"... you've got no right to complain about the Gov't for the next four years. So get your sorry arse to the polls or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!"
Alrighty...
Disagree with Microsoft's business practices? Fine. Wait, do you have voting stock in the company? You don't? Well SHUT THE FUCK UP THEN! If you don't have voting stock in Microsoft, you have no right to complain about their business practices! At least that's how it is under your train of thought.
But hold on a sec. Do you own some Microsoft software? Hey, bitch on then! You're giving Microsoft your money for a product / service, and if they don't deliver, let em have it!
Me? I don't vote. But I'll still bitch and complain as loud as I want, and you can't stop me. Why is that? I'm an American taxpayer. I "pay" the government for products (e.g. new roads) and services (e.g. federal programs), and if they don't deliver, I'll let them have it. After all, it is my money they're using.
Just because I don't vote doesn't mean I can't complain. But if you think otherwise, then I hope I won't see you crying about Microsoft in Slashdot's next Microsoft-oriented story. By your train of thought...you don't have voting stock, you have no right to complain.
"I think we are looking at a future when all music is totally free, and artists will make there money through other channels (live performance, for example)."
A future where music is totally free? Frankly, I don't see that happening, because you know the RIAA will try to jump into the foray somehow (the degree of success is something else). And I don't like the fact that some artist(s) would have to deal with the fact that their music won't get them any compensation unless they toured extensively. Not all bands have the devout following of the Grateful Dead or Phish. What do you say to them? "Sorry, but information wants to be free, and we thought your music should be free too. So here's a map of the United States, have fun touring." I'm sorry, but that isn't fair to the artists at all. They still deserve to see some return from their recorded music.
"Even better, the recording industry itself might die a death. Just imagine - no more intense promotion of artists, hype etc. Artists would have to start from the grass roots."
As much as we'd all love to see the industry die a slow and painful death, that wouldn't be good to the artists. Face it, the industry is a necessary evil. Without the industry, artists would indeed have to go grassroots and make their way to the top. How many bands can truly do that? Sure, they could just toss MP3s around, but who are they reaching then? Those bands do better through radio airplay, promotional spots, and videos on MTV (despite MTV's plunge into Teenybopper Land). Who's going to do the promotional work? The artists could, but under your scenario, they'd have a little bit more to worry about.
Yes, MP3s are here to stay, and like cockroaches and Cher, they'll be around for a long time. But that doesn't mean we should dictate to the artists that, just because we can download their music for free, they should have to bend over backwards and conduct their business as per our whims. You'd just be hurting the people you're claiming to help here: the musicians.
What about Harry Browne, Pat Buchanan, Howard Phillips, David McRenyolds, and all the other third party candidates out there? If everyone is defending Ralph Nader's supposed right to attend the debates feverishly, then why not support all third party candidates as well? Just because everyone else isn't ranting about corporations like Nader is doesn't mean they deserve less support to have their chance to speak up.
My anti-Nader rant aside, IIRC, you need 5% in the polls to be in the debates. That's why guys like Nader aren't in there. Not because of a conspiracy theory, but because they're below the 5% mark. That's why we saw Ross Perot in the debates back in the day, because he had about 10% in the polls AFAIK.
"You think Slashdot would even be here if they didn't get ad revenue? How many thousand bucks a month would *you* pony up out of your own pocket to pay for bandwidth for your suddenly-popular website?"
Here's a question for you then. How much money do you think Andover throws in? I'm not preaching conspiracy theories here, but seeing as how Slashdot is owned by Andover, and has affiliations to OSDN, I don't think banner ads play that big of a role in keeping Slashdot afloat.
Besides, the WWW existed before banner ads, what makes you think the WWW is going to die if we all don't start clicking on ads?
"As for the guys bragging here about the various ways they have devised to prevent ads from being seen on webpages - screw you."
No, screw you. And screw the ad companies too. Wanna know why?
Advertisers nowadays seem to have this notion that the more Flash / Java banners they use, the better the responses will be. Hello? Not everybody has the money to pay for a cable modem. Some people are still stuck on their 56 K modems, like me. And I don't want to wait while someone like Doubleclick tries to shove some 100 K "Punch the Money and Win $20 of Worthless Tokens!" ad through my modem. I've spent up to five minutes just waiting for a page to load, because either the banner ad was taking too long to load, or the ad server decided to be bitchy and slow.
And hey, while we've mentioned Doubleclick, how about all those privacy invasions? Sure, the data is anonymous, for now. Doubleclick wants to serve me a banner? Fine. But they also want to know everything about me in the process. So excuse me for being privacy-minded.
