You don't need to be proven that Global Warming doesn't exist, you should force people to prove it does exist. That's how science works, you start assuming what you've always assumed and the new theories must be proven.
Personally, I've never cared much about this 'Global Warming' because even the alarmists (like Greenpeace and Gore) give incredibly non-frightening information. They say we're warming up at an unprecedented level, but the worst figures I've seen say we've increase one degree Fahrenheit in the last two-hundred years. One degree? For the largest polluting, greatest industrial achievements in the history of man? That sounds pretty damn stable to me.
But the biggest problem in proving 'Global Warming' is not conflicting evidence like this article. It's not the fact that the same theories and reasoning and 'researchers' told us that we were headed for an ice-age thirty years ago.
It's the fact that even non-scientifically minded people can poke holes in the alarmists' theories. 'Global Warming is caused by humans' - how? How do we know that? Do cars give off a unique chemical that we can see directly makes the Earth warmer? 'Global Warming has caused more natural disasters than any previous year and it will only get worse' - really? I don't see how one degree could possibly cause more hurricanes, I mean, perhaps there are other causes to such a development. 'Global Warming will destroy civilisation' - uh, perhaps not Nervous Joe.
Anyone, anyone, looking even half logically at this 'Global Warming' hype can see through it.
The biggest problem with UMD was the idea that consumers would buy movies on UMD. Which wouldn't have been too outlandish, if the UMD movies cost less than DVD versions.
Why would anyone pay 30 bucks for a movie that you con only play on that little screen?
UMD as a game-format isn't a bad idea - every portable game system has it's own format.
Okay, so you're one of those drooling Windows fanbois who thinks Microsoft is a victim
Yeah, that's a good way to make yourself sound reasonable.
Windows dominance means Microsoft can ship antivirus software and put third-party antivirus software out of business.
How would a Microsoft anti-virus program put other anti-virus programs out of business? Explain that. What about firewalls? XP comes with a firewall program, last I checked there are still third-party firewall programs. That's contrary to your comment. Secondly, if the default anti-virus software is perfectly acceptable, why is it imperative for other companies to make more? That's like saying "sure we have roads, but no competing roads are being built". That's how the free-market works. If your product is better than what the consumer has, and he wants it, he'll get it. It's actually a sad state of affairs that FireFox (which is better than IE in every respect) has only 10% of the market - and it's free. How useless does your product have to be before that happens? If I tried to give away anything on the street corner I'd get better market saturation than that.
They can tie their browser to their search engine, putting other search engines out of business.
Again, "how"? How would that put other companies out of business?
And you're ignoring the coercion deals of the 90s where OEMs absolutely were prevented from installing other software
No I'm not. I've said time and time again that Microsoft has used unethical business practices - in fact I'll quote it from my last comment: No! That is illegal - absolutely illegal...It'd be illegal for any software company to EXTORT a manufacturer
Clearly, you haven't even read up on the issue. Google wanted Microsoft to offer a dialog on startup giving the user a choice of search engines to use, because IE7 currently makes it a process that most people won't go through.
You mean most people don't give a shit what they use to search? They can't be botheres? Wow, you've just proved my point. Most consumers DON'T CARE. Which brings me back to the 'basis of the free market': if you make a product to compete with a product that everyone is happy with, you will go out of business. End of story.
I don't know what your filesystem search quip has to do with anything other than for you to baselessly call me an idiot
Of course you don't: you're an idiot. TFA talked about the court's decision to investigate IE7's search box and how it used Microsoft's own search as it's default. I likened that to the 'file search' found in every other Windows. The similarities there should be evident.
I'm not worry about filesystem search because Windows is so incredibly behind everything else that Google, Apple, and others have already beaten them to desktop search.
So, you're only concerned with Microsoft's products when they're useful? What the fuck is that? So when Microsoft puts out a terrible program (like the XP firewall) it's okay, but if they actually made, good, useful programs for the consumer you want it stripped from Windows.
iTunes uses the following open formats...
Wow, I didn't know I couldn't play non-WM files in WMP! Oh wait, I can.
