As BlowCat and sulli said, localizing the browsers is a bad idea. Everything else you said is right on the money. Generic TLD's are the source of all the domain disputes we've seen. If every domain were all under the purview of the country the corp/org is from, there would be applicable laws in place to deal with the situation.
What should happen if there are multiple nike.com.* domains is a simple response 300 - Multiple Choices response. Let the user choose!
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
The primary arguments for privacy seem to be that if the goverment went bad all of a sudden [...]
The thing is, gov't doesn't go bad all of a sudden. It does so gradually. Citizens slowly, over time, give up their rights and their privacy is eroded. A hundred years down the road the gov't is bad even though it never "suddenly went bad".
You have to guard your rights jealously and watch the gov't like a hawk. It's not paranoia, just lessons from history. Liberty leads to prosperity, but prosperity leads to complacency, and complacency leads back to bondage.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Are you reading anything I write? Representation in Congress and the EC is a compromise between states' rights and people's rights. But regardless of how that representation is determined, EC votes are allocated based on state laws and thus the election of the president is a matter for the states, not the people. Nothing in the Constitution says that a popular election must be used to select the president. I can't put it much more plainly than this.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
There's a big difference between voluntarily giving your information to a private company, and the gov't compiling information about you without your OK. The company has incentive (money) for offering you a good service, and you have incentive for using that service (time, peace of mind). But why would the gov't want all this information about you? What good could they possibly do with it? And what benefit do you get from it? None. So why are they doing it? The gov't should stay out of our private lives on the principle of it alone.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Huh? What do you mean, a majority of the US, based on land area?
As I said, election of the president is primarily a matter for the states. Bush won a majority of those states. His popularity crosses diverse cultures within the US. Florida is much different than Wyoming which is much different than Alaska which is much different than New Hampshire. OTOH, Gore carried urban dwellers primarily, and that's about it. People in a small area are naturally going to share concerns that people some distance away won't care (as much) about. When you put a million people in that small area, attention skews toward that area, even if concerns from 50 miles away are just as valid.
If you want to know why people who live in cities count less than people in rural areas, its because the people, as individuals, don't matter when it comes to electing the president. The United States is a union of states, and it's these states that choose the president, not the people. The states have all individually decided to let their presidential vote be determined on the basis of a popular vote within the state, but that's a different issue. It hasn't always been this way, either.
The two-house legislature we have in the US is designed as a compromise between large states and small states. Remember, in 1776 people saw themselves primarily as Virginians or New Yorkers, not as Americans. They knew that direct popular representation would lead to what is called "tyranny of the majority" with Virginia and New York basically telling the other 11 what to do. At the same time, it isn't fair to let a handful of people dictate to much larger masses. Thus the compromise.
There's also the issue that rural folks speak on behalf of the natural resources they're closer to and more directly responsible for. If it were up to Chicagoans, they're probably pave the rest of Illinois for a parking lot. The rest of Illinois feels differently. Sure, Chicago may have more people than the rest of the state put together, but those people have very valid concerns as well.
It's a purely practical issue, and I don't fault people in big cities for looking after their own. I look after my own, too. But if the system is going to be fair, it has to try to protect the minority at the same time that it performs the will of the majority. This kind of protection is built into the US by virtue of the enumeration in the two legislative houses, and as I already said, it's no coincidence that the number of EC votes matches this exactly.
In fact, I think it's pretty clear that this implies EC votes ought to be awarded by district like it is in Nebraska. Too bad most states have a "winner takes all" system. In Iowa, for example, all 7 votes went to Gore when only 2 of the 5 districts went for him, IIRC.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
I agree, if folks are listening to local radio online it's a waste of bandwidth. I don't understand why people do that. However, I recently moved to southern MN from Des Moines and my favorite station has nothing comparable here. I was hoping to listen online, but it seems they are having unrelated problems of their own. And RealPlayer 8 won't install, either! Grr.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Yup. Radio corps suck. Virtually every station in Des Moines is owned by the same company. Last year the Register did a story on local radio and completely ignored the only indie station (which happens to webcast, BTW) around. Typical.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Nobody said it's wrong to have an opinion. Maybe you should go back and read it again.
