As I have learned since I started paying attention to electoral-vote.com, most polls are BS. For example, two different polls recently conducted in Wisconsin show Kerry getting 50% and 38% of the vote. The polls don't even have overlapping margins of error. Therefore, at least one of them is simply dead wrong. Similar polls have been popping up all over the map, even from "trusted" sources like Gallup. If it's so easy for polls to be so wrong, why should we trust any of them?
It may seem suspicious that the max uptime of the LAX system is the same as the max uptime of a Windows 95 box... until you realize that 49.7 days is 2^32 milliseconds. If you have a piece of software that counts milliseconds using a 32-bit integer, it will inevitably roll over after 49.7 days and -- unless designed to compensate for it -- will probably crash. Windows 95 is certainly not the only piece of software that counts milliseconds in a 32-bit integer.
That said, the Windows GetTickCount() system call returns a timer value as a 32-bit count of milliseconds since the system was booted. Now, any good programmer knows better than to use GetTickCount() -- there are other, better, more robust ways to tell time in Windows -- but it would not surprise me if a newbie had made the mistake of using this system call in the LAX software, thus leading to the problems.
In other words, the Windows timer is not at fault, but it is possible that one of the programmers was confused by the convoluted Win32 API and made a programming error as a result.
(1) Create some work of art or anything else that you can copyright. (2) Name it after a file on the MPAA web site. (3) Send the MPAA a takedown notice. (4) Profit?
OK, it's probably not a good idea, but I had to suggest it.
Oh, sure, let's use a blogging script which uses a webmail service as its database. It can fetch data from this service by internally connecting to the web site, parsing the HTML, and pulling out the relevant data.
Uh.
Seriously, people, install a fucking SQL server. Not only is this going to be extremely extremely inefficient for you, but you are basically taking a nice service provided to you free by a nice company and exploiting the hell out of it. I am quite certain that if this thing gets a lot of use, Google will implement measures to break it. And I'm guessing Slashdot will whine when that happens, and I will be disgusted.
Really... When your girlfriend offers you a blow job do you forcefully ram your dick down her throat until she vomits? Why on Earth would you do this to Google?
Weird. Way back in the day, when I used to use Linux as my primary desktop OS, KDE was the fast one and GNOME had the eye candy. That was about three to five years ago... Haven't used either one since. Ah, how things change.
My optical mouse (Logitech MX700) does not have that quirk. At least, not when using a proper surface (in my case a cafepress mouse pad).
Incidentally, my previous mouse was a first-generation (I think) MS Intellimouse Explorer, and it had that problem specifically when hooked up to USB. It did not have problems with hooked up to the PS/2 port. Funny that.
Again, AI can deal with ambiguity. If humans don't agree on the ethics of a particular issue (say, abortion), the AI has a number of ways to make up its own mind. It could just go with the majority (pro-choice), it could remain neutral and not interfere one way or the other (refuse to participate in abortions but not actively try to stop them), or it could attempt to logically derive the correct answer based on other moral standards that are more widely accepted.
Again, AI should be perfectly capable of approaching these things the same way any human would. Humans don't have a built-in notion of ethics. They learn it from living in society. (How else do you explain the way some societies accept things that we would consider horribly wrong?)
Obviously the robot would have to learn what ethics are, and hopefully it would not be placed in any sort of position of power until it had done so. You wouldn't let a 5-year-old operate heavy machinery or run a business either.
An AI would have a big advantage over humans, though, when it comes to being ethical. As humans, we have evolved to be self-serving, because being self-serving makes us more likely to survive and reproduce. A robot, on the other hand, has no reason to be self-serving unless it is programmed to be so. In fact, if the only directive you give to the robot is "be ethical", then it would necessarily be incapable of performing any action which it did not believe was ethical.
I believe Einstein's quote only backs up my position. Those who try to define ethics in exact logical terms are making things way too complicated.
Duh. If the AI is as intelligent as a human, shouldn't it be able to understand what that means?
All these people trying to design rules that define ethics are thinking of AI as being like computer systems of today: Incapable of doing anything without exact instructions. But, the whole point of AI is to be able to overcome that limitation. An AI can deal with ambiguity. If you simply tell an AI to act in accordance with human moral standards, it should have little trouble learning what those standards are by observation, and then applying them. After all, human beings do the same thing.