WAV - Holy crap WAV? You think WMP doesn't support WAV playback? That's absurd. AU - Um, WMP 7 and up supports.au files. AAC (MPEG-4) - Apparently not. I haven't used ACC and can't find anything one way or the other from Google. So I'll give you this one. AU - Um, didn't you say this already? MP3 - Supported in WMP (I can even rip CDs to mp3). M4V - Not out of the box, but A quick Google search came up with the official MS support site
MPEG-4 (.mp4) MPEG-4 is an International Standards Organization (ISO) specification that covers many aspects of multimedia presentation including compression
The real problem is that MS broke the law in order to succeed. In the eyes of many, it is continuing to break the law whhile thumbing its nose at those trying to get it to obey the law. Or do you believe MS should be above the law? How is allowing MS to use illegal methods to exterminate the competition in any field going to help the consumer in the long run? When they have finished crushing everyone else, they will be able to charge $100, or $200 a month, or $500 a month for their OS, and there won't be anything you can do about it, except to pay up or quit using your computer!
I agree, that is the real problem. But they aren't being investigated for that. They were, and they've been marginally penalized. They should be punished more for it - but no one's arguing about that.
Oh really,how about a SPARC? or a ppc-Apple MAC? Seriously, hand Joe-Sixpack an OEM disk and ask him to install it on a blank hard drive, and get everything sound, video etc working right. Bring some sandwiches & a thermos of coffee... or a case of beer & a couple of pounds of pretzels... whatever floats your boat. Should be a full day of amusement. OTOH its 20 or 30 minutes with Mepis, Ubuntu or even PC-BSD. Chances are good ol' Joe won't have to know spit--or even be sober. Actually, the last time I installed FreeBSD took less time than the last time I installed XP, even including writing the.xinitrc file and enabling sound--both of which required less time than loading video or sound card drivers for XP.
Oh come on now. That's just stupid. I know that there are a lot of computers that won't run Windows - I said "Almost anyone can install Windows on almost any computer." 90% of all computers in working condition can run windows. That's what "almost any" means, jackass.
You honestly believe that Joe Sixpack would be able to install Linux, but not Win XP? Are you sure? Have you installed XP recently? You put the disc in, and follow the instructions. There are no wrong options either, it's just next... next... next...
You give Joe there anything but a Live-CD and he won't be able to install Linux any better than XP.
You fail to think about anything you say... Let's break it down.
They're still a monopoly and can't leverage their monopoly position to prevent market competition.
That's the law, yes. They aren't allowed to. It's completely and irrefutably wrong to force people to buy their software and force them to use only their software. But there's nothing stopping you, let me repeat that, NOTHING STOPPING YOU from installing other software. "Holy shit! Google Earth is tied into Google Search! That's wrong!" No, it's connecting all of your products together. No one can possible say that that's a bad idea.
If Microsoft designs an OS for everybody's computers,
read: "If they make Windows".
and it becomes popular,
read: "Windows".
that doesn't magically give them the right to tie their browser to their search engine
So Windows shouldn't have anything integrated into it? Where do you draw the line there? They aren't allowed to tie in MSN search with IE - what about the generic 'Search' function? It's ties into the OS itself, you're not up in arms about that. Oh, that's right - you're an idiot.
and their music to their media player using their media technologies, etc. etc. etc.
Their 'Media Player' shouldn't use their own 'media technologies'? Like iTunes and iPods? Again, no one's upset about that.
It helps the consumer because it helps competing, superior products {enter] the market.
Forcing Microsoft to share their APIs does indeed help create more products. Of course, Microsoft, because of all the litigation, has had little time to actually do anything themselves (there hasn't been a new Windows in 4 years) - so in that respect it has stifled creativity and improvement of THE ACTUAL PRODUCT.
They don't have a gigantic convicted monopolist
For Christ's sake: being a monopoly is NOT ILLEGAL. It's that kind of thinking that allows the continued MS-Bashing.
tying things into the dominant platform to make it so nobody else can compete with anything.
Oh, I'm sorry - I didn't install that Windows XP that wouldn't allow me to install FireFox. I must've gotten a fluke copy that didn't prevent non-Microsoft products.
Or do you think it's okay for Microsoft to have threatened OEMs in the 90s with increased Windows licensing fees (and even outright revocation) if they included software from other companies that competed with Microsoft products? That would kill any OEM, because Windows is the dominant monopoly platform--a classic case of coercion through leveraging the monopoly.
