...or XBox. Microsoft admitted before the XBox was released that they were losing $100 per unit sold. Hell, I wanted to buy one just to make them lose money.:)
Actually, I don't think it's predatory as long as it's still competitive. If a price is dropped so low that competitors simply can't compete with the price at all, that is almost certainly in violation of anti-trust acts. As long as there are viable alternatives that are still in the same price range, I don't believe that such actions are illegal.
All that they have to do to recoup that billion is get their own PlayStation VISA, which will be approved to all applicants. You can pay for the PS/3 for 48 low monthly payments of $24.95 at only 27% interest! Hey, it certainly beats having to pay $399 + tax all at once, doesn't it?
Yes, that's partially sarcasm, but don't underestimate those who want it now and are willing to pay more over time with a manageable monthly payment. After all, look at how many people have store cards at 24% interest instead of regular Visa through a credit union at 12% or less all because it might be easier to get the store card! And, hey, it spreads out the payments, doesn't it? Sony could make a FORTUNE from their own Playstation credit card, if they don't have one already.
Oh, God! No, please! It's bad enough to have a pop-up Clippy just from MS Office! But I refuse to tolerate a Clippy on the desktop!
Hi! I'm Clippy! It looks like you're visiting a Linux web site! I am compelled to erase your hard drive right now! Would you like that?
* No, close the evil Linux window and open an MSN window.
* Yes, I must be punished for going outside of Microsoft.
or maybe...
Hi, I'm Clippy. I'm tracking every place that you go to and reporting it back to unscrupulous marketers. (Sorry for being redundant there.) Would you like me to keep tracking where you go on the Internet?
* Yes, and automatically install software that I don't want
* Yes, and automatically install software that I don't want
* Yes, and automatically install software that I don't want
"Hello! We're Sun Microsystems! You see that logo? It instills awe in you, doesn't it? You are getting sleepy! Keep staring at the Sun logo. You are getting sleepy. Focus on the logo. Now repeat after me - 'I will pay far more than someone with common sense would pay because of the Sun logo.' Say it. Good. Now, keep repeating it. That's right. Just keep repeating it. Excellent!"
STARTING at $3,400 for a Sun-branded laptop running at 1.28 GHz.
Compare that to less than $2,000 for a brand name laptop (pick one) w/ Pentium M 1.8-2.0 GHz, DVD writer, 1 GB RAM, and so forth - and it's very likely that Linux will run just fine on it, perhaps with some drivers.
Oh, look! I can get a screaming fast 3 GHz Pentium IV system w/ 1 GB RAM, 500 GB drive space, 19" LCD panel, dual-layer DVD writer, Gb Ethernet, etc. starting at ~$1,900 from brand name A. Again, it's very likely that Linux + some drivers will work with this system.
Compare that to a Sun Blade 150 at 650 MHz, 512 MB of RAM, 80 GB drive, 100 Mb Ethernet, etc that STARTS at a measly $3,400!
I really wish that Sun would realize that the Sun brand name is no longer sufficient to jack up the prices on their hardware. I honestly don't see this laptop selling any more than it normally would if Sun didn't bring it to the forefront, since us Sun geeks knew about Tadpole for years now.
Before you think I'm trolling, I'm actually a Sun bigot. I have three Sun workstations at home (yes, home) and I've already contacted my Sun sales rep regarding purchasing the new Ultra 20, (which is actually VERY reasonably priced, particularly for Sun) as a personal workstation for me at home (yes, home). But the simple fact of the matter is that for years I have watched major, international, engineering corporations trade in their Sun workstations for Dell workstations simply because of the price per performance. Sun's continually high prices due to the Sun name has been a pet peeve of mine for over six years.
When a Sun workstation offers 1/2 to 2/3 the speed at twice the price, the purchasing decision is a no-brainer. This laptop sadly continues that trend. The dot-com bubble is dead. Most companies take a much harder look at the bottom line than before. I don't see how this laptop will sell any more than before, particularly since us Sun geeks have known about Tadpole laptops for many years.
