Here is a typical conversation between a web site developer and a customer:
Customer: I want a site that looks something like this, and I want these functions on it
Developer: OK That will cost XX $ for IE users.
Customer: Uhm OK
Developer:...and YYY $ extra to get it to work with Netscape
Customer: YYY $ extra? Why?
Developer: Well, IE and NS have some different features. Those functions you described are easier to make for IE
Customer: OK I guess you know what you are talking about. I assume we must support Netscape too
Developer: And then there are some other browsers. If you want them supported you must cut back on functionality, or make a parallell low-feature site.
Customer: an extra site just in case someone doesn't use IE or Netscape?
Developer: Yes to catch everybody
Customer: Guess I don't want to lose any customers. How much would that be?
Developer: ZZ $
Customer: ZZ $? How many are using omething else than the major two browsers?
Developer: Less than one percent of your target group, I'd say
Customer: OK here is the deal. Start making my site for IE users. Then you can add functionality for Netscape (if they are still around then). I don't think we'll bother with the rest.
Developer: Are you sure? It might not look so good if some people can't even access your site.
Customer: Yeah, but it would cost too much. And most people does have IE somewhere if they really want to get here don't they?
Developer: Yes. Lynx and Opera users are used to being shut out. They may complain, but they'll know how to get aroud the problem.
someone would even consider using a non-open source browser -- especially one that is made by the evil empire.
You should be using some open source browser, or better yet, write your own from scratch.
I'd love to. unfortunately I lack time and skill to code my own browser (if I want something more than text, at least)
But the sad state of affairs is that INTERNET EXPLORER CURRENTLY IS THE ONLY BROWSER THAT FUCKING WORKS!
Don't tell me about standards and how the evil empire embraces and extends. I'm talking reality here. So many sites uses MS specific code that I'll always need IE as a backup. I do web pages for a living. (or rather the heavy stuff behind the pages, not the stupid html/javascript shit) and I see why Microsoft is winning. It is easy. They give people what they want!
People want "cool" sites. I know it is stupid, and so do you, but the other 99% of the web surfers think those flash intros and AciveX gizmos are nice. If a page renders and updates faster in IE than netscape, people will use IE. If a page is inaccessible with Lynx, nobody will use Lynx (exept hard core geeks and disabled persons) If people get a virus because of shitty security in IE and windows they will complain about "that damned Gates" and continue to use Windows and IE because they work. Someone will switch to Linux only to find that his favorite web site no longer works. (and that Netscape crashed three times) "Sorry, Linus. Nice system and all, but I'll stick to windows, since they have this working web browser."
I'm worried, because if there is not a serious competitor to MSIE out there soon we will have a MS proprietary web.
It might add 0.000023 seconds to my workload and as a
Very Busy And Very Important Marketing Droid With Expensive Shoes And A Smart Haircut I don't have *time* to
cope with that stuff!
... which of course translates to "Hey I want to see them funny attachments everyone is talking about"
And 0-early-30 Sunday? Hey thats when they are still in the office surfing pr0n sites...
The idea that the globalist coterie of governments would allow anything of significant value or power to elude their reach
is quite simply a rediculous idea.
So which government controls Time-Warner? Sony? Ericsson? Unilever? Volkswagen? Nike? Coca-Cola?
Sure all these companies are based somewhere, but they are hardly under the control of any government. Not even under the likes of WTO.
They are the ones who walk up tho their local government and state their terms for not moving along with their cash.
Oops,... and I actually browsed their site before reading the terms of use too.
Now that is an intresting problem. I must agree to their terms of use before browsing their site, but how can I read *them* without accessing the site?
I'll just claim that I entered that URL first in case there was a legal notice I was supposed to read before browsing the rest of the site. Hm,... wonder if I may browse their 404 page?
... or did you really submit an application before linking to sony?
Or did you perhaps "access and browse" their site without checking their terms of use?
Oh no! Now Sony will firewall *slashdot* in my computer!
Domain name is an address. Address should be reachable from everywhere and everything.
Not completely true. The domain name is an alias. The dotted quad is the address.
Tell me why I can't put a name server out there that supports more characters? Yes, comaptibility will be a problem but not an impossible one. The DNS request must inform the server which charset it is using. Default to UTF-8 of course.
