REASON # 236 WHY I HATE MICROSOFT. AND GOOGLE. AND MEL GIBSON & DONALD TRUMP (OOPS THAT'S A DIFFERENT POST)
I know less about computers, servers, internets & tubes than Senator Ted Stevens does. But I know what I observe, and I know how to make leaping assumptions and inferences based on those observations. So . . . here with background, observation, and then leaping assumptions & inferences:Background: Last spring, on the recommendation of a friend or two, I switched from whatever archaic version of Internet Explorer I was running, and switched to Firefox. And I was pleased. Why? Other than the fact that IE sucked in every way and Firefox didn't, I don't know enough about computers, servers, internets & tubes to say.
Observation: Since IE 7.0 came out a few months ago, Firefox has run terribly with Blogger, which is owned and run (badly) by Google: my blog, other Blogspot blogs, the Blogger dashboard, etc. Slow & buggy. But with the otherwise inferior IE 7.0? Smooth & sweet & trouble-free. Hmmm. Anyone else noticing this, especially during prime business hours? I can't imagine it's only my PC that has this problem.
Leaping Assumption and Inference: Like all patriotic, red-blooded Americans (those with purple or green blood not included), I come to one-and-only-one-possible conclusion -- it's Microsoft's fault. Fuck Bill Gates, the bastard. And my support, my substantiation, my reasoning for this outrageous conclusion? I just told you, I'm an AMERICAN, I don' need no stinkin' substantiation!
Anyone have any theories (including the "Mike, You're Out Of Your Freakin' Mind" Theory) as to how this could happen? Could MS & Google be in cahoots? If so, why? Is it possible for MS & Google to integrate source code, leaving Firefox slow & clunky?
What's going on here? I don't need to know -- I'm gonna go on blaming Microsoft no matter what -- but it might be nice to know the real deal.
posted by Mike at 9:49 AM
51 Comments:
You are correct to be suspicious. I will go one further, Google is screwing up Blogger on purpose. Nobody is that incompetent. They (Microsoft) are trying to kill the competition and Google is trying to kill free speech. Microsoft sux, Blogger beta sux.
Google is trying to kill free speech.
Why? (Not disagreeing -- yet -- just wondering what their motive would be.)
I know less about computers, servers, internets & tubes than Senator Ted Stevens does.
You're sooooooo wrong on that one.
it's Microsoft's fault. Fuck Bill Gates, the bastard.
Gates really is out of the picture. He's head "visionary" these days. You can pour your animosity on Steve Ballmer these days. He's the CEO and follows along in Billy's old footsteps. A hearty "Fuck Steve Ballmer" will do just fine.
I've had problems with Blogger with Firefox, but when that occurs it seems to me that it's more of a problem on the server end, rather than the browser end. Netscape has been worse, though I suspect my copy of Netscape has become corrupted somehow.
Anyway, I have no idea about IE's compatibility with Blogger because I NEVER use it. And I don't believe that Google and MS are in cahoots because the two are foes these days. Google is working on releasing applications to run over the Internet which would kill a big chunk of MS business. M$ of course is perturbed by this.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if Google and MS announced a partnership next week. Sun and MS patched up their differences a couple years ago and those two had been enemies for a decade.
Mort, you're out of your league on this one. There's no fucking way that Google is out to kill free speech. Why the fuck would they do that? They run a search engine which is all about free speech (Chinese compromises not withstanding).
It's an old game with Microsoft, take software that works perfectly, start a new version with bugs in it, then force everyone to switch, then write a new version without the bugs again, which, everyone then happily buys. They never run out of profit in this way. Google will start charging for beta, mark my words.
ded, maybe I am "out of my league". Maybe Google has too much money they don't know what to do with so they bought blogger. When I said free speech, emphasis "free".
Google will start charging for beta, mark my words.
Hell yeah. I've assumed this for a while now. But it's the fact that Blogger runs fine with the new IE that gets my antennae up.
(And I predict we're talking about the JFK assassination theories & thermite charges in WTC 7 before this thread runs its course.)
No, Microsoft's way is to release something that has bugs in it from the very start and then offer new versions that fix said bugs only to have new bugs.
If there's competition, then MS offers their application for free until the one application competitor goes belly up. Then MS starts charging for the application again.
Or MS buys the company outright and repurposes into their OS, which then results in massive integration problems.
