But which site hosts "aggressive porn ads" that isn't already a porn site? It seems like this is a complete non-issue. Is it the porn sites you're trying to block, or the ads for them? (Or the ads *on* them?)
Anyone who runs a website would be extremely short-sided to discourage traffic in any way. What I'd do is create a new, more generic, news feed and redirect all the other feeds to it. The few people who simply forgot they were subscribed to the 2004 feed will either realize their mistake and drop off, or be still interested in your new events and stay on. If you just make the feeds disappear, those users disappear as well.
Despite what the summary says, I severely doubt that hits on old feeds are any kind of huge traffic drain. If it *truly* is, you could also redirect them to FeedBurner, save the traffic, and possibly monetize them at the same time.
There's no way to have java on windows and not know it. Suns updater is the noisiest, most irritating piece of software ever.
Microsoft stopped shipping their Java VM like 8 years ago now. They still ship Flash. That alone is enough to declare Java dead on the web. Sure, non-MS OSes may have it installed by default, but as long as 90%+ of the market is on Windows, that doesn't matter.
The girl's apartment (Monica being a chef, Rachel an administrative assistant/buyer IIRC) was rent controlled, and they were illegally subletting it from the elderly relative mentioned above. The guy's apartment (Chandler being a successful accountant/financial person, Joey a failed actor) was rented normally, but Chandler could realistically afford it. And stated several times that he paid basically Joey's share every month. There was an episode where Chandler left his job to "find himself", and it turned out his role was so important that his boss kept calling over and over to get him back, offering him more money each time.
Ross was an archaeologist and had his own place, I have no idea how much archaeologists make.
The real mystery in this sense was Phoebe, who lived alone in a large apartment and didn't seem to ever work, or at least not hold down a job longer than a few weeks. I have no idea how she paid her rent.
When it comes down to it, though, they have big apartments because you need them to block the scenes and move the cameras and associated equipment around in. Frankly, I think that Friends made a better effort to explain their living situation than most sitcoms do.
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint" - Hesiod, 8th century BC
There's a point you're missing here: Nobody has Java installed anymore.
Java might have been great at this purpose back in 2001, but they missed their boat. Now it's not on computers by default, nobody installs it, and nobody has to because no sites require it. Also the Sun Java client is godawful.
I've personally put in probably over a thousand hours working around IE's many shortcomings. This is one of the biggest computer companies in the world. They can do better, they choose not to, with costly consequences for a lot of people. Every shortcoming in IE8 will cost me time and money, and cost clients money and features. Don't tell people to "fucking relax".
I read complaints like yours as:
"I have to actually QA your products in the environments your customers use!"
Which leads to the "awww, poor baby! Want a blankie?" response. Seriously, you're writing software, and you're sitting here with the illusion that you'll never need to QA your own product? Believe me, it's orders of magnitude easier to QA for the web than for any other platform, even closed ones like game consoles. If you didn't plan for that, you are a shitty developer. If your manager didn't schedule for it, you have a shitty manager. Period.
Blaming IE when your product doesn't work is ridiculous. It wasn't some mystery that you'd need it to work in IE, right? Then why the hell didn't you QA it!
This is the foundation of your failure to understand.
Then explain it to me.
Microsoft intentionally creates and allows/maintains incompatibilities for the sake of vendor lock-in. (Netscape did this, too. I don't just hate on MS.) That's self-serving, needless infliction of wide-scale inefficiency.
And yet, IE is still 95% compatible with other web browsers. Far more compatible than, say, OS X desktop software is to Linux desktop software. Or the Seattle sewer system is to the Baltimore sewer system. (Remember that example? Oh yah I brought it back!)
You don't get that this adds up? The people who pay for websites pay more and get less.
But they're already getting more for orders of magnitude less! You can put up a website for $15 a month and reach more people than a $15,000 TV ad easily. What you seem to be missing is a sense of proportion.
The people who use websites and web apps end up paying through a variety of inconveniences and at times complete breakage to the point of being unusable.
