... then you don't know understand the mentality of modern psychiatry.
There is already a significant societal impetus to normalize both pedophilia and infanticide, and it won't stop there.
And your solution puts the onus on the user to become an expert in software. The whole point of the exercise is to give the user what he wants/needs. If some part of the system is broken, it usually ends up being someone downstream or upstream that gets the blame. After all, if you are refusing to support broken browsers, then you might be encouraging a gigantic company to fix their software (yeah, like that ever happens, short of a world-ending cataclysm), but you are also jeopardizing your users' experience and ultimately your own business. Playing hardball like you suggest, however tempting it may be, and it's _very_ tempting, costs your website users, and that means fewer customers. At some point you might have to decide to cut your losses, but as a website developer, just like any other software developer or anyone providing a service or product, you _must_ bend over backwards to give your customers the best value/most convenient experience/best service possible.
It's an ugly situation, but we should be thankful that Mozilla and other competitors have gained enough ground against the Evil Empire that there _are_ alternatives... and that the Evil Empire has had to react in response to chinks in their monopolistic armor. Unfortunately, that leads to the temptation of "This website works best in $BROWSER."
I guess the ultimate question is: Should we be able to treat browsers like telephones? No matter what kind of telephone you have, at some point it either allows you to call other telephones or it doesn't. Beyond that, they are all essentially identical to the person placing or receiving the call.
I say that this is the kind of nonsense up with I will not put.
Microsoft is never the ones who get bitten. It's all the users who can't use the web apps developed for broken versions of IE, and the developers who have to figure out which dead chickens need to be waved over their sites to get them to work in each different (and differently broken) version of IE that comes out.
Microsoft just sits back and laughs.
No, it really isn't. If someone is reading the New York Times or the Washington Times, his political standing is pretty obvious.
Ditto MSNBC vs. Fox News. Or NPR vs. just about anything else on Talk Radio.
The difference is that a lot of people refuse to acknowledge they are biased, or don't realize it.
You could just get a plastic cling printed with "Opinion" and put it in the lower right corner. Or better yet, use one of the plastic clings printed with Mike or Joel and the Bots that occasionally come in MST3K DVDs. I have one on my mirror in the bathroom.
But we're talking about televisions, and the media made for televisions is made with TV/movie cameras. The big ones. Of course I'm not comparing 3D photos taken with a Nintendo 3DS (which is a pretty cool implementation for such an inexpensive piece of hardware), with IMAX 3D movies. I've seen an IMAX 3D movie in an IMAX theater, and I wasn't impressed with it above any other 3D format I've seen. It wasn't horrible, but for me the 3D effect distracted from at least as much as it enhanced the experience, and I can't see how a 3D TV would be any better.
When 3D undergoes the same revolution in quality that we saw when SD television gave way to HD, I think it will become more widely accepted and used. That said, however, 3D simply does not bring enough to the table to enhance the experience (whether at home or in the theater) compared to the improvements in sound and display technology we've seen in the past few decades. When talkies became possible, silent movies quickly disappeared except for those cases where the artists specifically chose that format for artistic reasons. Ditto color vs. black-and-white. I don't think 3D will ever become that kind of default unless radically new technological advances make it much better. Dolby is a household name because it redefined the sound experience, as is Technicolor. 3D hasn't hit that level of success yet, and I don't think it ever will.
If you like 3D, that's great. It's freely available and doesn't cost much these days. It simply doesn't interest me. But lots of technology struggled for years until just the right implementation (or price) came along. The advances we have seen in the last 20 years, if we stop to take stock of everything we take for granted, are nothing short of amazing.
True, but I haven't encountered any piece of common sense that isn't viewed as completely absurd by some subset of people.
Yeah, I wondered about that as well. I would like to see those two incredibly smug, but morally bankrupt people get some recognition from someone in authority of the Church that because of their public stands, they cannot be in good standing with the Church. It is infuriating that the U.S,. Bishops seem completely indifferent to these extremely high-ranking politicians who flout the most basic and important Catholic doctrines yet wear being Catholic as a badge of honor.
You know, years ago,
... and unfortunately that also goes for a majority of the billion you mentioned who pick and choose which Church teachings they believe and ignore the others.