And before you go marking this post as "offtopic", perhaps we could suggest that "number of downloads" could be added to the answer? A high number of downloads could very well (but not always) be a sign of good software quality - at the very least from an end-user perspective.:-)
It is released as Public Domain, for many reasons.
First of all because I like to share my work. Second because someone totally missed the point, and decided to waste moderator points by modding it down (which I take as proof that someone is deliberately trying to keep the code out of the free market)...;-)
I would say that in many cases the answer to your question depends on the purpose of the software in question.
Common for most (i don't know about "all") succesfull software products is the fact that they are implemented using one or more Software Design Patterns. For instance you will find that Model-View-Controller (MVC) is extremely widespread in administrative software and similar database-driven applications, while it is probably not really usable in many other types of software (like graphics editors or a spreadsheet app).
But I would say that "Uses an established Design Pattern" is one aspect you need to include.
Another aspect might be the method in which the actual programming is planned and controlled during implementation. A documented and proved method for the implementation, such as Unified Process (UP) or similar, may be something you could consider adding to your answer.
:-)
- Jesper
P.S. Please forgive me for adding Wiki-links. Having a PhD in Computer Science I am sure none of this is new to you. They are mostly provided for other readers:-) /JS
if I am good democratic citizen, I would call to my representantive or meet him and disguss about things. It does not make me as lobby-citizen if I like to inform them what is my opinion about the case. True, but that example does not apply here. I this case a group of people are joining forces in an attempt to influence multiple politicians.
Like you are lobbying be because you want to influence my opinion what "lobbying" means. Your example is flawed. I am not a group of people nor are you a politician. And discussing the meaning of the word "lobbying" is not a political issue.
So I dont take normal discussion, information sharing, or conversation as lobbying. Good, because it is not. So far so good.
But if I get paid from organisation or group for what I talk and I try to affect things by someone's other's benefits, that is lobbyism. As I have stated earlier, lobby activities does not require payment to be involved. The action/concept of lobbying is a part of the political system and it can be conducted by everyone if they choose to do so. Please study the Wiki article I linked to in my previous posting.
The simple fact is that OSL is a lobby organization, conducting lobby activities. And as I have said earlier there is absolutely nothing wrong about that. I salute their work and efforts.
Lobbying means that a group of people are joining forces in an attempt to influence political decisions. They might not even talk to politicians directly - that is totally irrelevant. A group conducting lobbyism is defined by its political goals.:-)
Can you please explain what OSL has paid to goverment or any other organisation, etc... so they are lobby organization? Have they paid hundreds of thousands or millions to someone to get their mind turned what OSL wants? You ask this qustion with, I believe, two wrong assumptions:
Lobby activity involves large sums of money and/or bribes
Lobby activity is bad by definition
None of that is true.
Lobby activities are a part of any political landscape and it can be executed without money. Perhaps in the US the most successful lobbyists are using truckloads of money for bribes, expensive dinners, or similar. And perhaps they are paid for their lobbying activities. But that is just because the political landscape in the US has been shaped that way.
Lobbying is something everybody can do. Everybody! I even do it myself, in spite of the fact that I am practically a "nobody" on an average pay. I am trying to influence the political landscape in Denmark to abandon a silly TV license fee which has been imposed on computers and other non-TV units (such as gaming consoles, 3G phones, etc).
The definition on Wikipedia is actually pretty good: "Lobbying includes all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents or organized groups.".
Because OSL is an organized group, and their goal is to influence the political landscape, they are a lobby organization. And there is absolutely nothing wrong or bad abut that. I personally salute them for their efforts!
Lobby activity is good for any political landscape, because it allows non-politicians to influence politics. It allows me to gather a group of people opposing silli TV license fees on computers, and tell a lot of politicians that it is a really bad idea. It also allows OSL in Denmark to explaon the benefits of FOSS to poiticians who know nothing about tech, software or license terms.
It can be twisted by money - true - but for that reason Lobbyism is often regulated by law in different ways in order to limit its effect when money is involved.