Gee, maybe the web developers who made those sites should have QAed their website, then? What the holy fuck does IE's standards have to do with this?
If you have a Linux app that constantly crashes and breaks "to the point of being unusuable", do you blame the GNOME/KDE API? No, you blame the web developer who didn't do his fucking job. (Then you probably go home and wonder why web developers are looked down on by other software developers.)
The people who were locked into using IE suffered more downtime and cost us more in support.
And the fact that your product didn't work in the browser they use is *their* fault, no doubt? It couldn't possibly be your fault, as a web developer. Web developers are holy angelic creatures capable only of perfection!
The overall loss in human productivity has not been limited to web developers, hello.
If your web developers had done their job, you wouldn't have had the additional downtime and broken websites in the first place. You're not convincing me, buddy.
Try correlating that period, 2001-08 through 2006-10, with what's going on this graph. Microsoft only cared about bettering their browser as much as it helped them maintain control.
It's their product, they can do whatever the hell they want with it. If I don't like it, I'll use another browser. (And I do, except when I'm working on web development.)
If you weren't fed up with IE6's impact on you and everyone else for the first half decade of this millenium, you weren't paying attention.
Or maybe I have a sense of proportion and realize it's an extremely trivial problem in the history of humanity.
Anyway, I don't think there's any convincing you and other battered wives like you that Microsoft's embrance-and-extend behavior is something requiring opposition.
Oh, well you better type 650 words about it then.
Of course, in all those words, you still haven't explained to me how web standards affect anybody except web developers. The closest you've come is to give an example of a product you made that was really shitty because you failed to QA it in the browsers your customers use; that's not even remotely close to the same thing.
So, pretend I'm a naive user. Pretend I'm Aunt Tillie, or Joe Six-Pack, or whatever persona you like to use, and explain to me why I should give a crap that IE doesn't implement "object.textContent". I dare you.
Considering text fields don't even behave the same way in Linux and OS X, I find that VERY hard to believe. Most toolkits get it wrong. Firefox is *close* to correct on Mac, but still wrong.
So, it's a page you can point a viewer to, and quickly see how standard compliant it is.
From my understanding, it only shows you how the browser handles errors in the markup. That isn't the same thing as "standards compliant." Unless you have contrary information, in which case please fill me in.
Does the web seem like a trivial thing to you? Are you one of those people who says "oh, it's just another thing on the Internet -- no need to take it seriously"?
No. No.
You think that it's okay to pain "a very, very small percentage of the population" with compatibility problems?
Sure.
I guess you wouldn't give a damn about sewer system engineers or transportation system engineers or power grid engineers either, eh?
I'd wager that the web environment already has *orders of magnitude* more standardization than any of those jobs. But let's assume that's not true: you're asking:
"Do you also think that sewer system engineers should have to do more work because of a lack of standards in sewer systems?"
If that additional work is tied in to the success of their business, then hell yes I do. I think you were trying to paint me as a hypocrite there, but I'm not entirely sure.
"Yeah, you're suffering. Big deal, there aren't many of you. Just relax." Fuck that.
I'm not against web standards. You seem to think I'm opposed to them; I'm not, I just don't think they're that big a deal. I'd much rather see Microsoft (or Mozilla or Apple or whoever) add more features for *users* of the browser and fewer for web developers. Web developers are already getting their share, let's make browsers easier for mom and pop for a change.
For example, Word has had splittable scrollbars (allowing you to see two parts of a document at once) for close to 20 years now. There's a standard OS widget for it in Windows and OS X. Why has *no* browser implemented this? I'd find that 100 times more useful than Microsoft making "object.textContent" work.
What, you never had to clean up a friend's IE6-spyware-infested machine?
You're changing subjects. The insecurity of IE6 has nothing to do with its lack of standards support. There's extremely little in the standards relating to security, and IE6 had all those parts nailed anyway.