Google makes all their money off of advertizing. When you're the #1 search engine you can do that. And Google is planning on releasing all of those software apps over the internet for free. Google is not MS.
Mike, you could be having problems because you're running Firefox on a MS operating system (OS). You use XP, right? MS has always been accused of intentionally screwing up the competition with the source code in their OS. Now that MS OS update themselves, there's no reason not to suspect them of downloading a "patch" that interferes with Firefox when it tries to execute complex web applications. Blogger's system is considered "complex" while regular old web pages are "simple."
Firefox may be the real target because it's eating away at IE market share in the browser world.
Hell, maybe Firefox fucked up with their own latest upgrade. That's entirely possible.
Mort, Yes Google might have "too much" money. But if they did, why would they then start charging for stuff.
Consider this.
And for the record, while I may be defending Google here, I'm not a fan. Their whole "do no evil" motto is a load of crap. Their compromise to the Chinese gov't smacks of "evil." They're just not the big evil corporate machine that Microsoft is.
Microsoft has a history of "integration problems". They do it on purpose. They have been sued over the practice. Google has helped the PTB in China quash free speech. What about net neutrality, they didn't try for that out of the goodness of their hearts. Yeah, and what about JFK? You know that was a conspiracy too.
MS has always been accused of intentionally screwing up the competition with the source code in their OS. Now that MS OS update themselves, there's no reason not to suspect them of downloading a "patch" that interferes with Firefox when it tries to execute complex web applications.
Of course, that was my initial suspicion. That sort of thing is on page one of the MS Handbook.
But -- to repeat -- it's the salient fact that my problems with Firefox seem to be isolated only to Bloggers apps. That's not the only complex platform I use.
ded, You know what I mean about "too much money". Too much money looking for a return, it's a global problem. Yes, there is way too much money out there in all the wrong places. Eventually it will leak into the "real" economy and then a loaf of bread will cost $100.
what about JFK? You know that was a conspiracy too.
Wait. DED said it's not Gates, but Ballmer. And now you tell me it's JFK???
Who is it?
Google will crash, we're doomed, dooomed...
JFK was a victim of the bankers, the CIA, the Ruskies, gangsters, and LBJ. Bill Gates has a time machine in which he transported himself back to the sixties and helped Ford draft the Warren commission to help them cover their tracks.
Microsoft has a history of "integration problems". They do it on purpose.
Yes, they do. Sometimes. Other times it's dealing with a billion lines of code.
Google has helped the PTB in China quash free speech.
I'm guessing you missed my last post.
What about net neutrality, they didn't try for that out of the goodness of their hearts.
Absolutely not. It's in their best interests financially for net neutrality to hold. Once again, you missed my last post.
Yeah, and what about JFK? You know that was a conspiracy too.
Still is. I've seen two separate documentaries on the History channel where events of the whole day were recreated and they hold up. Now, what they didn't attempt to refute was whether Oswald was hired by someone to do the job. But he definitely did the job, alone.
Well, with oil falling back down to $50/barrel (yes I know it's temporary), we've got that much extra time before $100 loaves of bread. We're still at $2.50 to $3.00 for the good stuff (IMO).
Yes, Mort I get what you mean. But while there are conspiracies, not everyone's in on it.
And now I must go take care of my kids.
JFK was a victim of the bankers, the CIA, the Ruskies, gangsters, and LBJ.
You forgot the Cubans, the Teamsters, the Military-Industrial Complex, Marilyn Monroe's surviving relatives, The Honorable Elijah Mohammed, and The Beatles.
Oh, and Lee Harvey Oswald too.
Thanks Mike, I did forget them. Ded, if JHK was shot from behind by Oswald how did the back of his skull end up on the top of the trunk? You can clearly see his wife fetch it on film. I have hunted for years, that shot came from in front of the car.
JFK, sorry. And why did they seal the Warren Commission report for fifty years, and why was Oswald killed? Why was Ruby killed? What happened to all the evidence. This was a conspiracy of the ages, hundreds of powerful men participated in the coverup, why is it so inconceivable that there was a second gunman? [/threadjack]
I use Firefox as I'm sure you know Mike. I have noticed, especially with your site in particular, that there is a consistent set of issues, including;
1) the site is slow to load in the mornings when I first go to read it, often to the point that I give up on it and try later. This usually happens (guessing here) around 6am or so your time. This happens consistently, every day, and later it will load like a rocket. I've been watching it closely enough that I am about 99% sure it isn't a local problem on my end.