I just don't understand this whole need for such detail in Surround Sound. 7.1 is more than enough to fool the human ear into comprehending the perceived location of an audio source, at least on a two-dimensional level.
Objective: Have the sound come from what appears to be speakers 4 and 5.
Common Sense solution: Equalize the specific sound between speakers four and five to simulate its location between those two speakers.
13.1 solution (or so it would seem): Come up with a new set of codecs, equipment, and speakers to actually have the sound come out of another speaker!
By the way, the Common Sense solution is free to existing 7.1 and to a lesser extent 5.1 owners.
Personally, I want an additional sound channel to get a 5.1.1/7.1.1 solution where the added.1 is an overhead speaker to truly add a third dimension to sound. I can only imagine what it would sound like to have a jet in Top Gun or similar movie go from left front to top channel to rear right! That type of 3D audio would be far more impressive than using six more 2D speakers that can just as easily be replicated by positional audio between two existing speakers. The recent technological advances in flat speaker and wireless technologies would make a "ceiling speaker" easier to implement than many people would think.
Exactly. I always use "independent" because "inexpensive" is completely relative. If you make a 22-disk RAID 0+1 out of (for example) Sun 147 GB fibre-channel drives, I can most assuredly guarantee that "inexpensive" does NOT qualify!
Like I need to. "Oh, my! No one would possibly agree with him, so it has to be him under AC!" Whatever. Believe what you want. It's clear that you won't listen to anyone other than yourself anyway.
"Well, I would normally mod this guy's ass down, but that would be playing right into his hands. So, I won't mod him down making him look like he's wrong."
You also don't seem to notice the irony that apparently other moderators agree that abusive moderators tend to be a problem.
That would only be viable if we didn't have so many mods with their own agendas. There have been many times where posts have been made (and a few by me) that had no malice or intent to start any kind of war. They were merely opinions that just so happened to go against the/. grain, but not presented in an adversarial way. It didn't take any time at all for them to be modded as troll, flamebait, or overrated simply because they were not going with the flow of the/. majority.
As long as these kinds of intolerant mods exist whose sole purpose (so it would seem) is to censor down those posts that they merely disagree with, which of course goes against that person's karma, culpability is not necessarily a positive thing.
I know that the metamod functionality is meant to keep this sort of thing in check, but considering how quickly non-inflammatory yet dissenting posts get censo^H^H^H^H^Hmodded down, there should be a better way. Apparently, many mods have decided to ignore Slashdot's recommendation to save mod points for elevating those posts that should be elevated.
I agree that trolls need to be kept in check. In that case, those with excessive, provable trolling (above and beyond just moderator opinion) should have their accounts locked completely; however, I also think that mods who use negative moderation frequently (or even exclusively as many mods claim to do) should not be given mod privileges as often. Being cuplable for what you post is one thing; being targeted because your post doesn't necessarily agree with the Slashdot grain is another. It's difficult to have the former when you're subject to the latter.
Just wait and this post will likely become proof of that. I said something negative about certain mods in this post, so it will most likely be shot down in rating.
That explains why they were able to develop it in just five months.:-)
Excactly. This was probably just a first run, no different than what most game companies and even animation studios do - release something small, get feedback, apply the feedback to a larger project. It seems that too many people on/. expect mods like this to be perfect and have everything ready from the start. Man, why doesn't this.04a version have a full storyline! That's freakin' lame! Waiter, reality check, please.
Now that they have some experience under their collective belt, they should be able to get future mods out with more efficiency. This of course pertains to any mod-maker, not just the Eclipse team.
It might very well suck, but at least I plan on giving it a chance to prove itself rather than pass judgements based only on its web site. That's like critiquing an entire book because you read the back cover.
And I only said that they should be thanked if it's good. So, tell me, genius, if it sucks and you don't tell them, how the hell are they supposed to know WHY you didn't like it and therefore correct what you don't like? Do you think the fact that you think it suck will somehow reverberate through the air thereby subconsciously communicating with them why you didn't like it? Duh! They need feedback either way! Ignoring them because you don't like their mod isn't going to do anyone any good!
Then again, I should know better than to expect logic from someone who has to post as AC.
