With Netscape continuing to slip in mindshare, using 0.9.4 probably was the best move for them right now. They need some good press. I know all about the perf hit that <link> causes; I've been a frequent contributor to bug 2800 and successors. Best wishes to you guys actually doing the coding, and many thanks.
alas, not 0.9.5
on
Netscape 6.2
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Too bad Netscape didn't wait a few more weeks. Mozilla 0.9.5 introduced support for <link>, which rocks. I'd hoped that people would start getting introduced to this sooner rather than later. OTOH, Mozilla's support of <link> still has a few quirks (that's why it's not enabled by default right now) so maybe it's OK to wait until 6.3/0.9.6 or whatever.
If you're using 0.9.5 and haven't enabled <link> yet, do it. It's under your View menu, called "Site Navigation Bar" or something. It's pretty slick when you get to a site that uses <link> tags consistently.
Funny...by that logic (standard hardware, standard software) there should be a zillion Mac games available. It should be the platform that developers crave to work on.
The really funny thing is that the 404 page parses and displays just fine...
Of course the 404 page displays OK. Microsoft has plenty of experience with errors. They know that the most important thing is that the error message work.
Seriously though. Blocking "bad" browsers has widely been considered gauche for at least 2 years. Browser detection based on UA string is fraught with error, since they are easily spoofed anyway. MS ought to know better, especially since they started that evil practice. Suggest a better alternative if you want, but don't block people out.
I've never used Opera myself; is the functionality to change the user-agent string built into the browser?
Opera provides a couple pre-defined strings you can use that spoof other browsers while still saying "Opera" somewhere. OTOH, iCab allows user-definable UA strings as well as providing some pre-defined ones, IIRC.
Heck, that's too much work. I just make requests, using any browser I happen to be using (which is always non-MS) to oneofseveralURLs. Let them investigate their 404 error logs.
Okay, one thing i consistently hear from libertarians are arguments to the tune of 'well, no one is stopping you from doing [x], you're just too lazy to go out and do it...'
sorry if getting elected is such a big effort, but where exactly are the laws written saying that you can't go door to door and convince people to vote for your party via write-in votes?
And that's exactly what we do. The point is, why isn't everyone held to the same standard? That's unfair. America is the land of equal opportunity. We just want equal opportunity. We'll do the rest ourselves.
are you proposing a loose interpretation of the constitution? because last I heard voting laws were specified in the body of the constitution
I'm saying no such thing. The Constitution does indeed set up the Electoral College system, but says nothing regarding how voting is conducted in the States. That is a State issue. And the States can use whatever method they choose for conducting their own internal elections. I believe that the correlation between the number of senators+representatives and the number of EC votes is not mere coincidence. I believe that EC votes are meant to be allocated by district. Maine and Nebraska currently do this, IIRC.
You, like many others today, are taking an overly broad interpretation of the Constitution. Yes, it is the highest law of the land, but the federal government was never given the power to impact every area of our lives. It is limited to a small set of narrowly defined powers. In a republic power derives from the people and that implies that power should be kept as local as possible to guard against corruption and mismanagement. It wouldn't make sense for the federal gov't to be responsible for fixing the city streets in front of my house, would it? So why does the federal gov't have any say in other local issues, like the welfare of my disabled neighbor, or what/where the farmer down the road can/can't plant? If you read the Constitution, you'll see that the federal gov't has no jurisdiction in these areas at all.
what do you want, government regulations to help out 3rd party candidates? that would be the height of irony. as would be caps on campaign donations.
You completely misinterpret the goal of the Constitution and Libertarian parties. We are totally against any kind of special treatment for special interests. All we want is the equal opportunity that is supposedly guaranteed in America. We are strongly against any limitation of campaign funding. Americans spent more on potato chips last year than elections. "Too much money in politics" is not the problem. Money is speech, and donations should not be regulated.
i agree that just about anyone should be able to get on a ballot (within reason).
Yes, and "reasonable" means everyone should have equal chance. No preferential treatment for incumbent parties. Think about it. It's a corrupt government that discriminates against challengers!
however, you'll still lose as candidates that are willing to pass laws favoring big business get into office on the strength of those big business's campaign dollars. free market, people's choice - that's the libertarian ideal if i'm not mistake.
