Right.

I had to go to the website's ISP, get the webpage on paper tape, take it back to the computer room, type in the binary codes using only the 1's and 0's on a teletype machine and then read the content from the blinking lights on the front of a PDP-8/E. And when we were finished, the sysadmin would kill us and dance on our graves singing Hallelujah.

They turned to posts which were basically just flamebait, often untrue and contradicting factually the linked sources they gave. I didn't leave, just visited less.

So if you left that site becuase of the above reasons, what are you doing within 100 miles of Slashdot?

Mosaic? Are you kidding?

The only browser that should be allowed is Lynx!!

Do you really want to live in a city designed by a bunch of fifteen year olds whose idea of a great city is lifted from World of Warcraft?

And why should they care about being XHTML compliant? Do you think that if you wrote a competitor to YouTube that would be a good advertising slogan? Like it or not, customers don't really care if a website is standards compliant. They just want to see movies.

In the early 90's, the dominant word processor was not MS-Word, it was WordPerfect. They lost their monopoly in word processors by their own missteps (mostly a really bad port to Windows). Microsoft was able to pick up that market not by being standards compliant but instead by offering a superior upgrade path from WordPerfect.

I'm thinking that standards compliance to help developers is probably not on the list of reasons the EU is deciding to go after Microsoft. The major reason they are doing this on behalf of Opera (as opposed to Firefox or Chrome) is that Opera is an EU corporation.

Microsoft didn't destry Netscape. Netscape destroyed Netscape. The gap between Netscape 4.0 and Netscape 6.0 (and there wasn't a 5.0) was about four years. That's what killed Netscape. Microsoft may have taken advantage of the situation but Netscape's demise was self-inflicted.

I think you're confusing Microsoft with Google.

How do you monitor what your children do online? That is the equivalent of trying to keep track of everyone that your children associate with, everywhere that they go with their friends, everything that they say, etc. It is just not possible to do that, and it never was.

You could try raising them properly, instilling proper values, ensuring there are open lines of communication; you know, try parenting. As for specifically how to stop them from surfing porn on the internet, take the computer out of their room and put it in the living room (or whatever room you habitually hang out in). And make sure the screen is facing out into the room. That way if the little bugger is surfing porn, you can enjoy it too ;)

The algorithm for Google PageRank is based on the concept of citations from academia. If I remember correctly, the software was originally meant only to index academic papers and eventually grew to index the whole internet. So its not surprising that it predicts winners so well (depending on how much the Nobel committee weights citations in their decisions).

Just because you don't use a feature directly does not mean that you don't need the feature. If, as you say, the software that you run needs a specific feature then you need that feature.

So other than the keybords it cost almost $10,000 to take down a few pieces of paper with nasty messages on them? Does the price go up just because they use a few four-letter words?

Because that superstar gay propgrammer who currently lives somewhere where gay marriage is legal might not want to move to California. Heck I'm straight (as much as that matters for someone who hangs out on Slashdot) and I'm not sure I'd want to move to some backwater that was so reactionary as to not allow gay marriage.

But on Slashdot insults directed towards Microsoft are always considered insightful. It doesn't matter if they're demonstrably false. Hell it doesn't matter if they're true but a good thing (Bill Gates is the devil because he feeds starving children in Africa).

I don't think SCO will die in 2009. Perhaps a better assessment would be "finally realize they died years ago".