Prejudice is (emphasis mine):
An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. Predilection.
A preconceived preference or idea.
The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
Let's look at what he said again, shall we?
It's OK to have prejudice against any kind of choice that people make.
Hello!?!? This guy is saying that it's OK to make irrational, uninformed decisions (by definition of prejudice) about other people! OK, he's not basing it on race, but on people's choices. In effect he's advocating saying, "I don't know a thing about Christianity, and I haven't met my new coworker yet, but since I hear he's a Christian I guess he must be an idiot."
Prejudice is, by definition, wrong. Unless you encourage irrationality and making decisions without enough information. And if you advocate that, I'm done talking with you, because I won't waste my time talking with irrational people.
Even if you do have a rational and informed opinion about a philosophy or lifestyle choice (such as "Christianity is stupid" to use your example) this is no reason at all for form an opinion about persons that hold that philosophy. I had a good relationship with a former coworker whose religious philosophies were almost completely the opposite of mine. Why? Because I didn't base my value of him as a person solely on the one aspect I disagreed with. To do that would be prejudice and bigotry, and as a Christian, I won't do that. Jesus had strong opinions about right and wrong, but He still loved everybody. That's what I try to do.
Keep an open mind. But not so open your brains fall out.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Election of the president is a matter for the states, not the people. Do you think it's merely coincidence that the number of electoral votes is exactly the same as the total number of representatives the state has in Congress? The federal Constitution nowhere says the states have to let the residents vote for president. The state legislatures, or the state governors, could decide how the state's votes would go.
It's plain to see that the EC system works as it is. Look at any election map of the US to see how it voted. The majority of the states will be colored for the Republicans. This is even more dramatic if you color it by district or county. Who voted for Gore this last election? A couple big cities, and that's it. A majority of the US, from Florida to Alaska and points in between, wanted Bush. Bos-Wash, Chicago, and San-Angeles voted for Gore.
As much as I think e-voting would be quicker and smoother (in theory), the fact is that it's much harder to keep a record. It's easier to tamper with electronic records than physical ones.
What we really need is Condorcet voting. The plurality vote system we currently have is broken and stupid. The problem with elections right now is not campaign financing (I'm speaking to you, Sen. McCain) but the voting method we use. We all should be able to put our voice (money) behind any candidate we wish...it's free speech. The problem is that the current system keeps the two major parties firmly entrenched. If voting changed so that minor parties had a fair chance, campaigning would have to change. And if there were more than two parties to support, campaign financing would change.
The founders knew the dangers of a single party holding a majority of the power. It's much safer to see coalitions of small parties being forced to work together on various issues. That way they have to appeal to a broader constituency.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
I hate it when people comment on a sig instead of the subject at hand. And I really wonder why I'm feeding this troll.
It's OK to have prejudice against any kind of choice that people make. It's OK to be prejudiced against punks. It's OK to be prejudiced against heroin addicts. It's OK to be prejudiced against Christians.
What's not OK is being prejudiced against people because of factors they have no control over - being black, or gay, or short.
Arguing for prejudice? That's a new one. I'm sure you'll go really far in life with that philosophy. Especially when you exclude a specific kind of choice people make (sexual preference) different than every other kind of choice. Yes, your behavior and actions are choices. There may be any number of social and biological pressures that everyone experiences every day, but don't abrogate the responsibility of your own will.
"I was born/raised this way, I can't help it," is such a cop-out. Irish people don't have to drink and fight alot just because they were born there. Arkansans don't have to act like trailer trash just because they were raised there. Males don't have to be rapists just because they were born with testosterone. Everyone has free will and is responsible for their actions.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
I changed Clippy to Einstein right away. I almost never used him when he popped up, but I actually thought it kind of neat when he'd walk onto my screen. Clippy, on the other hand, was just annoyingly animated.
I showed my wife that she could change the assistant and she was thrilled. She hardly ever uses the assistant, either, but agrees there's just something annoying about that frigging paper clip.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Amen to that. Sure, some soldiers are just going to be gov't drones, doing whatever they're told. But I am confident that many retain a conscience and a free will and wouldn't bear arms against their own countrymen.