You misunderstand yet again. The goal is liberty coupled with personal responsibility. This means the gov't should stop regulating people so much. If you want to build a big business, good for you! It's good to work hard to get ahead. But don't expect government to help you. Why should it? That's taxpayer money, not business money. The CP and LP are firmly against the airline bailouts that Congress has recently enacted.
Constitution, actually. Very similar to the Libertarians in many respects, and I'll vote Libertarian when there aren't CP candidates on the ballot. I think the difference between them is the primary motivation for achieving the goals is different. Oversimplifying, a Libertarian desires liberty simply to be free, whereas a Constitutionalist desires liberty because God wants us to be free.
Of course, this means I get to take flak for my religious as well as my political views. So be it. I'll get flamed by the very people that say I'm close-minded.
I agree with your assessment. The citizenry has been so conditioned over the last 90 years to believe that government is the solution to all problems. The best thing it could do is to change the law such that it had to back off.
Personal responsibility, yes! Two words one doesn't hear much today. Certainly not during the Clinton years. You have the fundamental rights to life (without it, nothing else matters), liberty (so you can live freely), and property (so you can improve your life). The first law of nature, and that's it. Everything else derives from those. It's not your right to have a job (which many people interpret as "getting a paycheck no matter whether I deserve it or not"), but it's your right to seek one. If you merit a job, you'll be hired. If not, you have the right to improve yourself so that you can. Take the initiative and the responsibility for your own life. God gave you free will...use it, and stop whining. Expecting the rest of us to support you impinges on our God-given free will and liberty.
The reason that there are no Libertarians (or other 3rd parties) in office is because the so-called "democratic process" is biased against them.
In most localities, it is extremely difficult to get on the ballot unless your party got a certain % of the vote last time. But you can't get % of the electorate if you can't get on the ballot! Chicken and egg...
Strategic voting, aka "I don't want to throw my vote away." The current "plurality vote" system allows someone that almost 2/3 of the voters did not want to win. (May the Best Man Lose.) This encourages betraying your conscience to vote for the "lesser of two evils" to keep the worse guy out. There are alternatives, such as the Condorcet Method, which is essentially an improved IRV. If you don't have liberty of conscience...what do you have?
"Winner-takes-all" voting in single-seat elections (like president) is also a problem. It hampers minor parties from being visible at all if you have to carry a whole state to get noticed.
Third parties often unite on these causes, regardless how divergent their platform on other issues. Vote third party on the principle of it. If you can't trust Dems and Reps to be fair during the process of getting into office, how can you trust them once they are in office?
People can legitimately make their demands known through their elected representatives as well as through their buying habits.
Ha! That's funny. Most elected representatives follow the money the same as corps do.
The free market has it virtues but it also has its limits. Government has a role to play when the free market fails and it fails often.
The real problem is that when government control fails, the "solution" is usually more government control. And people scratch their heads when that fails, too!
I have no problem with government handling legitimate public activities, like national defense. I'd hate to leave that up to a private agency. But government control of the economy (directly or through control of industry) is very, very bad. Too much power concentrated in one place.
Overloading one piece of meta-data (the filename) to do the work of three (the filename, type, opener app) was a screwed up idea from the inception. The worst part is that novice users can easily change the filename without having a clue they may be making the file unusable to the OS. A good OS should shield users from these casual blunders, and one good way to do it is by encoding the meta-data separately as the MacOS has done for years. Moving to file extensions is a major step backwards.
To say that Apple should give up and move on shows lack of foresight. Other OS's should follow Apple's example, or they'll never move forward. What good is all the buzzword-compliance in the world if the computer doesn't do a good job of what it's supposed to do - which is make life easier for people. People shouldn't have to remember to make life easier for the computer. It's idiotic, and Apple realized it back in 1984. It boggles me that they're choosing to forget this lesson now.
So you think it's better to just ship the money out of the country? Right.
