I'm baffled by the UI in this thing-- they took out the line that separates the scrollbar from the content. Why? It's not like that one pixel black line looks bad or anything, and it has an important function! It separates the clickable scrolling part of the window from the non-scrolling part.
And is it just me or does that "find" well seem to be RAISED instead of lowered? That's crazy! Everyone knows that input boxes should be sunk into the window, not raised over it. It looks like if you tried to type in the find box, all your letters would tumble down off of it.
The company that manufactures your MP3 player should never be named after a fruit. That's just hippie bullshit.
Under no circumstances should your MP3 player be stylish. You don't want to be taken for a dandy. After all, you never know when you may find yourself incarcerated through an unfortunate series of events that are no fault of your own. And you know what they do to dandies in prison. Yikes.
When picking an operating system or office suite, it's a great idea to go with the one with the highest market share, because you're guaranteed a quality product that will be around for years to come. But not with flash-based MP3 players. It's a completely different situation. Completely.
Hmm, I'm not sure why I got modded down. Read the summary folks-- you notice how the language is slightly strange? That's how all my student write. It's not their fault; it all sounds right in Japanese, but I still wish I had some way to keep them from saying things like, "How do you think about governments' funding OSS developments(by tax)?" I can try to say, it's not 'how'; it's 'what,' put spaces before parenthesis, and what not, but all those things are correct in Japanese anyway, so it never sinks in.
Anyhow, now that my karma is low, I'm going to have spend the next month building it up again-- more losses for the Japanese educational system.
As an English teacher (and native English speaker) living in Japan, allow me to apologize for the poor English in the article write up. My organization (JET, Japan Exchange and Teaching) has been working directly within the Japan school system more than 15 years in an effort to increase the English ability of Japanese public school students. Currently more than 3,000 native speakers from around the world are living and working in Japan, employed by local school boards and teaching the youth of Japan in teams with native Japanese.
However, during these past 15 years, a new technology called "the Internets" (developed first by Vice President Gore but later expanded to a plurality of networks under President Bush) has developed. As a result, I and my thousands of colleagues have spent our time checking our email, reading slashdot, downloading graduate school applications, and clicking links randomly while staring vacantly at the clock in the corner of the taskbar instead of developing lesson plans. The result of these activities can be seen above.
Sorry!
I swear, just one more article, then it's nose to the grindstone! For real this time!
I agree that this may signal that Yahoo is losing its competitive edge. However, in fairness Google started its 1gig service when it had zero customers. Yahoo is switching now with a gazillion.
0 x 1gig = 0gigs gazillion x 250mb = a quarter gazillion gigs.
So, maybe now that Gmail is out of beta and has a quarter gazillion customers, they have a quarter gazillion gigs too, but they definitely didn't start out using up as much storage capacity as Yahoo already was using. Google just looks faster in this case because it was able to scale, whereas Yahoo had to quantum leap.
(Note to math purists: I'm using the word gazillion-- I'm aware that I'm making hugely flawed assumptions in my math, such as not everyone using the full amount of space. I don't care.)
...that means more room for all the spam, pr0n and other guff I get cos of using my yahoo account to 'register' for stuff. Even better - I only have to visit it once a year or even every two to empty it all out.
I know you're just trying to be funny, but actually Yahoo doesn't count the stuff in its spam box towards your 250mb total, so you already didn't actually have to empty it unless you wanted to. I don't know if the new TOS with the gig will change this though.
I like how everyone is upset with this law for wrong reason.
"Oh no, the gub'ment is gonna take away mah pr0n!"
Um, no. The law says that ISPs are required to add an extra service to consumers blocking porn sites on request. If you want to keep having porn, don't request the service.
No, the real problem with this law-- and the real reason we should be upset-- is that it requires those hosting sites in Utah to rate their sites. Now that's the outrage. They're telling you what kind of site you're not allowed to publish (an unrated one)!! Now, this actually is censorship, censoring the publication of unrated sites. That's the real abridgment of the 1st Amendment, but no one seems to care.