2) the comments section is overlapped by the borders/titles. For example, mort's initial comment is covered up by your post title and header for the page and unreadable for me.
I usually just write this off to firefox as it is an imperfect program. I use it more as a symbolic anti-Microsoft protest than anything else, so I never bring it up. If it was a huge deal for me I'd just switch back to IE.
FWIW I have IE on my wife's machine and I hate it. Its counterintuitive and hard to use - and whenever I use a MS product I always feel them watching me over my shoulder, them being the spyware inventing f%$#tards that they are.
dwilkers - I have the same issue with loading the site and the title covering mort's comment and I am using IE (from work).
Google is trying to kill free speech.
Heard of Net Neutrality? Google is leading the charge on net neutrality, which is the incarnation of no-cost free speech on the web. They would lose money on restricted speech and censorship.
And I don't believe that Google and MS are in cahoots because the two are foes these days. Google is working on releasing applications to run over the Internet which would kill a big chunk of MS business
Yup, that says it. M$ ain't no fan of Google.
Google makes all their money off of advertizing. When you're the #1 search engine you can do that.
That is all the money they need. And Google doesn't egt paid for advertising just by it being there. You actually have to click the advertising in order for Google to get paid.
And yes, net neutrality is in their best interest absolutely, and thus free speech is in their best interest. That being said, other corporate giants like AT&T don't want net neutrality, because a monopoly on content that you have to pay for (so they can double-dip you...make you pay for access to the internet AND for access to certain content) is in their best interest.
In that battle, I'll side with Google.
I have noticed, especially with your site in particular, that there is a consistent set of issues . . . the site is slow to load in the mornings when I first go to read it . . . This usually happens (guessing here) around 6am or so your time.
And this doesn't occur with any other Blogger blogs? Only mine? That sucks.
I have the same issue with loading the site
And, Ed, that's only with my blog? No other "old" blogger sites have that problem?
Ed, heh, I'm glad I said that then, I had been thinking it was firefox for a long time.
I haven't seen it with any other sites Mike, no. Mind you I haven't studied it or proved that, but I do check in here most weekdays and it happens just about every single time here.
Not that big a deal though. Usually I just set it in a separate window and minimize it, do some other stuff and come back to it later.
Mike, it's not just you, I have the same trouble with Weasedog's blog too. I've noticed it is sometimes worse with older blogs. A new blog will always load fast. I don't know why. Viruses? Spyware?
But Weas runs Blogger Beta, right? I still use Blogger Classic, or whatever it's called, so I'm somewhat unsurprised if mine's slower.
Actually, I have trouble with ded too, maybe it's me. The old tinfoil hat's wearing a little thin, maybe it's time for a new one.
Has anyone checked with Oliver Stone? If there's a conspiracy going on, he's the one to check. Or maybe try listening to that Coast to Coast AM radio show -- it's chock full of conspiracy theories, mainly involving aliens (not the kind that swim a river and climb a fence but the ones chased by Fox Mulder).
involving aliens
Ahhhhhh! So it's Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, JFK, and ET that are fucking up Firefox.
Now we're getting somewhere.
** By the way ** -- the anti-spambot Word Verification is "rrhobbot."
I think that's pretty funny.
Or maybe not.
Mike - metstra is slow at times as well, and he is running old blogger.
I went to the beta, some people had issues signing in to comment (sheadenizen for one), I wonder if that is why my readership went from 10 to 5.
I think certain times are just heavy traffic, or it could be if we are trying when you are posting. Or it could just be the vast conspiracy.
Or it could just be the vast conspiracy.
Now you're talking.
Couple things:
FireFox also had a major release recently (2.0), and while I haven't had any problems with it, you never know how it will react with existing software.
Blogger recently moved to Beta and forced everyone to move along.
Blogger sucks. They sucked before Google bought them too. There's rarely a week that goes by that someone doesn't complain about Blogger and I find myself thinking "Damn, I'm glad I just do my blog in raw HTML."
Googles own software, most notably GMail, kicks a lot of ass. I have a hard time finding fault with Google.
Ded, if JHK was shot from behind by Oswald how did the back of his skull end up on the top of the trunk? You can clearly see his wife fetch it on film. I have hunted for years, that shot came from in front of the car.
I didn't realize that being a hunter automatically made one a ballistics expert. Maybe you should loan out your expertise to Mythbusters or some other similar outfit.