No, it's definitely better to support domestic interests than foreign ones. My issue was with the O.P. saying that "it would be better to replace 1 tech with 5 if needed". If you end up creating a bigger gov't that sucks more life from the private sector, it was not a wise move. If the net cost of gov't is not reduced, it's not smart to switch to Linux. If use of Linux proves more expensive to Germans, it would be smarter to stay with MS and let the German people invest that extra money (that would have paid for Linux) in MS.
More money staying in your own pocket is a good thing.
People are now refusing to fly because of the 9/11 attacks. They cite lack of security as the reason. I think this is a darn good incentive for airlines to listen to consumer demand and start providing better security in order to regain business!
Why didn't the airlines provide better security before? Because they knew that gov't would bail them out if they ever got in trouble. And that's exactly what has happened. Big gov't was the problem. More big gov't will not help the situation.
The problem is that people lack resolve. If enough people demanded a safety feature in their car and didn't buy another car until they could get that feature, the industry would notice and start supplying the feature! If the people give in and buy a car that lacks the feature, all the whining in the world will not help. Vote with your pocketbook. Boycott the air industry until they provide good security, not just an illusion of security like they do now.
Gov't jobs don't really add anything to the economy, though. Gov't money comes from taxpayers, so more gov't jobs means more drag on the private sector that is actually producing something. Gov't is a necessary evil, and should be no larger than necessary. The private sector can usually do the same job better, cheaper, and faster.
Can't find your email address either. And I don't see a "firewort" on those other forums. I've never had a key, and I don't make my address public. If you want to post yours in some obscure way or give me a pointer...
Regarding your other comment, I'm not interested in taking over LibertyBoard at this time. I know that eagle is, though. I'm more interested in getting my own (slash-based) political weblog started (as soon as I hack in some features I think it would really need). And eagle has also said that he'd prefer to use slash.
By definition (at least as the Founders understood it) a militia member is a civilian, a private citizen, who steps up to defend his country when needed. I'm ready to do that, so by definition I'm part of the militia. And I want to be able to carry a weapon anywhere I go in order to protect myself and others. Prohibiting me from doing so is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.
Note that I'm not hardline on promoting guns on aircraft. I do realize the dangers. But notice too that hijackers with knives took over the planes on 2001/9/11. I'd be happy if I could carry my Crocodile Dundee knife.
While it may become a huge bureaucracy, it's not intended to be.
Nobody intends for government to swell out of control. Sometimes the best intentions get out of hand. One might argue that the Constitution is in place to protect us from politicians' good intentions.
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. - Daniel Webster
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient.... The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences. - C. S. Lewis
Back to your post now...
And finally, how are you going to protect yourself from a plane flying toward your office building at 600 mph? Raise a militia?
At the point a bomb is falling on your head, it's obviously a little late to do anything about it.
The point is that, if the 2nd Amendment were respected, there would be people (private citizens) already on the plane to take care of it. If concealed carry was legal in all 50 states, you'd have many more "air marshals" in a similarly good position to thwart hijackers, all without the intervention of government.
Absolutely. It is possible to increase security without decreasing freedom. In fact, we can increase liberty in the process. Make concealed-carry legal in all 50 states. That would solve the problem.
Government can't protect us from everything. September 11 proved that. Even with all the security already in place, they failed. What makes you think going even farther in that direction will be any improvement whatsoever?
What I want is the freedom to protect myself. Ultimately it is my right to do so, and I will not cede it away to gov't. I am always present to protect myself. A gov't that is always present is bound to be too intrusive.
Isn't the government great? It claims sole privilege of protecting us on airplanes by putting armed marshals on board, and then when they ultimately fail and the hijackers take his weapon, the solution is to have the military blow the innocents it failed to protect right out of the sky. Wonderful.
We don't need another bureaucracy to protect us. (Office of Homeland Defense == Internal Security Police == KGB.) That's what the 2nd Amendment is for. The military and intelligence service are there to protect us from external threats, and that's fine and legitimate. But when it comes to internal threats, individuals can do the job better than gov't can.
I hope you do run for public office. I've been considering it. Too many times we whine and moan about how bad it's getting, but we never do anything about it. It's time to change that. We need more clueful people in office. Heck, we'd probably have better government if we selected people at random from the phone directory.