Denmark did not protest, appeal, or in any way change its official vote. The official Danish ISO vote is controlled by Dansk Standard, who voted "Yes" in the final OOXML specification vote (after initially voting "No with comments").
The reason Denmark keeps sneaking into the list of countries who "appealed" is probably because a local pro-Open Source lobby organization named "Foreningen for Open Source Leverandører i Danmark" (OSL) (their name in English is "The Danish Open Source Business Association") has submitted a protest and that is by many people mistakenly translated into an "official appeal".
Since the protest is not submitted by Dansk Standard (who holds the official ISO vote) but is in fact from a local lobby organization, the vote can not be considered "official" in any way. And it is important to note in this context, that the official Danish vote is still "Yes".
The protest is available in Danish on the OSL website and I also found a copy of the letter in English on Groklaw (its not on the OSL website for some reason). The original Groklaw artikle on the subject is here, in case you want to read the comments yourself.
The complaint criticises both the way Dansk Standard handled the OOXML approval process and a few formal errors in the ISO process.
The story was first announced by Computer World Denmark (Danish only, sorry). It was first mentioned on slashdot on June 1st where sadly it was also mistakenly described as an "official" protest.
I don't know how things work in the US, but in many countries a signature delivered by Fax carries the same weight as a signature sent by snail-mail. But a scanned document sent by e-mail does not carry the same legal status - simply because no law has been passed to ensure that.
So one simple explanation/answer may be, that a fax simply has a higher legal status than a scanned document sent by e-mail. I am willing to bet that actual laws regarding the validity of signatures DOES have the word "fax" in them (or in some sub-clause) but the word "email" is nowhere to be found.
The problem may not be that the older generations "love their fax machines" or understand them better - but simply that nobody has updated the laws used to resolve legal issues surrounding signatures sent through e-mail.
Before you go shouting "DUH!", I work with virtual machines every day.
I do not see any virtual machines in the clip, nor do I see any booting screens or similar.
In addition, the manipulation of the Vista files using the Linux system does not seem to include the mounting of a virtual disk image (which is typically a non-trivial thing to do unless the Linux distro has been prepared for the task and the required drivers have been loaded).
If virtual machines are indeed used, the evidence is not present in the videoclip. And I would certainly love to see how a Linux distro booted as a guest OS was used to alter the Vista files of another non-booted guest OS. (Not that it is impossible, but it would still be perhaps even more interesting to see than the Vista-hacking trick).
The clip is made with "Camtasia", a program from TechSmith inc..
But that product is only available for Windows, so how was it used to capture a screen video of a Linux computer? And how was it used to show a Vista computer booting (since presumably the Camtasia ScreenCam software cannot be loadet at that time)?
I have used a great deal of time on the matter. And yes, there are a lot of similarities. You may not agree with my wishes for keeping my computer and xDSL line free of TV license fees, but that does not translate my post into being irrelevant or wrong.
While you may claim that the Danish model keeps the license issue between the TV company and the end user, that is not entirely accurate. Several proposals have been made by the Ministry of Culture and the national TV station, DR, which had the goal of increasing their control with their "customers". In one of these proposals, the key element was forcing the ISPs to provide COMPLETE customers lists to the TV station, so they could cross-reference it with their own. In essence identifying citizens who had an xDSL line but was not paying TV license fees.
Other proposals (which unfortunately have been enforced today) include rules that forces stores selling consumer electronics and computers to fill out forms and report any customer who buys a computer (or other device capable of reproducing video content) to the national TV company. In fact, buying a computer, 3G phone, or other such device in Denmark will result in your name being reported to the national TV company.
So yes - in theory you may claim that the license fee is between the end-user and the TV company. But the national TV company and the Ministri of Culture has forced a number of 3rd parties into working for them - and ISPs would be among them if the rest of the Danish parliament had not opposed to the proposal.
And at the end of the day, the following statement is true for both the Danish and the UK model:
1.) Citizens will be forced to pay a lot of money to a national TV company, just for having a personal computer and an internet connection. In effect putting a "TV tax" on computers and internet.