Requiring ISPs to add an extra, optional service isn't really a good thing or a bad thing of itself. You would think that if there was demand for it, ISPs would offer "New! Porn Blocker!" for an extra $2/month anyway. (In fact, they do and this is what AOL means when it advertises its "parental controls.") Personally, I feel like we should let the markets decide to add this service or not, but government already regulates a lot of how ISPs work and how they are allowed to connect to each other anyway. It's a shame from a libertarian point of view, but it doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the 1st Amendment and censorship. The censorship issue is the mandatory rating of sites. Now that's what I oppose.
Re:Doesn't make sense for the US
on
PSPCasting
·
· Score: 1
You're right, the PSP will succeed on the strength of its video gaming ability, but when people talking about "PSPcasting" they make it seem like they've forgotten this. In the US at least "PSPcasting" is going to be a niche fad for the foreseeable future. The PSP will probably catch on for other purposes though.
Doesn't make sense for the US
on
PSPCasting
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The only time portable video is useful is when you're away from home/your computer and you're not walking, driving, or otherwise in control of your motion. Obviously, by this set of criteria it makes sense to watch portable video on a train or bus, but since the average American is either driving, walking, or biking to and from home (a place with existing video sources) to work (a place with computers), it doesn't seem like there's much of a need for portable video. Now, I will say there are some places where portable video make sense-- like on a commuter train in Japan. I saw a guy watching TV on his phone just yesterday and thought, "Wow, that's pretty cool." But when does the average American ever have an opportunity to sit around like that while someone else is steering the vehicle? You can slap portable video onto a product people are already going to buy, like a cellphone, as an optional feature, but it doesn't make sense to make portable video the centerpiece of any technology destined for the US market.
I'm with Steve Jobs on this one-- there's no real demand for portable video in the US.
You design/code/implement to the most used platform, knowning full well as requirements/platforms change, you'll need to go back and change things... that's the nature of the universe.
But the whole thing is, thanks to Doctype declarations, it doesn't matter if Firefox switches to XHTML version 2 or to CSS version 8 in the future, my page will still be properly declared an XHTML 1.1, CSS 2 page, and so will be rendered properly with the old engine. That's the whole point of W3C standards, that it let's us have a fixed target to aim at, even as browsers keep moving forward. When you properly declare your page to be CSS 2, you're ensuring that your page will still work when CSS 3 comes out.
Did you include a Doctype at the top? With the full address of the w3c dtd file? If you forget to include that, IE will render pages in it's usual patented "Crap-o-vision." But, if you do include it, usually IE's version of the page becomes semi-tolerable. Just use CSS 2 selectors (specifically, the greater than sign is useful) to apply a few box sizes that IE won't be able to see and you should be able to fix up the rest of the page to fit together.
Yes, this sucks, and yes, Microsoft should fix its browser. But at least you can work around it relatively simply, thanks to MS not supporting CSS 2.
Since IE doesn't support CSS 2, it's really easy to slap a "Get Firefox!" tag at the bottom of a page, then use CSS 2 selectors to hide it from browsers that follow standards. That means that if IE7 actually does support standards, visitors will stop seeing a warning to switch browsers on my page. And why not? If IE actually could render a page correctly, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Until then, I'm keeping an FF logo on the bottom of the page and hiding it with CSS 2:
Yeah, that problem's been fixed. If you tell Firefox that a page is an XHTML 1.1 xml/application in your HTTP header, it will suspend on error, which is handy for debugging the page. Still, nothing beats the HTML validator at w3c.org. That's convenient. Anyhow, all modern browsers look at the first line of the webpage to check for a "doctype" statement. Pages without a doctype get quirks mode (AKA Internet Explorer 4.0 emulation) and pages with a proper doctype are decoded in the proper way. Using these doctypes means that when CSS 89.2 comes out, browsers of the distant future will still be able to see that your page was coded in CSS 2.0 and switch to the appropriate rendering engine. Which means pages can be "future proofed" and you don't have to fear new browsers having a different way of rendering pages.