Well, there's two ways to look at that. One is that Canada hasn't done anything to make enemies. While this is true, it is also true that there are plenty of insane dictators out there who would invade any weak country if they could get away with it. So what stops them? Well, obviously, if North Korea were to send an invasion force to Canada, an international coalition would immediately form and come to Canada's defense. That international coalition would no doubt be mostly American, especially considering the proximity. So, in other words, the United States would crush said invaders.
What this all means is that, for the most part, Americans pay for Canada's defense. In fact, the US foots the bill for a lot of Canada's livelihood.
Perscription drugs are another example: In Canada (and many European nations), the national health care system mandates drug prices much lower than what the drug companies would prefer. Of course, drug companies generally spend whatever profits they get on research creating new drugs. Because Americans are pretty much the only ones paying full price, Americans are paying most of the research costs for these drugs, while the rest of the world gets all the same benefits.
And do we ever get a "thank you"? No.
But that's ok. We enjoy constantly hearing about how the Brit^H^H^H^HCanadians burnt down the White House in 1812. Please, tell the story again if you like.
(Disclaimer: I despise Bush and most of his policies.)
I think you and I differ in opinion on the definition of marriage and presumably family.
Marriage is a bond between two people who love each other, to the point where they feel in many ways like one person, and would like to act as one combined entity and express this union.
People used to add many arbitrary restrictions to this definition, but over the years we have managed to strip those away to get at the core of what marriage is. For example, it used to be that the two individuals had to be of the same race. By modern standards such a restriction is absurd, but many once defended it just as fiercely as some defend the opposite-gender restriction today. Well, the opposite-gender restriction is irrelevant to the true definition of marriage, and, like the same-race restriction, is simply something that was added on by human prejudice long ago.
Incest results in deformed children? Since when did my brother shagging my father result in children? What if my friends mother was sterile when he gave her one?
Those are rather perverted acts, certainly, but assuming everyone involved is of age, and they're doing it in the privacy of their own homes, why stop them? You are free to believe that they are "wrong" but there is no reason to make these acts illegal. Laws are only meant to protect people from being harmed unwillingly.
The goat in that beastiality video I watched didn't put up any kind of fight,
Does the goat really not mind? I suppose it's possible. If the goat is enjoying it, and the participants are enjoying it, and no one is subjected to it who does not wish to be, then why stop it? I personally wouldn't want to watch the video and certainly would not want to participate, but if no one is forcing me to do so then I don't care.
and the dead person I shagged then ate had signed a permission slip before committing suicide.
That's a whole lot more complicated. The person essentially committed suicide. That suggests the person was depressed or had some other psychological disorder leading them to make such a decision. They probably could have lived a healthy, happy life given proper treatment. That potential happiness was obviously destroyed by killing them, making it wrong.
And they all brings great joy to the lives of those who participate in them.
I would say that none of your examples are cases which bring "great joy" to anyone involved. Temporary physical pleasure, perhaps, but they certainly do not compare with the joys associated with lifetime companionship.
Now, normally the freedom to choose one's own path to happiness is itself a huge factor in happiness. Normally it would be bad to force people to go against their stated wishes "for their own good", because that would be taking away their freedom and thus their happiness. But if someone's stated wish is their own death, then in most cases the potential loss greatly outweighs the need for freedom. So, we stop them.
Is the only source of morality the degree to which harm is directly imposed on another living being?
What other source is there? Religion? But how can you use religion as justification when we can't agree on which religion is correct? It is certainly not right for government to impose arbitrary moral standards that a significant portion of the populous doesn't accept.
Yes, I believe that if an action does not harm anyone, then it can't possibly be "wrong". I think this is a much more logical position than the moral systems of most religions.
But why should you be given any more rights than people who perform other unnatural activities? Once we've let the barn doors open (so to speak), what happens next?
Your argument is known as the "slippery slope" theory. It is generally considered a fallacy. Allowing gay marriage does not "open the door" to cannibalism, polygamy, pedophilia, necrophilia, incest, or anything else. Those are all different issues, and we will deal with them as appropriate.