So yes, I filter banner ads. So fucking what? Your bitching is falling on the wrong people. Why don't you take you and your soapbox over to the advertisers and ask them why they want to serve 10 cookies with every monstrosity of a Flash / Java ad? Maybe then you'll see why people filter the ads out.
"...is to have all kinds of databases centrally registered by government agencies such as the NSA, CIA and FBI."
What the fuck are you smoking anyway?
If the NSA wants to know who I am, they're going to want more than my goddamned CD LIST! Do you think "Big Brother" cares if I listen to Metallica or Dr. Dre or Yanni or any other suckfest of a CD?
My advice to you is to go take all your little guns, and go into a cave somewhere in the Ozarks with all the other radical right-wing crackheads. Or you can lay off the crack and get your conspiracy theories out of your head.
It had to be said.
--
Someone beat this guy with a clue stick
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 5
"Why? Because slashdot people don't vote. And when they do vote, they vote for third parties that have no chance of winning."
You, sir, are a complete dumbass.
Are you so disillusioned with third parties that you feel the Republicans and Democrats are the only choices out there? It's not like I can't vote for Nader, Browne, Buchanan, or anyone else, right? To insinuate that voting for a third party is a wasted vote is pure arrogance on your behalf. Yes, Nader, Browne, and Buchanan don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election. That doesn't mean that we can't stick it to the Big Two with a vote for a third party candidate, which says "We're sick of politics as usual, if you don't want to listen to us, we'll find a candidate who will." Eventually, the Big Two will look behind them, and see just how close those third parties are catching up. It's not going to happen today, tomorrow, next week, or even next year, but it will happen.
The elections aren't like a horse race. I'm not going to vote for Joe Candidate just because I think he'll win, I'm going to vote for Joe Candidate based on the issues. Take a look at Minnesota. Dear God, some third party professional wrestler is the governor over there! Those idiots who voted for him wasted their votes! They should've voted Republican or Democrat! Hmmmm, I guess those people voted on the issues. I know, I know...to you, it's a new concept, but it's a cool concept! You can say that Jesse Ventura got elected just because of his past with Hollywood and the WWF, but something lit a fire underneath the collective asses of Minnesota voters that got them to say "Go Ventura!" Say what you will about the guy, but he is an effective politician who's getting the job done, and he's not afraid to speak his mind on anything. Oh oh, wait...Reform Party...third party...wasted vote.
You think that voting for a third party is a wasted vote? Here's a wasted vote: voting for someone "just because." And I have a feeling that's how you vote.
"There would be hacks out for it shortly after it came out to circumvent the copy protection because it's such a crappy idea."
Still, do you want a MPAA-backed law that says you can't record that episode of "Law and Order" for later viewing in your own home? The Supreme Court said that recording some program off TV for later viewing is legal (Sony v. Universal Studios), and yet the MPAA wants to tell you what you can and can't do in your own home. Quite frankly, if this did go through, you could have all the hacks you wanted (even though this is a hardware issue). But no matter how many hacks you'd have, it wouldn't matter, because the MPAA won anyway.
"I'm saying that pages render correctly only in IE precisely because no one will write pages that work in anything else."
You're right, because IE is the majority browser on the web. And that's because people use it. Go ahead and villify IE users as people who want to help "establish Microsoft's supreme decision-making authority." "Broken" or not, people use IE, for whatever conspiracy theory you can think of. And others don't use IE, for whatever reason. Like the saying goes, "different strokes for different folks." But being one of those horrible IE users you villify, allow me to unofficially apologize, on behalf of all the IE users out there, for using IE. I'm sorry that not everybody uses software based on principle, as you seem to do.
"Unfortunately, by refusing to 'suffer' through a few improperly-rendered sites a day, you are contributing to the client stats on every web server that suggest to developers that IE is the only browser they really need to support."
So, you're saying that I should another browser and "suffer through a few improperly-rendered sites" just because IE has too much of a presence on the web? Pardon me if I sound inflammatory, but it's not my fault that other browsers may not display pages correctly. I don't use software based on principle, I use software based on if it gets the job done or not. And IE gets the job done for me. I used to be a Netscape user, until I got fed up with Netscape's bloatiness (does such a word exist?) and tendency to crash. Then I jumped to IE. Why? Because it works. Pages render nicely for me, and that's what matters.
If you don't like the fact that IE has a bigger web presence than other browsers out there, then (as the open source credo seems to say), go do something about it.