99% of spyware is installed by people who pressed "Ok" when asked whether to install the software. I agree it's a problem, but it's a human problem and has nothing to do with the quality of IE6 as a product.
(Note: the only time I got a virus from the web was when using IE7. And the virus installed itself using a *Java* exploit.)
Only when their dominance was threatened did they rouse themselves to make any changes.
Ok...?
And now you think "they're making a good try here at fixing the problems"?
Yes, I do.
And you're ready to take what they serve you? You trust these guys? The same purveyors of stagnation?
Yeah. But part of the reason is that I'm not a brainwashed zealot like you are.
BTW "Purveyors of Stagnation" would be an awesome band name.
You are the other half. Ignorant users (and developers) who fail to see the importance of standards and who are either virtual amnesiacs about Microsoft's track record of standards subversion or are just acting like battered wives.
Explain to me the importance of standards. Pretend I'm the average man-on-the-street, and tell me why Firefox's rendering of webpages is better than IE's. Seriously.
What happens with standards and the web is pretty damn important.
Please. I'm a *web developer* and I don't think it's "pretty damn important." This is what I do for a living. The difference is that I started my career writing actual software, so I understand this concept that a lot of web developers have issues with, called "QA".
See, whether or not Microsoft or Mozilla or Apple or whoever follows the standards, you *still* have to QA in every browser. People on this thread are griping, gnashing their teeth, because Microsoft makes web developers (a tiny percentage of the population) do a couple more rounds of QA on their product. Get a grip.
Poor baby. If you were writing a desktop app, you'd have to test it in: Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7 (possibly Server 2000, 2003, 2008 also) Mac OS 10.3, 10.4, 10.5 Linux -- God knows! 3-4 versions of top 5 distributions, perhaps.
The only people who cares about web standards are web developers, and web developers already have less QA work than most other software fields. I feel like breaking out the tiny violin when I hear stuff like this.
Hmmm... maybe that's because Microsoft didn't implement the fucking standard correctly? The standard is more or less DEPENDENT on DOM2 events. (At the very least, I doubt anyone expected someone to implement the standard with a dysfunctional DOM.) That's why you can assume that you can use addEventListener to set a postMessage event receiver. But Microsoft didn't implement DOM2 events, despite helping develop the standard 10 years ago.
IE8 standards compliance is a joke. A sick joke played out by millions of unsuspecting users everywhere.
Yeah, they didn't. But they're making a good try here at fixing the problems, so fucking relax already. The only people who give a shit about web standards are web developers, and that's a very, very small percentage of the population. The amount of kicking and screaming and tantrum-throwing I read on this site on a daily basis is just crazy. Relax!
The example posted above is common sense, anyway. If you want to use "addEventListener," check for the existence of "addEventListener." Duh. Why would you check for anything else, anyway, except for being retarded?
I don't really care, frankly. People on this site take software *way* too seriously. They probably couldn't sell it either because it's a bad product, or they aren't very good at selling.
Yeah, Netware was probably acceptable... if you could log in! Their Windows client was absolute trash. The quality of the server doesn't matter if their client-side applications didn't fucking work a third of the time.
That's mostly what I was judging it based on. (Our particular Netware installation did crash a lot more than our AD installation, but it was also on shit hardware, so.)
"Most reliable?" Have I entered into a parallel universe, or are you in one? Netware was a complete POS. Even if AD is "inferior" (which I don't believe), the stability would be more than worth the switch.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I own and regularly use 2 laptops, and I can count the number of times I've removed the battery on zero hands. It's not a big deal to me.
You know what me meant, don't be obtuse. Christ.
But which site hosts "aggressive porn ads" that isn't already a porn site? It seems like this is a complete non-issue. Is it the porn sites you're trying to block, or the ads for them? (Or the ads *on* them?)
I'm confused.
