I would totally play that game!

If you've seen the movie Traitor, there's an interesting line in it, paraphrased as:

The character's underlying meaning is that an act of terrorism on a democratic country is acceptable because the people of the country are responsible for that government's choices.

I disagree that a true "act of terrorism" is ever acceptable, but I sadly agree that we, at least partially, are individually and personally responsible for the actions of our government.

If nothing else, it at least is an interesting way to look at it.

Funny, when I visit that link I hear a long stream of vulgarity, followed by some legible sentences. The legible stuff sounds like:

"Who the **** designs a ******* window so ******* small that you can only see FOUR ******* websites at a time?? ******* Adobe!"

The stupid box takes up less than 1/16 of my browser window. That's a great design.

On top of that, the idiot designers made the scrollbar grip without a minimum vertical height, so that it shrinks to a single pixel high. That's great.

That's completely beside the fact that, by default, websites can store huge amounts of data via Flash, even if I have cookies disabled. Thankfully, there's FlashBlock.

From WikiPedia:

I don't think this would be a problem. If you already own the website, then you already can change the URL at will to anything you want.

The only reason this would be a bigger issue is XSS attacks - but those are already have way more important concerns than just spoofing the URL.

Personally, I would love it. It would make it much easier to merge the mobile/AJAX/static structures of the website, allow end-users to access the same bookmarks from multiple devices, and provide a much cleaner look than we already have.

Currently, the real issue with AJAX-webapp links is that the server never gets the hash (fragment) portion of the URL. This makes it hard to serve the correct page to a mobile device, and completely impossible if the device does not support JavaScript.

Someone mentioned below that they are planning to support OpenCL (assuming they didn't mean simply OpenGL). If that is the case, I wonder if they will only support Snow Leopard. This provides several benefits:

• Only one OS to worry about (for now).
• Significantly limits the OS features that need to be supported, since Snow Leopard only runs on a subset of Macs. (i.e.: 64-bit support is required for Snow Leopard.)
• Guarantees newer hardware (no issues with old computers running slowly).
• And most importantly, guarantees Intel / i586 processors, seriously reducing the complexity of targeting PowerPC computers as well.

If that is true, they will probably disappoint quite a few Mac users, who haven't upgraded for one reason or another.

Of course, Apple will be happy about it... ;-)

BSD will never work on the desktop! It's far too Unixy.

Now, excuse me as I get back to work on my user-friendly Mac.

Now that would at least have made sense in Dean Koontz's Frankenstein books!

(Of course, I'm probably the only person on Earth who read all three books of that series...)

For basic websites, I highly recommend Universal IE6 CSS.

I've decided that I will never design a website that supports IE6, but instead will only server up this rudimentary (if nice-looking) style sheet. As long as your website is standards-based, compliant, and content-oriented, this CSS file works great. You do, however, have to include some of those annoying <!-- [if lt IE 7]>...<![endif]--> tags.

For web apps, which are more complex, then I use a browser sniff and redirect IE6 users away. I don't care how "bad" or "evil" it is. It's better, to me, for users to know why a page doesn't work, than see a partially loaded page or pile of garbage.

I would ask, why would you even allow password-based logins to your server?

Step ONE for me when setting up a new server is to configure SSH keys for a user account, and disable any kind of login other than key-based.

(Step two is moving SSH off of port 22 to some other port, but that's more to keep script kiddies from trying to brute force their way in even when passwords are disabled!)

It's funny to me that everytime someone posts a whoosh retort, they bottom post.

If the joke or sarcasm is going over their head, shouldn't you, just this once, top post?

Not to support Comcast, or anything, but the easy solution has always been: if you need business-connection quality, buy a business connection!

I have Charter. Some people have trouble with them. However, I never have. I've always had a business connection through them. I get 10Mbps up, 1Mbps down, with excellent customer support, and a static IP; I pay just under $100/month for this connection.

I'm sure you can get faster or cheaper connections elsewhere, but here's the kicker: they don't care if I saturate my bandwidth 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They've told me so, I believe it's part of the contract I signed to get the service. I've never had a problem saturating my connection, any time of day or night. (Note, this connection is in a residential neighborhood.)

The real issue, as many have said, is that they just should not be able to lie about "unlimited" service when they are not providing it. They should be required to provide a minimum up and down speed, state the maximum up and down speed, and explicitly define the total data transfer allotted per month. Then, if the cheap-o plan doesn't work for you, you can upgrade to the next level.

And if you want unlimited data transfer, or the ability to host a server, then you need a business connection. Because that's what a business connection is for!