"Oh man, committing this petty crime is awesome!" "Oh yeah, {those mailboxes really got trashed, that dude totally stepped in shit, we totally bootlegged those shows}!!" "Hey, but you know what would be even better?" "What?" "If we tapped it!" "Hells yeah!"
Why, why, why do kids always think that way? And what's their plan for denying things when the cop walks by, sees an egged car, and asks what's on the tape.
"Hey, man, you can't prove we did anything!... You know, unless you look at the proof that we did it. Which we are just giving out. Hmm, yeah, so I guess... you could... prove it. Easily. But man, this tape is AWESOME!"
It is true that when considering a wide range of potential conversation topics, the slashdot audience has a general trend to tend towards an immature and non-serious discussion of the matter at hand.
However, in a contrasting point, consider the fact that when it comes to topics pertaining to the former Soviet Union (particularly vis-à-vis comic performers of the nineteen eighties), seriousness slashdots YOU!
Be was just the first example of an interesting OS that came to mind. I'm sure there's some OS I've never heard of that's a better match for MS's needs.
Yeah, I don't really know much about Avalon. It's just my understanding that like CoreImage, it will allow developers to offload some of the processing burden to the GPU. I wasn't really aware that it was made for 3D, unlike CoreImage, which is made for 2D. Thanks for the tip.
With all the delays for Longhorn, I wonder if Microsoft fans don't feel like Apple fans during the late 90's, eternally waiting for Copland. During the wait for Copland, Microsoft was basically ahead of Apple, since it already had a true preemptively multitasking OS and Apple fans had to put up with cooperative multitasking and frequent crashes. Now, while Apple is poised to ship OS 10.4 Tiger with Spotlight (aka all the functionality of WinFS) and CoreImage (aka all the functionality of Avalon) before July, Microsoft faces delay after delay. Of course, Microsoft OSes are frequently late (who can forget the many delays of Windows 95?), but though the release came fast and furious for 98, ME, 2000, and XP, Microsoft has been stagnating since then. Even a simple service pack has turned into a huge production for MS to produce and ship.
I think all of these signs point to MS's code base being too big and unwieldy. I don't think anyone doubts that IE is too bloated to fix. Just compare the time between the release of 5 and the release 6 to the time between the release of 6 and now. If Microsoft could implement full CSS selector support and non-broken PNG display, I'm sure they would have by now, but IE is just too tangled to fix quickly anymore.
So, if MS is wandering in a Copland-esque desert, what's to be done? As unbelievable as a suggestion as it may seem, maybe they should take the OS X route and just buy a competitor and cut their loses. Starting over from (not quite) scratch will give Windows a shot in the arm. WINE has already proven that backwards compatibility with Windows applications doesn't have to be dependent on using their existing OS code. They should just buy out Be (a good choice since they already have a metadata filesystem) or someone else with a Unix-like underpinning, and rewrite Windows the right way. It will take another 3 or 4 years, but at this rate, they're going to need that much time anyway. Spinning their wheels on Longhorn won't get MS anywhere. If MS wants to innovate (and that's a reasonable question), it's time to take a chance, kill Copland, and try something new.
I think you've got the start of a good idea, but the problem is that any initial password that you give the bank-looking phishing site could be fed by the phishers to the real bank site, where they retrieve the confirmation information and then feed it up on their fake site. True, it would make their site respond more slowly, but they could probably pull it off anyway.
One advantage to this system though is that the bank could block IPs that try to access multiple accounts from the same IP in short timeframe-- thus the phishers either have to use a distributed framework to make their requests or they'll get shut down after fleecing their first 5 customers.
I dunno, it seems like no matter what you do, it's just an arms race against these criminals. The only real solution is for police around the world to aggressively track down and arrest these jerks.