No! That is illegal - absolutely illegal. But NOT just for monopolies. It'd be illegal for any software company to EXTORT a manufacturer.
Of course, your problem here seems to be with the fact that you wouldn't be able to get non-Windows default programs from the manufacturer. You, again, completely ignore the fact that Apple is THEIR OWN manufacturer. If Microsoft did what Apple does (creates both the hardware and software and sells it together themselves) you'd shit a brick. But, again, you don't bat an eye at Apple.
Yes, everything you've said is well thought out, non-inflammatory, and completely true - but you, like every other "pro Microsoft" comment will be modded down. I guarantee it.
The problem lies not with Microsoft doing anything illegal, or unethical, and even the bundling of software isn't the problem - it's doing it while being popular that's the problem.
Everything Microsoft has done either is being done or was being done not too long ago by other software development companies.
The problem is that Microsoft succeeded by doing this, while the others did not.
Take Apple, for example, they bundle a lot more into their OS than Microsoft does but they aren't even glanced at. Including the 'search' feature that is talked about in TFA pales in comparison to Spotlight in OSX - but no one has a problem with Apple.
Others will raise the fact that "it's different for Microsoft because they have a monopoly". Which is true - but they have a monopoly because their Operating System is designed to work on the most popular systems available. Almost anyone can install Windows on almost any computer.
It's not like Microsoft designs their OS to work only with the machines they build in-house.
In fact, they can't. They'd never be allowed to. They're not allowed to do a lot of things that every other company is allowed to.
Personally I believe it's wrong to impose such huge regulations (that stem from laws that were never meant for this kind of business) on Microsoft. A lot of these regulations are ridiculous (though some do promote competition).
My biggest problem with the continued litigation and dragging down of Microsoft with superfluous rules is that it doesn't help the consumer. These regulations are supposed to help the consumer - but they don't.
There's no excuse for the EU forcing Microsoft to un-bundle Media Player from Vista. I mean, come on, I thought that was the most retarded thing I'd ever heard.
But then they decided a 'search' feature might be too much.
Wha? Firstly, it [i]was[/i] the War of Independence. Please don't tell me the US educational system has sunk so low as to not teach that.
Secondly, to say that the United States didn't overthrow their government is retarded. They did. In the exact same way Castro did. The only difference is that American Patriots took a larger area, and killed more people. It would be nice to remind you here, that my country (Canada) gained our independence without armed conflict.
Let's go into the 'history of terrorist activities" too. Remember the Bay of Pigs? No, I thought you must've forgotten that.
Oh, I didn't mean that open-source was MORE dangerous than closed-source, just that there is a risk because it is open-source - and I've seen a lot of FF-Fanboys saying it's safer because it's open-source.
And for the record, I actually liked 'Whee!' when I first saw it last week. I remember specifically thinking - this is exactly the kind of commercial that would never get made, it's too insulting and lame.
And then...
I actually picture myself as IE (I would totally be that happy watching the comet go around me). I always imagined the other three kicking the shit out of "old man Fox".
For fuck sakes, this is why I hate comments on Slashdot - most of the time the moderation is pretty good, until something about Microsoft comes up.
Why can't anyone take any FireFox criticism? You'd think the Parent said "Firefox 'r dumb. IE is teh pwn". He critiqued the videos - in a nice, defined manor.
What's good about the videos:
Daredevil - nice cinematography, good surf-surf analogy, kind of touching. Touches on what Firefox does.
This Is Hot - Great animation, really slick presentation. Clearly states what Firefox is and what it does.
Whee! - Funny in a really juvenile way.
Get the Soap - Kind of cute.
Fox Fever - Funny in a crocodile-hunter-ripoff kind of way. Refers to a few things Firefox does.
What's bad about the videos:
They're all really lame. Mediocre at best. 'That Is Hot' and 'Daredevil' have great execution - but nothing to execute. There's no substance. None of the "flicks" have anything to really say.
