Sayonara

That's not Firefox's "fault". It's because those sites use poorly-coded, platform-locked (and let's face it, probably only tested under one browser) CSS. No browser is ever going to "work with all sites" while there are people who ignore the standards. Unless it's one built by pixies and powered by magic. That's because "regular WYSIWYG" is shite. Dreamweaver does not understand the philosophy of page design; it can only paste code in positions determined by regular expressions. And that is precisely why Microsoft's deliberate (and, annoyingly, successful) ploy to break the purpose of the standards pisses people off. They call you because their browser doesn't understand someone else's pants code? And that makes you feel like an idiot? How weird. I suspect that if Firefox were as insecure as IE, we'd have seen some major attacks by now. Imagine the kudos of hitting Firefox users hard. Also recall that there is no shell integration with Firefox, unlike IE. I think I had a crash with the Firefox beta version once, but not a single one since 0.8. Which is the nature of the arms race, not a property of the browser. Where are you going with this? You seem to be saying that people should not bother innovating. I haven't seen anyone evangelising in this thread. Every mention of Firefox or Opera has been an illustrative comparison of IE's features with those of other browsers on the market. I hope you are not going to do in this thread what you did in that Windows & Linux thread. What the hell are you drivelling about? The w3c is headed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee. He invented the web, in case you didn't know. If he says "this is a recommended practice", and the WW working groups agree, everyone follows suit. Everyone except Microsoft, who are leeching off the success and popularity of his creation without doing him the courtesy of treating it as the resource he intended it to be. Every time you open your mouth an argument from ignorance drops out. Then you should be avoiding them. ActiveX was a great idea on paper, but a diabolical mess in practice. It's one big vulnerability and it's sitting in your operating system's shell - not only that, but it doesn't really serve any purpose now that its functionality can be provided more easily and more safely with different technologies. The decision to not support it by various browser's development panels is a sensible one. False dilemma rubbish, and - I suspect - factually inaccurate. "Some people don't understand what the best tool for the job is" is not a very good argument for supporting ActiveX. It's not that FireFox is "not compatible", as if that's some terrible failure that keeps programmers up at night. See Aeternus's post. Yes, and they do this by adhering to interoperable standards, you flaming idiot. Do you think anyone would give a crap about W3 standards if your half-baked crackpot opinions were anywhere near approaching reality? a) It is not the responsibility of a web designer to dictate what software the end user must have installed, b) Failure to create cross-compatible and interoperable documents is business suicide. Funny you should bring this up. The inverse case is that you can install the same browser on different operating systems. Well, you can with Opera, Mozilla, Firefox etc. Microsoft only extended the reach of IE to the Mac, and even they recognised Mac IE5 was so utterly dreadful that they have halted development. Nobody said they are "the same" - they said that IE is part of the windows shell, which is a major problem and completely unnecessary (in fact it was done purely to keep IE "locked in" on OEM sales of Windows, which sparked one or two very high profile antitrust cases of which I am certain you are completely ignorant). Factually incorrect. If you did so now, it would be unsupported. Mac IE is an extinct product that had a miserable life and a painful death. Rubbish. There are as many people who'd like to see FF fall on its arse as there are Microsoft haters. You obviously don't read the news very often then. In fact, the "uninstall IE" function basically removes some of the shortcuts, and that's it. Anything he doesn't understand, he will ignore. Whoop de doo. Learn some history instead of picking out "facts" that you think support you. I might have delivered a baby once but it doesn't mean that eating children is forgivable. For a start, this is largely a discussion about IE and Firefox. Now Firefox didn't exist in 2001, and had full CSS support from its birth, so your comparison is fallacious. Secondly, what IE did support with regards to CSS in the past is not really relevant to what it does NOT support now. It's part of a strategy of standards-hijacking that Microsoft adopts wherever it sees a potential market. It's a brilliant business strategy, don't get me wrong, but from the point of view of web designers it is frustrating and very very damaging. Thirdly, "support for some things" is hardly anything to orgasm over. NN was the first proper browser, for goodness sake, but you don't see me advocating it on that basis. Remain compliant. I'd like to see some of your pages. I would bet a lot of money they don't even declare doctypes. Seems to me that was a post about marketing. Yes, it's best to wait and see. I think most people here though are just saying they are preparing to be disappointed, based on past experience. Despite what I said earlier, there are tweaks and settings combinations that will help - I'd recommend exploiting the knowledge on Macromedia's web site to the fullest extent as there are some great developers who post on there. The bottom line though is that while standards are not supported or implemented in the same way across all platforms, software like Dreamweaver just can't cope. It's like a mother trying to control a car full of screaming children. All the code that DW outputs needs to be checked (quick way is obviously to test the page in