Point the first, your code will only show up in IE 5. But IE 6 is crap too.
Point the second, that's a hack, and hack's make baby W3C cry. A better way to warn people about the poopiness of IE is to make a div called noie that wraps everything inside your body tag then set the CSS properties you want IE to get by setting them normally in your.css file and set the CSS properties you want everyone else to get by proceeding them with body > noie. Internet Explorer doesn't understand that greater than sign, so it won't display the properties listed with it. Just make another div or p called "firefoxlogo" with the "Get Firefox!" icon and make it display: none in good browsers and display: block in IE.
If by chance, IE 7 understands rudimentary CSS, this hack won't work in that, but of course, the whole point of the hack is to nag people about their browser not supporting CSS. Thus, in such a case it would be OK to stop nagging.
Lack of new, innovative names. Look, I like "FireFox" as well as the next guy, but let's face it, that name is getting a bit stale. Sure, 6 months ago, FireFox had a "hip," "edgy" feeling, but today, FF just isn't cutting anymore. Only Korean old people use browsers with such old fashioned names. We all know that the most productive period in FF's history was the period in which it was changing its name every other week. Features got added like crazy during those couple of months. Some people look at that as coincidence, but as I always say, "Correlation is causation." Therefore, if we want to add new features to FF quickly, we're going to need to start changing the project name weekly, if not daily or even hourly.
In order to help out the FireFox team, here are my suggestions for new, catchier names:
But what we also like is getting stuff at a reasonably price instead of paying through the nose for it. That's why we tend to support the BBC (cheaper than US-style subscription TV channels, which we also have, despite the fact that there's no adverts)...
That's the difference between Brits and Americans right there. Sure, the BBC is "cheaper" than cable pay channels... unless like me you don't buy cable. Americans prefer to make our own choices instead of having them imposed on us by act of Parliament. The whole idea of paying for a television channel, whether you watch that channel or not seems ridiculous to red blooded Americans. Meanwhile, I can watch all the PBS I want for free (and half of it is just reruns of BBC comedies anyway), and then when the week comes that they ask people to volunteer to donate money, I can decide to pay them or not based on nothing more than my own estimate of the value of public broadcasting. And if I do volunteer to pay?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm baffled by the UI in this thing-- they took out the line that separates the scrollbar from the content. Why? It's not like that one pixel black line looks bad or anything, and it has an important function! It separates the clickable scrolling part of the window from the non-scrolling part.
And is it just me or does that "find" well seem to be RAISED instead of lowered? That's crazy! Everyone knows that input boxes should be sunk into the window, not raised over it. It looks like if you tried to type in the find box, all your letters would tumble down off of it.
There's more than one Crazy Apple Rumors Site?
I like the CARS take on it:
CARS is good stuff!
Hmm, I'm not sure why I got modded down. Read the summary folks-- you notice how the language is slightly strange? That's how all my student write. It's not their fault; it all sounds right in Japanese, but I still wish I had some way to keep them from saying things like, "How do you think about governments' funding OSS developments(by tax)?" I can try to say, it's not 'how'; it's 'what,' put spaces before parenthesis, and what not, but all those things are correct in Japanese anyway, so it never sinks in.
Anyhow, now that my karma is low, I'm going to have spend the next month building it up again-- more losses for the Japanese educational system.
As an English teacher (and native English speaker) living in Japan, allow me to apologize for the poor English in the article write up. My organization (JET, Japan Exchange and Teaching) has been working directly within the Japan school system more than 15 years in an effort to increase the English ability of Japanese public school students. Currently more than 3,000 native speakers from around the world are living and working in Japan, employed by local school boards and teaching the youth of Japan in teams with native Japanese.
However, during these past 15 years, a new technology called "the Internets" (developed first by Vice President Gore but later expanded to a plurality of networks under President Bush) has developed. As a result, I and my thousands of colleagues have spent our time checking our email, reading slashdot, downloading graduate school applications, and clicking links randomly while staring vacantly at the clock in the corner of the taskbar instead of developing lesson plans. The result of these activities can be seen above.