Anyone who runs a website would be extremely short-sided to discourage traffic in any way. What I'd do is create a new, more generic, news feed and redirect all the other feeds to it. The few people who simply forgot they were subscribed to the 2004 feed will either realize their mistake and drop off, or be still interested in your new events and stay on. If you just make the feeds disappear, those users disappear as well.
Despite what the summary says, I severely doubt that hits on old feeds are any kind of huge traffic drain. If it *truly* is, you could also redirect them to FeedBurner, save the traffic, and possibly monetize them at the same time.
There's no way to have java on windows and not know it. Suns updater is the noisiest, most irritating piece of software ever.
Microsoft stopped shipping their Java VM like 8 years ago now. They still ship Flash. That alone is enough to declare Java dead on the web. Sure, non-MS OSes may have it installed by default, but as long as 90%+ of the market is on Windows, that doesn't matter.
I'm kind of annoyed I know this...
The girl's apartment (Monica being a chef, Rachel an administrative assistant/buyer IIRC) was rent controlled, and they were illegally subletting it from the elderly relative mentioned above. The guy's apartment (Chandler being a successful accountant/financial person, Joey a failed actor) was rented normally, but Chandler could realistically afford it. And stated several times that he paid basically Joey's share every month. There was an episode where Chandler left his job to "find himself", and it turned out his role was so important that his boss kept calling over and over to get him back, offering him more money each time.
Ross was an archaeologist and had his own place, I have no idea how much archaeologists make.
The real mystery in this sense was Phoebe, who lived alone in a large apartment and didn't seem to ever work, or at least not hold down a job longer than a few weeks. I have no idea how she paid her rent.
When it comes down to it, though, they have big apartments because you need them to block the scenes and move the cameras and associated equipment around in. Frankly, I think that Friends made a better effort to explain their living situation than most sitcoms do.
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint"
- Hesiod, 8th century BC
There's a point you're missing here: Nobody has Java installed anymore.
Java might have been great at this purpose back in 2001, but they missed their boat. Now it's not on computers by default, nobody installs it, and nobody has to because no sites require it. Also the Sun Java client is godawful.
I've personally put in probably over a thousand hours working around IE's many shortcomings. This is one of the biggest computer companies in the world. They can do better, they choose not to, with costly consequences for a lot of people. Every shortcoming in IE8 will cost me time and money, and cost clients money and features. Don't tell people to "fucking relax".
I read complaints like yours as:
"I have to actually QA your products in the environments your customers use!"
Which leads to the "awww, poor baby! Want a blankie?" response. Seriously, you're writing software, and you're sitting here with the illusion that you'll never need to QA your own product? Believe me, it's orders of magnitude easier to QA for the web than for any other platform, even closed ones like game consoles. If you didn't plan for that, you are a shitty developer. If your manager didn't schedule for it, you have a shitty manager. Period.
Blaming IE when your product doesn't work is ridiculous. It wasn't some mystery that you'd need it to work in IE, right? Then why the hell didn't you QA it!
This is the foundation of your failure to understand.
Then explain it to me.
Microsoft intentionally creates and allows/maintains incompatibilities for the sake of vendor lock-in. (Netscape did this, too. I don't just hate on MS.) That's self-serving, needless infliction of wide-scale inefficiency.
And yet, IE is still 95% compatible with other web browsers. Far more compatible than, say, OS X desktop software is to Linux desktop software. Or the Seattle sewer system is to the Baltimore sewer system. (Remember that example? Oh yah I brought it back!)
You don't get that this adds up? The people who pay for websites pay more and get less.
But they're already getting more for orders of magnitude less! You can put up a website for $15 a month and reach more people than a $15,000 TV ad easily. What you seem to be missing is a sense of proportion.
The people who use websites and web apps end up paying through a variety of inconveniences and at times complete breakage to the point of being unusable.
Gee, maybe the web developers who made those sites should have QAed their website, then? What the holy fuck does IE's standards have to do with this?
If you have a Linux app that constantly crashes and breaks "to the point of being unusuable", do you blame the GNOME/KDE API? No, you blame the web developer who didn't do his fucking job. (Then you probably go home and wonder why web developers are looked down on by other software developers.)
