So people should be allowed to take your money and not do what they promised?
Contracts don't make a market less free, they create trust and formality within that market. The parties are free to enter into those contracts or not, but once they enter into that contract, they're obligated to follow through. What's wrong with that?
That would make possible things that are unfeasible with today's computers â" such as rapidly factoring large prime numbers to crack cryptographic keys.
Thanks Bill Gates. That really would be a neat trick.
I know the Free Market jabs are en vogue now, but the Free Market is already what determines domain ownership. You pay them for ownership for a certain amount of time, they agree to let you have it for a certain amount of time. That's called a contract, and is absolutely essential to the functioning of a free market.
It's probably cheaper to wait until someone complains and then remove it. Paying someone to review thousands of miles of Sunday driving gets expensive pretty quick.
Are you kidding? There's a LARGE number of people that don't even think it guarantees the right to firearms, which it specifically mentions, let alone cryptography, which it doesn't.
This, spoken as a believer in the individual right to firearms. I agree with you, but I think it'll be a hard sell.
I was on the shuttle to work last week and overheard a conversation between a non-tech and an IT guy. It went something like this:
Non-tech: Hey Bob - you still doing desktop support? IT: Yeah, why? NT: How can I get admin rights on my machine? IT: We don't really give that out. Why, what do you need it for? Maybe I can help? NT: Ah, just wanted to install some software. (Obviously being evasive) IT: What kind of software? If you tell me, maybe I can have it installed for you officially. (Obviously trying to drag it out of her.) NT: iTunes. IT: Do you have a business case for that? You know the PCs actually belong to the company... NT: No, it's just what I use at home. I guess it's not that important...
I think IT people would probably be reasonably responsible with admin rights, but a certain percentage would still install all sorts of crap. The number of people putting on crapware would likely skyrocket in the non-tech community.
Maybe that's okay as the OSs get more secure. Maybe on the balance it'll work out better. I don't know.
The thing that kills me is when I want to run Linux on my workstation, and they tell me it's not possible because they don't want to support it. In that situation where it's an obviously legitimate request which will benefit my productivity, I think they ought to say that I can run it, but I'm on my own except for hardware failures.
I guess it depends on what sort of non-standard software you're talking about. The obvious solution is to simply ask the person's manager. Usually that cuts out a good amount of the frivolous stuff. If the manager is OK with it, let it happen -- even if it's iTunes.
That's probably because Dave Page, who leads PGAdminIII dev, works for EnterpriseDB. EnterpriseDB contributes quite a lot to Postgres, along with Red Hat and Command Prompt. I don't work for any of those companies, but the most active people on the PG mailing lists have those companies in their email sigs.
My guess is that this product is PGAdmin3 plus some additional goodies.
I work for a large investment bank, and I've got PG handling a departmental portal, documentation wiki, and production statistics collection for publication to the portal. When I wanted a CMS to run the portal, I first looked to Wordpress because I was using it on my personal web site. When I found out they didn't support PG, I found Drupal and haven't looked back. Drupal kicks ass in every way, and I'm glad that WP's lack of support for PG forced me to give it a try.
Wonderful. I was born in '79, so I had some of the same misconceptions when I came out of school. It didn't help that I was in college during the dot-com bubble and kept hearing about all these people making huge money.
I worked helpdesk while looking for my first "real" programming job, and the $10.50/hr there and then the job offers for half the rate I initially expected disabused me of those notions pretty quickly. By the time I got my job, I was happy for the 38k, and just worked like hell from there on out. Hopefully these guys will adjust to reality quickly without having a total meltdown.
This conversation reminds me of an article I read about how Gen-Y are worth the coddling because they're more creative or something than normal. There was even this lady who calls herself, if I remember, a "Reality Counselor" or some ridiculous thing. The joke is that she doesn't counsel the kids, she counsels the EMPLOYERS on how to best preserve the feelings of our little snowflakes. I wish I could remember where I read that.
Don't get me wrong -- I mostly agree with your points about school, but I really do not want people expecting that they'll easily get 6 figures on a bachelor's degree. I did not need to read that you were still at school to know that you were when you said that:).
My own story agrees with you here. Nobody pays huge money for the unproven person, unless university, in that employer's mind, is proof enough. That's hard to find, though.
When I started working, I started off at $38k as a programmer trainee. Within 6 months I was promoted and got a $5k increase. Since then, I've made 30-60% jumps every time I changed jobs. Now that I'm toward the top of the programmer pay scale, I've gone into management because there's a higher ceiling. The key is to keep moving, learning new things, and don't get too stuck to any one thing because it'll limit you.