Because we are a representative democracy, the majority should take precidence.
Wrong, as usual, but this being Slashdot I'm not surprised. The U.S. have a republican form of government. The Founders were quite clear that they thought democracy dangerous. A republic is governed by laws that (hopefully) say what is right, regardless of what people feel at a particular time. Laws are meant to protect us from the popular will.
Example. If 4 guys with baseball bats corner you in an alley and demand your money, how do you think a vote would turn out? That's democracy. The law says it's wrong.
in five years if these powers are no longer needed to fight terrorism at the same scale and are instead used for non-terrorism-related domestic law enforcement, then the people may B&M that they don't want them.
The problem is that once you let your liberty be infringed upon, you seldom get back what you had before. There's a constant erosion to freedom unless you are always vigilant to stand against exactly this sort of thing. "Temporary" increases to the income tax and employer withholding started as WWII measures, but once government gets its hands on it, you know it doesn't want to let go.
Slashdot Mirror
With Netscape continuing to slip in mindshare, using 0.9.4 probably was the best move for them right now. They need some good press. I know all about the perf hit that <link> causes; I've been a frequent contributor to bug 2800 and successors. Best wishes to you guys actually doing the coding, and many thanks.
Too bad Netscape didn't wait a few more weeks. Mozilla 0.9.5 introduced support for <link>, which rocks. I'd hoped that people would start getting introduced to this sooner rather than later. OTOH, Mozilla's support of <link> still has a few quirks (that's why it's not enabled by default right now) so maybe it's OK to wait until 6.3/0.9.6 or whatever.
If you're using 0.9.5 and haven't enabled <link> yet, do it. It's under your View menu, called "Site Navigation Bar" or something. It's pretty slick when you get to a site that uses <link> tags consistently.
Funny...by that logic (standard hardware, standard software) there should be a zillion Mac games available. It should be the platform that developers crave to work on.
I don't think there's any one simple reason.
(Obligatory MS bash since this is slashdot...)
Of course the 404 page displays OK. Microsoft has plenty of experience with errors. They know that the most important thing is that the error message work.
Seriously though. Blocking "bad" browsers has widely been considered gauche for at least 2 years. Browser detection based on UA string is fraught with error, since they are easily spoofed anyway. MS ought to know better, especially since they started that evil practice. Suggest a better alternative if you want, but don't block people out.
Opera provides a couple pre-defined strings you can use that spoof other browsers while still saying "Opera" somewhere. OTOH, iCab allows user-definable UA strings as well as providing some pre-defined ones, IIRC.
Heck, that's too much work. I just make requests, using any browser I happen to be using (which is always non-MS) to one of several URLs. Let them investigate their 404 error logs.
And that's exactly what we do. The point is, why isn't everyone held to the same standard? That's unfair. America is the land of equal opportunity. We just want equal opportunity. We'll do the rest ourselves.
I'm saying no such thing. The Constitution does indeed set up the Electoral College system, but says nothing regarding how voting is conducted in the States. That is a State issue. And the States can use whatever method they choose for conducting their own internal elections. I believe that the correlation between the number of senators+representatives and the number of EC votes is not mere coincidence. I believe that EC votes are meant to be allocated by district. Maine and Nebraska currently do this, IIRC.
You, like many others today, are taking an overly broad interpretation of the Constitution. Yes, it is the highest law of the land, but the federal government was never given the power to impact every area of our lives. It is limited to a small set of narrowly defined powers. In a republic power derives from the people and that implies that power should be kept as local as possible to guard against corruption and mismanagement. It wouldn't make sense for the federal gov't to be responsible for fixing the city streets in front of my house, would it? So why does the federal gov't have any say in other local issues, like the welfare of my disabled neighbor, or what/where the farmer down the road can/can't plant? If you read the Constitution, you'll see that the federal gov't has no jurisdiction in these areas at all.
You completely misinterpret the goal of the Constitution and Libertarian parties. We are totally against any kind of special treatment for special interests. All we want is the equal opportunity that is supposedly guaranteed in America. We are strongly against any limitation of campaign funding. Americans spent more on potato chips last year than elections. "Too much money in politics" is not the problem. Money is speech, and donations should not be regulated.
