Rumor has it that Fred Cisin may have mentioned these words:
While perfectly LEGAL, websites that won't work
with last
week's browser are offensive.
Yes, I am exaggerating a bit.
Yes, if a website doesn't support Nutscrape 2.0, I don't find that a big
problem... but websites that support Nutscrape 7.1, but don't support
Mozilla 1.9.3 (read: same damn core) I find *seriously offensive.* Yes, I
find Yahoo offensive!
That's like saying "Yes, we support the use of a 2002 Cadillac Escalade,
but not a 2002 Chevy Avalanche!
Other than the Escalade costs $10K more and you *have* to get the leather
interior, they're the same damn truck!
Why do some jerks make websites that have nothing but
text
on them, that CARE about which release of the browser?
Why do some jerks take plain text and put it in a .PDF?
Id10T Portability. Folks who can save a PDF by right-clicking and hitting
"Save Link" aren't smart enough to click "File" then "Save
As."
Why? I've
never understood this obsession with cookies. I mean, *why*?
Because it is RUDE to
store your crap on somebody else's machine,
without identifying what is in it.
Turn 'em off. Problem solved.
[[ BTW, cookies were originally designed to store "the user's crap on their
own machine" -> preferences, settings, whatnot. Are cookies bad because of
doubleclick's perverted tracking scheme? ]]
And some companies make browsers that are so demented
that the
default settings permit "cookies" that are executable code!
That's like saying "it's the '98 Jag's fault why you're '57
Morris Minor
can't keep up with modern traffic." You can't blame the cookies due to some
brain-dead program!
Is email bad because of Micro$haft's perverted viruses-spreading crapware?
ObClassiccmp: I used gotos all the time in my basic code. Am I now Evil
Incarnate? ;-)
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | JC: "Like those people in
Celeronville!"
sysadmin, Iceberg Computers | Me: "Don't you mean Silicon Valley???"
zmerch(a)30below.com | JC: "Yea, that's the place!"
| JC == Jeremy Christian