Thank you! It's nice to actually see an informed opinion on this mod as opposed to the bullsh*t AC statements about it being "lame" and "gay" from the tards who didn't bother to download it and have nothing better to do apparently.
I'm looking forward to trying it out myself and at least getting feedback to the team who made it. If they get enough positive responses and suggestions, hopefully they'll do more. Those who do really good and creative mods won't know that their work is appreciated unless we tell them so and as such will probably not make any more under a false impression that no one like what they've done. That would be a shame not only from their standpoint but also from ours since we would no longer get any quality mods from the group.
Apparently, he thinks that buying a $69 digital camera at Best Buy equates to instant professionalism and immense photographic talent and that printing it off on a home printer means that it needs to be framed and sold at Sotheby's. Funny, that's not the way that I thought it happened. I've seen pictures that my wife and sisters have taken. I wouldn't bid on them. Guess I just don't know art when I see it, but apparently that mod does.
And once again I have to say that only the professional wanna-bes in these areas will be killed off. Those with true talent and are good at what they do will still be around for a long, long time.
Printing photographs onto Tshirts, once a screen printing domain of professionals, now anybody can do that too.
The average T-shirt making material is crap, that's why the general public can affort it. Ten sheets for $15 from an ink-jet? Yeah, that's real quality. (Not.) Silk-screening, embroidering, and so forth is still not in the realm of the normal consumer or hobbyist.
You argument focuses too much on the mechanisms. That's not where the talent of professional photographers lies. I don't care how technology advances or how easy it is to do certain things. Technology will NEVER be able to replace the intuition and the talent that genuine photographers have. So the wanna-bes have two choices: find another line of work or improve themselves so that they're better than the average, at-home crowd. If they do niether, then my only response when they die off is "Good!"
By your line of thinking, anyone with a PC and Maya will create an incredible, virtual world that will make everyone "ooh" and "aah"; anyone with a PC and a DVD authoring package will make Hollywood-quality DVDs; anyone with a PC and Cakewalk will be the next DJ phenom. None of these can ever be if the person doesn't have the talent, intuition, and desire to use those tools effectively. And, no, cropping and red-eye reduction do not qualify as "talent", "intuition", or "desire".
Sorry, but I can't disagree more. Genuine professional photographers do far, far, FAR more than point-and-click. True professionals will take lighting, position, angle, lens type, white balance, and a number of other factors into account before ever looking through the view finder. These are the professionals who look at the meaning behind the image that they're about to take and find out the best way to make that meaning come through the image.
The only people that will be killed because of digital as you suggest are the wanna-be professionals who look at photography more as a hobby that can make money because the customers can (or won't) do it themselves. The people with a real eye for photography will be just fine. Yes, Photoshop is good, but I don't think that any graphical package will ever be able to make up for true talent.
Really?? Look at any release of Windows since Win 98 and tell me if any of them don't have IE installed. I also seem to recall a certain Bill Gates saying that it was so engrained with the operating system that it could not be uninstalled. That to me says that even if you're not browsing the web, you still are using IE to some extent and that you have no choice because of its integration. Sounds like the definition of "forced" to me.
They were not open source friendly and certainly not open standards friendly.
Look at how many web pages out there require Internet Explorer because of proprietary ActiveX extentions. So, it's okay if IE requires proprietary code, but Netscape was so incredibly vile when they did the same thing? Also, where did you get the source code to IE? I don't recall Microsoft being open-source friendly either, yet apparently you are giving them a free pass even though there is no IE source code out there that I'm aware of. By the way, IE still is not 100% supportive of open standards either.
If you ask people why they have used and still use IE, I'm sure that the vast majority of people will say that "it came with the operating system", not that it was better or worse. Add onto that their security problems, virus issues, spyware issues and so forth, it's no wonder that Firefox is as popular as it is.
So, regardless of how bad Netscape was, Microsoft, their tactics, and their lack of security are still the primary reasons why Firefox was deemed to be necessary and was therefore created. If IE wasn't forced on everyone, if IE wasn't integrated into every nook and cranny of Windows, and if IE didn't install spyware because I right-clicked on a picture, do you really think that Firefox would be here? (I'm beging facetious on the spyware due to a right-click, of course, but it's sadly not far from the truth.)