So we have the following alternatives. (Let's accept "unicode" for "standardized extended charset" in the following OK?)
1) I run a web server with a UTF-8 domain name. No problem, a Unicode DNS will be able to handle the ascii subset.
2) I run a web server with a unicode domain name. I must register my domain with a unicode dns and I'd be wise to also register a UTF-8 domain name as an alias if I think my domain name will cause trouble.
This works even for postal
addresses -- I can write them in English, and they will reach the intended destination in any country, be it US, Spain,
Russia or Japan
Well, but can you write an adress in russian and expect the letter to be delivered in the US? Or in russia, if mailed in the US?
If someone is too concerned about "good-looking" addresses, they should implement some name-translation service
like AOL keywords for people who don't like DNS, but the basic architecture of the Internet should not lose
interoperability just because someone wants to add one useless feature to his shitty software.
Someone sure is "too concerned" and I rather have ICANN setting a standard than wait until there is an AOL/MS proprietary name space.
I do see your point. Clueless fibbling with DNS is not a good thing. *My* point it that that is exactly what will happen unless it is done the proper way.
Hard to implement, yes
Expensive, yes
A pain for hard core geeks to get used to, yes
Necessary, hell yes! Pehaps not today, but soon.
I do see your point, but the same argument could be used against 16-bit computers (8-bits is the current standard and programs and data must be interoperable...)
Do you know how much creative spelling there is, simply to force non a-z characters into the DNS? Simply removing dots, rings and accents is not good enough. (oops sudddenly my domain name became equivalent to "www.faggot.com" or someone elses brand name)
Ever tried enforcing a "8 character a-z only" file name policy on a network where *some* servers and programs could not handle other names? Forget it. It was cheaper to dump those, buy a new network and microsoft products (as you can see this was after the dos days:-) even if tecnically inferior, than to handle the constant hassle.
People *hate* modifying spelling to comply with stupid limits. There is no standard way to map non a-z chars onto a dns
ASCII is outdated, get rid of it!
Either it will be done in a standardized way, or it will be done by Microsoft. I prefer the former.
Don't think WAP banking will catch on, though, until the phone companies catch up. I only think there is one bank here (ruotsi) who offers WAP banking. Unfortunately the bank must set up their own wap-gateway, since no operator supports secure transmissions. Good business for Nokia, who sells the gateways, but not good for wap tecnology...
I think that the only way to make understandable rules for internet companies is to have TLD based legislation. That is, for.com,.com law apply (MPAA gets their way etc) for.org another set of rules, for.uk brittish law and so on. Us law should only apply to.us domains.
The right to be anonymous and the right to privacy *are* *two* *separate* *matters!*
I might want to be anonymous, if I lived under an opressive government, or did something my neighbours would not like (or did something criminal). Privacy, I want regardless of wether someone has a database on me or not. If Amazon has an automated script that picks out books I'm likely to buy, that is not a privacy issue. If someone calls me in the middle of dinner to sell me books, it is a privacy intrusion, regardless of wether they got data from amazon or simply rolled up my number.
I want laws that regulate the *use* of personal data rather than the act of collecting it. If my data cannot be used by telemarketers, there is no longer any point for dotcoms to collect more than they need.
From what I've read a large part of the reason many credit-card accepting sites won't take customers outside the U.S.
is the enormous rate of fraud they experience when dealing with non-US customers. Fraud per se wouldn't be so bad if
some of these countries had law enforcement and judicial systems that were, to put it bluntly, honest and effective.
Now I dont know which "other countries" you are talking about, but I think it is a matter of different strategies to counter CC fraud. It seems that the US are concentrating on prosecuting those who commit fraud, but have a rather lax security, which makes fraud easy.
Here (sweden) we focus more on avoiding CC fraud by demanding ID+signature or a PIN-code with almost every transaction.(certainly every transaction large enough to be worth the effort) Therefore there is much less fraud to prosecute, which might lead to a less efficient judicial process.
Neither method is inherantly better. You gain the ease-of-use that comes with less security (like being able to use your card for mail or phone order) but pay a higher price in law enforcement. We lose some functionality, while being able to feel more secure with our cards.