Of course, that raises the issue that there are too many gov't agencies empowered to wield weapons against the populace already, yet the liberals want to put further restrictions on law-abiding gun-owning citizens. Why is that? Do they really want to live in a police state?
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
It really sucks. Y'know, we joke about this sort of thing, but really...having to spend the majority of your computer-using time in an OS that you strongly dislike using...it stinks! Eight hours of mental anguish every day.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
running Debian m68K Linux on a 25MHz 68040 is REALLY SLOW!
My Centris 650 runs System 7.1 just fine. Isn't Linux supposed to be a slim, trim system that's great for resurrecting these older boxes? Anyway, I hope it's not unusably slow, because I was hoping to get Linux or NetBSD running on it. I didn't really expect to be able to run X decently, though. How much RAM on your system?
I'm still not sure how OF figures into multi-booting. From what I've heard, it seems that OF should be the best way to multi-boot. None of this partial-booting of MacOS, loading an extension that allows you to switch, and then really booting. You mentioned OF in your post, so maybe you know more than the sketchy vagueness I've picked up over the years. The OF bootstrap you mention sounds pretty slick.
I've also heard that OF is not universal on all PowerMacs. How do you know if you can use it or not? I want to put a second drive in my beige G3 to keep different systems on.
If only it would run on x86 hardware, Windows users would flock away from the evil empire.
Why? Because the hardware is cheaper? Not. Because the hardware is better? Definitely not, unless you mean better at toasting bread.
Windows users use Windows because it's all they know. It has a majority of the mindshare, so they stick with it regardless of any other factors. Users don't care about chip architecture!
As several other posters pointed out, I can't believe ill-informed opinions like yours are still circulating. Here's what it would really take to lure users away from the Evil Empire:
A box that is just as cheap, up front, as the commodity Wintel PC - Apple history shows that the masses are clueless about Total Cost of Ownership
Compatibility with their existing applications - current Wintel owners are not going to ditch their investment in software, and new owners are not going to risk non-interoperability with the majority of other users
For the first point, I'd say check the numbers. For the second, I'd say that standard file formats are becoming more common, and Virtual PC is there as a backup.
Netscape 4 was the first browser I saw where the CSS was somewhat useful. Does anyone remember how badly IE 3 sucked? Sure, you have to limit yourself to a small subset (fonts, colors, some basic floats and alignment) but that subset is useful.
A year ago at this time I still restricted myself pretty much to that subset. Now, however, I am using CSS2 features pretty freely. N4 knows zilch about CSS2, so it's pretty safe, as opposed to certain CSS1 properties that it tries to work with and screws up. With Mozilla very stable (meaning a good N6 is just around the corner) and Opera (nearly ready on Linux and Mac) I feel pretty confident using CSS. I haven't used a FONT tag since 1997, and I've been validating my markup almost religiously for about 3 years.
Get ready for tomorrow today. N4 is dead. If the N4 folks complain, point them to Opera, or iCab if they're using a Mac.
However, what I was trying to say was that Flash is largely unnecessary. Many sites use it for the "gee whiz" factor. It adds nothing useful to the site that plain HTML markup couldn't do. That's what bugs me.
On the contrary, my personal site (which is built with compliant HTML 4.0 and CSS) looks just fine on a wide variety of devices. This includes Mozilla, iCab, WebTV, Lynx, and AvantGo. Separate content from style and you'll never go wrong.
Precisely! Microsoft did the web an injustive when it went down the path of spoofing as Mozilla. Once they did, everybody had to. What would be so wrong with identifying as what you really are?
I always set my browsers (Opera, iCab) to ID correctly. If the site blocks me because they're using some idiotic detection script, I write the webmaster a nice letter. I'd love to see a button in the UI of these browsers to pop up a form letter to the page author or webmaster@<domain>.
Windows implementation of MDI is "bletch", yes. Other than that, Opera is a very good web browser. Bring Opera's features to the Mac, where MDI doesn't suck, and you've got one great app.