Yes, and "reasonable" means everyone should have equal chance. No preferential treatment for incumbent parties. Think about it. It's a corrupt government that discriminates against challengers!
You misunderstand yet again. The goal is liberty coupled with personal responsibility. This means the gov't should stop regulating people so much. If you want to build a big business, good for you! It's good to work hard to get ahead. But don't expect government to help you. Why should it? That's taxpayer money, not business money. The CP and LP are firmly against the airline bailouts that Congress has recently enacted.
Constitution, actually. Very similar to the Libertarians in many respects, and I'll vote Libertarian when there aren't CP candidates on the ballot. I think the difference between them is the primary motivation for achieving the goals is different. Oversimplifying, a Libertarian desires liberty simply to be free, whereas a Constitutionalist desires liberty because God wants us to be free.
Of course, this means I get to take flak for my religious as well as my political views. So be it. I'll get flamed by the very people that say I'm close-minded.
I agree with your assessment. The citizenry has been so conditioned over the last 90 years to believe that government is the solution to all problems. The best thing it could do is to change the law such that it had to back off.
Personal responsibility, yes! Two words one doesn't hear much today. Certainly not during the Clinton years. You have the fundamental rights to life (without it, nothing else matters), liberty (so you can live freely), and property (so you can improve your life). The first law of nature, and that's it. Everything else derives from those. It's not your right to have a job (which many people interpret as "getting a paycheck no matter whether I deserve it or not"), but it's your right to seek one. If you merit a job, you'll be hired. If not, you have the right to improve yourself so that you can. Take the initiative and the responsibility for your own life. God gave you free will...use it, and stop whining. Expecting the rest of us to support you impinges on our God-given free will and liberty.
The reason that there are no Libertarians (or other 3rd parties) in office is because the so-called "democratic process" is biased against them.
Third parties often unite on these causes, regardless how divergent their platform on other issues. Vote third party on the principle of it. If you can't trust Dems and Reps to be fair during the process of getting into office, how can you trust them once they are in office?
Get informed. Push for change.
Ha! That's funny. Most elected representatives follow the money the same as corps do.
The real problem is that when government control fails, the "solution" is usually more government control. And people scratch their heads when that fails, too!
I have no problem with government handling legitimate public activities, like national defense. I'd hate to leave that up to a private agency. But government control of the economy (directly or through control of industry) is very, very bad. Too much power concentrated in one place.
I hadn't thought about it quite that way. I suppose the economic relationships get quite a bit more complex when discussin OSS.
Overloading one piece of meta-data (the filename) to do the work of three (the filename, type, opener app) was a screwed up idea from the inception. The worst part is that novice users can easily change the filename without having a clue they may be making the file unusable to the OS. A good OS should shield users from these casual blunders, and one good way to do it is by encoding the meta-data separately as the MacOS has done for years. Moving to file extensions is a major step backwards.
To say that Apple should give up and move on shows lack of foresight. Other OS's should follow Apple's example, or they'll never move forward. What good is all the buzzword-compliance in the world if the computer doesn't do a good job of what it's supposed to do - which is make life easier for people. People shouldn't have to remember to make life easier for the computer. It's idiotic, and Apple realized it back in 1984. It boggles me that they're choosing to forget this lesson now.
I assumed a balance of trade. Perhaps that wasn't a valid assumption.
No, it's definitely better to support domestic interests than foreign ones. My issue was with the O.P. saying that "it would be better to replace 1 tech with 5 if needed". If you end up creating a bigger gov't that sucks more life from the private sector, it was not a wise move. If the net cost of gov't is not reduced, it's not smart to switch to Linux. If use of Linux proves more expensive to Germans, it would be smarter to stay with MS and let the German people invest that extra money (that would have paid for Linux) in MS.
More money staying in your own pocket is a good thing.
Agreed. I think a gov't should definitely support domestic interests ahead of foreign ones!
People are now refusing to fly because of the 9/11 attacks. They cite lack of security as the reason. I think this is a darn good incentive for airlines to listen to consumer demand and start providing better security in order to regain business!
