Very likely. I am German and I know people that pay such huge amounts, e.g. for cars and apartments, via cash. I do *not* know anyone who does *not* do that.
> ATMs could easily scan each bill as it is handed
> out, associating the person's account with that bill.
But stores wouldn't. The point seems to be to make this easy so that even stores can scan the serial numbers, so that the government can, preferably in real time, see who spends which money where.
Considering that most of the public life is touched by money, it will be hard to live longer without being traced.
The fact that it's just for bigger bank notes and the scanning coverage might not be complete is just a matter of time.
Imagine you are wrongfully searched by police...
"The greatest calamity which could befall us would be submission to a government of unlimited powers."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1825
> Seems to me that you could make some progress
> against the spam by simply refusing any email
> from a domain that hadn't been recognized on
> the net for at least several days or maybe weeks.
They will just add sites (unused) 2 weeks before the spam-attack, but you will hurt honest users and admins a lot, because you just tremendiously increased the time it takes to move/add sites.
You look to me like those "copy protection" guys. You are participating in a cat-and-mouse game, but don't care about hurting other people's interests for your cause, without even achieving it.
> Since mozilla.org decided to licence under the
> GPL it effectively excluded me
Ah, hi Simon! *g*:-)
> it always opened the same window name (I think
> in my case _content
Good idea.
> This achieves the main aim, all window opens
> happen within the same window.
Don't you break much other functionality, too, then, e.g.
- File|New Navigator Window
- context menu's Open Link in New Window
- opening Mailnews
- in Mailnews, standalone msg windows
etcetc.? I thought,m this were all implemented via JS's openWindow(). Or is that implemented via different code paths?
Does it work to open a javascript link which usually opens a popup via Open Link in New Window?
> Then you have to exclude the scripted opens
> for things like adverts and such so that your
> actual main content isn't obscured.
Yes, I see very odd behaviour creeping in here. Every unwanted popup you missed to exclude (the current popup ad blocker doesn't work in all cases) might result in the unwanted popup being loaded in the main window, replacing the main page. This will confuse users completely.
> Its always been relatively trivial to do that, I
> showed that more than a year ago and I know some
> have implemented similar techniques to prevent any
> window opening under any circumstances and show
> the link in the existing window.
That's great. Maybe you want to come on board and implement it for Mozilla, or at least give a detailed plan for implementation?
> While you're sipping that coffee, the convenient
> updater can convert your computer system into a
> telescreen into your private thoughts, business
> plans, governmental policies, and so on
Reminds me of that Batman movie with the hsettop boxes, which would show the thoughts and make people stupid.
> The term "Digital Rights Management" is a
> smokescreen, intended to deceive the public. Its
> proper name is Copy Protection.
No. Its proper name is "Use Restriction". There is, to my knowledge, no copy protection that doesn't also give the one controlling copying also control over the normal use, i.e. playing. Every play, even in the analog world, is a copy (e.g. the music exists on the vinyl and in the electric or air). That's where SSSCA et al root.
That's why there can't be a true open-source player with proper copy protection.
And the "use restriction" this is also what really scares me about "copy protection". Imagine every play having to be "licenced" by a server on the internet. Byebye privacy.
But be aware that with more users, things get also more difficult. You have to test much more to not ship crap or something that doesn't work on some uncommon configurations.
"First they came for the hackers.
But I never did anything illegal with my computer,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the pornographers.
But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the anonymous remailers.
But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the encryption users.
But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me.
And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
-- Unknown
More like that: http://www.samsimpson.com/cquotes.php
> If you could build an infrastructure like the
> Debian project around rpm
Isn't that what Redhat provides?
> the automatic download managers already exist
Um, where? (commandline only, please.) I know only URPMI, which I didn't know of when I switched away from Redhat. Keeping an Redhat system uptodate with the latest security fixes was a major pain.
Actually, it is exactly the other way around. I have noted many times that nudity is frowned upon much more than violence (from my POV) in the US, while in Germany, the tolerace barriers are exactly the opposite.
This is most obvious in games: Many violent games that are freely sold in the US are fodbidden for teens here (which means that advertizing isn't allowed either). OTOH, almost all major TV stations send soft porn during the night.
Why in this case the German regulators picked porn in particular for censoring the net is bejond me. I find the proposal ridiculous, too.
> "This is our game and we can do what we want.
> If you don't like it, or it doesn't work, get lost."
Terms like that are most likely invalid.
