The CrunchPad was supposed to be a dead-simple, cheap $200 tablet. Closer to production, it looks like it'll cost more like $500. A $99 device would be nice, but I'll believe it when I see it. A decent screen + NAND memory + battery alone will add to the cost.

> When you're buying a web-based application, you make sure it works on every browser you can get your hands on.

_Every_ browser? seriously? Then we'd have to ditch this newfangled web thang and go back to VB-style client/server apps.

We do test for IE7 and Firefox, and are currently testing and deploying IE8. Chrome still has loads of site-compat problems. Opera has really improved over the years, but even with the latest 10.5 version things remain broken, even on well-trafficked public sites like Google and Facebook. It does work with the internal apps I've tried it with, but I couldn't put my hand on heart and swear it was compatible with _everything_.

We do have a simple rule to enforce security: our proxy blocks the IE user agent from accessing the external internet (and the desktops are locked down so spoofing isn't a problem). IE is an intranet browser for us. Those who need internet access (mainly devs) get Firefox.

You're right. Seriously shameful.

Eh, I meant the engine behind StackOverflow, SuperUser and the like.

* The content was blocked without warning, leading many to think Ars was broken
* Readers who complained were called "leechers" who were "held in contempt".
* They use Doubleclick and serve animated Flash ads
* Apparently text ads (e.g. Google AdSense) don't pay very well

Many of us do understand that Ars is more expensive to run than Stack Exchange or (maybe) Slashdot, because Ars has to pay writers. However the fact that web advertising is so inflexible and user-hostile is very sad and says something about the industry. BoingBoing and Daring Fireball seem to be doing well with their homegrown ad networks, maybe someone will take some ideas from them and come up with a non-evil ad network.

Yes it would cost less in the long run, but in the short to medium term they'll be running around like headless chickens outside their comfort zone (sorry for the mixed metaphors).

For right now: If these guys are 'strategically' a Microsoft shop, then there's little you can do at your pay grade. Suck it up or leave.

And as much as I hate being tied to IE, I (putting my IT manager hat on) can see why I wouldn't want an unsupported browser on my network. And Mozilla doesn't make it easy to deploy Firefox across an enterprise (no group policy, no MSI -- I know about 3rd party tools but those don't really count)

And who knows, maybe your bosses are the nasty types who see the fact that IE performs poorly on modern websites as a 'feature'.

you'd be hard pressed to disagree that Mac OS X's font-rendering, kerning, and anti-aliasing abilities are far superior to those provided by Windows when presented with side-by-side examples.

That's _your_ opinion. For me, Windows's rendering looks great (OS X looks 'fuzzy' to me). I know my philistinism may hurt typography geeks, but really, most people don't care.

Without nukes, powers would confront each other in their own territories, leading to huge death tolls and devastation that were the hallmark of WWI and II.

Post nukes, conflict has been confined to the fringes of the world. Korea, Afghanistan (the Soviet-era fight), Vietnam -- these happened because the USA and the USSR deemed chose to fight it out over a piece of land no one cared _that_ much about, so that a loss could be accepted without 'going nuclear'. While it sucked if you were a citizen of these countries, the fact of the matter is that a war between the USA and USSR directly would have been much, much worse.

> Correlation does not equal causation

Wars between powers occurred fairly frequently throughout the last one thousand years. Post-nukes, they've stopped fighting each other _directly_. Most recent case: India v Pakistan -- 3 shooting wars in 24 years. Post-nukes: nothing, despite plenty of provocation. You keep looking for correlation coefficients. In the world of international relations, this is a bloody miracle and we'll take it.

> Like the peace that has been or is being kept in Korea, Vietnam, Iran, and Afghanistan?

This is the engineer's disease: all or nothing. There is and will be no perfect peace. The question is, are we better off keeping conflict on the sidelines rather than in major world capitals? Again, from a international relations perspective, yes!

Also, note that as countries like Vietnam and (South) Korea join the global 'core', it becomes increasingly unacceptable for them to be embroiled in conflict. You simply wouldn't have a Vietnam War or Korea War today.

Guns == nukes, now?

And given how nukes have kept the peace for over 60 years now, I wouldn't say they have no redeeming qualities.

> A gun is million more times obscene then a female breast!

Speak for yourself. I love 'em both.

Guns are precision-crafted machines. Done right they can be beautiful. Idiots wielding them to cause mayhem -- now _that's_ obscene.

Especially on a product that has "Designed ... in California" on its back. Here are some alternative things Apple could do that would keep the app store clean and still go after the edu market:

1) Require app developers to keep screenshots G-rated.
1a) If necessary, ask app developers to keep the app names "clean". This is harder to do and I'm not comfortable about this, but the general guidance is that "Playboy" and "Wobble" is okay, but "AssTits Deluxe" is not. There should be bright-line guidance for what is okay and what is not.
2) Use content ratings to keep things at (roughtly) R or even M level. Users should have to manually change settings to see NC-17-rated content.
3) Only allow folks with credit cards (nominally adults) to see NC-17 rated content.
4) Extend enterprise policies (which the iPhone already supports) to allow admins to block levels of content.

These are from the top of my head. But all of these are better than going all Taliban on app developers.

Question: Is "The Lomborg Deception" peer-reviewed?

If that's suddenly a bug, then submit it as a bug/feature request, instead of, yes, philosophically discussing it here. It's your problem, so you go ask for it to be fixed; we're just telling you how it's not a problem for many.

I can do better, I can ignore Opera and watch it squished into an ever-shrinking corner of the marketplace. Pretty soon they can't even whine to the EU about getting their asses kicked in the marketplace.

Also, lots of users have pointed this bug out to Opera devs before. Google it -- it's not a new problem. They've done nothing so far.

While doing that - get off your high horse and remember that Opera, among browsers, has one of the lesser problems with unfulfilled promises. How many years FF is plagued with resource hunger? (and why Seamonkey is..snappier?) Where's the link to Minimo release from few years back, running perfectly on my 200 MHz ARM11, 20 MiB user ram Symbian phone? Don't get me started on hard and painfull limits of Chrome scalability.

I'm glad Opera works well for you, so why're you on a jihad to make sure it doesn't work well for others? And Chrome's and Firefox's failings stop Opera from being better ... how?

Also, you really managed to miss that some of us live in places where Opera is not a niche product at all? Wow...

I don't care if Opera is big in Ulan Bator or Timbuktu. In the larger browser marketplace, it's a distant #5, and shrinking. Frankly, with users like you acting providing such helpful community support for the product (and yes, that was sarcastic), they deserve all the shit they get.