The point is that people shouldn't expect to get top-of-the-market rates right out of school. There's a reason those rates are top of the market, and they're reserved for the best in the field -- which most college kids aren't. What you can expect is that, if you work hard, you'll move up pretty quickly.
A side note regarding my comment about about not getting stuck on any one thing. There will be people here who say they program for the love of it, not for the money, and that money isn't everything. Great. Fine. There's no problem with that, if those are your priorities. Some people do it for the money, and that's what I'm talking about. I go to work for the money, and no matter what I do there, I want the most money possible for the time I spend there. If that means I'm in meetings all day and don't write a single line of code, that's ok. I fulfill my love of programming and try to stay sharp by working on little open source apps at home and some side consulting. It's not an either-or proposition.
This is exactly what I was thinking on the subject as well. The default position of the internet is "Welcome -- come on in." Web servers, FTP servers, and Telnet (MUD) all alike: free services unless otherwise indicated. This is about reversing that paradigm, where, even if open access is indicated, it's not really open. If it's not open, then close it. It's that simple.
Even on my company network, after I am on the physical premises, having shown my ID at the gate, then to the security guard at the door of my building, then passed through several prox-card locks, logged into my workstation using my password, and THEN log into our Unix boxes, it STILL tells me: "If you're not specifically authorized to use this machine, we'll prosecute you." Wow. There is absolutely no ambiguity there. I know pretty damn well that I'm risking life and limb accessing this thing if I've not been given explicit permission, and I've had to jump through LOTS of hoops to get that far.
Here we're telling people that something with no warnings, no restrictions, and which actually assists you to gain access should be considered off limits. I don't know, I don't buy it.
War driving and cracking WEP keys is where people cross the line. An open router is an open extension of the internet. I don't really understand how anyone can consider it otherwise.
I was reflecting a few evenings ago on the fact that we, as techies, still play with computers because they're fun and we like to build/break/explore stuff. It used to be that people like us could make something in our garage that would make the world stand up and go "Whoa!" (just ask Woz).
Fortunately for our paychecks, and unfortunately for our hobbies and killer business ideas, computers have grown into An Industry. It's gotten very difficult (not impossible) for a person in their garage to do much worthwhile due to patents, the head starts of competitors, and the fact that the lonesome programmer is severely outgunned by mature software shops. It's a world where good ideas are flattened by a truckload of money from established players. In other words, it's become business as usual -- the same as in other established fields like financial services or retail merchandise.
I guess that means that we need to learn to play hard ball. I don't really know what that means, except that I think we, as a group, tend to spend a lot of time complaining about the corporations, but don't really spend much time figuring out how to get that same power for ourselves.
I think the only way would be for the F/OSS world to figure out how to work "like" a corporation without necessarily being one. The first thing to do would be to define what it is about a corporation that gives it its competitive edge, and then figure out how to replicate each point for F/OSS as a whole (as opposed to just Mozilla, Red Hat, etc). Superior software and development models will only get us so far. At some point, we need to learn to fight at MS's level.
There's no sense challenging someone to a duel of swords when the other guy wouldn't think twice about pulling a gun. That just means we need to work on our marksmanship, or we don't stand a chance.
They have bulbs ranging in brightness from $8 to $50. I've seen this site before, but never tried out the bulbs. $50 seems a bit much, but I might go for one in the $20 range and see how it works in my desk lamp.
This just reinforces my idea that the internet came along at an absolutely perfect time to save America from itself. As these wonderful-sounding yet completely impractical ideas continue to pervert and destroy our academic institutions, the internet will necessarily play a larger and larger role as an alternative to "traditional" learning venues.
Many of us technologists are mostly self-taught when it comes to our professions -- particularly sysadmin and programmer types -- because the technology was available and the communications infrastructure just adequate that we were able to get the learning tools we required to equip ourselves for our career. Many of us then went to school already knowing the better part of what was necessary for our careers.
I propose that people like this were the pioneers of internet learning, and that, as academic institutions continue down their strictly regulated politically correct paths to irrelevance, people who really want to learn will do so online in the world classroom.
I'm not saying that's ideal. I'm just saying that, if special interest groups and politicians looking for a soundbite get their way (and they will), it might be the only way, short of leaving the country altogether.
You're right -- it probably wouldn't have continued on forever. However the extra effort to the career early on would probably have made a difference.
