Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:IE's Real Problem (Score 1) 271

Apple was stalling things for a while. Not sure about the whole story on this, what changed, when and how long it took for the IE team to get things done once the legal stuff was sorted out. Here is an original email form apple.

and some background This is all several years old at this point. But this was an IE history lesson, not current events.

Comment Re:IE's Real Problem (Score 1) 271

Your right. I should have done fact checking before just writing down my memory. CSS in Microsoft Explorer 3 was the first time me and the majority of the world encountered it. But the standards guys and real inventors had been working on it for almost 2 years.

From wikipedia - Although the CSS1 specification was completed in 1996 and Microsoft's Internet Explorer 3[8] was released in that year featuring some limited support for CSS, it was more than three years before any web browser achieved near-full implementation of the specification.

Comment IE's Real Problem (Score 2, Insightful) 271

I have been working on the web since before IE 1.0 came out.

IE 1 - 3 Were garbage compared to what Netscape was offering at the time IE 4 was substantially better than Netscape Navigator. With IE 5 crushing it as Netscape imploded.

Microsoft was late to the game but threw everything at it to crush their competition. They had much better technology once they got to IE 4. (They also used other business tactics to run Netscape out of business with OEM agreements and giving away their web servers).

The CSS we complain about - Microsoft invented it. The Browser wars took HTML from a markup that didn't even have tables to close to what we have today. The Standards were a joke. Each browser came up with innovations and then copied their competitors. Standards were an after effect of what web developers adopted (down with Blink). Websites were best with IE or best with Netscape.

Once Microsoft drove Netscape out of business they just sat there and didn't put any effort into it like any Monopoly - there was no reason to.

The Standards bodies created a host of specs CSS 2 and 3 being some of the most important that differed from what Microsoft had in IE. This was different from the rubber stamping of the implementations we had before during the browser wars. I suspect a combination of better design and(just sour grapes - do it differently just because). Microsoft largely ignored the standards, in their mind they were the only browser and were the standard.

So IE just sat there with a slow release cycle and no desire to implement the standards - they had VML implemented so why bother with SVG - a paper spec when they have an actual implementation for years. Microsoft was busy trying to address all the security problems of their features first mentality with the trusted computing initiative and not making any forward progress on functionality.

So While Microsoft idled, Firefox and WebKit/Safari grew. The Standards bodies continued to work now they were a head of the browsers now, not way behind. Microsoft woke up to see its market share slipping and suddenly It's Browser wars II

Now Microsoft has a couple of problems keeping up

1) Backward compatibility - this is arguably a good thing as it keeps you from breaking old stuff, but also makes fixing older 'quirky' behavior.
2) Release cycle tied to OS - the slow release cycle compared to the opensource alternatives means their browser is always behind.
3) Standards games - It's not all Micosoft's fault - the standards bodies don't always play fair. Why does IE not have Canvas? When every other browser does? Because Apple has a patent on it. Apple's agreement with W3C is to license that patent once it becomes a standard (not just a proposal) but until canvas is an official standard, Microsoft is open to lawsuit if they implement it. But while the all the other browsers are implementing Canvas (opensource bodies don't have any cash to lose if Apple files a lawsuit ) their not pushing it through the standards commitee to make it official. This leaves Microsoft as the odd man out.

The IE team is working hard to catch back up, but the above 3 points are holding them back. Windows 7 is a decent OS so finally we have a chance of replacing all those OEM Windows XP computers still running IE 6.

Comment Re:Something needs to be done as today's system is (Score 1) 296

Bottom line: Nobody trust the government to do it right.

Conservatives are riled up about this issue because there is an entitlement tsunami is going to crater the economy if we don't get social security and medicare/medicaid reform (mixed up with anger about stimulus plan pork spending). Ironically the Health Bills are being presented as cost saving reform, even more ironically they are also supposed to increase coverage for more Americans. Which one is it? A reduction of cost or an new expensive government entitlement? They don't believe it can be both and so they assume the latter.

Seniors are scared of a medicare reform as they don't want their benefits affected.

Doctors are scared of government controlling their livelihood even more than the insurance companies already do.

Insured people are scared that the government will ration their health care/reduce its quality.

The U.S already provides public health care for 40-60% of its citizens through medicare/medicaid. These programs will be insolvent in a decade and both parties agree they are a mess. The Republicans don't seem to care and the Democrats think that doubling down and expanding coverage to 100% of Americans will somehow make it easier to manage / less expensive.

It's fear that's running the show. The proposed health care plans are supposed to reduce costs, expand coverage to uninsured, and not ration health care. Most people think that you've got to pick two out of the three and since no politician will admit which one of the three will get the short end of the stick fear abounds.