all major browsers, and hunt the cause of any problems), and to do that the standards and their purpose needs to be understood. That's another big problem with WYSIWYG - it creates a pool of novice output (not that I'm calling you a novice) that can be churned out rapidly with no knowledge of, or regard for, the problems it creates. The great thing about writing cross-compatible, standards-compliant code is that it is a lot easier, and much faster, than most WYSIWYG. Definitely worth investing the time in researching it, even if you just dabble. This is simply wrong. I think your computer's ability to use the TCP/IP protocols says otherwise. Or, to put it another way, they do mean something to most web users because they allow those users' browsers to display anything at all. I suggest you check out http://www.alistapart.com - it's the design site for real web developers. Prepare to be embarrassed. Please justify that. That is demonstrably not what he said. Statements like this make you look like you have mental problems. In the first place, browsers don't show you "the internet". They show you the web, which is a super-collection of DOM-specified documents transported across the internet using specified protocols. It's that DOM and those protocols that are important in actually letting it all work, and to suggest developers "stop worrying about them" is symptomatic of a brain that is completely devoid of any comprehension of the topic. Secondly, as has been pointed out to you time and time again, these browsers are not "incompatible" with the pages. They fail to render the pages correctly because the pages are written using SHIT CODE. That is not the browser's fault. Since the release of the Firefox beta, web usage figures for Internet Explorer have dropped by almost 20%. If - for the sake of argument - Firefox gains the largest share of the browser breakdown, I assume you would then advocate the standards be changed again to match the Mozilla way of doing things? Think carefully before you reply, for one answer makes you a hypocrite and the other makes you an idiot. They qualifiably would not. The metaphor is about who follows established standards, not who is in the majority. Listen, the fact that you do not understand the need for the standards does not mean they have no purpose, and it certainly does not mean they can be abandoned at the drop of a hat. Again, I don't know how you expect to be taken seriously when you don't even know the difference between the internet and the web. If it wasn't so depressing I would be ROFLing at you. Bear in mind that any opinionated, ignorant, angsty teen Martinet can be a "webmaster". Wrong, and also not for you to decide. That's truly meaningless in this discussion. It's clear from this that you don't (a) know any real web designers, (b) take part in any web working groups, usenet discussions, or design communities, or © have any clue about current web design philosophies. In short, you are talking out of your arse in the vain hope that everyone here will be more ignorant on this subject than yourself. Hard luck. Typically the browser is specced out and designed after the recommendations of the WCAG become a standard. Recommendations, I might point out, that Microsoft themselves have a hand in discussing as part of the working groups. Your grasp of cause and effect is pretty bad. A proper web designer wouldn't. They'd accomodate it. Check out the web site, http://www.thebeathut.com - I built this for a friend (I realise it's not very pretty; I didn't get paid enough to do fancy graphics. But that's not important to my point). This site is compatible with: IE5 PC, IE6 PC, IE5 Mac, Firefox Win & Lin, Opera Win & Lin, Netscape, Mozilla Win & Lin, Links, Lynx, Konqueror, Safari. It appears the same in each of those browsers, automatically scales back to accommodate smallscreen devices like PDAs and phones, supports full user control of text size, meets WAI-AAA accessibility requirements, automatically generates a printable verison of any page, collapses gracefully on lack of CSS and/or JavaScript, and collapses to anchored text on demand. How did I do that? By following standards to the ****ing letter. It was easy and simple. The only place where I had to differ from standards was when I employed several well-used css hacks for IE, which exist because IE is the only browser to have deliberately and nastily diverged from the standards it once embraced. You're very much cheering for the wrong team here. This is a minor point in this discussion, but you need to know it: Typically, webmaster's stats cannot be relied on for that information. And any designer worth their salt will, but not at the cost of abandoning standards, and not to the detriment of non-IE users. Yes it does matter, and no it does not mean that. Errr... no. Jesus, this is coming from someone who doesn't even know what differentiates the internet from the web. One could make the argument that Microsoft was "elected king" (even though kings are not elected) of the operating system market, but the claim that this gives them any authority over a bunch of protocols that they don't own is just stupid. Ah yes, I forgot about that. Ha ha, "View source" coming up. You have demonstrated time and again, in this thread and others, that you will evangelise about a topic despite having little or no comprehension of the topic. You are ignorant and naive, and your arguments are packed with logical fallacies. I would urge you to think very carefully before replying to this thread again, because I am not going to waste my time policing all the other members just because you can't be bothered to research the very area in which you claim to have expertise. If you have not already done so, please read this page from the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Internet_Explorer Also visit http://www.alistapart.com and read a cross-section of their articles and the subsequent discussions.