Sorry!
I swear, just one more article, then it's nose to the grindstone! For real this time!
I agree that this may signal that Yahoo is losing its competitive edge. However, in fairness Google started its 1gig service when it had zero customers. Yahoo is switching now with a gazillion.
0 x 1gig = 0gigs
gazillion x 250mb = a quarter gazillion gigs.
So, maybe now that Gmail is out of beta and has a quarter gazillion customers, they have a quarter gazillion gigs too, but they definitely didn't start out using up as much storage capacity as Yahoo already was using. Google just looks faster in this case because it was able to scale, whereas Yahoo had to quantum leap.
(Note to math purists: I'm using the word gazillion-- I'm aware that I'm making hugely flawed assumptions in my math, such as not everyone using the full amount of space. I don't care.)
I know you're just trying to be funny, but actually Yahoo doesn't count the stuff in its spam box towards your 250mb total, so you already didn't actually have to empty it unless you wanted to. I don't know if the new TOS with the gig will change this though.
I like how everyone is upset with this law for wrong reason.
"Oh no, the gub'ment is gonna take away mah pr0n!"
Um, no. The law says that ISPs are required to add an extra service to consumers blocking porn sites on request. If you want to keep having porn, don't request the service.
No, the real problem with this law-- and the real reason we should be upset-- is that it requires those hosting sites in Utah to rate their sites. Now that's the outrage. They're telling you what kind of site you're not allowed to publish (an unrated one)!! Now, this actually is censorship, censoring the publication of unrated sites. That's the real abridgment of the 1st Amendment, but no one seems to care.
Requiring ISPs to add an extra, optional service isn't really a good thing or a bad thing of itself. You would think that if there was demand for it, ISPs would offer "New! Porn Blocker!" for an extra $2/month anyway. (In fact, they do and this is what AOL means when it advertises its "parental controls.") Personally, I feel like we should let the markets decide to add this service or not, but government already regulates a lot of how ISPs work and how they are allowed to connect to each other anyway. It's a shame from a libertarian point of view, but it doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the 1st Amendment and censorship. The censorship issue is the mandatory rating of sites. Now that's what I oppose.
You're right, the PSP will succeed on the strength of its video gaming ability, but when people talking about "PSPcasting" they make it seem like they've forgotten this. In the US at least "PSPcasting" is going to be a niche fad for the foreseeable future. The PSP will probably catch on for other purposes though.
The only time portable video is useful is when you're away from home/your computer and you're not walking, driving, or otherwise in control of your motion. Obviously, by this set of criteria it makes sense to watch portable video on a train or bus, but since the average American is either driving, walking, or biking to and from home (a place with existing video sources) to work (a place with computers), it doesn't seem like there's much of a need for portable video. Now, I will say there are some places where portable video make sense-- like on a commuter train in Japan. I saw a guy watching TV on his phone just yesterday and thought, "Wow, that's pretty cool." But when does the average American ever have an opportunity to sit around like that while someone else is steering the vehicle? You can slap portable video onto a product people are already going to buy, like a cellphone, as an optional feature, but it doesn't make sense to make portable video the centerpiece of any technology destined for the US market.
I'm with Steve Jobs on this one-- there's no real demand for portable video in the US.
But the whole thing is, thanks to Doctype declarations, it doesn't matter if Firefox switches to XHTML version 2 or to CSS version 8 in the future, my page will still be properly declared an XHTML 1.1, CSS 2 page, and so will be rendered properly with the old engine. That's the whole point of W3C standards, that it let's us have a fixed target to aim at, even as browsers keep moving forward. When you properly declare your page to be CSS 2, you're ensuring that your page will still work when CSS 3 comes out.