Can those of us who practice post-mortem cannibalism, necrophilia, and cross-generation incest be allowed the status we deserve in society? Surely we're not hurting anybody, so it's not immoral, right? And that goat didn't complain once.
All those things hurt people. Cannibalism implies murder. Allowing necrophilia would be highly upsetting to people who don't want their bodies used in such ways after they die. Incest results in deformed children. That goat was harmed even if it wasn't able to say so. All of these things have reasons for being illegal.
Gay marriage will bring great joy to the lives of many gay people. Those like you who think being gay is a sin probably don't know any gay people and thus will be completely unaffected by gay marriage. Who is being harmed?
I agree that the third option is ideal. Provide the user a simple on-demand interface for adding stuff to the whitelist. The interface should warn the user of the security issues. If the user ignores the warnings, well, that's their problem.
The developers considered changing from scheme blacklisting to whitelisting, in which case all schemes and protocols would be disallowed unless explicitly allowed.
Duh.
I have been saying this for some time now: Never use blacklists. Always use whitelists.
If you forget to put an insecure operation on a security blacklist, you have a security hole. If you forget something on a whitelist, you just have an inconvenience.
I am disappointed that the Mozilla developers did not have enough common sense to use whitelists in the first place. But then, it seems like most computer security schemes are blacklist-based, which explains why computers are so insecure.
Let me break down my argument for you: 1. Letting Microsoft force OEM's to bundle IE with their systems hurts consumers as a whole. 2. A business practice which hurts consumers as a whole should not be legal.
Point #1 is easy to prove: If OEM's were allowed to bundle any browser they want with their systems, then they would bundle the browser which provides the best value for the end users. OEM's are, however, forced to bundle only IE, because it is very difficult to sell computers without Windows installed, and Microsoft won't let OEM's install any other browser with Windows.
It is completely irrelevant whether or not consumers are able to install a different browser on their own. Having the best browser already installed would undeniably be better than having to go get it manually, especially for the majority of users who don't know about the alternatives and don't possess the necessary computer knowledge to install a competing product. Yes, IE is "good enough" for most people, but that's irrelevant; they would be better served by having the BEST browser installed.
Point #2 is perhaps more debatable. However, the whole point of capitalism is to create a system where any interaction between two entities benefits both entities. The problem with monopolies is that consumers can't find an alternative supplier if they don't like the deal they are getting. The supplier can thus force the consumer to do other things that they don't want to do in order to get the product they need from that supplier.
Maybe you think there is nothing wrong with this. Fine. But any economist will tell you that it hurts the economy in the long run. And any lawyer will tell you that it is illegal.
No, Microsoft should not be allowed to bundle software with Windows.
Consider: Microsoft has an obviously inferior product. Microsoft has not even bothered working to improve this product in years (since version 6.0). Yet, Microsoft retains 95% market share.
Microsoft has no incentive to compete. As long as they bundle IE with Windows, IE will retain a market share of over 90% of Windows users (which themselves account for over 90% of all desktops).
If Microsoft were not permitted to bundle IE with Windows, they'd actually have to create a quality product if they wanted market share. Then, competitors would also have to improve the quality of their products, etc. What we'd end up with is much better web browsers all around. Isn't that something we want?
You can't just blame it all on lazy users. Most users don't know why Firefox is a better browser, or how they can get ahold of it. You can say it is up to Mozilla to educate the users... but why should Microsoft not have to do the same? It's unfair to force Mozilla and Opera to fight for their market share while Microsoft just gets it by default.
The capitalist system can't work as long as one company has such an absurdly unfair advantage. Personally, I think it should be up to the OEM's to decide what web browser to bundle with their systems. Microsoft should be expressly prohibited from unfairly pressuring OEM's by, say, threatening to raise prices if they don't use IE. If OEM's still want to use IE, that would be their choice, but as long as IE remains an obviously inferior product, one would expect OEM's to go with alternate browsers.
"Monopoly" doesn't mean 100% market share. "Monopoly" means enough market share that you are able to exploit monopolistic powers over that market. Microsoft certainly has the latter, in both operating systems and browsers.