'Whee!' is actually quite insulting. The other browsers are retarded? That's classy. 'Fox Fever' was passable until the end when the 'explorer' showed up and was "defeated". What a cheap shot. Again, really classy. Attacking IE without any qualifiers is insulting to both Microsoft and users of both FF and IE (and Safari and Netscape), as well as Firefox - there ARE reasons why Firefox is better than IE, but they aren't mentioned.
'Get the soap' and 'Whee!' don't even try to explain what Firefox is. Daredevil talks about "browsing" but that's about it. 'Fox Fever' is a bit better, but relies on "go to getfirefox.com for more info". 'This Is Hot' explains pretty well what Firefox does (1 out of 5 ain't bad).
Again, I think it's important to remember that Firefox is better than IE, but not by the leaps and bounds fanboys say it is.
"It's faster" >> well, sometimes. Sometimes it's slower. It's a crap-shoot really. And it's never that much faster.
"It's safer" >> yes it is, but not much safer (remember that URL faking exploit?) and most of it's "security" comes from active-x being turned off (which you can do in IE too). And remember: Open source = increased risk.
"Tabs, extentions, and skins provide a better user experience" >> yes! I've got a few really nice extensions I just can't imagine living without (mmm egg timer). But it's important to note that IE7 will include these exact features too.
Remember kids: if you think a poster is a troll because they disagree with you - you might be a troll.
Kids today don't program because it's already done for them.
Think about it, why did all of you start programming? Because you wanted your PC or your Altair or your Commodore to do something that it couldn't do "out of the box".
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need to be proven that Global Warming doesn't exist, you should force people to prove it does exist. That's how science works, you start assuming what you've always assumed and the new theories must be proven.
Personally, I've never cared much about this 'Global Warming' because even the alarmists (like Greenpeace and Gore) give incredibly non-frightening information. They say we're warming up at an unprecedented level, but the worst figures I've seen say we've increase one degree Fahrenheit in the last two-hundred years. One degree? For the largest polluting, greatest industrial achievements in the history of man? That sounds pretty damn stable to me.
But the biggest problem in proving 'Global Warming' is not conflicting evidence like this article. It's not the fact that the same theories and reasoning and 'researchers' told us that we were headed for an ice-age thirty years ago.
It's the fact that even non-scientifically minded people can poke holes in the alarmists' theories. 'Global Warming is caused by humans' - how? How do we know that? Do cars give off a unique chemical that we can see directly makes the Earth warmer? 'Global Warming has caused more natural disasters than any previous year and it will only get worse' - really? I don't see how one degree could possibly cause more hurricanes, I mean, perhaps there are other causes to such a development. 'Global Warming will destroy civilisation' - uh, perhaps not Nervous Joe.
Anyone, anyone, looking even half logically at this 'Global Warming' hype can see through it.
Exactly my thinking.
The biggest problem with UMD was the idea that consumers would buy movies on UMD. Which wouldn't have been too outlandish, if the UMD movies cost less than DVD versions.
Why would anyone pay 30 bucks for a movie that you con only play on that little screen?
UMD as a game-format isn't a bad idea - every portable game system has it's own format.
Yeah, that's a good way to make yourself sound reasonable.
Windows dominance means Microsoft can ship antivirus software and put third-party antivirus software out of business.
How would a Microsoft anti-virus program put other anti-virus programs out of business? Explain that. What about firewalls? XP comes with a firewall program, last I checked there are still third-party firewall programs. That's contrary to your comment. Secondly, if the default anti-virus software is perfectly acceptable, why is it imperative for other companies to make more? That's like saying "sure we have roads, but no competing roads are being built". That's how the free-market works. If your product is better than what the consumer has, and he wants it, he'll get it. It's actually a sad state of affairs that FireFox (which is better than IE in every respect) has only 10% of the market - and it's free. How useless does your product have to be before that happens? If I tried to give away anything on the street corner I'd get better market saturation than that.
They can tie their browser to their search engine, putting other search engines out of business.
Again, "how"? How would that put other companies out of business?
And you're ignoring the coercion deals of the 90s where OEMs absolutely were prevented from installing other software
No I'm not. I've said time and time again that Microsoft has used unethical business practices - in fact I'll quote it from my last comment:
No! That is illegal - absolutely illegal...It'd be illegal for any software company to EXTORT a manufacturer
Clearly, you haven't even read up on the issue. Google wanted Microsoft to offer a dialog on startup giving the user a choice of search engines to use, because IE7 currently makes it a process that most people won't go through.