Use Opera. It has a handy 3-way image toggle button right in the window. The user has final control, no matter how badly dee-zyne-ers want to usurp it.
Slashdot Mirror
Heck, bring it up with the ACLJ, too. They've got good lawyers.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Anyone wanting to kill banner ads should see this. Of course, anyone using iCab has the exact feature the OP asked for.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
As BlowCat and sulli said, localizing the browsers is a bad idea. Everything else you said is right on the money. Generic TLD's are the source of all the domain disputes we've seen. If every domain were all under the purview of the country the corp/org is from, there would be applicable laws in place to deal with the situation.
What should happen if there are multiple nike.com.* domains is a simple response 300 - Multiple Choices response. Let the user choose!
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
The thing is, gov't doesn't go bad all of a sudden. It does so gradually. Citizens slowly, over time, give up their rights and their privacy is eroded. A hundred years down the road the gov't is bad even though it never "suddenly went bad".
You have to guard your rights jealously and watch the gov't like a hawk. It's not paranoia, just lessons from history. Liberty leads to prosperity, but prosperity leads to complacency, and complacency leads back to bondage.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Government: If it's powerful to give you everything you need, it's powerful enough to take everything you got.
The question shouldn't be, "How much good will this law do if used properly?" It ought to be, "How much bad will this law do if abused?"
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Are you reading anything I write? Representation in Congress and the EC is a compromise between states' rights and people's rights. But regardless of how that representation is determined, EC votes are allocated based on state laws and thus the election of the president is a matter for the states, not the people. Nothing in the Constitution says that a popular election must be used to select the president. I can't put it much more plainly than this.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
There's a big difference between voluntarily giving your information to a private company, and the gov't compiling information about you without your OK. The company has incentive (money) for offering you a good service, and you have incentive for using that service (time, peace of mind). But why would the gov't want all this information about you? What good could they possibly do with it? And what benefit do you get from it? None. So why are they doing it? The gov't should stay out of our private lives on the principle of it alone.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
As I said, election of the president is primarily a matter for the states. Bush won a majority of those states. His popularity crosses diverse cultures within the US. Florida is much different than Wyoming which is much different than Alaska which is much different than New Hampshire. OTOH, Gore carried urban dwellers primarily, and that's about it. People in a small area are naturally going to share concerns that people some distance away won't care (as much) about. When you put a million people in that small area, attention skews toward that area, even if concerns from 50 miles away are just as valid.
If you want to know why people who live in cities count less than people in rural areas, its because the people, as individuals, don't matter when it comes to electing the president. The United States is a union of states, and it's these states that choose the president, not the people. The states have all individually decided to let their presidential vote be determined on the basis of a popular vote within the state, but that's a different issue. It hasn't always been this way, either.
The two-house legislature we have in the US is designed as a compromise between large states and small states. Remember, in 1776 people saw themselves primarily as Virginians or New Yorkers, not as Americans. They knew that direct popular representation would lead to what is called "tyranny of the majority" with Virginia and New York basically telling the other 11 what to do. At the same time, it isn't fair to let a handful of people dictate to much larger masses. Thus the compromise.
There's also the issue that rural folks speak on behalf of the natural resources they're closer to and more directly responsible for. If it were up to Chicagoans, they're probably pave the rest of Illinois for a parking lot. The rest of Illinois feels differently. Sure, Chicago may have more people than the rest of the state put together, but those people have very valid concerns as well.
It's a purely practical issue, and I don't fault people in big cities for looking after their own. I look after my own, too. But if the system is going to be fair, it has to try to protect the minority at the same time that it performs the will of the majority. This kind of protection is built into the US by virtue of the enumeration in the two legislative houses, and as I already said, it's no coincidence that the number of EC votes matches this exactly.
