Tell your users to go where the standard lies, which is, generally, the latest Firefox.
You're not better than a developer who writes IE specific sites with that statement. Firefox is not heaven, it has bugs, it doesn't implement quote a lot of CSS (go check it with Acid2), and in FF 2.0 it introduced a bunch of JavaScript extensions which contradict with the ECMAScript standard they should follow.
So before you start teaching me what "web standards" is, you may try making your living with commercial sites and face the actual challenges of supporting all browser clients your users demand that you support.
I'm not surprised I got a bunch of replies form CSS/W3C zealots who teach me how I should code to standards. Surprise: I already do, to the extent they are supported by what people have out there.
And to check if my code operates properly, I gotta have browser X, open it in browser X and test everything is OK.
I can't just sit down, code up some code according to CSS 4 draft 3 and then bitch about how "it's a standard so install Opera 11 alpha or go to hell".
Ay least you realize your reply it trollish. Trolls have rarely something of substance to add to a discussion.
There are these things called "standards", if you didn't know. From what I hear from "web developers", most do not. Look them up. Here, I'll even give you a URL
Hehe, you know... one morning you'll wake up and realize there's nothing to be so smug about. It takes years sometimes. Until then, you can keep having fun pretending you're smarter than everybody, and talking down to people with far more experience in the area you argue about.
No one has anything to worry about that half assed new version.
Says who? I don't think geek reviews and Firefox fanboys count when they call IE7 "half assed". I know myself I *MAY* start using IE again to browse the web when I grab IE7 (well I have it, but.. I mean on my main machine).
I'm sick of FF crashing and hanging on me. I tested which extension may be the source of the problem, but I'm starting not to care about it anymore. Of course, I'll first give a try to FF 2.0. They say it was improved in terms of stability and memory usage. We'll see that.
We know we'll have to support IE6 for years to come, even IE5. But Firefox users typically upgrade their browser quickly. So: do I check my sites in FF 1.5? Do I even keep it?
Before you tell me "but they all render perfectly and the same": it's not true. I keep Firefox 1.07 for this reason here, since it handles quite a bit of elements/CSS in a different manner (even clearing floats differs a little in some cases).
There's also lots of bugs fixed in 1.5, but not in 1.07. And there's also new oddball behaviours in 1.5 not present in 1.07...
FF has 10% market share. I'm just split if it's worth it going into so much detail.. maybe I'll just support 1.5 for a few months and move to 2.0.
Netscape was a program that was superior to IE, because you could Compose as well for free.
That's the worst excuse of calling Netscape superior to IE. Face it: NS4 was crap, and didn't update it for ages.
History doesn't care if your name is "Netscape" or "IE" and what you fight for. If you don't keep up to date with times and your user requirements, you become a burden and are then abandoned.
Happened with NS4, almost happened with IE6, but MS finally took measures for it. Unfortunately Mozilla's product strategy is all idealism so they'd rather build funky platforms like XUL versus listen to their users, while Microsoft is currently firmly planted on the ground and means business.
Good job, you boorish oaf. Now you've contributed to the problem, and your co-workers probably hate you. Or you're using headphones, and going deaf.
If you can get away with cranking up tunes on anything by headphones at your job, the rest of us can't. So your assumption is incorrect.
And how is going deaf contributing to the problem? I'd say it solves the problem pretty well, not to mention he didn't say he puts it so high as to go deaf... but anyway
if you wanna rant you can always find what to rant for.
That's just a lame cliffhanger so you go back and click his ads some more.
the fortunate accidents were:
- Steve Jobs coming back - them hiring Johnathan Ive (iPod, iMac designer)
Them conspiring to make Apple a more branded, more complete experience, and hype it up, using their assets (OSX with a shiny interface, loyal designer crowd following them, the MS/Adobe/Macromedia software packs).
The poor multitaking and bad memory management were a pain to deal with, and I was exited that maybe there was hope. I installed a beta version of it and was quite impressed (even though there weren't many apps available).
You know, only NOW are avid Apple users talking openly about the flaws of Mac OS Classic. I clearly remember Mac users excitedly touting the advantages of Mac OS in terms of multitasking and stability, although it was clear as a plain day Mac was falling way behind Windows.
I also remember Windows/Unix/Linux users joking at the "always around the corner" OSX vaporware that was always getting delayed. Steve kept showing QuickTime movies of the DockBar animating, telling us "isn't it cool" and delivering nothing else.