Trouble starts when we try to interact. We get robbed, since we are not used to that an imposter can use our cards. You have a hard time, since the our police is not set up to handle a less secure CC policy.
Instead of blaming everyone for being anti-{your country here} instead ask yourself what your country could do to
make their economy more accessable so the paypals of the world CAN set up shop in your country.
Oh our economy is accessable enough thank you. So accessible, in fact, that there is not much need for paypal. I can pay for things online directly from my bank account. I do need a little box that generates one time passwords, but I wouldn't trust a system with less security to access my money.
Well I guess I'm just spoiled after too much delphi...
True, you don't really need too advanced tools for the apps you make for palm. You don't really need those nifty code completion functionalities and so on. Still, when you switch platform between almost every project, like I do, you dont want to look up anything more than neccesary, dont want to stop to think "what was the problem with *this* debugger again".
*Sigh* I will probably port a Plam app to PocketPC next. That will be an intresting comparison.
Removable memory would be a nice improvement. One of the things I wish my Palm had. (though I'm a bit sceptical about Memory Stick)
First on my list, however, is a better development tool. Codewarrior,... feels like mac development ten years ago.
Second would be an easy "switch to previous application/view" button. Alt-tab is one of the key sequences I use most on windoze. (more than crtl-alt-del)
One: Post the code on non-US servers. AFAIK US law still doesn't apply outside the US. Preferably choose countries where there is lots of anti-US feelings.
Two: Wouldn't it be fun if, say China or Iraq started to demand that the major hollywood sites must be shut down? Surely something there can be considered "illegal" somewhere in the world?
Or better yet. If it enough to have "offending" material on your site, a lot of brits might want to shut down sites that link to a certain movie with Mel Gibson?
No, may the source be with them. (ouch, that was a really, really bad one)
And we must use physical data transport. Remember: In space, noone can hear you stream. (ouch, even worse)
Seriously, everyone who has seen Star Wars knows that the preferred method of inter-computer communication is some mechanical probe that you turn around in a wall socket. (R2D2)
If you think shooting CD's into space is a problem...
The next probe will probably carry a DVD instead. Now how do we explain to the aliens why these "lawyers" are coming to "sue" them simply because they really managed to decode our discs.
Slashdot Mirror
this is some site selling personal protection items (don't ask how I stumbled upon that one)
And our intranet was IE only in practice for weeks.
I agree that a web agency who does a IE only site makes a lousy job. unless the customer specifically said "skip Netscape I'll not pay for that"
See my other post in this thread.
I agree that time is running out for Mozilla.
Customer: I want a site that looks something like this, and I want these functions on it ...and YYY $ extra to get it to work with Netscape
Developer: OK That will cost XX $ for IE users.
Customer: Uhm OK
Developer:
Customer: YYY $ extra? Why?
Developer: Well, IE and NS have some different features. Those functions you described are easier to make for IE
Customer: OK I guess you know what you are talking about. I assume we must support Netscape too
Developer: And then there are some other browsers. If you want them supported you must cut back on functionality, or make a parallell low-feature site.
Customer: an extra site just in case someone doesn't use IE or Netscape?
Developer: Yes to catch everybody
Customer: Guess I don't want to lose any customers. How much would that be?
Developer: ZZ $
Customer: ZZ $? How many are using omething else than the major two browsers?
Developer: Less than one percent of your target group, I'd say
Customer: OK here is the deal. Start making my site for IE users. Then you can add functionality for Netscape (if they are still around then). I don't think we'll bother with the rest.
Developer: Are you sure? It might not look so good if some people can't even access your site.
Customer: Yeah, but it would cost too much. And most people does have IE somewhere if they really want to get here don't they?
Developer: Yes. Lynx and Opera users are used to being shut out. They may complain, but they'll know how to get aroud the problem.
I'd love to. unfortunately I lack time and skill to code my own browser (if I want something more than text, at least)
But the sad state of affairs is that INTERNET EXPLORER CURRENTLY IS THE ONLY BROWSER THAT FUCKING WORKS!
Don't tell me about standards and how the evil empire embraces and extends. I'm talking reality here. So many sites uses MS specific code that I'll always need IE as a backup. I do web pages for a living. (or rather the heavy stuff behind the pages, not the stupid html/javascript shit) and I see why Microsoft is winning. It is easy. They give people what they want!