> I know EULA's are just clickthrough garbarge, but
> the message is there.
There's the idea of a term not to be expected. If the box clearly says A, but the EULA says B (conflicting with A), then the EULA term is most likely invalid.
BTW: IIRC, the EULA is not a contract. Everything on the box, though, is part of the buying contract ('as advertized').
> Is it your problem your problem that your OS is
> 7 years old
For the record: IIRC, Win95 was released at the beginning of 96, which would be not even 6 years.
Considering that, for some users, WinME doesn't offer advantages over a Win95 with patches, why should he upgrade? (In some aspects, it is even better, when compared to WinXP.) Maybe you want to pay his software and hardware upgrade?
> you can't mandate competition where there is none.
Oh, there were competition, and there still is. Apple, Mozilla and StarOffice are still alive. Linux (incl. apps) is more than ever. ISPs are also still up, mostly.
They jsut don't have a real chance (for reasons extensivly discussed). This can be changed.
> A monopoly can offer benefits to consumers.
> Efficiency, lower cost due to volume, and
> compatibility
It *can*. In practice, it doesn't. Why should it?
Sometimes, it is intentional (high prices), sometimes not (inefficiency).
> The problems really only arise when a monopoly
> [...] charging consumers more for their product
> because they have no competition
They don't have to charge *more*, just the same. In most business sectors, there is constant change and improvement, leading to lower prices or better products for the same price. Competition will stimulate (or even require that), but you cannot "regulate" the development of a market.
> a big cash fine (not a "donation" to schools
> designed to ensure that future generations of
> developers will use all Microsoft all the time)
later:
> primary/secondary schools get money based on the
> number of students in the district
How is that different? Half of them is going to use the money to buy MS software...:-/
> a monopoly.
> That, alone, is not a bad thing really
It is. Capitalism assumes competition. If there is no real competition, then capitalism just doesn't work out.
Why?
For one, because customers have no choice anymore. That's already bad by itself. Maybe I don't like Bill Gates' glasses and don't want to have to do anything with this guy. Why should I be forced to give my money to him?
Second, the monopoly can then do (almost) whatever it wants and will get through. It can screw its customers, e.g. "allow" itself to invade the harddrives of the users. (Interestingly, both MS and the music industry have been reported to do/try exactly that.) Users won't be able to stop them, because they can't vote with their feet (buy something else). Heck, strong monopolies are often even slightly above the law (again: MS and the music industry), sometimes because even the government depends on the monopoly (like in the case of MS).
> The problem is that once you become a monopoly,
> you have to play by a different set of rules to
> ensure that you don't use your power to harm
> consumers.
One problem is that there is no such set of rules. Monopolies tend to have a lot of money and employ a lot of smart people trying to figure out how to work around the rules and still achieve their goals (read: harm consumers). In all cases I know of, they succeeded.
> They deserve a LOT worse than the pathetic
> settlement they'll get.
Right. Somebody so ignorant of the law deserves to be destroyed or taken away several times of what he got by ignoring the law. In the case of MS, that's probably in the area of x hundred billion dollars. The current settlements are a very sad (and fatal!) joke.
> and that you can manage all your files though
> simple "point, click, drag and drop" visual interfaces. [link to gnome]
Unfortunately, you can't.
I hoped for Nautilus, but unfortunately, it has many bugs in very basic functions, like being unable to manage several thousands of files at once, not moving files when being told so, dialogs disappearing in the background, leaving temp/cache files everywhere and so on. But of course, it has themability. Looks like the Mozilla-illness.
I still find myself using the commandline for basic file management, not because I like it or it's more powerful, but it's the only workable method.
On the pro side, Microsoft can't beat the GNOME panel or configurable gtk+/WMs.
Slashdot Mirror
> The article itself is pretty weak from a journalistic standpoint.
Might be true, I haven't read it, but I have read the news on other sites as well, with more details.
> Not very likely.
Very likely. I am German and I know people that pay such huge amounts, e.g. for cars and apartments, via cash. I do *not* know anyone who does *not* do that.
> You just send in your bucks, some specialists do
> puzzling and replace the money for you.
Sounds like a fun occupation:
- Shread money
- Send to gov't / Give to bank
- Get new money back
- Repeat
> ATMs could easily scan each bill as it is handed
> out, associating the person's account with that bill.
But stores wouldn't. The point seems to be to make this easy so that even stores can scan the serial numbers, so that the government can, preferably in real time, see who spends which money where.