This is not mysteriously forgotten as Mac users now take a shot at Microsoft for their Vista delays, as if a major OS upgrade/rewrite delays are something that would never happen with Apple.
Just a few notes on selective memory and history rewriting, I wanted to point out.
"The company now only had an improved platform that nobody had any reason to buy. The real solution to Apple's problem was stumbled onto by a fortunate accident."... and this is where it ends, to be complete later. What a waste of time.
20: Extreme Sports With the Berenstein Bears 19: Bible Adventures 18: Kriss Kross: Make My Video 17: Bubsy 3D...
Good way to get some karma, but the point of the article is that it's funny to read. The list is totally not interesing, as the games were chosen and ordered apparently randomly (you could say they're just 20 terrible games of probably a thousand terrible games).
As long as these IDs are only being used... It's only when Fancy-Schmancy National ID Cards(TM) become mandatory that we need to start worrying.
Maybe you're not familiar with how to enroll a technology/change/law/regulation etc. that is wildly unpopular with the population.
And you do it, by enforcing it gradually. First to the most loyal circle of people, then wider and wider, gradually, quetly, setting a trend and preventing any mass outbreak against it.
As the amount of people with IDs grow, you now have some "passive support" from them when trying to enforce it on the rest. That is: they don't care if they have ID or not, and maybe they in fact would rather not, but if they would, then why the rest would have the privilege to be ID-free?
You don't have to look far to see how this works: see taxes. Noone likes to pay taxes, yet if someone (especially rich) is revealed to have hidden some of his taxes, the whole nation jumps against him, since they have to pay all those taxes, why not he?
Analysis shows that the access time increases by 56%-85% after FDE. As HDDs fills up the fragmentation increases and so will the file access time.
And who requested that analysis, if I may ask? The owners of laptops with very sensitive company data, who ALSO wanna get high framerate on Doom3?
Lower I/O performance is not an excuse for low or no security, is it? Not to mention that most of not all of the business/enterprise apps out there just aren't I/O intensive to begin with (and if they are, can't you wait, say a couple of seconds more to open that DB).
and only through social engineering has the insecure one been broken. Ive done this for 16+ years now, and I can count on my hand the number of times its been broken.
Can you please share more about this? you have lots of years experience, so I'm curious to know in what way a password may slip out in a practical situation (via social engineering or otherwise).
Seriously, Youtube kicked Google Video's butt in the market. Google realized that if you can't beat 'em, you should join them. So they bought off Youtube, and now their major competitor is themselves. They can do whatever they want with Youtube because it can only be positive for Google Video.
And you assume YouTube's success would last long enough to matter. The matter of fact is they were in highly unstable situation. No tangible solid revenue source, and the whole entertainment industry targeting their asses with lawsuits.
It's arguable that if Google left them on their own for an year or two, they would shut the doors themselves.
I suppose the real reason Google got them is because YouTube was ripe for selling, and they would rather risk and leave AOL or Microsoft, or Yahoo or anyone else to buy them, and *potentially* lead the market in the long run.
In short, the situation now is: either Google runs the video market, or noone does.
There's nothing special about YouTube to keep people there and away from their competitors. Once they earn a reputation like this, I think we'll quickly see a mass migration to more "people friendly" sites. Whether they want it or not, the anti-establishment teens are going to see them as corporate shills and take their eyeballs elsewhere.
1.65 billion. BILLION.
1 650 000 000 USD
Maybe Google was f*cked with YouTube, but damn... I think the founders achieved all they could ever want:
- Get a HUGE LOAD OF CASH (in google stock IIRC but anyway, they can cash it anytime) - Avoid the whole entertainment business suing them for infirngements - Leave YouTube in good hands (Google).
Now, of course Google will sort things out on the copyright front, but Google already has this image of "anti-establishment" and "cool". So as long as YouTube is associated with them, and they don't change it too much to displease the fans, it'll keep running for some years to come.
With a television program, you'd probably only get away with making use of stills, not an entire animated sequence, let alone one that encapsulates an entire joke.
Pitty isn't it. I didn't have a clue about Family guy until I saw a clip of it on the Internet on some site, somewhere. Now I own all complete seasons on DVD.
indeed. i'm sure there is another, less expensive system for mii
Hey, did you read the news at all?