2.) The models/proposals are mainly focused on ensuring the continued funding of TV production. Money and resources will not be used to cover, say, the production of 3D online games, console games, or other interactive content.
3.) The result will be that a lot of non-TV related services, such as Instant Messaging, email, homebanking, browsing, online gaming, etc. will be forced to pay money to the TV media. In essence this will be a boost to the TV media and TV culture, at the expense of other media and other cultures.
I do not have a problem with a publicly funded broadcaster. Let those who own a TV set pay for TV production. Let those who watch TV pay for TV production. And if the state decides it wants to ensure a certain level of "public service TV", let it finance it through taxes. The task of producing/providing would them be subject to the normal political processes and tender procedures.
Why should I, an online gamer without a TV, pay for all the TV production - when NONE of the regular TV viewers are paying for my online gaming or internet usage? Why impose this blind and unfair advantage to the TV media at the expense of other media?
I suggest you look more into the matter here. There is more to this problem than you have yet comprehended. And be a little more polite in your next post please. Being rude is not only... just that: rude... it is also counter-productive to an otherwise healthy debate.
Here is some additional information directly from DR, the Danish state television company (who thinks it is perfectly ok to rip people off, and force them to pay TV license fees even if they don't own a TV set and never watch TV).
Sadly, this madness is already in effect in Denmark. I launched a website with a petition to stop this ludicrous practice in Denmark about 1½ year ago (note: site is in Danish!)
We have collected more than 41.000 "signatures" in opposition of applying TV license fees to the internet and/or devices which have absolutely nothing to do with television.
I am not defending The Pirate Bay. And I don't use their services either.
But the fact is, that they have *NOT* been convicted of anything. Hell, there hasn't even been a trial yet which determines the legality (or illegality) of their content.
For that reason alone, their site should not be closed or censored.
The saddest thing, and the biggest problem in this case is the fact that only The Pirate Bays voice is used as the opposition. And the real important issues have absolutely nothing to do with P2P filesharing, software piracy, or copyright.
The most important issues are these:
1.) Should private organizations (such as IFPI) be in a position where they can censor the webpages of another party (such as a private citizen) simply because they dislike the information distributed there?
No court has made any ruling concerning the actual legality of the content hosted on The Pirate Bay. So how could the site be censored, when nobody has evaluated the legal status of the content?
2.) Enforcing the law is typically something we let the authorities do. In this particular case, the enforcement has been bestowed upon the ISP (who is very unhappy with that role).
Is it acceptable to society as a whole, that a private organization (such as IFPI) can demand that other private organizations (such as an ISP) enforce a specific law or ruling? And what are the long-term consequences of allowing (or forcing) private companies to enforce laws when this task is normally something only the authorities should do?
3.) Can this practice be used in other media or means of communication that the internet?
If The Pirate Bay opens a massive "customer call-center" with 300 phoners worldwide, so P2P end users could just make a phone call and get information on a desired torrent, could the telecommunication companies then be forced to "censor" their phone lines?
If The Pirate Bay started to print lists of torrents on paper and publish them as books, could the printing companies be forced to stop printing the books?
Think it over. Because normally practices such as these are only common in China (and similar dictatorships).
I will bet you, that more American bloggers or internet users are sued (read:screwed) because of content they have published on the web, than in any Nordic country. I will also bet you, that there are laws in America similar to the ones I described.
Finally, i will bet you that in America more citizens are monitored by government agencies (proportionately) than in Europe.
I am considering throwing in a bet concerning big corporations bullying small companies and/or individuals, but we can always consider that extra option in case you decide to accept the first 3 bets.
We probably both agree that free speech is a good thing. But I will seriously question your insinuation about America being a better place for free speech than most European countries. In fact, you might want to consider WHY we are even having this debate (hint: read the main topic associated with this discussion).;-)
From a technical perspective, and very strictly speaking, you may be correct.