In fact, I think it's pretty clear that this implies EC votes ought to be awarded by district like it is in Nebraska. Too bad most states have a "winner takes all" system. In Iowa, for example, all 7 votes went to Gore when only 2 of the 5 districts went for him, IIRC.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
I agree, if folks are listening to local radio online it's a waste of bandwidth. I don't understand why people do that. However, I recently moved to southern MN from Des Moines and my favorite station has nothing comparable here. I was hoping to listen online, but it seems they are having unrelated problems of their own. And RealPlayer 8 won't install, either! Grr.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Yup. Radio corps suck. Virtually every station in Des Moines is owned by the same company. Last year the Register did a story on local radio and completely ignored the only indie station (which happens to webcast, BTW) around. Typical.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Nobody said it's wrong to have an opinion. Maybe you should go back and read it again.
Prejudice is (emphasis mine):
Let's look at what he said again, shall we?
Hello!?!? This guy is saying that it's OK to make irrational, uninformed decisions (by definition of prejudice) about other people! OK, he's not basing it on race, but on people's choices. In effect he's advocating saying, "I don't know a thing about Christianity, and I haven't met my new coworker yet, but since I hear he's a Christian I guess he must be an idiot."
Prejudice is, by definition, wrong. Unless you encourage irrationality and making decisions without enough information. And if you advocate that, I'm done talking with you, because I won't waste my time talking with irrational people.
Even if you do have a rational and informed opinion about a philosophy or lifestyle choice (such as "Christianity is stupid" to use your example) this is no reason at all for form an opinion about persons that hold that philosophy. I had a good relationship with a former coworker whose religious philosophies were almost completely the opposite of mine. Why? Because I didn't base my value of him as a person solely on the one aspect I disagreed with. To do that would be prejudice and bigotry, and as a Christian, I won't do that. Jesus had strong opinions about right and wrong, but He still loved everybody. That's what I try to do.
Keep an open mind. But not so open your brains fall out.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Election of the president is a matter for the states, not the people. Do you think it's merely coincidence that the number of electoral votes is exactly the same as the total number of representatives the state has in Congress? The federal Constitution nowhere says the states have to let the residents vote for president. The state legislatures, or the state governors, could decide how the state's votes would go.
It's plain to see that the EC system works as it is. Look at any election map of the US to see how it voted. The majority of the states will be colored for the Republicans. This is even more dramatic if you color it by district or county. Who voted for Gore this last election? A couple big cities, and that's it. A majority of the US, from Florida to Alaska and points in between, wanted Bush. Bos-Wash, Chicago, and San-Angeles voted for Gore.
As much as I think e-voting would be quicker and smoother (in theory), the fact is that it's much harder to keep a record. It's easier to tamper with electronic records than physical ones.
What we really need is Condorcet voting. The plurality vote system we currently have is broken and stupid. The problem with elections right now is not campaign financing (I'm speaking to you, Sen. McCain) but the voting method we use. We all should be able to put our voice (money) behind any candidate we wish...it's free speech. The problem is that the current system keeps the two major parties firmly entrenched. If voting changed so that minor parties had a fair chance, campaigning would have to change. And if there were more than two parties to support, campaign financing would change.
The founders knew the dangers of a single party holding a majority of the power. It's much safer to see coalitions of small parties being forced to work together on various issues. That way they have to appeal to a broader constituency.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
I hate it when people comment on a sig instead of the subject at hand. And I really wonder why I'm feeding this troll.
Arguing for prejudice? That's a new one. I'm sure you'll go really far in life with that philosophy. Especially when you exclude a specific kind of choice people make (sexual preference) different than every other kind of choice. Yes, your behavior and actions are choices. There may be any number of social and biological pressures that everyone experiences every day, but don't abrogate the responsibility of your own will.
"I was born/raised this way, I can't help it," is such a cop-out. Irish people don't have to drink and fight alot just because they were born there. Arkansans don't have to act like trailer trash just because they were raised there. Males don't have to be rapists just because they were born with testosterone. Everyone has free will and is responsible for their actions.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
I changed Clippy to Einstein right away. I almost never used him when he popped up, but I actually thought it kind of neat when he'd walk onto my screen. Clippy, on the other hand, was just annoyingly animated.
I showed my wife that she could change the assistant and she was thrilled. She hardly ever uses the assistant, either, but agrees there's just something annoying about that frigging paper clip.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Amen to that. Sure, some soldiers are just going to be gov't drones, doing whatever they're told. But I am confident that many retain a conscience and a free will and wouldn't bear arms against their own countrymen.
