I think some fool at MSN is under the delusion that they have a monopoly on Internet Web pages too. :p

Posted by: MadMan - Croc o' Lyle Hunter on February 28, 2003 07:42 AM

---

 

"I believe Capitalism works"
"I don't think Microsoft is evil"

Based on these two statements, why would I even want to consider reading what else this author is trying to say? There is a concept called common-sense, which results from an informed comprehension of things as they truly are, combined with critical thinking and deductive reasoning, which undeniably renders both of these statements demonstrably false. Despite a lack of context for the authors definitions of "works" and "evil", adhering to commonly accepted standards of meaning assigned to the terms makes their use in the above sentiments uninformed at best, illogical at worst. Why promote the opinions of one who dispenses an uninformed opinion? Better yet, why continue such illogic? Unless, of course, the aim is entertainment and not insight...

Posted by: on February 28, 2003 10:29 AM

---

 

Now say that again, this time in English.

Posted by: Afoolsaywhaaaa? on February 28, 2003 11:28 AM

---

 

"I believe Capitalism works"
This works from the confusion we live under free markets -- we don't.

"I don't think Microsoft is evil"
Never attribute evil intent with myopia and/or general grade stupidity. Microsoft simply does not care about other people's standards for the same reason the American Congress exempts itself from many of the laws it passes -- they're too inconvenient.

Posted by: on February 28, 2003 11:41 AM

---

 

Myopia and "too inconvenient" are very different causes.

If by "general grade stupidity" you're arguing Microsoft acts out of dumbness, you have quite a case yet to make, my man. Everything Microsoft does is according to a plan.

If by myopia you mean Microsoft acts out of ignorance, that is perhaps the worst sort of danger... a giant troll walking through a china (ceramic dishware) store knocking over cases left and right, and trampling the patrons, unaware of the damage being caused -- and -- not caring even if it was aware.

Posted by: Pappy Thimblebum on February 28, 2003 12:36 PM

---

 

Let me guess, Mr. Anonymous. You should wandered over here from SlashCrap, er, Slashdot, didn't you? Sorry, this is the wrong place for your "Microsoft is evil and Bill is Satan" campaign. Sure, they do lots of stupid things, but dismissing a person just because he doesn't share your hatred of Microsoft is well, very Slashdot-like.

What you're doing is the logical fallacy of personal attack.

Now, if you want to say something about the article itself, say it.

Posted by: Thor the mighty on February 28, 2003 01:47 PM

---

 

It could also be categorised as Poisoning the well

Posted by: Thor the mighty on February 28, 2003 01:48 PM

---

 

Microsoft, any company really, has only so many things it can focus on. Standards ain't it. Bill can do only so much micro management. At this point he isn't the driving force on more than a small handful of very narrow issues -- corporate cultural momentum is.

Slapping a "Microsoft is evil and Bill is Satan" sticker on the post when it isn't applicable (and specifically suggests neither good nor evil apply) is, uh, interesting. Bill can't be anything, given the assumption of cultural momentum. That outside standards are not within Microsoft's sphere of interest is not too incendiary a charge. And it would seem to work either way, depending on whether you think Microsoft smart or not. Or whether you can apply an attribute "smartness" to any large collection of individuals.

Evil suggests a guiding intelligence, which is more comfortable but doesn't seem to explain very much -- especially not this article. An article where the author seems genuinely puzzled because the term evil (even evil self-interest) doesn't seem to apply.

I once read, somewhere, Mitnick (evil super hacker) described as not especially bright, which surprised me. Instead the observer noted something else -- persistence. An attribute, when fueled with enough of either spare time or cash, or both, might have a striking resemblance to intelligence.

BTW, myopia and inconvenience many times go hand in hand.

Posted by: on February 28, 2003 03:39 PM

---

 

Evil depends on concessionists. Without them it would be recognized and die.

By the way, which post is being referred to as being from Mr. Anonymous? Please post the message number (counted from the top).

Posted by: Mrs. Anonymous on February 28, 2003 04:21 PM

---

 

I am referring to comment #2, where the poster dismissed Lyle's argument simply because he says "I don't think Microsoft is evil"

See "Poisoning the well" link mentioned earlier

Posted by: Thor the mighty on February 28, 2003 05:14 PM

---

 

Now that everyone's gone off half-cocked, it might interest those who remained cool-headed to know that this may be an honest mistake intended to fix an Opera 6.0 bug: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=53008&cid=5243652

Note that this evidence is anecdotal; a cursory search didn't turn up any corroboration.

Posted by: Mark on March 1, 2003 12:12 AM

---

 

Mark's suggestion that it may an honest mistake is the first balanced posting in this topic.

Cross-browser coding is probably harder now than it was when most developers only worried about IE4 and Netscape 4. It's very difficult to keep track of which version of which browser has which CSS bug. See the discussion of hacks for the IE5 box-model problem at http://glish.com/css/hacks.asp

And sometimes the W3C doesn't help - http://www.evolt.org/article/Mission_Impossible_mouse_position/17/23335/ describes an apparent ambiguity in a standard (Document Object Model) which different browser-makers have interpreted differently.

Perhaps the decelerating rate at which users upgrade browser (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990418.html - referenced by Croc o' Lyly) give the W3C the chance to raise its game to the level of the major language standards (FORTRAN, COBOL, C, etc.), where each standard is published with a validation suite - this would reduce ambiguities almost to vanishing point.

Posted by: Philip Chalmers on March 3, 2003 04:59 AM

---

 

Things would be considerably easier if we had a browser emulator. My support for versions of IE is worse because it's so much more difficult to have multiple versions of IE installed on the same machine.

Posted by: Multiplicity on March 3, 2003 11:28 AM

---

 

>"I believe Capitalism works"
> "I don't think Microsoft is evil"
>Based on these two statements, why would I even want to consider reading what >else this author is trying to say?

I agree with these statements, although I hate Microsoft's attitude, and I know all the tricks they can use, wich are not even advertised, to keep users to them. But I just believe that this is a natural human reaction. When you have power, or a quasi-complete monopoly, you just keep using it in your own interest. And with the power you gain, it can become more and more effective.

Why do you think Netscape crashed? I remember, working for a small ISP back in 1996, the choices were: make 10.000 install CDs with Netscape (cost: 4$ per Netscape license + 10.000$ to pay the CDs), or make 10.000 CDs with IE 2.0 (sux, but it's free) and, BTW, *receive* 25.000$ from Miscrosoft to help us "make & market" these CDs. In fact, they were just paying us an amount of money we couldn't refuse.

This is human nature, not evil nature. Yes, it is disgusting and must be fought. I'd finish by saying that I don't think big corporations are likable, because they always end up abusing their position. Small is beautiful!

Posted by: 147 on March 4, 2003 03:52 AM

---

 

Sorry 147, you are evil. Not everyone would sell out to Microsoft for money. Don't market your flimsy morals here.

Posted by: on March 4, 2003 11:26 AM

---

 

ha ha...
the two posts that accuse the second post of "the fallacy of logical attack" and "poisoning the well" are truly worthy of positions in the GOP or at least as talking heads on Fox TV. Does anybody else get tired of such hypocrisy? Anti-intellectualism is a tool for maintaining consumer cultures or preserving a state of imbalance. What do you want to be today?

Posted by: on March 5, 2003 11:18 AM

---