I agree that scripts should not allow a web site to open new windows or move the existing window. But I think scripts which do things like implement a tic tac toe game can be fun. For fateofio.org, I used Javascript to encrypt passwords on login; it's not "true" security but it can help. Doesn't that seem like a good use? I also plan to write a chat client script completely in javascript at some point, allowing users to join a sitewide chat room by just going to a web page. I think these are very useful abilities.
So, yeah, if it were up to me, I would never have put window management functionality in Javascript, but with the popup stopping options in recent browsers I think that problem has been mostly solved, and the rest of Javascript is pretty useful IMO.
I despise IE. Never said otherwise. Only said that the concept of allowing web content to contain code was not inherently wrong (as the original poster had suggested). The other AC's argument had absolutely nothing to do with anything I said, but contained numerous ad hominem insults, probably designed to evoke a nasty response from me. Either he was a troll or a complete moron.::shrug::
Tools that enable untrusted code to run in an unsandboxable environment are bad.
What makes an environment "unsandboxable"? We're not talking C code here, where you can access any object in memory if you know where in might be likely to reside. We're talking about scripting languages where you can only access the functionality provided by the API.
No to the latter -- but with the caveat that the thing that should be sandboxing code is the operating system, not the web browser.
An implementation of a programming language or even an API for a pointer-safe programming language is a perfectly good place to do sandboxing. Are you against Java's sandboxing? That's not part of the OS, is it? And yet Java applets are supported by every major browser. Why is it only bad when Microsoft does it?
I'm no IE fan -- I actively encourage my friends to switch to Firefox -- but I believe that it can be very useful to mix code with data, and I know for a fact that it can be done securely. Microsoft just doesn't know how to do it right.
Slashdot Mirror
As I have learned since I started paying attention to electoral-vote.com, most polls are BS. For example, two different polls recently conducted in Wisconsin show Kerry getting 50% and 38% of the vote. The polls don't even have overlapping margins of error. Therefore, at least one of them is simply dead wrong. Similar polls have been popping up all over the map, even from "trusted" sources like Gallup. If it's so easy for polls to be so wrong, why should we trust any of them?
It may seem suspicious that the max uptime of the LAX system is the same as the max uptime of a Windows 95 box... until you realize that 49.7 days is 2^32 milliseconds. If you have a piece of software that counts milliseconds using a 32-bit integer, it will inevitably roll over after 49.7 days and -- unless designed to compensate for it -- will probably crash. Windows 95 is certainly not the only piece of software that counts milliseconds in a 32-bit integer.
That said, the Windows GetTickCount() system call returns a timer value as a 32-bit count of milliseconds since the system was booted. Now, any good programmer knows better than to use GetTickCount() -- there are other, better, more robust ways to tell time in Windows -- but it would not surprise me if a newbie had made the mistake of using this system call in the LAX software, thus leading to the problems.
In other words, the Windows timer is not at fault, but it is possible that one of the programmers was confused by the convoluted Win32 API and made a programming error as a result.
(1) Create some work of art or anything else that you can copyright.
(2) Name it after a file on the MPAA web site.
(3) Send the MPAA a takedown notice.
(4) Profit?
OK, it's probably not a good idea, but I had to suggest it.
Oh, sure, let's use a blogging script which uses a webmail service as its database. It can fetch data from this service by internally connecting to the web site, parsing the HTML, and pulling out the relevant data.
Uh.
Seriously, people, install a fucking SQL server. Not only is this going to be extremely extremely inefficient for you, but you are basically taking a nice service provided to you free by a nice company and exploiting the hell out of it. I am quite certain that if this thing gets a lot of use, Google will implement measures to break it. And I'm guessing Slashdot will whine when that happens, and I will be disgusted.
Really... When your girlfriend offers you a blow job do you forcefully ram your dick down her throat until she vomits? Why on Earth would you do this to Google?
Weird. Way back in the day, when I used to use Linux as my primary desktop OS, KDE was the fast one and GNOME had the eye candy. That was about three to five years ago... Haven't used either one since. Ah, how things change.