It's one thing to say, "Hey, look at us, we have webcams!" It's another to say, "Hey, look at us, we're using the technology to supplement our concerns over the issues people care about." It really doesn't matter how much of a technocrat a candidate is, that's not why someone gets voted into office. It's the issues that matter the most. Using the technology in your favor isn't as important, but you had better believe that it can help.
Remember Jesse Ventura? His appeal to everyone out there was that he a take-shit-from-nobody kind of guy. He spoke his mind on the issues, and made no apologies for it. Some people didn't like what he had to say, but they have him credit for having the balls to say what he said. That's the main reason why he was so successful in Minnesota. What also made him successful was his JesseNet. It's really nothing more than a glorified mailing list, but it was certainly able to band together Ventura supporters to go out and promote the guy.
It doesn't matter if you're a technocrat or not, being one doesn't guarantee victory. We don't elect people because their website has the most webcams or java applets. We elect people because of their concern (or lack thereof) of the issues we care about most. I doubt Ventura is a big technocrat, yet he still won over two established candidates. And it was because of the issues. As soon as candidates start listening to and focusing on issues people care about most, then maybe more people will get involved with the political process.
And on an unrelated note, I'm surprised Al Gore isn't embracing the technology in his campaign. C'mon, he did invent the Internet, right?
"You have just repeated *another* myth: Linux does not have good hardware support. Well I just installed on Red Hat 6.2 on my pretty recent system, and it configured everything automatically."
Well, you've proved (in your case) that Red Hat has good hardware support, not Linux.
Oh, and I have used Linux before as well. Sorry to burst your bubble:)
"What you get from using Linux, or other free operating systems is freedom. Freedom from corporate decisions. Decisions that are made from a view that people are consumers and should be tricked and lured into giving up their money for as little as possible. Freedom to fix the code yourself. Freedom to share the code and binaries with your friends. Freedom to get it for free. A platform you know won't change in the future on the whims of corporate greed and hype."
And your comment brings up a serious question here. The freedom you get with Linux is great, there's no denying that. But can you sell Linux to the average user on the fact that it's free (as in speech)?
I don't honestly think that the average user would even care if Linux came with source code or not. Think about it here for a second. What good is the source code to someone who doesn't have a programming background? Sure, the code is neat to poke through, and may give you an inkling of an idea about how the system runs, but what good is it to the average user? We have to remember that not every Linux user is a programmer.
You may be able to sell Linux to the masses based on the fact that's it's free as in beer, but if you try selling it based on the fact that it's free as in speech, people will get confused and say, "So what?"
You're basing your claim that "Linux is ready for the desktop!" on the experience of one person? I'm sorry, but you're jumping to conclusions. If you wanted it to be a bit more effective, why not let your friend install Red Hat on there himself? Why not see if the average person can get past a Linux installation?
The fact isn't if people are willing to learn or not. Yes, people can learn how to use Linux if they sit down and learn it. Now how about getting devices like your sound card, your scanner, your printer, your modem, or your digital camera to work efficiently under Linux? Now we hit the snag. Some people may find Linux is easy to use, but what about device support? Yes, there is support for such devices under Linux, but it's still not as good as the device support you get under Windows. Not everything will work under Windows, but I'm willing to bet that there's a lot more that won't work under Linux.
Sure, Linux is supposedly easy to use for the average user to toy with. But it's still behind Windows when it comes to desktop readiness. Before you spout your FUD at me, is an OS that can be easily used (after learning it) yet doesn't have device support for everyday components ready for the desktop? I don't think so.
I've heard all the jokes about Communications majors, and I've laughed at a lot of them. But being a Communications major myself, I'd just like to point out that not all of the majors out there are 4 AM pot smokers (at my school we call them Business majors:)).
And while I haven't been walking to and from labs at 4 AM, I do spend quite a bit of time working at the university TV station (editing, audio, camerawork, etc.), and do the rounds on the radio station as a DJ for two shows.
I realize that this is all horribly irrelevant to the topic. But I felt it proper to clear the air about Communications majors. Yes, I have my aspirations to work in the news media, and no, I haven't been up at 4 AM smoking pot:)
There are Communications majors who smoke pot and slide by in college, and there are Communications majors who work their asses off and get the experience for the workplace. A college major is only as good as the work you put into it.
To all of those who say, "AOL on Linux will help us destroy the evil Microsoft that we must all help to destroy," don't get too excited yet.
