrians are forbidden.
Now there are a lot of similar roads - two lane each way, etc. - that do allow them; but they typically have stop lights, lower speed, etc. too.
believe it or not the roads are for *everyone* not just you. roads were made for cars ,truck *and* bikes you fucking crettin.
They were made for bicycles with cyclists following pedestrian laws, not vehicular laws.
Do you even know any drivers who attempt to not exceed posted speed limits on roads by 5-10mph? This may be anecdotal, but almost all people I've met who bitch about cyclists have a history of rear ending other drivers and causing accidents, meaning they are terrible drivers.
You want cyclists to respect cars? Start by respecting the traffic laws. This works both ways.
Further, roads were originally built for cyclists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement
Rear-ended one person once in well over 10 years of driving - bad sign posting for a construction area where the guy in front stopped due to no merge area when getting on the highway. Construction site was found partially at fault, but the officer claimed everything was as required. I typically hate cyclists because they are in the wrong place nearly all the time - blocking traffic, or acting in a way that is just asking for the slightest thing to go wrong and get hit.
I saw one cyclist get hit about 10 years ago - going on the side walk, didn't stop when he came to the intersection. The driver pulled up, missed the line by a foot or two, and had not chance to not hit the guy. While they were both technically at fault, if the cyclist simply stopped for a second before crossing he could have not gotten hit. (And no, it wouldn't have mattered whether he was in the lane, etc.)
Cyclists are typically the problem.
Then we need to change these laws.
If you cannot keep up with the flow of traffic, then, you should not be allowed on said roads....speed difference combined in this case, with significant mass difference...is just asking for trouble.
If there are bike lanes...then sure, they have their place, but if not...we shouldn't allow vehicles on roads that cannot keep up with the normal speeds of said road.
It just isn't safe.
100% agreed. The problem is all the lobbying by the cyclist organizations which typically represent professional cyclists.
The reason we don't have much specialized bicycling lanes and the like is.....bicycling is recreational, you generally drive a car for business (serious transportation, hauling things, going to / from work, shopping, etc).
A bicycle is mainly for recreational exercise....and the US is hurting for money for the infrastructure we need for commerce and basic needs...we don't have the spare cash to build bicycle additions to our roads.
And that's why we need to recognize professional vs. non-professional cyclists. Professional cyclists probably need to be licensed. Non-professional cyclists should follow 100% of the pedestrian laws - moving against traffic, etc.