But from a practical point of view, viewing a page in a browser (say, the/. index page) is not generally considered as "downloading".
If we are discussing protocol stacks and network administration, you are correct. If we are talking about simple end-users (and the example given was in fact: "family and friends who require help with their computers") then the term "download" is usually associated with downloading new applications, updates, movies, music, games, etc.
So... perhaps we can all be practical for a moment, and set the very theoretical "protocol/network/http-sessions-are-downloads" aside?:-)
Okay for all the complainers out there, consider this. If Windows didn't come with a web browser at all, how would you go to the site to download Firefox or Opera?
You are joking, right?
The presence of a working browser and a working internet connection is *NOT* a requirement for installing software.
I have a ton of software (including an FF installer) on my USB key, I have a CD with the typical software I need when I visit friends and family who require help with their computers, and if all else fails I buy a computer magazine from the closest newsstand or store. No problem at all.
If you could not get software (or a browser) at all without internet+browser, where would your OS even come from to begin with? Do you think is it impossible to install Windows/Linux+FF on a machine with a blank harddrive using a CD?
And has downloading software by using another computer become so unfashionable that I am the only one left on the entire planet using that procedure?
:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and by the way: Parent was posted using Firefox 3.
:-D
:-)
Get it NOW and join the attempt to set a new official world record in software downloads
http://www.spreadfirefox.com/
And before you go marking this post as "offtopic", perhaps we could suggest that "number of downloads" could be added to the answer? A high number of downloads could very well (but not always) be a sign of good software quality - at the very least from an end-user perspective.
- Jesper
*LOL*
;-)
It is released as Public Domain, for many reasons.
First of all because I like to share my work. Second because someone totally missed the point, and decided to waste moderator points by modding it down (which I take as proof that someone is deliberately trying to keep the code out of the free market)...
- Jesper
I would say that in many cases the answer to your question depends on the purpose of the software in question.
:-)
:-)
/JS
Common for most (i don't know about "all") succesfull software products is the fact that they are implemented using one or more Software Design Patterns. For instance you will find that Model-View-Controller (MVC) is extremely widespread in administrative software and similar database-driven applications, while it is probably not really usable in many other types of software (like graphics editors or a spreadsheet app).
But I would say that "Uses an established Design Pattern" is one aspect you need to include.
Another aspect might be the method in which the actual programming is planned and controlled during implementation. A documented and proved method for the implementation, such as Unified Process (UP) or similar, may be something you could consider adding to your answer.
- Jesper
P.S. Please forgive me for adding Wiki-links. Having a PhD in Computer Science I am sure none of this is new to you. They are mostly provided for other readers
justDoYourJob
:= Programming makeSomeLinesOfCode: 2000 withReadability: niceAndFriendly withOwner: self. := Programming makeSomeLinesOfCode: 4000 withReadability: hopelessComplexAndCrappy withOwner: self
| source |
self isWoman ifTrue: [
source
] ifFalse: [
source
].
^source
I took the time to look through the work - looks impressive for a "hobby project".
The only thing I feel is missing is more options to narrow the searches and statistics on geographical information.
Does anybody have some thoughts on how reliable this tool is? And what the terms for using (read: distributing the data/results) the data is?
- Jesper
Like you are lobbying be because you want to influence my opinion what "lobbying" means. Your example is flawed. I am not a group of people nor are you a politician. And discussing the meaning of the word "lobbying" is not a political issue.
So I dont take normal discussion, information sharing, or conversation as lobbying. Good, because it is not. So far so good.
But if I get paid from organisation or group for what I talk and I try to affect things by someone's other's benefits, that is lobbyism. As I have stated earlier, lobby activities does not require payment to be involved. The action/concept of lobbying is a part of the political system and it can be conducted by everyone if they choose to do so. Please study the Wiki article I linked to in my previous posting.
The simple fact is that OSL is a lobby organization, conducting lobby activities. And as I have said earlier there is absolutely nothing wrong about that. I salute their work and efforts.