"Jokes incorporating puns on the trademark 'Wii' were outlawed in EU and USA yesterday, effective immediately. The decision was taken with in a record amount of time, after public outrage and pressure on the US senators and EU deputies from their local electorate. From now, this action will be punishable with jail time from 2 to 5 years, depending on the size and severity of the offence".
Don't like it ? Vote with your wallet, don't buy one.
This is how it's supposed to work right.
Let me tell you how it really works: you vote with your wallet as an example citizen and don't buy one. For every single one like you, there's 100 guys/girls who are either PSP junkies, just don't care, just don't know, or whatever, so they'll buy one.
End result: Sony will never feel your vote, and you don't have a PSP.
Yea, it's sad like that, but... after all, this is the main principle of capitalism: the market decides. And it comprises of all people, not just Sony haters.
I looked at my logs. It's probably the initial rush of visits in the first couple of minutes. A potential "slashdotting-protection" system that could be implemented by large sites is to select different IP ranges at random and serve up the site with a 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, or 180 second delay based on the incoming IP range (i.e. if you're in the IP range corresponding to the 120 second delay, the article doesn't even show up for you until 120 seconds after it has been posted. I don't know if this has other moral issues, or if it's Slashdot's responsibility to care, but it's just a thought about a hypothetical solution.
Good idea. It can be cookie/user based as well. If more than X users see an article at once, next users see it after 20 second delay, then if there's a rush again, there's another 20 second delay.
Of your suer has seen the article, he gets to see it again when he visits Slashdot. Unlogged users will need the cookie.
This means if you're unlogged AND disable cookies, when you see an article being rushed, you may refresh and see it disappear. But no big deal, it'll show a bit later again so...
And yea, I think it's Slashdot's responsibility, part of it is the absurd fun Slashdotters have when they bring a server down. There's nothing fun about that, someone has to fix it. The readers can't fix it: they see an article and click. Slashdot can.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not better than a developer who writes IE specific sites with that statement. Firefox is not heaven, it has bugs, it doesn't implement quote a lot of CSS (go check it with Acid2), and in FF 2.0 it introduced a bunch of JavaScript extensions which contradict with the ECMAScript standard they should follow.
So before you start teaching me what "web standards" is, you may try making your living with commercial sites and face the actual challenges of supporting all browser clients your users demand that you support.
I'm not surprised I got a bunch of replies form CSS/W3C zealots who teach me how I should code to standards. Surprise: I already do, to the extent they are supported by what people have out there.
And to check if my code operates properly, I gotta have browser X, open it in browser X and test everything is OK.
I can't just sit down, code up some code according to CSS 4 draft 3 and then bitch about how "it's a standard so install Opera 11 alpha or go to hell".
Ay least you realize your reply it trollish. Trolls have rarely something of substance to add to a discussion.
There are these things called "standards", if you didn't know. From what I hear from "web developers", most do not. Look them up. Here, I'll even give you a URL
Hehe, you know... one morning you'll wake up and realize there's nothing to be so smug about. It takes years sometimes. Until then, you can keep having fun pretending you're smarter than everybody, and talking down to people with far more experience in the area you argue about.
JavaScript (1.7)
Ah yea, JS 1.7, otherwise known as the worst update in the entire history of JavaScript.
Except IE7 has been heralded as mediocre at best.
No one has anything to worry about that half assed new version.
Says who? I don't think geek reviews and Firefox fanboys count when they call IE7 "half assed".
I know myself I *MAY* start using IE again to browse the web when I grab IE7 (well I have it, but.. I mean on my main machine).
I'm sick of FF crashing and hanging on me. I tested which extension may be the source of the problem, but I'm starting not to care about it anymore. Of course, I'll first give a try to FF 2.0. They say it was improved in terms of stability and memory usage. We'll see that.
For me the big question as such is:
should we care to support Firefox 1.5 now?
We know we'll have to support IE6 for years to come, even IE5. But Firefox users typically upgrade their browser quickly.
So: do I check my sites in FF 1.5? Do I even keep it?
Before you tell me "but they all render perfectly and the same": it's not true. I keep Firefox 1.07 for this reason here, since it handles quite a bit of elements/CSS in a different manner (even clearing floats differs a little in some cases).
There's also lots of bugs fixed in 1.5, but not in 1.07. And there's also new oddball behaviours in 1.5 not present in 1.07...
FF has 10% market share. I'm just split if it's worth it going into so much detail.. maybe I'll just support 1.5 for a few months and move to 2.0.
Please share your opinion.