But what you say is essentially what happened. I wasn't happy with my life, loneliness, or the fact that I was a workaholic, but it was a personal decision to do something about it (get married, have kids, etc). I knew full well that this would hamper my career, but that wasn't (and still isn't) as important to me as overall satisfaction with my life.
Many others around me are content to have long-term girlfriends or a different girl every week, and that probably goes to some extent toward the same purpose without distracting (or benefiting) them to the same degree. It's all a trade-off, I guess, and probably accounts for much of the spectrum of success we see with scientists or anyone else.
I'm a programmer, not a scientist, but I do know I used to be much more creative and productive at work before I was married. As soon as I got married, had kids, got a mortgage, etc, my productivity at work just seems to have plummeted from previous levels.
It's not that where I am now is abnormally low, it's just that when I was single, bored, and living by myself in an apartment, I had a hell of a lot more time to focus on work. Wives and children have a way of demanding significant amounts attention.
You might write it something like:
productivity for a given demand = (concentration / total # of demands for attention)
As the denominator goes up, productivity goes down across all of those demands. The total productivity and concentration are, of course, constant.
Bullshit nothing. The problem is and has been two-fold:
1. "Standards compliance" was a stick to beat browser makers with, but it was an unquantifiable stick. There was never any metric to say *how* un-compliant a given browser was. ACID tests, for all their imperfections, are a tangible meter stick. This stick is otherwise known as a "benchmark". Benchmarks always have problems, but we've got to agree on one, and then strive to make it the best benchmark possible.
2. Very little motivation on the part of some browser makers. With a concrete benchmark to point to which can give a relative idea of where the browser sits in the scheme of things, developers can be pressed to improve their products due to industry pressure to meet the benchmark.
If you think benchmarks are ever perfect, read/. when they review a new GPU or CPU, and see how people think the benchmark was biased toward AMD or nVidia, or database benchmarks where people say they didn't tune the thing correctly, so Postgres should have beat MySQL.
As for the "CNN Test", now you're talking about a biased test. CNN Developers are going to develop their site to look best in the most popular web browser. That means the "CNN Test" will heavily favor IE, and all other browsers will fail to some degree simply because they're not IE. You're essentially making IE the meter stick, and that's setting a pretty low bar. The ACID benchmarks attempt to set a higher bar by coding to the standards, and not give a damn which browsers can actually render them.
I see what you mean. The observatory icon in the top left is missing the anti-aliasing in the IE6 version, which is exactly the problem I had. It looks a lot smoother in FF3. Thanks for the advice!
Coincidentally, it seems you're using Drupal, which is the same CMS I'm using. I assume you had to code that javascript directly into the garland theme? I've been messing with Drupal quite a bit recently, but I'm still learning the ins and outs.
The AC parent, while a bit crude, is 100% correct. There's a multi-millionaire in the area I grew up in who made all, yes, *all* of his money in the junkyard business.
He takes cars for scrap, pulls out anything useful, and sells the parts to people looking to fix their car on the cheap. This works great for him, because he can cannibalize even new cars that were in accidents and totaled, but which still have many brand new and functional parts. He pulls out alternators and rebuilds the cores, sells moldings that people break when they run into deer (a very common occurrence now that hunting isn't so common), and anything else that can be rebuilt, sold as-is, or refurbished and sold at profit.
I was wondering the same thing. Isn't it FF3 that just began rendering ACID2 correctly?
Besides, I see these as a process or goal -- giving the browser makers something concrete and visual to shoot for, as well as an easy way for users to judge the quality of their browser of choice. If the thing was just released, I'm not really surprised that many of the browsers don't pass it completely. Now a year or two from now is a different story, after the browser makers have had some time to address the issues the test points out.
I just wish they'd have pushed out a patch for working PNG transparency support. Just the other day I went to my personal/quasi-business web site from work (IE6, meh) and realized that my site logo was nothing but a big white block in the middle of the top banner. Converting it to.gif made it look like crap, so I had to take it down until I can come up with something that looks okay with transparent.gif.
How do you guys deal with the requirement for transparency coupled with the requirement for more than an indexed color pallet? I'm thinking about replacing the logo for IE6 visitors with a logo that says "Get Firefox Already, or buy a new damn computer if that's too difficult for you."
Slashdot Mirror
So people should be allowed to take your money and not do what they promised?
Contracts don't make a market less free, they create trust and formality within that market. The parties are free to enter into those contracts or not, but once they enter into that contract, they're obligated to follow through. What's wrong with that?