Lobbying means that a group of people are joining forces in an attempt to influence political decisions. They might not even talk to politicians directly - that is totally irrelevant. A group conducting lobbyism is defined by its political goals.
- Jesper
- Lobby activity is bad by definition
None of that is true.Lobby activities are a part of any political landscape and it can be executed without money. Perhaps in the US the most successful lobbyists are using truckloads of money for bribes, expensive dinners, or similar. And perhaps they are paid for their lobbying activities. But that is just because the political landscape in the US has been shaped that way.
Lobbying is something everybody can do. Everybody! I even do it myself, in spite of the fact that I am practically a "nobody" on an average pay. I am trying to influence the political landscape in Denmark to abandon a silly TV license fee which has been imposed on computers and other non-TV units (such as gaming consoles, 3G phones, etc).
The definition on Wikipedia is actually pretty good: "Lobbying includes all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents or organized groups.".
Because OSL is an organized group, and their goal is to influence the political landscape, they are a lobby organization. And there is absolutely nothing wrong or bad abut that. I personally salute them for their efforts!
Lobby activity is good for any political landscape, because it allows non-politicians to influence politics. It allows me to gather a group of people opposing silli TV license fees on computers, and tell a lot of politicians that it is a really bad idea. It also allows OSL in Denmark to explaon the benefits of FOSS to poiticians who know nothing about tech, software or license terms.
It can be twisted by money - true - but for that reason Lobbyism is often regulated by law in different ways in order to limit its effect when money is involved.
Hope that cleared things up for you
- Jesper
Please let us get the facts straight here.
Denmark did not protest, appeal, or in any way change its official vote. The official Danish ISO vote is controlled by Dansk Standard, who voted "Yes" in the final OOXML specification vote (after initially voting "No with comments").
The reason Denmark keeps sneaking into the list of countries who "appealed" is probably because a local pro-Open Source lobby organization named "Foreningen for Open Source Leverandører i Danmark" (OSL) (their name in English is "The Danish Open Source Business Association") has submitted a protest and that is by many people mistakenly translated into an "official appeal".
Since the protest is not submitted by Dansk Standard (who holds the official ISO vote) but is in fact from a local lobby organization, the vote can not be considered "official" in any way. And it is important to note in this context, that the official Danish vote is still "Yes".
The protest is available in Danish on the OSL website and I also found a copy of the letter in English on Groklaw (its not on the OSL website for some reason). The original Groklaw artikle on the subject is here, in case you want to read the comments yourself.
The complaint criticises both the way Dansk Standard handled the OOXML approval process and a few formal errors in the ISO process.
The story was first announced by Computer World Denmark (Danish only, sorry). It was first mentioned on slashdot on June 1st where sadly it was also mistakenly described as an "official" protest.
- Jesper
I don't know how things work in the US, but in many countries a signature delivered by Fax carries the same weight as a signature sent by snail-mail. But a scanned document sent by e-mail does not carry the same legal status - simply because no law has been passed to ensure that.
So one simple explanation/answer may be, that a fax simply has a higher legal status than a scanned document sent by e-mail. I am willing to bet that actual laws regarding the validity of signatures DOES have the word "fax" in them (or in some sub-clause) but the word "email" is nowhere to be found.
The problem may not be that the older generations "love their fax machines" or understand them better - but simply that nobody has updated the laws used to resolve legal issues surrounding signatures sent through e-mail.
- Jesper
You are right, that night do the trick. And it would still require that the vista computer in fact is a virtual computer of some sort... :-)
- Jesper
Before you go shouting "DUH!", I work with virtual machines every day.
I do not see any virtual machines in the clip, nor do I see any booting screens or similar.
In addition, the manipulation of the Vista files using the Linux system does not seem to include the mounting of a virtual disk image (which is typically a non-trivial thing to do unless the Linux distro has been prepared for the task and the required drivers have been loaded).
If virtual machines are indeed used, the evidence is not present in the videoclip. And I would certainly love to see how a Linux distro booted as a guest OS was used to alter the Vista files of another non-booted guest OS. (Not that it is impossible, but it would still be perhaps even more interesting to see than the Vista-hacking trick).