If Microsoft didn't make such a bug-ridden browser that was so unethically engrained into the operating system and if Microsoft didn't abuse their monopoly power to run Netscape into the ground, there would not have been such a demand or need for Firefox to have even been created, hence there would be no naming issues. Had Microsoft played fairly, Netscape might still be a very viable browser (unlike now for all intents and purposes) and Firefox would probably not exist.
So, as shoot-from-the-hip as you enjoyed being, the whole reason for Firefox being as popular as it is (and one could argue necessary in the first place) can indeed be traced back to Microsoft.
Apparently, you need to learn a bit about HTML. You could have a 1,600 x 1,200 image of some pervert doing a kid. If the image source reference in HTML explicitly stated "height=1 width=1" the image would be a single blip on the browser screen but the full image would still have been downloaded. And in the world of broadband, that image could have taken 1/2 second to download or less, meaning that the viewer would probably not have noticed.
Anyone who wants to be a real jerk could easily hide hi-res porn images on a site this way. And if the person was duped to visiting a web site that appears to be legitimate, he might never know what kind if images just ended up on his system. We often see this same type of thing on/. by those incompetent jackasses who like to link supposedly valid pictures that end up being tubgirl or lemon party. Well, guess what's then in our cache even though we probably don't want it there.
And the vast majority of people don't even know what a cache is, let alone how to clean it out regularly, so the argument about "They should know to clean it out regularly" doesn't work.
I think he meant that any positive statement about Microsoft is an invitation to be flamed.
Actually, I was referring to the incompetent, jackass mods that had already modded him as flamebait. Forunately, other mods with more intelligence have already corrected their stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
...or XBox. Microsoft admitted before the XBox was released that they were losing $100 per unit sold. Hell, I wanted to buy one just to make them lose money. :)
Actually, I don't think it's predatory as long as it's still competitive. If a price is dropped so low that competitors simply can't compete with the price at all, that is almost certainly in violation of anti-trust acts. As long as there are viable alternatives that are still in the same price range, I don't believe that such actions are illegal.
All that they have to do to recoup that billion is get their own PlayStation VISA, which will be approved to all applicants. You can pay for the PS/3 for 48 low monthly payments of $24.95 at only 27% interest! Hey, it certainly beats having to pay $399 + tax all at once, doesn't it?
Yes, that's partially sarcasm, but don't underestimate those who want it now and are willing to pay more over time with a manageable monthly payment. After all, look at how many people have store cards at 24% interest instead of regular Visa through a credit union at 12% or less all because it might be easier to get the store card! And, hey, it spreads out the payments, doesn't it? Sony could make a FORTUNE from their own Playstation credit card, if they don't have one already.
Oh, God! No, please! It's bad enough to have a pop-up Clippy just from MS Office! But I refuse to tolerate a Clippy on the desktop!
Hi! I'm Clippy! It looks like you're visiting a Linux web site! I am compelled to erase your hard drive right now! Would you like that?
* No, close the evil Linux window and open an MSN window.
* Yes, I must be punished for going outside of Microsoft.
or maybe...
Hi, I'm Clippy. I'm tracking every place that you go to and reporting it back to unscrupulous marketers. (Sorry for being redundant there.) Would you like me to keep tracking where you go on the Internet?
* Yes, and automatically install software that I don't want
* Yes, and automatically install software that I don't want
* Yes, and automatically install software that I don't want
"Hello! We're Sun Microsystems! You see that logo? It instills awe in you, doesn't it? You are getting sleepy! Keep staring at the Sun logo. You are getting sleepy. Focus on the logo. Now repeat after me - 'I will pay far more than someone with common sense would pay because of the Sun logo.' Say it. Good. Now, keep repeating it. That's right. Just keep repeating it. Excellent!"
STARTING at $3,400 for a Sun-branded laptop running at 1.28 GHz.