Thanks Bill Gates. That really would be a neat trick.
I know the Free Market jabs are en vogue now, but the Free Market is already what determines domain ownership. You pay them for ownership for a certain amount of time, they agree to let you have it for a certain amount of time. That's called a contract, and is absolutely essential to the functioning of a free market.
Seems very close to the "slate" color scheme in gvim. I don't remember that one from Ubuntu 7.10, so it might be newly included in 8.04.
Either way, it's now a part of ~/.vimrc.
Oh, I can think of a much closer example of that color scheme that we're all looking at right now....
It's probably cheaper to wait until someone complains and then remove it. Paying someone to review thousands of miles of Sunday driving gets expensive pretty quick.
Are you kidding? There's a LARGE number of people that don't even think it guarantees the right to firearms, which it specifically mentions, let alone cryptography, which it doesn't.
This, spoken as a believer in the individual right to firearms. I agree with you, but I think it'll be a hard sell.
I was on the shuttle to work last week and overheard a conversation between a non-tech and an IT guy. It went something like this:
Non-tech: Hey Bob - you still doing desktop support?
IT: Yeah, why?
NT: How can I get admin rights on my machine?
IT: We don't really give that out. Why, what do you need it for? Maybe I can help?
NT: Ah, just wanted to install some software. (Obviously being evasive)
IT: What kind of software? If you tell me, maybe I can have it installed for you officially. (Obviously trying to drag it out of her.)
NT: iTunes.
IT: Do you have a business case for that? You know the PCs actually belong to the company...
NT: No, it's just what I use at home. I guess it's not that important...
I think IT people would probably be reasonably responsible with admin rights, but a certain percentage would still install all sorts of crap. The number of people putting on crapware would likely skyrocket in the non-tech community.
Maybe that's okay as the OSs get more secure. Maybe on the balance it'll work out better. I don't know.
The thing that kills me is when I want to run Linux on my workstation, and they tell me it's not possible because they don't want to support it. In that situation where it's an obviously legitimate request which will benefit my productivity, I think they ought to say that I can run it, but I'm on my own except for hardware failures.
I guess it depends on what sort of non-standard software you're talking about. The obvious solution is to simply ask the person's manager. Usually that cuts out a good amount of the frivolous stuff. If the manager is OK with it, let it happen -- even if it's iTunes.
That's probably because Dave Page, who leads PGAdminIII dev, works for EnterpriseDB. EnterpriseDB contributes quite a lot to Postgres, along with Red Hat and Command Prompt. I don't work for any of those companies, but the most active people on the PG mailing lists have those companies in their email sigs.
My guess is that this product is PGAdmin3 plus some additional goodies.
VERIZON is tired of getting ripped off?!?! Holy shit.
My guess is that its customers will still want to keep the lube handy when invoice time rolls around.
I work for a large investment bank, and I've got PG handling a departmental portal, documentation wiki, and production statistics collection for publication to the portal. When I wanted a CMS to run the portal, I first looked to Wordpress because I was using it on my personal web site. When I found out they didn't support PG, I found Drupal and haven't looked back. Drupal kicks ass in every way, and I'm glad that WP's lack of support for PG forced me to give it a try.
Wonderful. I was born in '79, so I had some of the same misconceptions when I came out of school. It didn't help that I was in college during the dot-com bubble and kept hearing about all these people making huge money.
I worked helpdesk while looking for my first "real" programming job, and the $10.50/hr there and then the job offers for half the rate I initially expected disabused me of those notions pretty quickly. By the time I got my job, I was happy for the 38k, and just worked like hell from there on out. Hopefully these guys will adjust to reality quickly without having a total meltdown.
This conversation reminds me of an article I read about how Gen-Y are worth the coddling because they're more creative or something than normal. There was even this lady who calls herself, if I remember, a "Reality Counselor" or some ridiculous thing. The joke is that she doesn't counsel the kids, she counsels the EMPLOYERS on how to best preserve the feelings of our little snowflakes. I wish I could remember where I read that.
My own story agrees with you here. Nobody pays huge money for the unproven person, unless university, in that employer's mind, is proof enough. That's hard to find, though.
When I started working, I started off at $38k as a programmer trainee. Within 6 months I was promoted and got a $5k increase. Since then, I've made 30-60% jumps every time I changed jobs. Now that I'm toward the top of the programmer pay scale, I've gone into management because there's a higher ceiling. The key is to keep moving, learning new things, and don't get too stuck to any one thing because it'll limit you.