Duh?
- Jesper
The clip is made with "Camtasia", a program from TechSmith inc..
:-)
But that product is only available for Windows, so how was it used to capture a screen video of a Linux computer? And how was it used to show a Vista computer booting (since presumably the Camtasia ScreenCam software cannot be loadet at that time)?
No flaming intended - this is an honest question.
- Jesper
Matias,
... just that: rude ... it is also counter-productive to an otherwise healthy debate.
I have used a great deal of time on the matter. And yes, there are a lot of similarities. You may not agree with my wishes for keeping my computer and xDSL line free of TV license fees, but that does not translate my post into being irrelevant or wrong.
While you may claim that the Danish model keeps the license issue between the TV company and the end user, that is not entirely accurate. Several proposals have been made by the Ministry of Culture and the national TV station, DR, which had the goal of increasing their control with their "customers". In one of these proposals, the key element was forcing the ISPs to provide COMPLETE customers lists to the TV station, so they could cross-reference it with their own. In essence identifying citizens who had an xDSL line but was not paying TV license fees.
Other proposals (which unfortunately have been enforced today) include rules that forces stores selling consumer electronics and computers to fill out forms and report any customer who buys a computer (or other device capable of reproducing video content) to the national TV company. In fact, buying a computer, 3G phone, or other such device in Denmark will result in your name being reported to the national TV company.
So yes - in theory you may claim that the license fee is between the end-user and the TV company. But the national TV company and the Ministri of Culture has forced a number of 3rd parties into working for them - and ISPs would be among them if the rest of the Danish parliament had not opposed to the proposal.
And at the end of the day, the following statement is true for both the Danish and the UK model:
1.) Citizens will be forced to pay a lot of money to a national TV company, just for having a personal computer and an internet connection. In effect putting a "TV tax" on computers and internet.
2.) The models/proposals are mainly focused on ensuring the continued funding of TV production. Money and resources will not be used to cover, say, the production of 3D online games, console games, or other interactive content.
3.) The result will be that a lot of non-TV related services, such as Instant Messaging, email, homebanking, browsing, online gaming, etc. will be forced to pay money to the TV media. In essence this will be a boost to the TV media and TV culture, at the expense of other media and other cultures.
I do not have a problem with a publicly funded broadcaster. Let those who own a TV set pay for TV production. Let those who watch TV pay for TV production. And if the state decides it wants to ensure a certain level of "public service TV", let it finance it through taxes. The task of producing/providing would them be subject to the normal political processes and tender procedures.
Why should I, an online gamer without a TV, pay for all the TV production - when NONE of the regular TV viewers are paying for my online gaming or internet usage? Why impose this blind and unfair advantage to the TV media at the expense of other media?
I suggest you look more into the matter here. There is more to this problem than you have yet comprehended. And be a little more polite in your next post please. Being rude is not only
- Jesper
Here is some additional information directly from DR, the Danish state television company (who thinks it is perfectly ok to rip people off, and force them to pay TV license fees even if they don't own a TV set and never watch TV).
http://www.dr.dk/OmDR/Licens/sprog/20061009123141.htm
brgds
- Jesper
Sadly, this madness is already in effect in Denmark. I launched a website with a petition to stop this ludicrous practice in Denmark about 1½ year ago (note: site is in Danish!)
... sorry :-)
We have collected more than 41.000 "signatures" in opposition of applying TV license fees to the internet and/or devices which have absolutely nothing to do with television.
I have written a quick background summary in English on my website. The rest of the site is in Danish
So unfortunately, the British are not the first to go down this sad path.
- Jesper
Why bother feeding the SPAM posts which main purpose seems to be a link to a commercial company anyway? ;-)
- Jesper
Roger roger!
- Jesper
I am not defending The Pirate Bay. And I don't use their services either.
But the fact is, that they have *NOT* been convicted of anything. Hell, there hasn't even been a trial yet which determines the legality (or illegality) of their content.