Why didn't the airlines provide better security before? Because they knew that gov't would bail them out if they ever got in trouble. And that's exactly what has happened. Big gov't was the problem. More big gov't will not help the situation.
The problem is that people lack resolve. If enough people demanded a safety feature in their car and didn't buy another car until they could get that feature, the industry would notice and start supplying the feature! If the people give in and buy a car that lacks the feature, all the whining in the world will not help. Vote with your pocketbook. Boycott the air industry until they provide good security, not just an illusion of security like they do now.
Gov't jobs don't really add anything to the economy, though. Gov't money comes from taxpayers, so more gov't jobs means more drag on the private sector that is actually producing something. Gov't is a necessary evil, and should be no larger than necessary. The private sector can usually do the same job better, cheaper, and faster.
FW,
Can't find your email address either. And I don't see a "firewort" on those other forums. I've never had a key, and I don't make my address public. If you want to post yours in some obscure way or give me a pointer...
Regarding your other comment, I'm not interested in taking over LibertyBoard at this time. I know that eagle is, though. I'm more interested in getting my own (slash-based) political weblog started (as soon as I hack in some features I think it would really need). And eagle has also said that he'd prefer to use slash.
By definition (at least as the Founders understood it) a militia member is a civilian, a private citizen, who steps up to defend his country when needed. I'm ready to do that, so by definition I'm part of the militia. And I want to be able to carry a weapon anywhere I go in order to protect myself and others. Prohibiting me from doing so is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.
Note that I'm not hardline on promoting guns on aircraft. I do realize the dangers. But notice too that hijackers with knives took over the planes on 2001/9/11. I'd be happy if I could carry my Crocodile Dundee knife.
Care to point that one out by Article and Section? I can't find it.
Nobody intends for government to swell out of control. Sometimes the best intentions get out of hand. One might argue that the Constitution is in place to protect us from politicians' good intentions.
Back to your post now...
At the point a bomb is falling on your head, it's obviously a little late to do anything about it.
The point is that, if the 2nd Amendment were respected, there would be people (private citizens) already on the plane to take care of it. If concealed carry was legal in all 50 states, you'd have many more "air marshals" in a similarly good position to thwart hijackers, all without the intervention of government.
Absolutely. It is possible to increase security without decreasing freedom. In fact, we can increase liberty in the process. Make concealed-carry legal in all 50 states. That would solve the problem.
Government can't protect us from everything. September 11 proved that. Even with all the security already in place, they failed. What makes you think going even farther in that direction will be any improvement whatsoever?
What I want is the freedom to protect myself. Ultimately it is my right to do so, and I will not cede it away to gov't. I am always present to protect myself. A gov't that is always present is bound to be too intrusive.
Isn't the government great? It claims sole privilege of protecting us on airplanes by putting armed marshals on board, and then when they ultimately fail and the hijackers take his weapon, the solution is to have the military blow the innocents it failed to protect right out of the sky. Wonderful.
We don't need another bureaucracy to protect us. (Office of Homeland Defense == Internal Security Police == KGB.) That's what the 2nd Amendment is for. The military and intelligence service are there to protect us from external threats, and that's fine and legitimate. But when it comes to internal threats, individuals can do the job better than gov't can.
I hope you do run for public office. I've been considering it. Too many times we whine and moan about how bad it's getting, but we never do anything about it. It's time to change that. We need more clueful people in office. Heck, we'd probably have better government if we selected people at random from the phone directory.
Wrong, as usual, but this being Slashdot I'm not surprised. The U.S. have a republican form of government. The Founders were quite clear that they thought democracy dangerous. A republic is governed by laws that (hopefully) say what is right, regardless of what people feel at a particular time. Laws are meant to protect us from the popular will.
Example. If 4 guys with baseball bats corner you in an alley and demand your money, how do you think a vote would turn out? That's democracy. The law says it's wrong.
The problem is that once you let your liberty be infringed upon, you seldom get back what you had before. There's a constant erosion to freedom unless you are always vigilant to stand against exactly this sort of thing. "Temporary" increases to the income tax and employer withholding started as WWII measures, but once government gets its hands on it, you know it doesn't want to let go.