While people are busy commenting "the Netscaping" of Symantec and McAffee, people are missing the more obvious one:
The Netscaping of Firefox.. Quite a fit, eh?
IE7 has the power and ability to burry Firefox in the ground. And I don't want lame excuses like "but Firefox has X and IE7 doesn't".
You know this doesn't matter.
the tabbed-windows interface that Mozilla innovated
Lies. You know, marketing BS like this puts Mozilla in the same camp with Microsoft in my eyes.
Netscape was a program that was superior to IE, because you could Compose as well for free.
That's the worst excuse of calling Netscape superior to IE. Face it: NS4 was crap, and didn't update it for ages.
History doesn't care if your name is "Netscape" or "IE" and what you fight for. If you don't keep up to date with times and your user requirements, you become a burden and are then abandoned.
Happened with NS4, almost happened with IE6, but MS finally took measures for it. Unfortunately Mozilla's product strategy is all idealism so they'd rather build funky platforms like XUL versus listen to their users, while Microsoft is currently firmly planted on the ground and means business.
Good job, you boorish oaf. Now you've contributed to the problem, and your co-workers probably hate you. Or you're using headphones, and going deaf.
If you can get away with cranking up tunes on anything by headphones at your job, the rest of us can't. So your assumption is incorrect.
And how is going deaf contributing to the problem? I'd say it solves the problem pretty well, not to mention he didn't say he puts it so high as to go deaf... but anyway
if you wanna rant you can always find what to rant for.
ChatterBlocker includes bell sound loops that can be used as periodic reminders to breathe
...
Pretty cool right? In version 2.0 upcoming:
- reminder to eat
- reminder to drink
- reminder to pee
- reminder to blink
the possibilies are endless
Any bets on what the fortunate accident was?
That's just a lame cliffhanger so you go back and click his ads some more.
the fortunate accidents were:
- Steve Jobs coming back
- them hiring Johnathan Ive (iPod, iMac designer)
Them conspiring to make Apple a more branded, more complete experience, and hype it up, using their assets (OSX with a shiny interface, loyal designer crowd following them, the MS/Adobe/Macromedia software packs).
The poor multitaking and bad memory management were a pain to deal with, and I was exited that maybe there was hope. I installed a beta version of it and was quite impressed (even though there weren't many apps available).
You know, only NOW are avid Apple users talking openly about the flaws of Mac OS Classic. I clearly remember Mac users excitedly touting the advantages of Mac OS in terms of multitasking and stability, although it was clear as a plain day Mac was falling way behind Windows.
I also remember Windows/Unix/Linux users joking at the "always around the corner" OSX vaporware that was always getting delayed. Steve kept showing QuickTime movies of the DockBar animating, telling us "isn't it cool" and delivering nothing else.
This is not mysteriously forgotten as Mac users now take a shot at Microsoft for their Vista delays, as if a major OS upgrade/rewrite delays are something that would never happen with Apple.
Just a few notes on selective memory and history rewriting, I wanted to point out.
"The company now only had an improved platform that nobody had any reason to buy. The real solution to Apple's problem was stumbled onto by a fortunate accident." ... and this is where it ends, to be complete later. What a waste of time.
Bypass the link:
...
20: Extreme Sports With the Berenstein Bears
19: Bible Adventures
18: Kriss Kross: Make My Video
17: Bubsy 3D
Good way to get some karma, but the point of the article is that it's funny to read. The list is totally not interesing, as the games were chosen and ordered apparently randomly (you could say they're just 20 terrible games of probably a thousand terrible games).
As long as these IDs are only being used ... It's only when Fancy-Schmancy National ID Cards(TM) become mandatory that we need to start worrying.
Maybe you're not familiar with how to enroll a technology/change/law/regulation etc. that is wildly unpopular with the population.
And you do it, by enforcing it gradually. First to the most loyal circle of people, then wider and wider, gradually, quetly, setting a trend and preventing any mass outbreak against it.
As the amount of people with IDs grow, you now have some "passive support" from them when trying to enforce it on the rest. That is: they don't care if they have ID or not, and maybe they in fact would rather not, but if they would, then why the rest would have the privilege to be ID-free?
You don't have to look far to see how this works: see taxes. Noone likes to pay taxes, yet if someone (especially rich) is revealed to have hidden some of his taxes, the whole nation jumps against him, since they have to pay all those taxes, why not he?