Did you include a Doctype at the top? With the full address of the w3c dtd file? If you forget to include that, IE will render pages in it's usual patented "Crap-o-vision." But, if you do include it, usually IE's version of the page becomes semi-tolerable. Just use CSS 2 selectors (specifically, the greater than sign is useful) to apply a few box sizes that IE won't be able to see and you should be able to fix up the rest of the page to fit together.
Yes, this sucks, and yes, Microsoft should fix its browser. But at least you can work around it relatively simply, thanks to MS not supporting CSS 2.
Since IE doesn't support CSS 2, it's really easy to slap a "Get Firefox!" tag at the bottom of a page, then use CSS 2 selectors to hide it from browsers that follow standards. That means that if IE7 actually does support standards, visitors will stop seeing a warning to switch browsers on my page. And why not? If IE actually could render a page correctly, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Until then, I'm keeping an FF logo on the bottom of the page and hiding it with CSS 2:
http://deadhobosociety.com/wiki/
Yeah, that problem's been fixed. If you tell Firefox that a page is an XHTML 1.1 xml/application in your HTTP header, it will suspend on error, which is handy for debugging the page. Still, nothing beats the HTML validator at w3c.org. That's convenient. Anyhow, all modern browsers look at the first line of the webpage to check for a "doctype" statement. Pages without a doctype get quirks mode (AKA Internet Explorer 4.0 emulation) and pages with a proper doctype are decoded in the proper way. Using these doctypes means that when CSS 89.2 comes out, browsers of the distant future will still be able to see that your page was coded in CSS 2.0 and switch to the appropriate rendering engine. Which means pages can be "future proofed" and you don't have to fear new browsers having a different way of rendering pages.
I love the way the mind of the vandal works:
... You know, unless you look at the proof that we did it. Which we are just giving out. Hmm, yeah, so I guess... you could... prove it. Easily. But man, this tape is AWESOME!"
"Oh man, committing this petty crime is awesome!"
"Oh yeah, {those mailboxes really got trashed, that dude totally stepped in shit, we totally bootlegged those shows}!!"
"Hey, but you know what would be even better?"
"What?"
"If we tapped it!"
"Hells yeah!"
Why, why, why do kids always think that way? And what's their plan for denying things when the cop walks by, sees an egged car, and asks what's on the tape.
"Hey, man, you can't prove we did anything!
First Bill!
It is true that when considering a wide range of potential conversation topics, the slashdot audience has a general trend to tend towards an immature and non-serious discussion of the matter at hand.
However, in a contrasting point, consider the fact that when it comes to topics pertaining to the former Soviet Union (particularly vis-à-vis comic performers of the nineteen eighties), seriousness slashdots YOU!
Be was just the first example of an interesting OS that came to mind. I'm sure there's some OS I've never heard of that's a better match for MS's needs.
Yeah, I don't really know much about Avalon. It's just my understanding that like CoreImage, it will allow developers to offload some of the processing burden to the GPU. I wasn't really aware that it was made for 3D, unlike CoreImage, which is made for 2D. Thanks for the tip.
With all the delays for Longhorn, I wonder if Microsoft fans don't feel like Apple fans during the late 90's, eternally waiting for Copland. During the wait for Copland, Microsoft was basically ahead of Apple, since it already had a true preemptively multitasking OS and Apple fans had to put up with cooperative multitasking and frequent crashes. Now, while Apple is poised to ship OS 10.4 Tiger with Spotlight (aka all the functionality of WinFS) and CoreImage (aka all the functionality of Avalon) before July, Microsoft faces delay after delay. Of course, Microsoft OSes are frequently late (who can forget the many delays of Windows 95?), but though the release came fast and furious for 98, ME, 2000, and XP, Microsoft has been stagnating since then. Even a simple service pack has turned into a huge production for MS to produce and ship.
I think all of these signs point to MS's code base being too big and unwieldy. I don't think anyone doubts that IE is too bloated to fix. Just compare the time between the release of 5 and the release 6 to the time between the release of 6 and now. If Microsoft could implement full CSS selector support and non-broken PNG display, I'm sure they would have by now, but IE is just too tangled to fix quickly anymore.