The people who were locked into using IE suffered more downtime and cost us more in support.
And the fact that your product didn't work in the browser they use is *their* fault, no doubt? It couldn't possibly be your fault, as a web developer. Web developers are holy angelic creatures capable only of perfection!
The overall loss in human productivity has not been limited to web developers, hello.
If your web developers had done their job, you wouldn't have had the additional downtime and broken websites in the first place. You're not convincing me, buddy.
Try correlating that period, 2001-08 through 2006-10, with what's going on this graph. Microsoft only cared about bettering their browser as much as it helped them maintain control.
It's their product, they can do whatever the hell they want with it. If I don't like it, I'll use another browser. (And I do, except when I'm working on web development.)
If you weren't fed up with IE6's impact on you and everyone else for the first half decade of this millenium, you weren't paying attention.
Or maybe I have a sense of proportion and realize it's an extremely trivial problem in the history of humanity.
Anyway, I don't think there's any convincing you and other battered wives like you that Microsoft's embrance-and-extend behavior is something requiring opposition.
Oh, well you better type 650 words about it then.
Of course, in all those words, you still haven't explained to me how web standards affect anybody except web developers. The closest you've come is to give an example of a product you made that was really shitty because you failed to QA it in the browsers your customers use; that's not even remotely close to the same thing.
So, pretend I'm a naive user. Pretend I'm Aunt Tillie, or Joe Six-Pack, or whatever persona you like to use, and explain to me why I should give a crap that IE doesn't implement "object.textContent". I dare you.
Considering text fields don't even behave the same way in Linux and OS X, I find that VERY hard to believe. Most toolkits get it wrong. Firefox is *close* to correct on Mac, but still wrong.
So, it's a page you can point a viewer to, and quickly see how standard compliant it is.
From my understanding, it only shows you how the browser handles errors in the markup. That isn't the same thing as "standards compliant." Unless you have contrary information, in which case please fill me in.
So you dislike IE's lack of standards support breaking the web. And in response, you ... break the web.
Brilliant!
Is this a joke, or are you serious?
Does the web seem like a trivial thing to you? Are you one of those people who says "oh, it's just another thing on the Internet -- no need to take it seriously"?
No. No.
You think that it's okay to pain "a very, very small percentage of the population" with compatibility problems?
Sure.
I guess you wouldn't give a damn about sewer system engineers or transportation system engineers or power grid engineers either, eh?
I'd wager that the web environment already has *orders of magnitude* more standardization than any of those jobs. But let's assume that's not true: you're asking:
"Do you also think that sewer system engineers should have to do more work because of a lack of standards in sewer systems?"
If that additional work is tied in to the success of their business, then hell yes I do. I think you were trying to paint me as a hypocrite there, but I'm not entirely sure.
"Yeah, you're suffering. Big deal, there aren't many of you. Just relax." Fuck that.
I'm not against web standards. You seem to think I'm opposed to them; I'm not, I just don't think they're that big a deal. I'd much rather see Microsoft (or Mozilla or Apple or whoever) add more features for *users* of the browser and fewer for web developers. Web developers are already getting their share, let's make browsers easier for mom and pop for a change.
For example, Word has had splittable scrollbars (allowing you to see two parts of a document at once) for close to 20 years now. There's a standard OS widget for it in Windows and OS X. Why has *no* browser implemented this? I'd find that 100 times more useful than Microsoft making "object.textContent" work.
What, you never had to clean up a friend's IE6-spyware-infested machine?
You're changing subjects. The insecurity of IE6 has nothing to do with its lack of standards support. There's extremely little in the standards relating to security, and IE6 had all those parts nailed anyway.
99% of spyware is installed by people who pressed "Ok" when asked whether to install the software. I agree it's a problem, but it's a human problem and has nothing to do with the quality of IE6 as a product.