Compare that to less than $2,000 for a brand name laptop (pick one) w/ Pentium M 1.8-2.0 GHz, DVD writer, 1 GB RAM, and so forth - and it's very likely that Linux will run just fine on it, perhaps with some drivers.
Oh, look! I can get a screaming fast 3 GHz Pentium IV system w/ 1 GB RAM, 500 GB drive space, 19" LCD panel, dual-layer DVD writer, Gb Ethernet, etc. starting at ~$1,900 from brand name A. Again, it's very likely that Linux + some drivers will work with this system.
Compare that to a Sun Blade 150 at 650 MHz, 512 MB of RAM, 80 GB drive, 100 Mb Ethernet, etc that STARTS at a measly $3,400!
I really wish that Sun would realize that the Sun brand name is no longer sufficient to jack up the prices on their hardware. I honestly don't see this laptop selling any more than it normally would if Sun didn't bring it to the forefront, since us Sun geeks knew about Tadpole for years now.
Before you think I'm trolling, I'm actually a Sun bigot. I have three Sun workstations at home (yes, home) and I've already contacted my Sun sales rep regarding purchasing the new Ultra 20, (which is actually VERY reasonably priced, particularly for Sun) as a personal workstation for me at home (yes, home). But the simple fact of the matter is that for years I have watched major, international, engineering corporations trade in their Sun workstations for Dell workstations simply because of the price per performance. Sun's continually high prices due to the Sun name has been a pet peeve of mine for over six years.
When a Sun workstation offers 1/2 to 2/3 the speed at twice the price, the purchasing decision is a no-brainer. This laptop sadly continues that trend. The dot-com bubble is dead. Most companies take a much harder look at the bottom line than before. I don't see how this laptop will sell any more than before, particularly since us Sun geeks have known about Tadpole laptops for many years.
I just don't understand this whole need for such detail in Surround Sound. 7.1 is more than enough to fool the human ear into comprehending the perceived location of an audio source, at least on a two-dimensional level.
.1 is an overhead speaker to truly add a third dimension to sound. I can only imagine what it would sound like to have a jet in Top Gun or similar movie go from left front to top channel to rear right! That type of 3D audio would be far more impressive than using six more 2D speakers that can just as easily be replicated by positional audio between two existing speakers. The recent technological advances in flat speaker and wireless technologies would make a "ceiling speaker" easier to implement than many people would think.
Objective: Have the sound come from what appears to be speakers 4 and 5.
Common Sense solution: Equalize the specific sound between speakers four and five to simulate its location between those two speakers.
13.1 solution (or so it would seem): Come up with a new set of codecs, equipment, and speakers to actually have the sound come out of another speaker!
By the way, the Common Sense solution is free to existing 7.1 and to a lesser extent 5.1 owners.
Personally, I want an additional sound channel to get a 5.1.1/7.1.1 solution where the added
Exactly. I always use "independent" because "inexpensive" is completely relative. If you make a 22-disk RAID 0+1 out of (for example) Sun 147 GB fibre-channel drives, I can most assuredly guarantee that "inexpensive" does NOT qualify!
Like I need to. "Oh, my! No one would possibly agree with him, so it has to be him under AC!" Whatever. Believe what you want. It's clear that you won't listen to anyone other than yourself anyway.
You apparently have never heard of spite.
"Well, I would normally mod this guy's ass down, but that would be playing right into his hands. So, I won't mod him down making him look like he's wrong."
You also don't seem to notice the irony that apparently other moderators agree that abusive moderators tend to be a problem.
That would only be viable if we didn't have so many mods with their own agendas. There have been many times where posts have been made (and a few by me) that had no malice or intent to start any kind of war. They were merely opinions that just so happened to go against the /. grain, but not presented in an adversarial way. It didn't take any time at all for them to be modded as troll, flamebait, or overrated simply because they were not going with the flow of the /. majority.
As long as these kinds of intolerant mods exist whose sole purpose (so it would seem) is to censor down those posts that they merely disagree with, which of course goes against that person's karma, culpability is not necessarily a positive thing. I know that the metamod functionality is meant to keep this sort of thing in check, but considering how quickly non-inflammatory yet dissenting posts get censo^H^H^H^H^Hmodded down, there should be a better way. Apparently, many mods have decided to ignore Slashdot's recommendation to save mod points for elevating those posts that should be elevated.