You mean most people don't give a shit what they use to search? They can't be botheres? Wow, you've just proved my point. Most consumers DON'T CARE. Which brings me back to the 'basis of the free market': if you make a product to compete with a product that everyone is happy with, you will go out of business. End of story.
I don't know what your filesystem search quip has to do with anything other than for you to baselessly call me an idiot
Of course you don't: you're an idiot. TFA talked about the court's decision to investigate IE7's search box and how it used Microsoft's own search as it's default. I likened that to the 'file search' found in every other Windows. The similarities there should be evident.
I'm not worry about filesystem search because Windows is so incredibly behind everything else that Google, Apple, and others have already beaten them to desktop search.
So, you're only concerned with Microsoft's products when they're useful? What the fuck is that? So when Microsoft puts out a terrible program (like the XP firewall) it's okay, but if they actually made, good, useful programs for the consumer you want it stripped from Windows.
iTunes uses the following open formats...
Wow, I didn't know I couldn't play non-WM files in WMP! Oh wait, I can.
WAV - Holy crap WAV? You think WMP doesn't support WAV playback? That's absurd.
AU - Um, WMP 7 and up supports
AAC (MPEG-4) - Apparently not. I haven't used ACC and can't find anything one way or the other from Google. So I'll give you this one.
AU - Um, didn't you say this already?
MP3 - Supported in WMP (I can even rip CDs to mp3).
M4V - Not out of the box, but A quick Google search came up with the official MS support site
MPEG-4 (.mp4)
MPEG-4 is an International Standards Organization (ISO) specification that covers many aspects of multimedia presentation including compression
The real problem is that MS broke the law in order to succeed. In the eyes of many, it is continuing to break the law whhile thumbing its nose at those trying to get it to obey the law. Or do you believe MS should be above the law? How is allowing MS to use illegal methods to exterminate the competition in any field going to help the consumer in the long run? When they have finished crushing everyone else, they will be able to charge $100, or $200 a month, or $500 a month for their OS, and there won't be anything you can do about it, except to pay up or quit using your computer!
.xinitrc file and enabling sound--both of which required less time than loading video or sound card drivers for XP.
I agree, that is the real problem. But they aren't being investigated for that. They were, and they've been marginally penalized. They should be punished more for it - but no one's arguing about that.
Oh really,how about a SPARC? or a ppc-Apple MAC? Seriously, hand Joe-Sixpack an OEM disk and ask him to install it on a blank hard drive, and get everything sound, video etc working right. Bring some sandwiches & a thermos of coffee... or a case of beer & a couple of pounds of pretzels... whatever floats your boat. Should be a full day of amusement. OTOH its 20 or 30 minutes with Mepis, Ubuntu or even PC-BSD. Chances are good ol' Joe won't have to know spit--or even be sober. Actually, the last time I installed FreeBSD took less time than the last time I installed XP, even including writing the
Oh come on now. That's just stupid. I know that there are a lot of computers that won't run Windows - I said "Almost anyone can install Windows on almost any computer." 90% of all computers in working condition can run windows. That's what "almost any" means, jackass.
You honestly believe that Joe Sixpack would be able to install Linux, but not Win XP? Are you sure? Have you installed XP recently? You put the disc in, and follow the instructions. There are no wrong options either, it's just next... next... next...
You give Joe there anything but a Live-CD and he won't be able to install Linux any better than XP.
You fail to think about anything you say... Let's break it down.
They're still a monopoly and can't leverage their monopoly position to prevent market competition.
That's the law, yes. They aren't allowed to. It's completely and irrefutably wrong to force people to buy their software and force them to use only their software. But there's nothing stopping you, let me repeat that, NOTHING STOPPING YOU from installing other software. "Holy shit! Google Earth is tied into Google Search! That's wrong!" No, it's connecting all of your products together. No one can possible say that that's a bad idea.