People want "cool" sites. I know it is stupid, and so do you, but the other 99% of the web surfers think those flash intros and AciveX gizmos are nice. If a page renders and updates faster in IE than netscape, people will use IE. If a page is inaccessible with Lynx, nobody will use Lynx (exept hard core geeks and disabled persons) If people get a virus because of shitty security in IE and windows they will complain about "that damned Gates" and continue to use Windows and IE because they work. Someone will switch to Linux only to find that his favorite web site no longer works. (and that Netscape crashed three times) "Sorry, Linus. Nice system and all, but I'll stick to windows, since they have this working web browser."
I'm worried, because if there is not a serious competitor to MSIE out there soon we will have a MS proprietary web.
Boy, am I pessimistic today?
And 0-early-30 Sunday? Hey thats when they are still in the office surfing pr0n sites...
No way you can get to those data.
A swedish minister *did* refer to Norway as "the last of the soviets" some months ago. (thinking that the cameras were off)
So which government controls Time-Warner? Sony? Ericsson? Unilever? Volkswagen? Nike? Coca-Cola?
Sure all these companies are based somewhere, but they are hardly under the control of any government. Not even under the likes of WTO.
They are the ones who walk up tho their local government and state their terms for not moving along with their cash.
Now that is an intresting problem. I must agree to their terms of use before browsing their site, but how can I read *them* without accessing the site?
I'll just claim that I entered that URL first in case there was a legal notice I was supposed to read before browsing the rest of the site. Hm,... wonder if I may browse their 404 page?
Guess I'll better never set foot in Japan.
Or did you perhaps "access and browse" their site without checking their terms of use?
Oh no! Now Sony will firewall *slashdot* in my computer!
Not completely true. The domain name is an alias. The dotted quad is the address.
Tell me why I can't put a name server out there that supports more characters? Yes, comaptibility will be a problem but not an impossible one. The DNS request must inform the server which charset it is using. Default to UTF-8 of course.
So we have the following alternatives. (Let's accept "unicode" for "standardized extended charset" in the following OK?)
1) I run a web server with a UTF-8 domain name. No problem, a Unicode DNS will be able to handle the ascii subset.
2) I run a web server with a unicode domain name. I must register my domain with a unicode dns and I'd be wise to also register a UTF-8 domain name as an alias if I think my domain name will cause trouble.
This works even for postal addresses -- I can write them in English, and they will reach the intended destination in any country, be it US, Spain, Russia or Japan
Well, but can you write an adress in russian and expect the letter to be delivered in the US? Or in russia, if mailed in the US?
If someone is too concerned about "good-looking" addresses, they should implement some name-translation service like AOL keywords for people who don't like DNS, but the basic architecture of the Internet should not lose interoperability just because someone wants to add one useless feature to his shitty software.
Someone sure is "too concerned" and I rather have ICANN setting a standard than wait until there is an AOL/MS proprietary name space.
I do see your point. Clueless fibbling with DNS is not a good thing. *My* point it that that is exactly what will happen unless it is done the proper way.
Yes,... but is that plus or minus one?
Expensive, yes
A pain for hard core geeks to get used to, yes
Necessary, hell yes! Pehaps not today, but soon.
I do see your point, but the same argument could be used against 16-bit computers (8-bits is the current standard and programs and data must be interoperable...)
Do you know how much creative spelling there is, simply to force non a-z characters into the DNS? Simply removing dots, rings and accents is not good enough. (oops sudddenly my domain name became equivalent to "www.faggot.com" or someone elses brand name)
Ever tried enforcing a "8 character a-z only" file name policy on a network where *some* servers and programs could not handle other names? Forget it. It was cheaper to dump those, buy a new network and microsoft products (as you can see this was after the dos days:-) even if tecnically inferior, than to handle the constant hassle.
People *hate* modifying spelling to comply with stupid limits. There is no standard way to map non a-z chars onto a dns
ASCII is outdated, get rid of it!
Either it will be done in a standardized way, or it will be done by Microsoft. I prefer the former.