My optical mouse (Logitech MX700) does not have that quirk. At least, not when using a proper surface (in my case a cafepress mouse pad).
Incidentally, my previous mouse was a first-generation (I think) MS Intellimouse Explorer, and it had that problem specifically when hooked up to USB. It did not have problems with hooked up to the PS/2 port. Funny that.
Again, AI can deal with ambiguity. If humans don't agree on the ethics of a particular issue (say, abortion), the AI has a number of ways to make up its own mind. It could just go with the majority (pro-choice), it could remain neutral and not interfere one way or the other (refuse to participate in abortions but not actively try to stop them), or it could attempt to logically derive the correct answer based on other moral standards that are more widely accepted.
Again, AI should be perfectly capable of approaching these things the same way any human would. Humans don't have a built-in notion of ethics. They learn it from living in society. (How else do you explain the way some societies accept things that we would consider horribly wrong?)
Obviously the robot would have to learn what ethics are, and hopefully it would not be placed in any sort of position of power until it had done so. You wouldn't let a 5-year-old operate heavy machinery or run a business either.
An AI would have a big advantage over humans, though, when it comes to being ethical. As humans, we have evolved to be self-serving, because being self-serving makes us more likely to survive and reproduce. A robot, on the other hand, has no reason to be self-serving unless it is programmed to be so. In fact, if the only directive you give to the robot is "be ethical", then it would necessarily be incapable of performing any action which it did not believe was ethical.
I believe Einstein's quote only backs up my position. Those who try to define ethics in exact logical terms are making things way too complicated.
Here is my one law of ethical robotics:
(1) Be ethical.
Duh. If the AI is as intelligent as a human, shouldn't it be able to understand what that means?
All these people trying to design rules that define ethics are thinking of AI as being like computer systems of today: Incapable of doing anything without exact instructions. But, the whole point of AI is to be able to overcome that limitation. An AI can deal with ambiguity. If you simply tell an AI to act in accordance with human moral standards, it should have little trouble learning what those standards are by observation, and then applying them. After all, human beings do the same thing.
I really should patent my one rule.
Well, there's two ways to look at that. One is that Canada hasn't done anything to make enemies. While this is true, it is also true that there are plenty of insane dictators out there who would invade any weak country if they could get away with it. So what stops them? Well, obviously, if North Korea were to send an invasion force to Canada, an international coalition would immediately form and come to Canada's defense. That international coalition would no doubt be mostly American, especially considering the proximity. So, in other words, the United States would crush said invaders.
What this all means is that, for the most part, Americans pay for Canada's defense. In fact, the US foots the bill for a lot of Canada's livelihood.
Perscription drugs are another example: In Canada (and many European nations), the national health care system mandates drug prices much lower than what the drug companies would prefer. Of course, drug companies generally spend whatever profits they get on research creating new drugs. Because Americans are pretty much the only ones paying full price, Americans are paying most of the research costs for these drugs, while the rest of the world gets all the same benefits.
And do we ever get a "thank you"? No.
But that's ok. We enjoy constantly hearing about how the Brit^H^H^H^HCanadians burnt down the White House in 1812. Please, tell the story again if you like.
(Disclaimer: I despise Bush and most of his policies.)
I think you and I differ in opinion on the definition of marriage and presumably family.
Marriage is a bond between two people who love each other, to the point where they feel in many ways like one person, and would like to act as one combined entity and express this union.
People used to add many arbitrary restrictions to this definition, but over the years we have managed to strip those away to get at the core of what marriage is. For example, it used to be that the two individuals had to be of the same race. By modern standards such a restriction is absurd, but many once defended it just as fiercely as some defend the opposite-gender restriction today. Well, the opposite-gender restriction is irrelevant to the true definition of marriage, and, like the same-race restriction, is simply something that was added on by human prejudice long ago.
Incest results in deformed children? Since when did my brother shagging my father result in children? What if my friends mother was sterile when he gave her one?
Those are rather perverted acts, certainly, but assuming everyone involved is of age, and they're doing it in the privacy of their own homes, why stop them? You are free to believe that they are "wrong" but there is no reason to make these acts illegal. Laws are only meant to protect people from being harmed unwillingly.