(Note: the only time I got a virus from the web was when using IE7. And the virus installed itself using a *Java* exploit.)
Only when their dominance was threatened did they rouse themselves to make any changes.
Ok...?
And now you think "they're making a good try here at fixing the problems"?
Yes, I do.
And you're ready to take what they serve you? You trust these guys? The same purveyors of stagnation?
Yeah. But part of the reason is that I'm not a brainwashed zealot like you are.
BTW "Purveyors of Stagnation" would be an awesome band name.
You are the other half. Ignorant users (and developers) who fail to see the importance of standards and who are either virtual amnesiacs about Microsoft's track record of standards subversion or are just acting like battered wives.
Explain to me the importance of standards. Pretend I'm the average man-on-the-street, and tell me why Firefox's rendering of webpages is better than IE's. Seriously.
(It's hard, isn't it? Standards don't benefit anybody except web developers.)
What happens with standards and the web is pretty damn important.
Please. I'm a *web developer* and I don't think it's "pretty damn important." This is what I do for a living. The difference is that I started my career writing actual software, so I understand this concept that a lot of web developers have issues with, called "QA".
See, whether or not Microsoft or Mozilla or Apple or whoever follows the standards, you *still* have to QA in every browser. People on this thread are griping, gnashing their teeth, because Microsoft makes web developers (a tiny percentage of the population) do a couple more rounds of QA on their product. Get a grip.
the difference is, if it compiles for those platforms, it normally works and looks the same.
Your software must be unbearably buggy.
Where does this belief that power and ease of use are mutually-exclusive come from?
Poor baby. If you were writing a desktop app, you'd have to test it in:
Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7 (possibly Server 2000, 2003, 2008 also)
Mac OS 10.3, 10.4, 10.5
Linux -- God knows! 3-4 versions of top 5 distributions, perhaps.
The only people who cares about web standards are web developers, and web developers already have less QA work than most other software fields. I feel like breaking out the tiny violin when I hear stuff like this.
Ok, so let me ask a serious question.
Browser Foo gets 86% on ACID2. Browser Bar gets 99% on ACID2.
What exactly does that tell me, as a web developer?
What does ACID2 have to do with web standards? That's not part of the test suite.
Hmmm... maybe that's because Microsoft didn't implement the fucking standard correctly? The standard is more or less DEPENDENT on DOM2 events. (At the very least, I doubt anyone expected someone to implement the standard with a dysfunctional DOM.) That's why you can assume that you can use addEventListener to set a postMessage event receiver. But Microsoft didn't implement DOM2 events, despite helping develop the standard 10 years ago.
IE8 standards compliance is a joke. A sick joke played out by millions of unsuspecting users everywhere.
Yeah, they didn't. But they're making a good try here at fixing the problems, so fucking relax already. The only people who give a shit about web standards are web developers, and that's a very, very small percentage of the population. The amount of kicking and screaming and tantrum-throwing I read on this site on a daily basis is just crazy. Relax!
The example posted above is common sense, anyway. If you want to use "addEventListener," check for the existence of "addEventListener." Duh. Why would you check for anything else, anyway, except for being retarded?
I don't really care, frankly. People on this site take software *way* too seriously. They probably couldn't sell it either because it's a bad product, or they aren't very good at selling.
Yeah, Netware was probably acceptable... if you could log in! Their Windows client was absolute trash. The quality of the server doesn't matter if their client-side applications didn't fucking work a third of the time.
That's mostly what I was judging it based on. (Our particular Netware installation did crash a lot more than our AD installation, but it was also on shit hardware, so.)
Well, the customer who ordered it was obviously ok with the sound levels or he wouldn't have taken delivery. Why don't you just relax, huh?
"Most reliable?" Have I entered into a parallel universe, or are you in one? Netware was a complete POS. Even if AD is "inferior" (which I don't believe), the stability would be more than worth the switch.
Wow. You must be a laugh riot at parties.
See, it's funny because you completely didn't get the joke.