I don't see how an IE rendering mode will have a significant negative impact on Firefox. Sure, it will bring pressure on the Mozilla Foundation to fix those glitches in Gecko that would make a user want to use an IE render mode, but lets face it, IE rendering screws up just as many, if not more, sites than Gecko, especially those using newer CSS standards.
Another third-party browser will ultimately help the browser scene, regardless of how widespread its adoption is. At any rate, the release of this browser, especially with the publicity surrounding it, might help bring the need to reform the Mozilla development process (from an article a few hours ago).
Competition never hurt, and whether the new Netscape is a success or failure, its another alternative for users tired of the current selection of browsers for whatever reason.
Ultimately, a wider selection of browsers will benefit the internet as a whole, by encouraging open standards, rather than allowing any one manufacturer to dictate practice with their usage majority.
Even though allofmp3.com may be operating in an underhanded fashion, it is ironic that they are continuing their operation based on legal loopholes, given that the American recording has done the same thing in its attack on fair use, invasion of privacy, and filing of John Doe lawsuits.
Looks like the recording industry isn't too happy about the use of loopholes when its directed against them.
In the grand scheme of things, though, allofmp3.com won't last, since it holds condiderably less political influence than the Russian recording industry, and I'm sure they'll have to change their business model within not too long if they wish to stay in business. While allofmp3.com has been a great force in driving online music sales, and being a measure of quality, convenience, and ease that all other pay services are compared to, their current business model is just not sustainable.
The vast majority of people use a mouse with more than one finger, so it just makes sense that there be multiple buttons available to them. One button mice are about as useful as a typist that only uses their index fingers - its about ease of input.
Apple's decision to stay with a one button mouse has absolutely nothing to do with how people interact with technology. This is just another example of backward justification - i.e., they have a policy, now they need to find a reason for it.
This is about marketing, nothing else. For a company that associates its products with "thinking different[ly]", a one button mouse is a good marketing tool. Just as the imacs were ridiculed for looking "trendy" or "gay", it certainly did break with the legions of other PCs in a mostly standard black or white ATX midtower case.
The one button mouse is a distinctive marketing device of Apple. They are the only manufacturer to do so, and articles like this bring them the publicity that they crave. Having been around Macs, both pre and post OSX, on a daily basis, I've noticed that all serious users, myself included, always add a two button mouse of some kind to the Apple, and the one button mouse that came with it goes back in the box. Its really that simple, and because of that, they have really no need to change it. Even if they did provide a two button mouse, they'd only be helping maybe a third of users, since mice provided by the manufacturer will never be enough to satisfy those users who want a cordless system of some sort.
The only place it hurts them to keep the one button design is with their Powerbooks; one of the main reasons I haven't and will not buy a new powerbook is because I need right click functionality without the need to encumber myself with more and more mobile accessories.
Forget an emphasis on software design, this is all about marketing, image, and brand recognition.
Taxes are a necessary part of life, to which OSS can provide a solution, and give consumers a choice in their software. Protesting taxes by withholding a free alternative does nothing but limit the choices of end users and perpetuate the government-endorsed monopoly on submission partners.
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia, cellphone class-action sue you.
Firefox, of course
I don't see how an IE rendering mode will have a significant negative impact on Firefox. Sure, it will bring pressure on the Mozilla Foundation to fix those glitches in Gecko that would make a user want to use an IE render mode, but lets face it, IE rendering screws up just as many, if not more, sites than Gecko, especially those using newer CSS standards.
Another third-party browser will ultimately help the browser scene, regardless of how widespread its adoption is. At any rate, the release of this browser, especially with the publicity surrounding it, might help bring the need to reform the Mozilla development process (from an article a few hours ago).
Competition never hurt, and whether the new Netscape is a success or failure, its another alternative for users tired of the current selection of browsers for whatever reason.
Ultimately, a wider selection of browsers will benefit the internet as a whole, by encouraging open standards, rather than allowing any one manufacturer to dictate practice with their usage majority.
Even though allofmp3.com may be operating in an underhanded fashion, it is ironic that they are continuing their operation based on legal loopholes, given that the American recording has done the same thing in its attack on fair use, invasion of privacy, and filing of John Doe lawsuits.
Looks like the recording industry isn't too happy about the use of loopholes when its directed against them.
In the grand scheme of things, though, allofmp3.com won't last, since it holds condiderably less political influence than the Russian recording industry, and I'm sure they'll have to change their business model within not too long if they wish to stay in business. While allofmp3.com has been a great force in driving online music sales, and being a measure of quality, convenience, and ease that all other pay services are compared to, their current business model is just not sustainable.
The vast majority of people use a mouse with more than one finger, so it just makes sense that there be multiple buttons available to them. One button mice are about as useful as a typist that only uses their index fingers - its about ease of input.
Apple's decision to stay with a one button mouse has absolutely nothing to do with how people interact with technology. This is just another example of backward justification - i.e., they have a policy, now they need to find a reason for it. This is about marketing, nothing else. For a company that associates its products with "thinking different[ly]", a one button mouse is a good marketing tool. Just as the imacs were ridiculed for looking "trendy" or "gay", it certainly did break with the legions of other PCs in a mostly standard black or white ATX midtower case. The one button mouse is a distinctive marketing device of Apple. They are the only manufacturer to do so, and articles like this bring them the publicity that they crave. Having been around Macs, both pre and post OSX, on a daily basis, I've noticed that all serious users, myself included, always add a two button mouse of some kind to the Apple, and the one button mouse that came with it goes back in the box. Its really that simple, and because of that, they have really no need to change it. Even if they did provide a two button mouse, they'd only be helping maybe a third of users, since mice provided by the manufacturer will never be enough to satisfy those users who want a cordless system of some sort. The only place it hurts them to keep the one button design is with their Powerbooks; one of the main reasons I haven't and will not buy a new powerbook is because I need right click functionality without the need to encumber myself with more and more mobile accessories. Forget an emphasis on software design, this is all about marketing, image, and brand recognition.
Looks like the angst over at Livejournal is no longer limited to the database.
Taxes are a necessary part of life, to which OSS can provide a solution, and give consumers a choice in their software. Protesting taxes by withholding a free alternative does nothing but limit the choices of end users and perpetuate the government-endorsed monopoly on submission partners.