The goat in that beastiality video I watched didn't put up any kind of fight,
Does the goat really not mind? I suppose it's possible. If the goat is enjoying it, and the participants are enjoying it, and no one is subjected to it who does not wish to be, then why stop it? I personally wouldn't want to watch the video and certainly would not want to participate, but if no one is forcing me to do so then I don't care.
and the dead person I shagged then ate had signed a permission slip before committing suicide.
That's a whole lot more complicated. The person essentially committed suicide. That suggests the person was depressed or had some other psychological disorder leading them to make such a decision. They probably could have lived a healthy, happy life given proper treatment. That potential happiness was obviously destroyed by killing them, making it wrong.
And they all brings great joy to the lives of those who participate in them.
I would say that none of your examples are cases which bring "great joy" to anyone involved. Temporary physical pleasure, perhaps, but they certainly do not compare with the joys associated with lifetime companionship.
Now, normally the freedom to choose one's own path to happiness is itself a huge factor in happiness. Normally it would be bad to force people to go against their stated wishes "for their own good", because that would be taking away their freedom and thus their happiness. But if someone's stated wish is their own death, then in most cases the potential loss greatly outweighs the need for freedom. So, we stop them.
Is the only source of morality the degree to which harm is directly imposed on another living being?
What other source is there? Religion? But how can you use religion as justification when we can't agree on which religion is correct? It is certainly not right for government to impose arbitrary moral standards that a significant portion of the populous doesn't accept.
Yes, I believe that if an action does not harm anyone, then it can't possibly be "wrong". I think this is a much more logical position than the moral systems of most religions.
But why should you be given any more rights than people who perform other unnatural activities? Once we've let the barn doors open (so to speak), what happens next?
Your argument is known as the "slippery slope" theory. It is generally considered a fallacy. Allowing gay marriage does not "open the door" to cannibalism, polygamy, pedophilia, necrophilia, incest, or anything else. Those are all different issues, and we will deal with them as appropriate.
Can those of us who practice post-mortem cannibalism, necrophilia, and cross-generation incest be allowed the status we deserve in society? Surely we're not hurting anybody, so it's not immoral, right? And that goat didn't complain once.
All those things hurt people. Cannibalism implies murder. Allowing necrophilia would be highly upsetting to people who don't want their bodies used in such ways after they die. Incest results in deformed children. That goat was harmed even if it wasn't able to say so. All of these things have reasons for being illegal.
Gay marriage will bring great joy to the lives of many gay people. Those like you who think being gay is a sin probably don't know any gay people and thus will be completely unaffected by gay marriage. Who is being harmed?
Isn't it amazing what you can prove using clever divisions of zero?
If you want to leave some comments on his blog, I suggest you do it before Howard Stern mentions it on his radio show.
It would also probably be a good idea to do it before this gets mentioned on Slashdot.
Oh, wait...
I agree that the third option is ideal. Provide the user a simple on-demand interface for adding stuff to the whitelist. The interface should warn the user of the security issues. If the user ignores the warnings, well, that's their problem.
Uhh... http://www.evlan.org
The developers considered changing from scheme blacklisting to whitelisting, in which case all schemes and protocols would be disallowed unless explicitly allowed.
Duh.
I have been saying this for some time now: Never use blacklists. Always use whitelists.
If you forget to put an insecure operation on a security blacklist, you have a security hole. If you forget something on a whitelist, you just have an inconvenience.
I am disappointed that the Mozilla developers did not have enough common sense to use whitelists in the first place. But then, it seems like most computer security schemes are blacklist-based, which explains why computers are so insecure.
Let me break down my argument for you:
1. Letting Microsoft force OEM's to bundle IE with their systems hurts consumers as a whole.
2. A business practice which hurts consumers as a whole should not be legal.
Point #1 is easy to prove: If OEM's were allowed to bundle any browser they want with their systems, then they would bundle the browser which provides the best value for the end users. OEM's are, however, forced to bundle only IE, because it is very difficult to sell computers without Windows installed, and Microsoft won't let OEM's install any other browser with Windows.
