Posted 11/20/2009 at 03:35:35am

I'm pretty pragmatic about browsers I think...I'll give you my personal pros and cons.

To start off, I like some things about lots of other browsers more than the same feature in any other given browser.

For example, I LOVE chrome (the very newest linux builds) because of the great development tools...they blow everything else out of the water, include my much beloved firebug extension in firefox.  Also, chrome flat out kills the compitition for speed and reliability, and I keep hearing it has good security, but I honestly never worry much about that anyway.  However, despite these strong points, it's not my default browser.

 Opera 10, seriously great.  I like everything about it pretty much.   They way it handles tabs is the best of any browser. It renders pages decently quick and correctly, and it is reliable too.  However, I don't use it much.

Safari, renders pages well, never use it (I run linux mostly).

IE...Ok.  Being honest.  IE has come SO far since 6.  Version 8 really is pretty good.  It even renders most pages really well.  However, it just doesn't have anything that I use that works BETTER than any other major browser out there, and all the other browsers have something about them I actually REALLY like that is unique or better about them, and it's not as quick as the others either. Also, as a web developer, every time I try to develop something, I get to javascript and css and things can go badly.  IE has it's own pretty querky version of javascript, and it doesn't always play well with the code that will work in every other browser (I'm not making it up).  Css can be the exact same way.  IE still can be a nightmare to develop for.  It's kinda like the kid that just won't play well with the others...even when it trys. Personally, that's why I tend not to use IE.  It's too much work to develop for, so I ignore it when I can.  Oh, and hackers target it, so there's that.

 Firefox (3.5).  It's not the fastest (but it's decent), it's not the most stable always (generally I don't have issues...but there have been some every once in a while).  However, it is the most customizable, adaptable, and I really do believe the most well rounded browser that exists.  Also, it runs on EVERYTHING pretty much (important if you use more than just windows, I realize I'm a minority here...).  On top of running on everything, it looks at home on every system as well.  Chrome, Opera, Safari, (and well, IE only runs on windows) just look freakishly alien in linux (or XP) depending on your theme.  It's not that important, but it's something I notice sometimes.  What keeps me coming back though?  Extensions.  Not gonna lie.  After you REALLY find one you like that actually makes life easy, it's really hard to give it up. Mine: firebug (cause it makes my job easier/possible), downloadthemall, download statusbar, stumbleupon(when I'm bored), ADBLOCK+(cannot live without it now), Downloadhelper, and some others depending on what machine I'm running.

 If chrome had addblock, I'd switch immediately.  What would it take for me to run IE again though (as default)? It would have to catch up to firefox and opera in html5 and css support, and also get rid of activex(I realize I can disable it, it's still the worst security hole in any browser ever...), and work on more than just windows, like the rest of the browsers do.

I've come really close to abandoning firefox for chrome, but the extentions are worth so much more than you realize untill you don't have them...and then you can't deny firefox's usefulness/appeal.

Posted 11/17/2009 at 01:21:49pm

How is this any different than what any given legit pharmasudical company does on a daily basis in the US?  There are tons of drugs out there that cannot be proven to work as described/advertized, and can have lasting side effects on the people that take them.  They advertize just the same, the only difference being they pay for their advertizing on tv and the like.  Many people I'm sure are duped into buying drugs for illnesses or conditions that could possibly be treated cheaper, and more effectively, than just trying to treat the symptoms.  If there's anything to be worried/alarmed about, it's that our pharmasudical industry is at least as crimminal.

I'm not alone in this belief.  I was actually just talking to a doctor I know personally a couple weeks ago about the issues reguarding drugs and advertizing, and how the studies they do for advertizing are ridden with inaccuracy and completely un-scientific in many cases.  He was telling me how a drug company can actually do hundreds of studies on a drug, and if even one of them comes out showing what they want to show, even if all the others contradict that one study, they are legally allowed to use that data to advertize the drug.  It really is that sick.  I was shocked to learn how bad it really is.

Posted 11/16/2009 at 03:33:46pm

I wasn't dirt poor, and I wasn't especially smart I don't think, but junior high was pretty hard sometimes, mostly due to the fact that it was a very sports-oriented school, and I just didn't enjoy team sports that entirely much, and I got picked on for being skinny.  I didn't suffer a huge amount of physical abuse, but it did occasionally happen.  Mostly it was just verbal abuse, and being rejected from any type of social gathering, including lunch tables and stuff.

What I remember hating most, is that when I would try to retaliate against a bully, they would go straight to a teacher, who always seemed to side with them...but when I went to a teacher, things just got worse, cause they had a entire group of friends to make my life hell.