So I visited their site. Right on top I see their logo and slogan:
"Diebold: We won't rest (tm)"
That's quite a slogan to pick for people in their situation...
Analysis shows that the access time increases by 56%-85% after FDE. As HDDs fills up the fragmentation increases and so will the file access time.
And who requested that analysis, if I may ask? The owners of laptops with very sensitive company data, who ALSO wanna get high framerate on Doom3?
Lower I/O performance is not an excuse for low or no security, is it? Not to mention that most of not all of the business/enterprise apps out there just aren't I/O intensive to begin with (and if they are, can't you wait, say a couple of seconds more to open that DB).
and only through social engineering has the insecure one been broken. Ive done this for 16+ years now, and I can count on my hand the number of times its been broken.
Can you please share more about this? you have lots of years experience, so I'm curious to know in what way a password may slip out in a practical situation (via social engineering or otherwise).
Or, you can use a fingerprint reader. I doubt that anybody will forget their fingerprints...
Actually he will. All over the laptop, ready to be taken and duplicated.
And you assume YouTube's success would last long enough to matter. The matter of fact is they were in highly unstable situation.
No tangible solid revenue source, and the whole entertainment industry targeting their asses with lawsuits.
It's arguable that if Google left them on their own for an year or two, they would shut the doors themselves.
I suppose the real reason Google got them is because YouTube was ripe for selling, and they would rather risk and leave AOL or Microsoft, or Yahoo or anyone else to buy them, and *potentially* lead the market in the long run.
In short, the situation now is: either Google runs the video market, or noone does.
If YouTube's users go away, noone will.
1.65 billion. BILLION.
1 650 000 000 USD
Maybe Google was f*cked with YouTube, but damn... I think the founders achieved all they could ever want:
- Get a HUGE LOAD OF CASH (in google stock IIRC but anyway, they can cash it anytime)
- Avoid the whole entertainment business suing them for infirngements
- Leave YouTube in good hands (Google).
Now, of course Google will sort things out on the copyright front, but Google already has this image of "anti-establishment" and "cool". So as long as YouTube is associated with them, and they don't change it too much to displease the fans, it'll keep running for some years to come.
With a television program, you'd probably only get away with making use of stills, not an entire animated sequence, let alone one that encapsulates an entire joke.
Pitty isn't it. I didn't have a clue about Family guy until I saw a clip of it on the Internet on some site, somewhere. Now I own all complete seasons on DVD.
indeed. i'm sure there is another, less expensive system for mii
Hey, did you read the news at all?
"Jokes incorporating puns on the trademark 'Wii' were outlawed in EU and USA yesterday, effective immediately. The decision was taken with in a record amount of time, after public outrage and pressure on the US senators and EU deputies from their local electorate. From now, this action will be punishable with jail time from 2 to 5 years, depending on the size and severity of the offence".
Hahah, I'll visit you in jail, sucker!
Don't like it ? Vote with your wallet, don't buy one.
This is how it's supposed to work right.
Let me tell you how it really works: you vote with your wallet as an example citizen and don't buy one. For every single one like you, there's 100 guys/girls who are either PSP junkies, just don't care, just don't know, or whatever, so they'll buy one.
End result: Sony will never feel your vote, and you don't have a PSP.
Yea, it's sad like that, but... after all, this is the main principle of capitalism: the market decides. And it comprises of all people, not just Sony haters.
I looked at my logs. It's probably the initial rush of visits in the first couple of minutes. A potential "slashdotting-protection" system that could be implemented by large sites is to select different IP ranges at random and serve up the site with a 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, or 180 second delay based on the incoming IP range (i.e. if you're in the IP range corresponding to the 120 second delay, the article doesn't even show up for you until 120 seconds after it has been posted. I don't know if this has other moral issues, or if it's Slashdot's responsibility to care, but it's just a thought about a hypothetical solution.
Good idea. It can be cookie/user based as well. If more than X users see an article at once, next users see it after 20 second delay, then if there's a rush again, there's another 20 second delay.
Of your suer has seen the article, he gets to see it again when he visits Slashdot. Unlogged users will need the cookie.
This means if you're unlogged AND disable cookies, when you see an article being rushed, you may refresh and see it disappear.
But no big deal, it'll show a bit later again so...
And yea, I think it's Slashdot's responsibility, part of it is the absurd fun Slashdotters have when they bring a server down. There's nothing fun about that, someone has to fix it. The readers can't fix it: they see an article and click. Slashdot can.