If Microsoft designs an OS for everybody's computers,
read: "If they make Windows".
and it becomes popular,
read: "Windows".
that doesn't magically give them the right to tie their browser to their search engine
So Windows shouldn't have anything integrated into it? Where do you draw the line there? They aren't allowed to tie in MSN search with IE - what about the generic 'Search' function? It's ties into the OS itself, you're not up in arms about that. Oh, that's right - you're an idiot.
and their music to their media player using their media technologies, etc. etc. etc.
Their 'Media Player' shouldn't use their own 'media technologies'? Like iTunes and iPods? Again, no one's upset about that.
It helps the consumer because it helps competing, superior products {enter] the market.
Forcing Microsoft to share their APIs does indeed help create more products. Of course, Microsoft, because of all the litigation, has had little time to actually do anything themselves (there hasn't been a new Windows in 4 years) - so in that respect it has stifled creativity and improvement of THE ACTUAL PRODUCT.
They don't have a gigantic convicted monopolist
For Christ's sake: being a monopoly is NOT ILLEGAL. It's that kind of thinking that allows the continued MS-Bashing.
tying things into the dominant platform to make it so nobody else can compete with anything.
Oh, I'm sorry - I didn't install that Windows XP that wouldn't allow me to install FireFox. I must've gotten a fluke copy that didn't prevent non-Microsoft products.
Or do you think it's okay for Microsoft to have threatened OEMs in the 90s with increased Windows licensing fees (and even outright revocation) if they included software from other companies that competed with Microsoft products? That would kill any OEM, because Windows is the dominant monopoly platform--a classic case of coercion through leveraging the monopoly.
No! That is illegal - absolutely illegal. But NOT just for monopolies. It'd be illegal for any software company to EXTORT a manufacturer.
Of course, your problem here seems to be with the fact that you wouldn't be able to get non-Windows default programs from the manufacturer. You, again, completely ignore the fact that Apple is THEIR OWN manufacturer. If Microsoft did what Apple does (creates both the hardware and software and sells it together themselves) you'd shit a brick. But, again, you don't bat an eye at Apple.
Yes, everything you've said is well thought out, non-inflammatory, and completely true - but you, like every other "pro Microsoft" comment will be modded down. I guarantee it.
Wow! What a great explanation of the "issues of the case". You, sir, are a great man.
I'm not going to quote your awesome explanation here because it would overload the server's bandwidth. Because it was that good.
True that. True that.
The problem lies not with Microsoft doing anything illegal, or unethical, and even the bundling of software isn't the problem - it's doing it while being popular that's the problem.
Everything Microsoft has done either is being done or was being done not too long ago by other software development companies.
The problem is that Microsoft succeeded by doing this, while the others did not.
Take Apple, for example, they bundle a lot more into their OS than Microsoft does but they aren't even glanced at. Including the 'search' feature that is talked about in TFA pales in comparison to Spotlight in OSX - but no one has a problem with Apple.
Others will raise the fact that "it's different for Microsoft because they have a monopoly". Which is true - but they have a monopoly because their Operating System is designed to work on the most popular systems available. Almost anyone can install Windows on almost any computer.
It's not like Microsoft designs their OS to work only with the machines they build in-house.
In fact, they can't. They'd never be allowed to. They're not allowed to do a lot of things that every other company is allowed to.
Personally I believe it's wrong to impose such huge regulations (that stem from laws that were never meant for this kind of business) on Microsoft. A lot of these regulations are ridiculous (though some do promote competition).
My biggest problem with the continued litigation and dragging down of Microsoft with superfluous rules is that it doesn't help the consumer. These regulations are supposed to help the consumer - but they don't.
There's no excuse for the EU forcing Microsoft to un-bundle Media Player from Vista. I mean, come on, I thought that was the most retarded thing I'd ever heard.
But then they decided a 'search' feature might be too much.
Actually that's the updated model - the original was "your hand".
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=ti cket_to_hell
We were happy, and we had to walk three miles, uphill, through snow to get them too!
Ya damn kids.
He also once said films don't need special visual effects to be ood - and that they distracted the audience from the story.
Of course he was talking about colour - but he changed his view real quick.
Wha? Firstly, it [i]was[/i] the War of Independence. Please don't tell me the US educational system has sunk so low as to not teach that.
