And you would be wrong. The issue is not whether IE is a good or a bad browser; the issue is that Microsoft has been accused of illegaly leveraging their desktop OS monopoly to unfairly compete in the browser market.
Wait, what makes you think computer science changes that quickly? I don't have a formal degree, but I was under the impression that the "core" of the subject hadn't changed since the days of Turing and von Neumann...
Didn't settle outside of South Africa? I guess all those whites in Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Namibia, Kenya, Réunion, Angola, Mozambique, and Libya (and that's just what I got from a two-minute skim of the Wikipedia article on "White Africans") are just anomalies then?
Very true. Sadly, as long as the (to quote Immortal Technique) "Democrat-Republican Cheech and Chong" are in power, nothing will ever change. At least not here in the U.S.
You are trolling. I often have Visual Studio 2008, ASP.Net on IIS, and several instances of IE8 with several tabs each open, some of them running complex AJAX appliations, and Outlook and OneNote 2007, all open at the same time on my 1-GB XP machine. Works fine. Not snappy and definitely spins up the hard drive, but certainly usable. If you have 4GB (and you don't have some other bottleneck, like a dirt-old processor) you should have zero problems running any version of Visual Studio.
In my opinion, it's the same issue. Self-righteous moral assholes trying to interfere with our private lives, to the detriment of everyone affected and sometimes even to everyone not directly affected (by reducing the economy...)
Indeed, those who forget the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them. That means that we should study history and look critically at the actions of people of that time period and at the consequences of those actions.
Notice I said that we should analyze these actions critically. We should NOT simply sort them into Good Guys and Bad Guys and take everything the Good Guys say as gospel.
You claim that the freedom to bear arms is the only way to guarantee the freedom of speech, which I agree is very important. I don't see how you've come to that conclusion. As another poster points out, the freedom to bear arms does nothing to stop political tyranny, as the government is almost infinitely better armed than any group of citizens could ever hope to be. It logically follows that, since our freedom to bear arms is not guaranteeing our freedom of speech, that we do not have freedom of speech. Do you support this logical conclusion of your argument? Do you believe that we currently live without freedom of speech (in the United States)?
Individuality? Not doing what one is told? Maybe for some elite subset of the intellectual population, but I've remarked no difference between normal Europeans and normal Americans in this regard.
I believe a bigger problem is the fact that the average American almost worships his Constitution. Rather than asking if a given law is good or bad, he asks if it follows the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, which gets in the way of any rational debate. Please remember that, living in the XVIIIth century, the Founding Fathers were obviously out of touch with what is happening (what was will happen? what would happen? I hate tenses) in the XXIst.
You seem to be right. According to the International Monetary Fund, $13,244,550,000 worth of stuff was produced (this is the definition of the Gross Domestic (not National) product.)within the borders of the United States in 2006. This equates to $44,190, ninth in the world, the eight that surpass it including seven rich European countries and Qatar.
Slashdot Mirror
And you would be wrong. The issue is not whether IE is a good or a bad browser; the issue is that Microsoft has been accused of illegaly leveraging their desktop OS monopoly to unfairly compete in the browser market.
Wait, what makes you think computer science changes that quickly? I don't have a formal degree, but I was under the impression that the "core" of the subject hadn't changed since the days of Turing and von Neumann...
Doesn't matter. All you really need is the C# compiler and .NET SDK, which are free.
This has literally nothing to do with the issue at hand.
My slashdot user ID is lower than yours.
Didn't settle outside of South Africa? I guess all those whites in Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Namibia, Kenya, Réunion, Angola, Mozambique, and Libya (and that's just what I got from a two-minute skim of the Wikipedia article on "White Africans") are just anomalies then?
Very true. Sadly, as long as the (to quote Immortal Technique) "Democrat-Republican Cheech and Chong" are in power, nothing will ever change. At least not here in the U.S.
"Solidstate Storage Device"?
You are trolling. I often have Visual Studio 2008, ASP.Net on IIS, and several instances of IE8 with several tabs each open, some of them running complex AJAX appliations, and Outlook and OneNote 2007, all open at the same time on my 1-GB XP machine. Works fine. Not snappy and definitely spins up the hard drive, but certainly usable. If you have 4GB (and you don't have some other bottleneck, like a dirt-old processor) you should have zero problems running any version of Visual Studio.
My boss is something of a Microsoft fanboy. I run VS2008 on XP at work (doing ASP.NET development).
Here's hoping VS 2010 will have better support for JavaScript...
Same problem here. (IE8 32-bit on Windows Vista 64-bit)
This has already existed for a long time.
Gay marriage redux?
In my opinion, it's the same issue. Self-righteous moral assholes trying to interfere with our private lives, to the detriment of everyone affected and sometimes even to everyone not directly affected (by reducing the economy...)
You confuse "correlation" with "ironclad law".
Apparently you have never read the Bible.
(Note: "The Old Testament doesn't really count anymore!!!" is a copout)
So, why are you a Catholic?
I'm not insulting you or anything, I'm seriously wondering.
Explain to me then how guns protect your voice.
This is easily the most insightful post in this entire little debate.
We need a +6 HG2G mod.
This is exactly the problem I'm talking about. You equate "Constitutionally-protected" with "good".
Indeed, those who forget the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them. That means that we should study history and look critically at the actions of people of that time period and at the consequences of those actions.
Notice I said that we should analyze these actions critically. We should NOT simply sort them into Good Guys and Bad Guys and take everything the Good Guys say as gospel.
You claim that the freedom to bear arms is the only way to guarantee the freedom of speech, which I agree is very important. I don't see how you've come to that conclusion. As another poster points out, the freedom to bear arms does nothing to stop political tyranny, as the government is almost infinitely better armed than any group of citizens could ever hope to be. It logically follows that, since our freedom to bear arms is not guaranteeing our freedom of speech, that we do not have freedom of speech. Do you support this logical conclusion of your argument? Do you believe that we currently live without freedom of speech (in the United States)?
Individuality? Not doing what one is told? Maybe for some elite subset of the intellectual population, but I've remarked no difference between normal Europeans and normal Americans in this regard.
I believe a bigger problem is the fact that the average American almost worships his Constitution. Rather than asking if a given law is good or bad, he asks if it follows the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, which gets in the way of any rational debate. Please remember that, living in the XVIIIth century, the Founding Fathers were obviously out of touch with what is happening (what was will happen? what would happen? I hate tenses) in the XXIst.
You seem to be right. According to the International Monetary Fund, $13,244,550,000 worth of stuff was produced (this is the definition of the Gross Domestic (not National) product.)within the borders of the United States in 2006. This equates to $44,190, ninth in the world, the eight that surpass it including seven rich European countries and Qatar.
For what it's worth, I regularly see things that with "Made in France" (yes, printed in English) on them.
By the way, I live in France.
I never said it was wrong, I said it was against the law. I agree with you that these are not the same thing.
I am intrigued by your incorrect use of the article "an" and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
We're not speaking French, we pronounce h's, get over yourself.