I agree that trolls need to be kept in check. In that case, those with excessive, provable trolling (above and beyond just moderator opinion) should have their accounts locked completely; however, I also think that mods who use negative moderation frequently (or even exclusively as many mods claim to do) should not be given mod privileges as often. Being cuplable for what you post is one thing; being targeted because your post doesn't necessarily agree with the Slashdot grain is another. It's difficult to have the former when you're subject to the latter.
Just wait and this post will likely become proof of that. I said something negative about certain mods in this post, so it will most likely be shot down in rating.
That explains why they were able to develop it in just five months. :-)
/. expect mods like this to be perfect and have everything ready from the start. Man, why doesn't this .04a version have a full storyline! That's freakin' lame! Waiter, reality check, please.
Excactly. This was probably just a first run, no different than what most game companies and even animation studios do - release something small, get feedback, apply the feedback to a larger project. It seems that too many people on
Now that they have some experience under their collective belt, they should be able to get future mods out with more efficiency. This of course pertains to any mod-maker, not just the Eclipse team.
It might very well suck, but at least I plan on giving it a chance to prove itself rather than pass judgements based only on its web site. That's like critiquing an entire book because you read the back cover.
And I only said that they should be thanked if it's good. So, tell me, genius, if it sucks and you don't tell them, how the hell are they supposed to know WHY you didn't like it and therefore correct what you don't like? Do you think the fact that you think it suck will somehow reverberate through the air thereby subconsciously communicating with them why you didn't like it? Duh! They need feedback either way! Ignoring them because you don't like their mod isn't going to do anyone any good!
Then again, I should know better than to expect logic from someone who has to post as AC.
Thank you! It's nice to actually see an informed opinion on this mod as opposed to the bullsh*t AC statements about it being "lame" and "gay" from the tards who didn't bother to download it and have nothing better to do apparently.
I'm looking forward to trying it out myself and at least getting feedback to the team who made it. If they get enough positive responses and suggestions, hopefully they'll do more. Those who do really good and creative mods won't know that their work is appreciated unless we tell them so and as such will probably not make any more under a false impression that no one like what they've done. That would be a shame not only from their standpoint but also from ours since we would no longer get any quality mods from the group.
Fuck you, troll mod!
That felt good to say.
Hey, troll mods ... do the words "piss off" mean anything to you? There! There's a troll for you!
Apparently, he thinks that buying a $69 digital camera at Best Buy equates to instant professionalism and immense photographic talent and that printing it off on a home printer means that it needs to be framed and sold at Sotheby's. Funny, that's not the way that I thought it happened. I've seen pictures that my wife and sisters have taken. I wouldn't bid on them. Guess I just don't know art when I see it, but apparently that mod does.
And once again I have to say that only the professional wanna-bes in these areas will be killed off. Those with true talent and are good at what they do will still be around for a long, long time.
Printing photographs onto Tshirts, once a screen printing domain of professionals, now anybody can do that too.
The average T-shirt making material is crap, that's why the general public can affort it. Ten sheets for $15 from an ink-jet? Yeah, that's real quality. (Not.) Silk-screening, embroidering, and so forth is still not in the realm of the normal consumer or hobbyist.
You argument focuses too much on the mechanisms. That's not where the talent of professional photographers lies. I don't care how technology advances or how easy it is to do certain things. Technology will NEVER be able to replace the intuition and the talent that genuine photographers have. So the wanna-bes have two choices: find another line of work or improve themselves so that they're better than the average, at-home crowd. If they do niether, then my only response when they die off is "Good!"
By your line of thinking, anyone with a PC and Maya will create an incredible, virtual world that will make everyone "ooh" and "aah"; anyone with a PC and a DVD authoring package will make Hollywood-quality DVDs; anyone with a PC and Cakewalk will be the next DJ phenom. None of these can ever be if the person doesn't have the talent, intuition, and desire to use those tools effectively. And, no, cropping and red-eye reduction do not qualify as "talent", "intuition", or "desire".