I can see how if the abuse extended behond just school how it could be much worse though, and I think this is probably why cyberbullying is seen as as big of a deal as people are making it.  however, I do agree that face-to-face bullying is horrible, but it would be worse with cyberbullying in addition.

Posted 11/13/2009 at 01:06:17pm

I don't get it...they admit that there are pre-existing implementations (that would qualify as prior art right?) and yet they still get the patent approved?

Am I completely wrong in thinking that if we ignore prior art as a determinant of whether a patent is valid, the entire concept breaks down?  I mean, you might as well be able to patent something that has already to be patented in that case.  Am I completely off base here, or what am I mis-understanding?  (I'm being serious, I don't know that much about patent law...)

Posted 11/10/2009 at 01:57:57pm

I don't think that the CEO of nvidia being in bed with apple necessarily affects whether or not nvidia makes good gaming cards or not.  Either way, a very seductive part of the market still lies in the gaming comunity, with the only other real good high-end video card market being workstation cards...  I would find it hard to believe that ANY CEO would be stupid enough to ignore a huge section of a market only because they prefer to use their computers for something different.

And don't both apple and intel now prefer ati...I was under that impression...could be wrong...
### I'm an idiot, and I approve this message ###

Posted 11/10/2009 at 01:29:24pm

...ati is just getting cheaper, faster, and more features with every single release...
I was previously a fan of nvidia years ago...I cannot deny how awesome ati is right now though...just remarkable turnaround...
### I'm an idiot, and I approve this message ###

Posted 11/10/2009 at 01:22:15pm

Ok, the "whole point of open source" I don't believe is that "it cannot be controlled by anyone".  I believe open source software is constantly controlled by a certain group or person.  The linux kernel is a great example.  In the end, Linus decides what gets into the kernel or what doesn't...which is why linux doesn't have switchable process schedulers in the kernel.  Because Linus and the other guys that control the kernel development don't seem to care about process schedulers  that are optimized for different workloads (like the desktop), we don't have switchable process schedulers, but are instead pretty much stuck with one that is actually optimized for servers....and that's a pitty cause there are LOTS of other process schedulers out there, I should be able to switch them whenever I want...
Let's just look at a number of open-source projects:
Apache, Mozilla Firefox (or any other Mozilla product), OpenOffice, and yeah, even MySql (under SUN).
These are more or less completely controlled by the companies that sponsor them.  Can the source be seen? Yes.  Can you submit buggfixes? Yes.  Can you add any given feature at will, sure, if you are willing to branch the project....  But it's unlikely your implementation is going to get used by anyone but yourself unless you make a good business model out of your implementation.  Effectively, a company definately can control an open source software.  Yes, it's POSSIBLE that someone could take the MySql ball and run with it, and make Oracle's future implementation of MySql irrelevant but it's unlikely I think, and it definately SHOULD be used by them to further their business if they are wise at all, and would be.

I'm not sure if I agree or dis-agree with the EU in this case.  Yes, Oracle would use MySql for their benifit and likely make huge profits, and probably control it's development as well. However I'm not sure I want MySql development to be stagnated like it seems to have been for the last year either...I've even considered switching to postgres just because of this (I'm stuck with mysql at work though).   I kinda wish IBM would have bought Sun when they had the chance...but I could be wrong about that outcome.
### I'm an idiot, and I approve this message ###

Posted 11/04/2009 at 01:05:17pm

Except there are documented claims by OEMS and the like of the bribery taking place.
At the time when all this started, AMD cpus were definately not inferior as they are now.  It was the time of the p4 vs the athelon xp's.
### I'm an idiot, and I approve this message ###

Posted 11/04/2009 at 12:51:42pm

I don't much care that their client protocol isn't getting opened up, as long as it works well enough on any given platform in its binary blobs.  The possiblity of making a decent gui for linux/other OSes, is a huge benefit.  I hate how terrible the linux and mac guis for skype are compared to the windows version.  They really do need help making it better...this is probably their most clever way of admitting it.
### I'm an idiot, and I approve this message ###

Posted 11/03/2009 at 05:13:42pm

You sir, are being an ass.

We all know win7 is good, nobody is saying different.  Everyone knows that every OS has driver issues occasionally...win7 64bit doesn't work with my wireless card for instance, however ubuntu does.  My video card has a better driver in win7 than it does in ubuntu....but my trackpad works better in ubuntu than win7...and in 64bit win7, I can't use side scrolling...

Don't be so outrageously derogatory...its not cool.
### I'm an idiot, and I approve this message ###