The point is that people shouldn't expect to get top-of-the-market rates right out of school. There's a reason those rates are top of the market, and they're reserved for the best in the field -- which most college kids aren't. What you can expect is that, if you work hard, you'll move up pretty quickly.
A side note regarding my comment about about not getting stuck on any one thing. There will be people here who say they program for the love of it, not for the money, and that money isn't everything. Great. Fine. There's no problem with that, if those are your priorities. Some people do it for the money, and that's what I'm talking about. I go to work for the money, and no matter what I do there, I want the most money possible for the time I spend there. If that means I'm in meetings all day and don't write a single line of code, that's ok. I fulfill my love of programming and try to stay sharp by working on little open source apps at home and some side consulting. It's not an either-or proposition.
Troll?? Jeeze. Some people have no sense of humor.
This is exactly what I was thinking on the subject as well. The default position of the internet is "Welcome -- come on in." Web servers, FTP servers, and Telnet (MUD) all alike: free services unless otherwise indicated. This is about reversing that paradigm, where, even if open access is indicated, it's not really open. If it's not open, then close it. It's that simple.
Even on my company network, after I am on the physical premises, having shown my ID at the gate, then to the security guard at the door of my building, then passed through several prox-card locks, logged into my workstation using my password, and THEN log into our Unix boxes, it STILL tells me: "If you're not specifically authorized to use this machine, we'll prosecute you." Wow. There is absolutely no ambiguity there. I know pretty damn well that I'm risking life and limb accessing this thing if I've not been given explicit permission, and I've had to jump through LOTS of hoops to get that far.
Here we're telling people that something with no warnings, no restrictions, and which actually assists you to gain access should be considered off limits. I don't know, I don't buy it.
War driving and cracking WEP keys is where people cross the line. An open router is an open extension of the internet. I don't really understand how anyone can consider it otherwise.
I was reflecting a few evenings ago on the fact that we, as techies, still play with computers because they're fun and we like to build/break/explore stuff. It used to be that people like us could make something in our garage that would make the world stand up and go "Whoa!" (just ask Woz).
Fortunately for our paychecks, and unfortunately for our hobbies and killer business ideas, computers have grown into An Industry. It's gotten very difficult (not impossible) for a person in their garage to do much worthwhile due to patents, the head starts of competitors, and the fact that the lonesome programmer is severely outgunned by mature software shops. It's a world where good ideas are flattened by a truckload of money from established players. In other words, it's become business as usual -- the same as in other established fields like financial services or retail merchandise.
I guess that means that we need to learn to play hard ball. I don't really know what that means, except that I think we, as a group, tend to spend a lot of time complaining about the corporations, but don't really spend much time figuring out how to get that same power for ourselves.
I think the only way would be for the F/OSS world to figure out how to work "like" a corporation without necessarily being one. The first thing to do would be to define what it is about a corporation that gives it its competitive edge, and then figure out how to replicate each point for F/OSS as a whole (as opposed to just Mozilla, Red Hat, etc). Superior software and development models will only get us so far. At some point, we need to learn to fight at MS's level.
There's no sense challenging someone to a duel of swords when the other guy wouldn't think twice about pulling a gun. That just means we need to work on our marksmanship, or we don't stand a chance.
Check this out:
http://www.superbrightleds.com/cgi-bin/store/commerce.cgi?product=MR16
They have bulbs ranging in brightness from $8 to $50. I've seen this site before, but never tried out the bulbs. $50 seems a bit much, but I might go for one in the $20 range and see how it works in my desk lamp.
Thanks for the link. It's a great read.
This just reinforces my idea that the internet came along at an absolutely perfect time to save America from itself. As these wonderful-sounding yet completely impractical ideas continue to pervert and destroy our academic institutions, the internet will necessarily play a larger and larger role as an alternative to "traditional" learning venues.
Many of us technologists are mostly self-taught when it comes to our professions -- particularly sysadmin and programmer types -- because the technology was available and the communications infrastructure just adequate that we were able to get the learning tools we required to equip ourselves for our career. Many of us then went to school already knowing the better part of what was necessary for our careers.
I propose that people like this were the pioneers of internet learning, and that, as academic institutions continue down their strictly regulated politically correct paths to irrelevance, people who really want to learn will do so online in the world classroom.
I'm not saying that's ideal. I'm just saying that, if special interest groups and politicians looking for a soundbite get their way (and they will), it might be the only way, short of leaving the country altogether.