Let's face it, MSN really was never a viable competitor to AOL. MSN started out rather quickly, hoping to capitalize on all of the new Windows 95 users (remember the MSN icon on the desktop?). But they ended up getting hit by all of the problems you'd associate AOL with: busy signals, poor service, etc. MSN has finally gotten their shit together and made themselves into a decent service, but they will never be on the level that AOL is. They came into the arena when AOL was ten years ahead of them, and they're still paying for it.
And BFD if we get AOL on Linux, that's NOT going to bring more newbies over to Linux's side to warrant a dent in Microsoft's revenue. Do you want to dent their revenue? Rather than drooling over having some 15-year-old lamers using Linux because it can run AOL, focus your attention on the office suites out there. StarOffice anyone? While it's true that a lot of people use AOL, a lot more use Microsoft Office. And while Johnny Q. Newbie can check his AOL mail on Linux, he can't open, and work with, his Word documents or Excel spreadsheets on Linux either.
Let's not forget getting support for all of Johnny Q. Newbie's peripherals either. Sound card doesn't work? Video card doesn't work? Digital camera doesn't work? Scanner doesn't work? Printer doesn't work? Then what's the point of jumping to Linux if your major components don't work?
Now, I expect that people will tell me, "But Linux is OPEN SOURCE, so people will flock to it!" Folks, if people wanted to use Linux because it was open source, they'd be using it by now. Pardon me if I sound inflammatory, but a lot of people out there couldn't give a shit if the OS they were using was open source (or free as in speech, depending on what distro you use). They want to be able to get their work done, to be able to do the same things they could do on Windows.
I'm sorry to bust your bubbles, but while AOL on Linux is certainly a good step, you've got a long way to go before Linux can become comparable to Windows in the home user market.
Actually, before I installed Ad Filter on my machine, some pages I regularly visit would take nearly five minutes to load, because the stupid ad server had to force the banner on me. And this was all on a T1 too. Waiting three seconds is no problem, waiting five minutes is.
"It gives them 1/10 of a cent, and might let them survive."
That's only if someone clicks on the banner ad in the first place.
"Is doubleclick really so horrible that you have to go out of your way to kill websites with your ad-filtering proxies and your mutated hosts files?"
Yes it is. When an advertiser subverts to trying to track me without me knowing, I get suspicious. Where I go online is none of Doubleclick's, or anyone's, concern. If one rotten apple in the class fucks it up, everyone has to suffer.
"Why do so few free services appear these days? What happened to, 'I'm doing it for fun, and if I make a few bucks, then that's icing on the cake?'"
Simply put, because there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. It'd be nice to have plentiful free services on the web, but remember, the guy behind neato-free-crap.com has to pay the bills too.
Of all the comments to this story, the ones that get to me are the ones complaining about the lack of MP3s. People, we have enough Napster-like clones out there, we don't need any more! File-sharing programs are a Good Thing(tm), but because of programs like Napster, Gnutella, and Freenet, people see this programs as only being useful to MP3 traders and warez kiddies. The great thing about Publius is that it implements true free speech, i.e. the sharing of sensitive and critical information without fear of reprisal, without worrying about MP3 traders and warez kiddies. And because of that, maybe some people will get turned on to the idea of file-sharing programs, and will see them as something more than another road for piracy. It'll be interesting to see how this program will function down the road, and I hope it continues to develop.
Remember, just because you can't download a copy of AutoCAD or a Britney Spears CD from it doesn't make Publius useless. There's plenty of Napster-like programs out there, don't make Publius into another one.
Ahhh, should've been more specific on that. What I meant was that, even though the spammer could be using ISP X for his spam run, they could just stick a Hotmail throwaway in there, since it is a valid address.
But seriously, filter all you want...I expect that you may be doing more of it (I'm assuming you live in Colorado). Remember when Sen. Frank Murkowski tried pushing his spam-friendly bill through Congress (S.1618 IIRC)? It never became law, yet I saw a rise in spams that had a disclaimer at the end that read something like "This can't be called SPAM under S.1618 as long as we provide a remove request." All this bill will do is make spam more legitamite, which, in turn, will likely increase the spam flow.
Slashdot Mirror
"... you've got no right to complain about the Gov't for the next four years. So get your sorry arse to the polls or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!"
Alrighty...
Disagree with Microsoft's business practices? Fine. Wait, do you have voting stock in the company? You don't? Well SHUT THE FUCK UP THEN! If you don't have voting stock in Microsoft, you have no right to complain about their business practices! At least that's how it is under your train of thought.
But hold on a sec. Do you own some Microsoft software? Hey, bitch on then! You're giving Microsoft your money for a product / service, and if they don't deliver, let em have it!