Comment Re:Pest control (Score 1) 93

Don't worry. You have to get past the other common species in Papua New Guinea such as the the salt water crocodiles on the coast, the aggressive cassowary, huge insects such as the rhino beetles, and over 80 different species of poisonous snakes (most of them venomous). All before you get anywhere near Mount Bosavi.

Comment Re:Not a "Texas Court", a US Court (Score 1) 403

Yes but the 21 Texas Representatives to the Federal House of Reps and the two Texas Senators in the US Senate are about the only ones who can get these bozo Federal Appointees off of the bench. If you're a Texan call your Rep and tell em to Impeach Ward and Davis. Just a few hearings on reform or the threat of Impeachment could turn the tide.

Comment Re:turn it around... (Score 1) 281

Junior High was a long time ago I was remembering Rick Perry's recent remarks.

Your right there is no explicit clause stating one way or another. Here are the different sides to the argument.

and wikipedia

Finally, I don't agree with this guy but I like this quote.

"I say Texans can do whatever the hell they want. Even if U.S. law says Texas cannot secede from the Union, the whole point of declaring independence is to free yourself from such laws"

Not quite as elegant as "For the People and By the People" but we ain't from Boston.

Comment Re:turn it around... (Score 1) 281

As someone located in East Texas i feel a little helpless.

The US Federal Judges are Appointed for life as noted elsewhere (TEXAS Judges are voted on so our gun toting citizens do get final say at the state level).

So barring another loony in body armor going crazy with an assault rifle there won't be any quick resolution to this

So we are left with the following options.

1) We can ask our Senators and Obama to appoint some Patent Reform minded judge(s) - not sure if there are any openings soon. Maybe Obama would do something that is actually good for Texas.

2) Texas can activate its clause in its original constitution and treaty with the US and secede from the Union - unfortunately this Constitution was amended after the Civil War and this option would no doubt be messier than any Patent Litigation. I'm sure you blue guys would say good riddance but all of you red staters out there would be too envious and we'd probably end up with Civil War II

3) Educate the juries on Patent and Patent Reform. There is 0 public awareness of the patent litigation problem on the street here in East Texas. The reports in the local paper of the patent decisions get read over like little blurbs in the National news. And as we all know the lawyers immediately try to eliminate anyone with any sign of intelligence or free will from the jury pool. I wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper, not sure what else to do.

Any ideas on what could be done by East Texans? Like I mentioned before this is a problem with the U.S. Federal court so we can't use our votes to fix this problem.

Comment Re:I like visualization (Score 1) 151

It IS the rational place to focus your efforts.

The problem isn't the logic of the 'efforts' - (eugenics is all very logical given a particular set of assumptions) The problem is the morality not the logic - or the underlying assumptions that form that logic

What type of 'efforts' are we talking about? Let's start with the motto every child a wanted child

How do we decide when a child is 'wanted' or 'unwanted'?

Who decides is that up to the parents? Do they need help deciding whether their child is 'wanted'? What are the criteria for deciding how many children someone should have? Why do we to assume that inferior socal position, faster-breeding individuals have 'unwanted' children that they need to 'eliminate'? Why are we getting involved in helping someone 'eliminate' their unwanted child? Who are we to decide how many black people there should be? Who exactly is doesn't want these children enough to setup "services to fix the problem". What measures should we take to 'reduce' the numbers of 'unwanted' children?

The founder of planned parenthood was a logical, rational, atheisitc, and amoral who wanted to control the number of poor black people. The modern Planned Parenthood may not agree with her ideology and have but they are still using her methods. They've killed far more blacks than any Klu Kluk Klanners ever have.

So if you're pro-choice and thinking this is about women's rights not controlling minorities I have a few question for you. Planned parenthood performs more abortions on black fetuses than white ones even though whites outnumber the black population 5 to 1. Why? Is there is anything systematic in planned parenthood that targets black people? Or are they just more helpful to black women? Is that the kind of help back women need?

Every child a wanted child is a much nicer slogan than 'death to black/poor children' but don't delude yourself as to what is going on here

Submission + - Buy CO2 quotas here - and buy back the climate

eddd writes: Everybody seem to be trying to save the world in different ways these days, and now private persons have the chance to buy CO2 quotas online. The web site is a kind of novel idea. For 14 euro (app. $18) you buy a ton of CO2 which is taken off the market, thus ensuring less emission to the athmosphere. Sure, it's all about transferring money from your pocket to "the cause", but this should appeal to the geek in you. If nothing else, you get a nice diploma as proof of ownership.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can tell the ideals of a nation by its advertisements. -- Norman Douglas