Secondly, to say that the United States didn't overthrow their government is retarded. They did. In the exact same way Castro did. The only difference is that American Patriots took a larger area, and killed more people. It would be nice to remind you here, that my country (Canada) gained our independence without armed conflict.
Let's go into the 'history of terrorist activities" too. Remember the Bay of Pigs? No, I thought you must've forgotten that.
"I can't understand the US attitude to Cuba - can't trade with them but renting space for a naval base is OK"
:p
That's the only thing about US policy you don't understand?
Not in Canada ;) we still trade with them.
Since when is Cuba harbouring terrorists? Or is 'Communism" part of terrorism now?
"After months of confronting whalers and pirates..."
What? They're killing pirates now?! But lack of pirates is causing "Global WarmingTM".
Damn hippies, you'll kill us all! I'll see you in pasta hell.
We can always hope :)
Oh, I didn't mean that open-source was MORE dangerous than closed-source, just that there is a risk because it is open-source - and I've seen a lot of FF-Fanboys saying it's safer because it's open-source.
And for the record, I actually liked 'Whee!' when I first saw it last week. I remember specifically thinking - this is exactly the kind of commercial that would never get made, it's too insulting and lame.
And then...
I actually picture myself as IE (I would totally be that happy watching the comet go around me). I always imagined the other three kicking the shit out of "old man Fox".
Hehe :)
But you can put in a 'new tab' button on the tab-bar with this extension.
Did I say that other comercials aren't terrible? NO. Did I say anything about other commercials? NO.
Ads should be truthful, but usually aren't - that doesn't make these commercials any better. Just because others do it - doesn't mean more should.
Seriously guys, it isn't trolling to critisize something. They all sucked - really.'This Is Hot' was the only one to actually explain what Firefox is.
For fuck sakes, this is why I hate comments on Slashdot - most of the time the moderation is pretty good, until something about Microsoft comes up.
Why can't anyone take any FireFox criticism? You'd think the Parent said "Firefox 'r dumb. IE is teh pwn". He critiqued the videos - in a nice, defined manor.
What's good about the videos:
Daredevil - nice cinematography, good surf-surf analogy, kind of touching. Touches on what Firefox does.
This Is Hot - Great animation, really slick presentation. Clearly states what Firefox is and what it does.
Whee! - Funny in a really juvenile way.
Get the Soap - Kind of cute.
Fox Fever - Funny in a crocodile-hunter-ripoff kind of way. Refers to a few things Firefox does.
What's bad about the videos:
They're all really lame. Mediocre at best. 'That Is Hot' and 'Daredevil' have great execution - but nothing to execute. There's no substance. None of the "flicks" have anything to really say.
'Whee!' is actually quite insulting. The other browsers are retarded? That's classy. 'Fox Fever' was passable until the end when the 'explorer' showed up and was "defeated". What a cheap shot. Again, really classy. Attacking IE without any qualifiers is insulting to both Microsoft and users of both FF and IE (and Safari and Netscape), as well as Firefox - there ARE reasons why Firefox is better than IE, but they aren't mentioned.
'Get the soap' and 'Whee!' don't even try to explain what Firefox is. Daredevil talks about "browsing" but that's about it. 'Fox Fever' is a bit better, but relies on "go to getfirefox.com for more info". 'This Is Hot' explains pretty well what Firefox does (1 out of 5 ain't bad).
Again, I think it's important to remember that Firefox is better than IE, but not by the leaps and bounds fanboys say it is.
"It's faster" >> well, sometimes. Sometimes it's slower. It's a crap-shoot really. And it's never that much faster.
"It's safer" >> yes it is, but not much safer (remember that URL faking exploit?) and most of it's "security" comes from active-x being turned off (which you can do in IE too). And remember: Open source = increased risk.
"Tabs, extentions, and skins provide a better user experience" >> yes! I've got a few really nice extensions I just can't imagine living without (mmm egg timer). But it's important to note that IE7 will include these exact features too.
Remember kids: if you think a poster is a troll because they disagree with you - you might be a troll.
Kids today don't program because it's already done for them.
Think about it, why did all of you start programming? Because you wanted your PC or your Altair or your Commodore to do something that it couldn't do "out of the box".
Now, these days, what don't kids have?