Considering that most of the public life is touched by money, it will be hard to live longer without being traced.
The fact that it's just for bigger bank notes and the scanning coverage might not be complete is just a matter of time.
Imagine you are wrongfully searched by police...
"The greatest calamity which could befall us would be submission to a government of unlimited powers."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1825
> most bank notes HAD at some point been in contact
y .h tml?in_review_id=215349&in_review_text_id=167226
> with cocaine
Cocaine found on 99% of banknotes in London
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/stor
> Seems to me that you could make some progress
> against the spam by simply refusing any email
> from a domain that hadn't been recognized on
> the net for at least several days or maybe weeks.
They will just add sites (unused) 2 weeks before the spam-attack, but you will hurt honest users and admins a lot, because you just tremendiously increased the time it takes to move/add sites.
You look to me like those "copy protection" guys. You are participating in a cat-and-mouse game, but don't care about hurting other people's interests for your cause, without even achieving it.
Spam protection must never hurt honest users.
> Since mozilla.org decided to licence under the
:-)
> GPL it effectively excluded me
Ah, hi Simon! *g*
> it always opened the same window name (I think
> in my case _content
Good idea.
> This achieves the main aim, all window opens
> happen within the same window.
Don't you break much other functionality, too, then, e.g.
- File|New Navigator Window
- context menu's Open Link in New Window
- opening Mailnews
- in Mailnews, standalone msg windows
etcetc.? I thought,m this were all implemented via JS's openWindow(). Or is that implemented via different code paths?
Does it work to open a javascript link which usually opens a popup via Open Link in New Window?
> Then you have to exclude the scripted opens
> for things like adverts and such so that your
> actual main content isn't obscured.
Yes, I see very odd behaviour creeping in here. Every unwanted popup you missed to exclude (the current popup ad blocker doesn't work in all cases) might result in the unwanted popup being loaded in the main window, replacing the main page. This will confuse users completely.
I am missing a human right in the declaration of the UN:
The inviolableness of the body.
> Its always been relatively trivial to do that, I
> showed that more than a year ago and I know some
> have implemented similar techniques to prevent any
> window opening under any circumstances and show
> the link in the existing window.
That's great. Maybe you want to come on board and implement it for Mozilla, or at least give a detailed plan for implementation?
> While you're sipping that coffee, the convenient
> updater can convert your computer system into a
> telescreen into your private thoughts, business
> plans, governmental policies, and so on
Reminds me of that Batman movie with the hsettop boxes, which would show the thoughts and make people stupid.
> The term "Digital Rights Management" is a
> smokescreen, intended to deceive the public. Its
> proper name is Copy Protection.
No. Its proper name is "Use Restriction". There is, to my knowledge, no copy protection that doesn't also give the one controlling copying also control over the normal use, i.e. playing. Every play, even in the analog world, is a copy (e.g. the music exists on the vinyl and in the electric or air). That's where SSSCA et al root.
That's why there can't be a true open-source player with proper copy protection.
And the "use restriction" this is also what really scares me about "copy protection". Imagine every play having to be "licenced" by a server on the internet. Byebye privacy.
I see what you mean and agree.
But be aware that with more users, things get also more difficult. You have to test much more to not ship crap or something that doesn't work on some uncommon configurations.
> unless you'd call a country club a conspiracy
:-)
I do
> Pynnonen reported the IE vulnerability to
> Microsoft on Nov. 19
That's about 3 weeks ago. Microsoft has to reproduce the bug, fix it, test the fix, test the fix more, publish the fix. 3 weeks are not *that* much.
I bet that many open-source software has security holes open longer than that.
"First they came for the hackers.
But I never did anything illegal with my computer,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the pornographers.
But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the anonymous remailers.
But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the encryption users.
But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me.
And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
-- Unknown
More like that: http://www.samsimpson.com/cquotes.php
> If you could build an infrastructure like the
> Debian project around rpm
Isn't that what Redhat provides?
> the automatic download managers already exist
Um, where? (commandline only, please.) I know only URPMI, which I didn't know of when I switched away from Redhat. Keeping an Redhat system uptodate with the latest security fixes was a major pain.
Actually, it is exactly the other way around. I have noted many times that nudity is frowned upon much more than violence (from my POV) in the US, while in Germany, the tolerace barriers are exactly the opposite.