For that reason alone, their site should not be closed or censored.
- Jesper
The saddest thing, and the biggest problem in this case is the fact that only The Pirate Bays voice is used as the opposition. And the real important issues have absolutely nothing to do with P2P filesharing, software piracy, or copyright.
The most important issues are these:
1.) Should private organizations (such as IFPI) be in a position where they can censor the webpages of another party (such as a private citizen) simply because they dislike the information distributed there?
No court has made any ruling concerning the actual legality of the content hosted on The Pirate Bay. So how could the site be censored, when nobody has evaluated the legal status of the content?
2.) Enforcing the law is typically something we let the authorities do. In this particular case, the enforcement has been bestowed upon the ISP (who is very unhappy with that role).
Is it acceptable to society as a whole, that a private organization (such as IFPI) can demand that other private organizations (such as an ISP) enforce a specific law or ruling? And what are the long-term consequences of allowing (or forcing) private companies to enforce laws when this task is normally something only the authorities should do?
3.) Can this practice be used in other media or means of communication that the internet?
If The Pirate Bay opens a massive "customer call-center" with 300 phoners worldwide, so P2P end users could just make a phone call and get information on a desired torrent, could the telecommunication companies then be forced to "censor" their phone lines?
If The Pirate Bay started to print lists of torrents on paper and publish them as books, could the printing companies be forced to stop printing the books?
Think it over. Because normally practices such as these are only common in China (and similar dictatorships).
- Jesper
I am no pirate myself ... but ...
.ORG domain in Denmark: 20 USD
.ORG domain name resembling BOTH "The Pirate Bay" and the Marketing Manager of IFPI in Denmark, "Jesper Bay": PRICELESS!
:-D
Buying a
Buying a
(see http://thejesperbay.org/)
- Jesper
*LOL*
;-)
I will bet you, that more American bloggers or internet users are sued (read:screwed) because of content they have published on the web, than in any Nordic country. I will also bet you, that there are laws in America similar to the ones I described.
Finally, i will bet you that in America more citizens are monitored by government agencies (proportionately) than in Europe.
I am considering throwing in a bet concerning big corporations bullying small companies and/or individuals, but we can always consider that extra option in case you decide to accept the first 3 bets.
We probably both agree that free speech is a good thing. But I will seriously question your insinuation about America being a better place for free speech than most European countries. In fact, you might want to consider WHY we are even having this debate (hint: read the main topic associated with this discussion).
- Jesper
From a technical perspective, and very strictly speaking, you may be correct.
/. index page) is not generally considered as "downloading".
... perhaps we can all be practical for a moment, and set the very theoretical "protocol/network/http-sessions-are-downloads" aside? :-)
But from a practical point of view, viewing a page in a browser (say, the
If we are discussing protocol stacks and network administration, you are correct. If we are talking about simple end-users (and the example given was in fact: "family and friends who require help with their computers") then the term "download" is usually associated with downloading new applications, updates, movies, music, games, etc.
So
- Jesper
True! I agree completely!
:-)
But I still think posting the actual source/report was relevant for the debate
- Jesper
You are joking, right?
The presence of a working browser and a working internet connection is *NOT* a requirement for installing software.
I have a ton of software (including an FF installer) on my USB key, I have a CD with the typical software I need when I visit friends and family who require help with their computers, and if all else fails I buy a computer magazine from the closest newsstand or store. No problem at all.
If you could not get software (or a browser) at all without internet+browser, where would your OS even come from to begin with? Do you think is it impossible to install Windows/Linux+FF on a machine with a blank harddrive using a CD?
And has downloading software by using another computer become so unfashionable that I am the only one left on the entire planet using that procedure?
- Jesper
I tried to submit this story to Slashdot some 6-7 hours ago, when it was still not mentioned. So I happen to have the link to the original report :-)
:-)
Relaunch of Mozilla Firefox's visit share in the European countries at the end of 2007
For more information about XiTi in general, visit their corp. homepage.
- Jesper