So, if MS is wandering in a Copland-esque desert, what's to be done? As unbelievable as a suggestion as it may seem, maybe they should take the OS X route and just buy a competitor and cut their loses. Starting over from (not quite) scratch will give Windows a shot in the arm. WINE has already proven that backwards compatibility with Windows applications doesn't have to be dependent on using their existing OS code. They should just buy out Be (a good choice since they already have a metadata filesystem) or someone else with a Unix-like underpinning, and rewrite Windows the right way. It will take another 3 or 4 years, but at this rate, they're going to need that much time anyway. Spinning their wheels on Longhorn won't get MS anywhere. If MS wants to innovate (and that's a reasonable question), it's time to take a chance, kill Copland, and try something new.
I think you've got the start of a good idea, but the problem is that any initial password that you give the bank-looking phishing site could be fed by the phishers to the real bank site, where they retrieve the confirmation information and then feed it up on their fake site. True, it would make their site respond more slowly, but they could probably pull it off anyway.
One advantage to this system though is that the bank could block IPs that try to access multiple accounts from the same IP in short timeframe-- thus the phishers either have to use a distributed framework to make their requests or they'll get shut down after fleecing their first 5 customers.
I dunno, it seems like no matter what you do, it's just an arms race against these criminals. The only real solution is for police around the world to aggressively track down and arrest these jerks.
Oh shoot, I hope IPv6 doesn't catch on soon, or I'll get carpal tunnel for sure.
Point the first, your code will only show up in IE 5. But IE 6 is crap too.
.css file and set the CSS properties you want everyone else to get by proceeding them with body > noie. Internet Explorer doesn't understand that greater than sign, so it won't display the properties listed with it. Just make another div or p called "firefoxlogo" with the "Get Firefox!" icon and make it display: none in good browsers and display: block in IE.
Point the second, that's a hack, and hack's make baby W3C cry. A better way to warn people about the poopiness of IE is to make a div called noie that wraps everything inside your body tag then set the CSS properties you want IE to get by setting them normally in your
If by chance, IE 7 understands rudimentary CSS, this hack won't work in that, but of course, the whole point of the hack is to nag people about their browser not supporting CSS. Thus, in such a case it would be OK to stop nagging.
Lack of new, innovative names. Look, I like "FireFox" as well as the next guy, but let's face it, that name is getting a bit stale. Sure, 6 months ago, FireFox had a "hip," "edgy" feeling, but today, FF just isn't cutting anymore. Only Korean old people use browsers with such old fashioned names. We all know that the most productive period in FF's history was the period in which it was changing its name every other week. Features got added like crazy during those couple of months. Some people look at that as coincidence, but as I always say, "Correlation is causation." Therefore, if we want to add new features to FF quickly, we're going to need to start changing the project name weekly, if not daily or even hourly.
In order to help out the FireFox team, here are my suggestions for new, catchier names:
Fox Fire
Brush Fire
Brush Fox
Foxy Britches
Fancy Pants
Panda Britches
Moz Illa Than You
Moz Def
Linky Clicky
Clicky Linky
Spider Webby
The Amazing Spider Webby
Ultra Browser
Supa Browsa
Supa Browsa II: Supa Browsa Remix
and finally,
Internet Explorer II: Electric Bugaloo
That's the difference between Brits and Americans right there. Sure, the BBC is "cheaper" than cable pay channels... unless like me you don't buy cable. Americans prefer to make our own choices instead of having them imposed on us by act of Parliament. The whole idea of paying for a television channel, whether you watch that channel or not seems ridiculous to red blooded Americans. Meanwhile, I can watch all the PBS I want for free (and half of it is just reruns of BBC comedies anyway), and then when the week comes that they ask people to volunteer to donate money, I can decide to pay them or not based on nothing more than my own estimate of the value of public broadcasting. And if I do volunteer to pay?
A tax write off.