And why did they seal the Warren Commission report for fifty years, and why was Oswald killed? Why was Ruby killed?
Last I checked, Ruby died of a pulmonary emobolism, a little over 3 years after killing Oswald.
What happened to all the evidence. This was a conspiracy of the ages, hundreds of powerful men participated in the coverup, why is it so inconceivable that there was a second gunman?
I didn't say that there wasn't a cover up, I said that he did the job alone. I should've said that he was the lone gunman. It was conceivable that there was a second gunman but I've watched two separate documentaries staffed with conspiracy theorists and people who don't believe in conspiracies and in both of them they clearly demonstrated that Oswald was the sole gunman. They were able to recreate the wounds the guys suffered based on the known trajectories of the shots fired from the book depository!
If I ever see them again, I'll be sure to write down their titles and send them to you.
But yes, it's entirely possible that Oswald was hired by someone else to do the job, hence all of the cover up stuff.
I probably know less than you do about the internets and computers. I just go with the flow. I've been using Firefox for over a year now. I don't have a clue why.
Look, Joe Dimaggio shot JFK because of the shitty way that JFK treated Marilyn. And Joe D. got Arthur Miller to concoct a story pinning the blame on Oswald.
See, conspiracy solved.
Toast - First off, you're no fun. You science guys know how to throw a wet blanket over a sure-to-run-off-the-rails, conspiracy chat, don't you?
Enginerds.
But . . . I'm impressed. You actually compose your blog raw, in HTML? No "platform" like Blogger or Movable Type or any o' that shit?
BEAJ -
I've been using Firefox for over a year now. I don't have a clue why.
Don't know why Firefox is wiggy & buggy lately? Or don't know why you use Firefox?
Taking this in an existential direction, no?
John - I like. I think you've solved it once and for all.
Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, JFK, Arthur Miller, and ET are fucking up Firefox.
Mike, 10:34 am: I predict we're talking about the JFK assassination theories & thermite charges in WTC 7 before this thread runs its course.
Mort & DED - Thanks, guys. Nicely done. I knew you wouldn't let me down.
But what about the thermite charges???
Thermite, that which shall not be mentioned. It is too hideous to contemplate, but too plausible to ignore.
It is too hideous to contemplate, but too plausible to ignore.
Wiser words have rarely been spoken.
Thermite? You mean rational people believe that stuff? C'mon now. The one guy who has been blabbing about this is a self admitted heroin addict.
The supports for the upper floors were sheared away, leading them to pancake down straight. That much weight dropping down was too much of a load to bear.
They had not put enough fire retardant coating on the beams, causing the steel to melt. The towers were built to withstand a DC-10 hitting them, a 757 did not exist at the time. Plus, the amount of stuff in the offices themselves was surely a lot more than was originally though would be there. Particularly all the computers and assorted electronics.
A second gunman for JFK I believe could be true. That he was whacked by any one of 15 groups I believe. I do not believe that there were thermite charges in the twin towers. What, were they put there when they were built? Or someone ripped open dozens of walls to place them later? Its an urban legend like the one that says a bunch of Muslims were praying in the middle of the WTC site the night before the attacks.
Given the choice, I throw in with the "No Thermite Charges" gang, Ed.
But, as Mort suggests, what's so utterly implausible about that, or any other suggestion, based on what we've seen the Administration do the past 5 years?
I don't believe in 99% of Conspiracy Theories, included the Thermite Charge Theory.
That said, I'm pretty much convinced we've gotten mere shreds of the whole 9/11 story at this point.
Moon landing in the desert anyone?
Don't get me started.
C'mon, DED. If there's any place for you (or anyone else) to "get started," this be da' place.
I believe it was the comments to the Friday Movie post about Capricorn One where you already let us in on this one, right?
C'mon!
Carl Everett doesn't think we landed on the moon, so it must be true.
Then again, Carl doesn't believe in dinosaurs, so he might not be all that reliable.
I'm not sure Carl Everett believes in sanity either, so maybe he's not the best source here.
And you know, I'm not even gonna include Carl in my "causes of the Firefox problem" theory. He's off the hook (in every way).
I have no problems at all... I have an Apple and run Safari. I also like to blame Microsoft for everything. Even global warming.
. . . and death. Even taxes.
Bastards.
You know, we have this thing at the agency I work, where if anyone mentions the word "Microsoft" you have to make a spitting sound. It's hillarious!
Post a Comment
<< Home