You're right -- it probably wouldn't have continued on forever. However the extra effort to the career early on would probably have made a difference.
But what you say is essentially what happened. I wasn't happy with my life, loneliness, or the fact that I was a workaholic, but it was a personal decision to do something about it (get married, have kids, etc). I knew full well that this would hamper my career, but that wasn't (and still isn't) as important to me as overall satisfaction with my life.
Many others around me are content to have long-term girlfriends or a different girl every week, and that probably goes to some extent toward the same purpose without distracting (or benefiting) them to the same degree. It's all a trade-off, I guess, and probably accounts for much of the spectrum of success we see with scientists or anyone else.
I'm a programmer, not a scientist, but I do know I used to be much more creative and productive at work before I was married. As soon as I got married, had kids, got a mortgage, etc, my productivity at work just seems to have plummeted from previous levels.
It's not that where I am now is abnormally low, it's just that when I was single, bored, and living by myself in an apartment, I had a hell of a lot more time to focus on work. Wives and children have a way of demanding significant amounts attention.
You might write it something like:
productivity for a given demand = (concentration / total # of demands for attention)
As the denominator goes up, productivity goes down across all of those demands. The total productivity and concentration are, of course, constant.
Bullshit nothing. The problem is and has been two-fold:
/. when they review a new GPU or CPU, and see how people think the benchmark was biased toward AMD or nVidia, or database benchmarks where people say they didn't tune the thing correctly, so Postgres should have beat MySQL.
1. "Standards compliance" was a stick to beat browser makers with, but it was an unquantifiable stick. There was never any metric to say *how* un-compliant a given browser was. ACID tests, for all their imperfections, are a tangible meter stick. This stick is otherwise known as a "benchmark". Benchmarks always have problems, but we've got to agree on one, and then strive to make it the best benchmark possible.
2. Very little motivation on the part of some browser makers. With a concrete benchmark to point to which can give a relative idea of where the browser sits in the scheme of things, developers can be pressed to improve their products due to industry pressure to meet the benchmark.
If you think benchmarks are ever perfect, read
As for the "CNN Test", now you're talking about a biased test. CNN Developers are going to develop their site to look best in the most popular web browser. That means the "CNN Test" will heavily favor IE, and all other browsers will fail to some degree simply because they're not IE. You're essentially making IE the meter stick, and that's setting a pretty low bar. The ACID benchmarks attempt to set a higher bar by coding to the standards, and not give a damn which browsers can actually render them.
I see what you mean. The observatory icon in the top left is missing the anti-aliasing in the IE6 version, which is exactly the problem I had. It looks a lot smoother in FF3. Thanks for the advice!
Coincidentally, it seems you're using Drupal, which is the same CMS I'm using. I assume you had to code that javascript directly into the garland theme? I've been messing with Drupal quite a bit recently, but I'm still learning the ins and outs.
Thanks again.
The AC parent, while a bit crude, is 100% correct. There's a multi-millionaire in the area I grew up in who made all, yes, *all* of his money in the junkyard business.
He takes cars for scrap, pulls out anything useful, and sells the parts to people looking to fix their car on the cheap. This works great for him, because he can cannibalize even new cars that were in accidents and totaled, but which still have many brand new and functional parts. He pulls out alternators and rebuilds the cores, sells moldings that people break when they run into deer (a very common occurrence now that hunting isn't so common), and anything else that can be rebuilt, sold as-is, or refurbished and sold at profit.
Amazing business with incredible profit margins.
I was wondering the same thing. Isn't it FF3 that just began rendering ACID2 correctly?
Besides, I see these as a process or goal -- giving the browser makers something concrete and visual to shoot for, as well as an easy way for users to judge the quality of their browser of choice. If the thing was just released, I'm not really surprised that many of the browsers don't pass it completely. Now a year or two from now is a different story, after the browser makers have had some time to address the issues the test points out.
I just wish they'd have pushed out a patch for working PNG transparency support. Just the other day I went to my personal/quasi-business web site from work (IE6, meh) and realized that my site logo was nothing but a big white block in the middle of the top banner. Converting it to .gif made it look like crap, so I had to take it down until I can come up with something that looks okay with transparent .gif.
How do you guys deal with the requirement for transparency coupled with the requirement for more than an indexed color pallet? I'm thinking about replacing the logo for IE6 visitors with a logo that says "Get Firefox Already, or buy a new damn computer if that's too difficult for you."
On second though, that might be a bit too wordy.