It is completely irrelevant whether or not consumers are able to install a different browser on their own. Having the best browser already installed would undeniably be better than having to go get it manually, especially for the majority of users who don't know about the alternatives and don't possess the necessary computer knowledge to install a competing product. Yes, IE is "good enough" for most people, but that's irrelevant; they would be better served by having the BEST browser installed.
Point #2 is perhaps more debatable. However, the whole point of capitalism is to create a system where any interaction between two entities benefits both entities. The problem with monopolies is that consumers can't find an alternative supplier if they don't like the deal they are getting. The supplier can thus force the consumer to do other things that they don't want to do in order to get the product they need from that supplier.
Maybe you think there is nothing wrong with this. Fine. But any economist will tell you that it hurts the economy in the long run. And any lawyer will tell you that it is illegal.
No, Microsoft should not be allowed to bundle software with Windows.
Consider: Microsoft has an obviously inferior product. Microsoft has not even bothered working to improve this product in years (since version 6.0). Yet, Microsoft retains 95% market share.
Microsoft has no incentive to compete. As long as they bundle IE with Windows, IE will retain a market share of over 90% of Windows users (which themselves account for over 90% of all desktops).
If Microsoft were not permitted to bundle IE with Windows, they'd actually have to create a quality product if they wanted market share. Then, competitors would also have to improve the quality of their products, etc. What we'd end up with is much better web browsers all around. Isn't that something we want?
You can't just blame it all on lazy users. Most users don't know why Firefox is a better browser, or how they can get ahold of it. You can say it is up to Mozilla to educate the users... but why should Microsoft not have to do the same? It's unfair to force Mozilla and Opera to fight for their market share while Microsoft just gets it by default.
The capitalist system can't work as long as one company has such an absurdly unfair advantage. Personally, I think it should be up to the OEM's to decide what web browser to bundle with their systems. Microsoft should be expressly prohibited from unfairly pressuring OEM's by, say, threatening to raise prices if they don't use IE. If OEM's still want to use IE, that would be their choice, but as long as IE remains an obviously inferior product, one would expect OEM's to go with alternate browsers.
"Monopoly" doesn't mean 100% market share. "Monopoly" means enough market share that you are able to exploit monopolistic powers over that market. Microsoft certainly has the latter, in both operating systems and browsers.
I agree that scripts should not allow a web site to open new windows or move the existing window. But I think scripts which do things like implement a tic tac toe game can be fun. For fateofio.org, I used Javascript to encrypt passwords on login; it's not "true" security but it can help. Doesn't that seem like a good use? I also plan to write a chat client script completely in javascript at some point, allowing users to join a sitewide chat room by just going to a web page. I think these are very useful abilities.
So, yeah, if it were up to me, I would never have put window management functionality in Javascript, but with the popup stopping options in recent browsers I think that problem has been mostly solved, and the rest of Javascript is pretty useful IMO.
The parent post did these things:
The parent post did not:
Why is it modded insightful?
This is why I filter out everything except "funny".
I despise IE. Never said otherwise. Only said that the concept of allowing web content to contain code was not inherently wrong (as the original poster had suggested). The other AC's argument had absolutely nothing to do with anything I said, but contained numerous ad hominem insults, probably designed to evoke a nasty response from me. Either he was a troll or a complete moron. ::shrug::
Nice troll.
Remote execution of untrusted code is bad.
Not if it's sandboxed.
Tools that enable untrusted code to run in an unsandboxable environment are bad.
What makes an environment "unsandboxable"? We're not talking C code here, where you can access any object in memory if you know where in might be likely to reside. We're talking about scripting languages where you can only access the functionality provided by the API.
No to the latter -- but with the caveat that the thing that should be sandboxing code is the operating system, not the web browser.
An implementation of a programming language or even an API for a pointer-safe programming language is a perfectly good place to do sandboxing. Are you against Java's sandboxing? That's not part of the OS, is it? And yet Java applets are supported by every major browser. Why is it only bad when Microsoft does it?
I'm no IE fan -- I actively encourage my friends to switch to Firefox -- but I believe that it can be very useful to mix code with data, and I know for a fact that it can be done securely. Microsoft just doesn't know how to do it right.