This is most obvious in games: Many violent games that are freely sold in the US are fodbidden for teens here (which means that advertizing isn't allowed either). OTOH, almost all major TV stations send soft porn during the night.
Why in this case the German regulators picked porn in particular for censoring the net is bejond me. I find the proposal ridiculous, too.
P.S. I am German.
> Actually, it is the consumers problem.
No. He doesn't get what he paid for.
> "This is our game and we can do what we want.
> If you don't like it, or it doesn't work, get lost."
Terms like that are most likely invalid.
> I know EULA's are just clickthrough garbarge, but
> the message is there.
There's the idea of a term not to be expected. If the box clearly says A, but the EULA says B (conflicting with A), then the EULA term is most likely invalid.
BTW: IIRC, the EULA is not a contract. Everything on the box, though, is part of the buying contract ('as advertized').
> Is it your problem your problem that your OS is
> 7 years old
For the record: IIRC, Win95 was released at the beginning of 96, which would be not even 6 years.
Considering that, for some users, WinME doesn't offer advantages over a Win95 with patches, why should he upgrade? (In some aspects, it is even better, when compared to WinXP.) Maybe you want to pay his software and hardware upgrade?
> you can't mandate competition where there is none.
Oh, there were competition, and there still is. Apple, Mozilla and StarOffice are still alive. Linux (incl. apps) is more than ever. ISPs are also still up, mostly.
They jsut don't have a real chance (for reasons extensivly discussed). This can be changed.
> A monopoly can offer benefits to consumers.
> Efficiency, lower cost due to volume, and
> compatibility
It *can*. In practice, it doesn't. Why should it?
Sometimes, it is intentional (high prices), sometimes not (inefficiency).
> The problems really only arise when a monopoly
> [...] charging consumers more for their product
> because they have no competition
They don't have to charge *more*, just the same. In most business sectors, there is constant change and improvement, leading to lower prices or better products for the same price. Competition will stimulate (or even require that), but you cannot "regulate" the development of a market.
> a big cash fine (not a "donation" to schools
:-/
> designed to ensure that future generations of
> developers will use all Microsoft all the time)
later:
> primary/secondary schools get money based on the
> number of students in the district
How is that different? Half of them is going to use the money to buy MS software...
> a monopoly.
> That, alone, is not a bad thing really
It is. Capitalism assumes competition. If there is no real competition, then capitalism just doesn't work out.
Why?
For one, because customers have no choice anymore. That's already bad by itself. Maybe I don't like Bill Gates' glasses and don't want to have to do anything with this guy. Why should I be forced to give my money to him?
Second, the monopoly can then do (almost) whatever it wants and will get through. It can screw its customers, e.g. "allow" itself to invade the harddrives of the users. (Interestingly, both MS and the music industry have been reported to do/try exactly that.) Users won't be able to stop them, because they can't vote with their feet (buy something else). Heck, strong monopolies are often even slightly above the law (again: MS and the music industry), sometimes because even the government depends on the monopoly (like in the case of MS).
> The problem is that once you become a monopoly,
> you have to play by a different set of rules to
> ensure that you don't use your power to harm
> consumers.
One problem is that there is no such set of rules. Monopolies tend to have a lot of money and employ a lot of smart people trying to figure out how to work around the rules and still achieve their goals (read: harm consumers). In all cases I know of, they succeeded.
> They deserve a LOT worse than the pathetic
> settlement they'll get.
Right. Somebody so ignorant of the law deserves to be destroyed or taken away several times of what he got by ignoring the law. In the case of MS, that's probably in the area of x hundred billion dollars. The current settlements are a very sad (and fatal!) joke.
> and that you can manage all your files though
> simple "point, click, drag and drop" visual interfaces. [link to gnome]
Unfortunately, you can't.
I hoped for Nautilus, but unfortunately, it has many bugs in very basic functions, like being unable to manage several thousands of files at once, not moving files when being told so, dialogs disappearing in the background, leaving temp/cache files everywhere and so on. But of course, it has themability. Looks like the Mozilla-illness.
I still find myself using the commandline for basic file management, not because I like it or it's more powerful, but it's the only workable method.
On the pro side, Microsoft can't beat the GNOME panel or configurable gtk+/WMs.
> Register with your email address
Maybe I don't want to?
> Dumbass.
> toaster driver
;-P
as long as it emits a stream decodable by VP3...
You need to add that this was irony. Some gov / legislative officials might think you were serious.