Sorry, but I can't disagree more. Genuine professional photographers do far, far, FAR more than point-and-click. True professionals will take lighting, position, angle, lens type, white balance, and a number of other factors into account before ever looking through the view finder. These are the professionals who look at the meaning behind the image that they're about to take and find out the best way to make that meaning come through the image.
The only people that will be killed because of digital as you suggest are the wanna-be professionals who look at photography more as a hobby that can make money because the customers can (or won't) do it themselves. The people with a real eye for photography will be just fine. Yes, Photoshop is good, but I don't think that any graphical package will ever be able to make up for true talent.
IE was never forced on anyone!
Really?? Look at any release of Windows since Win 98 and tell me if any of them don't have IE installed. I also seem to recall a certain Bill Gates saying that it was so engrained with the operating system that it could not be uninstalled. That to me says that even if you're not browsing the web, you still are using IE to some extent and that you have no choice because of its integration. Sounds like the definition of "forced" to me.
They were not open source friendly and certainly not open standards friendly.
Look at how many web pages out there require Internet Explorer because of proprietary ActiveX extentions. So, it's okay if IE requires proprietary code, but Netscape was so incredibly vile when they did the same thing? Also, where did you get the source code to IE? I don't recall Microsoft being open-source friendly either, yet apparently you are giving them a free pass even though there is no IE source code out there that I'm aware of. By the way, IE still is not 100% supportive of open standards either.
Who's being revisionist again?
If you ask people why they have used and still use IE, I'm sure that the vast majority of people will say that "it came with the operating system", not that it was better or worse. Add onto that their security problems, virus issues, spyware issues and so forth, it's no wonder that Firefox is as popular as it is.
So, regardless of how bad Netscape was, Microsoft, their tactics, and their lack of security are still the primary reasons why Firefox was deemed to be necessary and was therefore created. If IE wasn't forced on everyone, if IE wasn't integrated into every nook and cranny of Windows, and if IE didn't install spyware because I right-clicked on a picture, do you really think that Firefox would be here? (I'm beging facetious on the spyware due to a right-click, of course, but it's sadly not far from the truth.)
Quick! someone find a way to blame this on MS!!
Will do.
If Microsoft didn't make such a bug-ridden browser that was so unethically engrained into the operating system and if Microsoft didn't abuse their monopoly power to run Netscape into the ground, there would not have been such a demand or need for Firefox to have even been created, hence there would be no naming issues. Had Microsoft played fairly, Netscape might still be a very viable browser (unlike now for all intents and purposes) and Firefox would probably not exist.
So, as shoot-from-the-hip as you enjoyed being, the whole reason for Firefox being as popular as it is (and one could argue necessary in the first place) can indeed be traced back to Microsoft.
Indeed. Point taken.
Okay. We used the same example with the same resolution to demonstrate.
:)
I'm scared now.
Apparently, you need to learn a bit about HTML. You could have a 1,600 x 1,200 image of some pervert doing a kid. If the image source reference in HTML explicitly stated "height=1 width=1" the image would be a single blip on the browser screen but the full image would still have been downloaded. And in the world of broadband, that image could have taken 1/2 second to download or less, meaning that the viewer would probably not have noticed.
/. by those incompetent jackasses who like to link supposedly valid pictures that end up being tubgirl or lemon party. Well, guess what's then in our cache even though we probably don't want it there.
Anyone who wants to be a real jerk could easily hide hi-res porn images on a site this way. And if the person was duped to visiting a web site that appears to be legitimate, he might never know what kind if images just ended up on his system. We often see this same type of thing on
And the vast majority of people don't even know what a cache is, let alone how to clean it out regularly, so the argument about "They should know to clean it out regularly" doesn't work.
That's what you really think?
... whoops ...
Me, too!
Er
I think he meant that any positive statement about Microsoft is an invitation to be flamed.
Actually, I was referring to the incompetent, jackass mods that had already modded him as flamebait. Forunately, other mods with more intelligence have already corrected their stupidity.