Based on what?

I think you might need a new dictionary.

"Resistant" does not mean the same as "invulnerable". There's one thing to think about

Whatever. I am trying to get across the point that backing up "Here is what I say happened" with "here is what Microsoft Encarta says happened" is not the way forward. Do you disagree?

Actually, I have to agree to be honest. There are few people around now with interests in pushing the flop barrier. But they are still not relevant to the domestic market, even if you apply directional technology arguments. Sony hype. The cell chip is one of the most powerful processors on the domestic market, but that spec on its own does not necessarily make the machine as a whole "a more powerful gaming system" than the leading PC. The technology is certainly a leap, but it's not like the PC industry is going to sit on its arse and stagnate while the PS3 is being released. Also Sony have the problem that their chosen processor ain't going to be getting any (significantly) faster between now and their first sales peak. I can order a Barton or Winchester core right now and overclock it beyond the PS3 specs, and not have to worry about the overhead of having my CPU act as a device controller for hardware it has no business controlling. The graphics cards one can pick up these days make the entire raft of current and pre-release consoles look like childish toys Dual processor motherboards for PCs have been available for a over decade, by the way, so I wouldn't expect many PC owners' jaws to drop in goggle-eyed disbelief. I am not sure what you mean by "the (comparatively) huge processors designed to take advantage of dual processing". That sounds arse-over-tit to me, pardon my French. Anyway, back on topic... I am sure the x360 will be well received, even if it is a bunch of old rubbish six months after the launch date.

I didn't say rude, I said impolite. Believe me I know how hard it is to get members for this sort of thing - I had the same problem with an online project when I did my dissertation.

Writing Wiki software is reinventing the wheel too

I can help with any problems that need solving ("what's the best way to X?", etc), but I won't have time to develop.

lol Apart from being directly plagiarised from The Third Eye and Proyas's Dark City. Yes. Probably the most redeeming feature of the film, I would have said. I saw some production footage where one of the effects guys boasted about that scene. It made me snort tea out through my nose.

Maybe there is, but the fact remains that it's not where the name comes from.

You realise processor R&D advances a hell of a lot in nearly a year? It wouldn't surprise me if they'd been ousted by now. Not really a big issue for this thread I suppose, since they ain't squeezing those things into consoles. I doubt the console will be able to usurp the PC in the market, simply because a full PC gives you (i.e. a seller) so many more marketing and technology avenues to explore. But the PS3 will definitely raise the bar.

It doesn't really matter if they support you or not - the conclusion on its own is not much good to anyone when we are trying to establish why the events happened the way they did.

You still have to accept "Earth is the only life-bearing planet" as being a possible overall outcome.

Put it this way: if I'd started the thread, it would be called "your least hated and reviled Matrix instalment". Are they bollocks a "rare blend". There was blending alright, but it was blending of other films and other people's intellectual property. As for philosophy and religion, yes - I agree they were "thrown in". With reckless abandon and a complete disregard for the individual or historical significances. Can't argue with that. No he didn't. I'm guessing you don't watch many films/watch much tv/read many books then. I can think of plenty of better villains.

I'd make it a Constellation-class cruiser. That way they can lose a couple of nacelles in amusing incidents and still limp around at warp.

I meant it "doesn't make it more likely" in the sense that the probability has not changed. Rather, we are more confident in the likelihood.

Having a better trainer and better equipment doesn't allow you to exceed your natural maximum athletic potential. Using factors that modify your biology directly does.

That's why it's called "artificial"...? Responses to pre-determined triggers, which can be selected based on another set of triggers. It's not real AI - it's the program making decisions based on the intelligence of the designer.

I'm sure it's a great resource, but you know - if you're going to advertise on a similar site, you bloody well ask first. It's just good manners (and covered in our terms of use).

Isaac Asimov. There are a few in the "Robot" series, I think all of them are anthologies of short "robot laws"-oriented stories. The film is a souped-up composite of several of Asimov's stories.

Sure, why not.

Hurrazzles!