Of course, that raises the issue that there are too many gov't agencies empowered to wield weapons against the populace already, yet the liberals want to put further restrictions on law-abiding gun-owning citizens. Why is that? Do they really want to live in a police state?
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Yeah, I'd join that one. Start 'er up!
It really sucks. Y'know, we joke about this sort of thing, but really...having to spend the majority of your computer-using time in an OS that you strongly dislike using...it stinks! Eight hours of mental anguish every day.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
My Centris 650 runs System 7.1 just fine. Isn't Linux supposed to be a slim, trim system that's great for resurrecting these older boxes? Anyway, I hope it's not unusably slow, because I was hoping to get Linux or NetBSD running on it. I didn't really expect to be able to run X decently, though. How much RAM on your system?
Flamebait != Disagree
I'm still not sure how OF figures into multi-booting. From what I've heard, it seems that OF should be the best way to multi-boot. None of this partial-booting of MacOS, loading an extension that allows you to switch, and then really booting. You mentioned OF in your post, so maybe you know more than the sketchy vagueness I've picked up over the years. The OF bootstrap you mention sounds pretty slick.
I've also heard that OF is not universal on all PowerMacs. How do you know if you can use it or not? I want to put a second drive in my beige G3 to keep different systems on.
Flamebait != Disagree
Why? Because the hardware is cheaper? Not. Because the hardware is better? Definitely not, unless you mean better at toasting bread.
Windows users use Windows because it's all they know. It has a majority of the mindshare, so they stick with it regardless of any other factors. Users don't care about chip architecture!
As several other posters pointed out, I can't believe ill-informed opinions like yours are still circulating. Here's what it would really take to lure users away from the Evil Empire:
For the first point, I'd say check the numbers. For the second, I'd say that standard file formats are becoming more common, and Virtual PC is there as a backup.
Flamebait != Disagree
Netscape 4 was the first browser I saw where the CSS was somewhat useful. Does anyone remember how badly IE 3 sucked? Sure, you have to limit yourself to a small subset (fonts, colors, some basic floats and alignment) but that subset is useful.
A year ago at this time I still restricted myself pretty much to that subset. Now, however, I am using CSS2 features pretty freely. N4 knows zilch about CSS2, so it's pretty safe, as opposed to certain CSS1 properties that it tries to work with and screws up. With Mozilla very stable (meaning a good N6 is just around the corner) and Opera (nearly ready on Linux and Mac) I feel pretty confident using CSS. I haven't used a FONT tag since 1997, and I've been validating my markup almost religiously for about 3 years.
Get ready for tomorrow today. N4 is dead. If the N4 folks complain, point them to Opera, or iCab if they're using a Mac.
Flamebait != Disagree
I'd love to see SVG take off.
However, what I was trying to say was that Flash is largely unnecessary. Many sites use it for the "gee whiz" factor. It adds nothing useful to the site that plain HTML markup couldn't do. That's what bugs me.
Flamebait != Disagree
On the contrary, my personal site (which is built with compliant HTML 4.0 and CSS) looks just fine on a wide variety of devices. This includes Mozilla, iCab, WebTV, Lynx, and AvantGo. Separate content from style and you'll never go wrong.
Flamebait != Disagree
Precisely! Microsoft did the web an injustive when it went down the path of spoofing as Mozilla. Once they did, everybody had to. What would be so wrong with identifying as what you really are?
I always set my browsers (Opera, iCab) to ID correctly. If the site blocks me because they're using some idiotic detection script, I write the webmaster a nice letter. I'd love to see a button in the UI of these browsers to pop up a form letter to the page author or webmaster@<domain>.
Flamebait != Disagree
Windows implementation of MDI is "bletch", yes. Other than that, Opera is a very good web browser. Bring Opera's features to the Mac, where MDI doesn't suck, and you've got one great app.
Flamebait != Disagree
Use Opera. It has a handy 3-way image toggle button right in the window. The user has final control, no matter how badly dee-zyne-ers want to usurp it.
Flamebait != Disagree