Don't think WAP banking will catch on, though, until the phone companies catch up. I only think there is one bank here (ruotsi) who offers WAP banking. Unfortunately the bank must set up their own wap-gateway, since no operator supports secure transmissions. Good business for Nokia, who sells the gateways, but not good for wap tecnology...
I think that the only way to make understandable rules for internet companies is to have TLD based legislation. That is, for .com, .com law apply (MPAA gets their way etc) for .org another set of rules, for .uk brittish law and so on. Us law should only apply to .us domains.
The right to be anonymous and the right to privacy *are* *two* *separate* *matters!*
I might want to be anonymous, if I lived under an opressive government, or did something my neighbours would not like (or did something criminal). Privacy, I want regardless of wether someone has a database on me or not. If Amazon has an automated script that picks out books I'm likely to buy, that is not a privacy issue. If someone calls me in the middle of dinner to sell me books, it is a privacy intrusion, regardless of wether they got data from amazon or simply rolled up my number.
I want laws that regulate the *use* of personal data rather than the act of collecting it. If my data cannot be used by telemarketers, there is no longer any point for dotcoms to collect more than they need.
Now I dont know which "other countries" you are talking about, but I think it is a matter of different strategies to counter CC fraud. It seems that the US are concentrating on prosecuting those who commit fraud, but have a rather lax security, which makes fraud easy.
Here (sweden) we focus more on avoiding CC fraud by demanding ID+signature or a PIN-code with almost every transaction.(certainly every transaction large enough to be worth the effort) Therefore there is much less fraud to prosecute, which might lead to a less efficient judicial process.
Neither method is inherantly better. You gain the ease-of-use that comes with less security (like being able to use your card for mail or phone order) but pay a higher price in law enforcement. We lose some functionality, while being able to feel more secure with our cards.
Trouble starts when we try to interact. We get robbed, since we are not used to that an imposter can use our cards. You have a hard time, since the our police is not set up to handle a less secure CC policy.
Instead of blaming everyone for being anti-{your country here} instead ask yourself what your country could do to make their economy more accessable so the paypals of the world CAN set up shop in your country.
Oh our economy is accessable enough thank you. So accessible, in fact, that there is not much need for paypal. I can pay for things online directly from my bank account. I do need a little box that generates one time passwords, but I wouldn't trust a system with less security to access my money.
Yeah we all know how Finland is way behind in mobile technology... and who ever heard of a fin writing any decent code, like an OS or something? ;-)
True, you don't really need too advanced tools for the apps you make for palm. You don't really need those nifty code completion functionalities and so on. Still, when you switch platform between almost every project, like I do, you dont want to look up anything more than neccesary, dont want to stop to think "what was the problem with *this* debugger again".
*Sigh* I will probably port a Plam app to PocketPC next. That will be an intresting comparison.
"Memorystick" Sounds like something from neuromancer, doesn't it?
Removable memory would be a nice improvement. One of the things I wish my Palm had. (though I'm a bit sceptical about Memory Stick)
First on my list, however, is a better development tool. Codewarrior,... feels like mac development ten years ago.
Second would be an easy "switch to previous application/view" button. Alt-tab is one of the key sequences I use most on windoze. (more than crtl-alt-del)
Life is not easy for a PC geek...
One: Post the code on non-US servers. AFAIK US law still doesn't apply outside the US. Preferably choose countries where there is lots of anti-US feelings.
Two: Wouldn't it be fun if, say China or Iraq started to demand that the major hollywood sites must be shut down? Surely something there can be considered "illegal" somewhere in the world?
Or better yet. If it enough to have "offending" material on your site, a lot of brits might want to shut down sites that link to a certain movie with Mel Gibson?
Since the xxAA's seem to think that these US laws apply all over the earth (like Norway for example) why should they be restricted to this planet?
No, may the source be with them. (ouch, that was a really, really bad one)
And we must use physical data transport. Remember: In space, noone can hear you stream. (ouch, even worse)
Seriously, everyone who has seen Star Wars knows that the preferred method of inter-computer communication is some mechanical probe that you turn around in a wall socket. (R2D2)
The next probe will probably carry a DVD instead. Now how do we explain to the aliens why these "lawyers" are coming to "sue" them simply because they really managed to decode our discs.