Me? I don't vote. But I'll still bitch and complain as loud as I want, and you can't stop me. Why is that? I'm an American taxpayer. I "pay" the government for products (e.g. new roads) and services (e.g. federal programs), and if they don't deliver, I'll let them have it. After all, it is my money they're using.
Just because I don't vote doesn't mean I can't complain. But if you think otherwise, then I hope I won't see you crying about Microsoft in Slashdot's next Microsoft-oriented story. By your train of thought...you don't have voting stock, you have no right to complain.
Nuff said.
--
"I think we are looking at a future when all music is totally free, and artists will make there money through other channels (live performance, for example)."
A future where music is totally free? Frankly, I don't see that happening, because you know the RIAA will try to jump into the foray somehow (the degree of success is something else). And I don't like the fact that some artist(s) would have to deal with the fact that their music won't get them any compensation unless they toured extensively. Not all bands have the devout following of the Grateful Dead or Phish. What do you say to them? "Sorry, but information wants to be free, and we thought your music should be free too. So here's a map of the United States, have fun touring." I'm sorry, but that isn't fair to the artists at all. They still deserve to see some return from their recorded music.
"Even better, the recording industry itself might die a death. Just imagine - no more intense promotion of artists, hype etc. Artists would have to start from the grass roots."
As much as we'd all love to see the industry die a slow and painful death, that wouldn't be good to the artists. Face it, the industry is a necessary evil. Without the industry, artists would indeed have to go grassroots and make their way to the top. How many bands can truly do that? Sure, they could just toss MP3s around, but who are they reaching then? Those bands do better through radio airplay, promotional spots, and videos on MTV (despite MTV's plunge into Teenybopper Land). Who's going to do the promotional work? The artists could, but under your scenario, they'd have a little bit more to worry about.
Yes, MP3s are here to stay, and like cockroaches and Cher, they'll be around for a long time. But that doesn't mean we should dictate to the artists that, just because we can download their music for free, they should have to bend over backwards and conduct their business as per our whims. You'd just be hurting the people you're claiming to help here: the musicians.
--
"I'm making the point with supporting facts that Gore is not a lesser evil."
What supporting facts? How much GOP FUD did you post anyway?
Idiot.
--
If anyone actually believed the parent post (would someone please moderate that FUD down?), then you may wish to check out this link.
--
What about Harry Browne, Pat Buchanan, Howard Phillips, David McRenyolds, and all the other third party candidates out there? If everyone is defending Ralph Nader's supposed right to attend the debates feverishly, then why not support all third party candidates as well? Just because everyone else isn't ranting about corporations like Nader is doesn't mean they deserve less support to have their chance to speak up.
My anti-Nader rant aside, IIRC, you need 5% in the polls to be in the debates. That's why guys like Nader aren't in there. Not because of a conspiracy theory, but because they're below the 5% mark. That's why we saw Ross Perot in the debates back in the day, because he had about 10% in the polls AFAIK.
--
"You think Slashdot would even be here if they didn't get ad revenue? How many thousand bucks a month would *you* pony up out of your own pocket to pay for bandwidth for your suddenly-popular website?"
Here's a question for you then. How much money do you think Andover throws in? I'm not preaching conspiracy theories here, but seeing as how Slashdot is owned by Andover, and has affiliations to OSDN, I don't think banner ads play that big of a role in keeping Slashdot afloat.
Besides, the WWW existed before banner ads, what makes you think the WWW is going to die if we all don't start clicking on ads?
"As for the guys bragging here about the various ways they have devised to prevent ads from being seen on webpages - screw you."
No, screw you. And screw the ad companies too. Wanna know why?
Advertisers nowadays seem to have this notion that the more Flash / Java banners they use, the better the responses will be. Hello? Not everybody has the money to pay for a cable modem. Some people are still stuck on their 56 K modems, like me. And I don't want to wait while someone like Doubleclick tries to shove some 100 K "Punch the Money and Win $20 of Worthless Tokens!" ad through my modem. I've spent up to five minutes just waiting for a page to load, because either the banner ad was taking too long to load, or the ad server decided to be bitchy and slow.
And hey, while we've mentioned Doubleclick, how about all those privacy invasions? Sure, the data is anonymous, for now. Doubleclick wants to serve me a banner? Fine. But they also want to know everything about me in the process. So excuse me for being privacy-minded.
So yes, I filter banner ads. So fucking what? Your bitching is falling on the wrong people. Why don't you take you and your soapbox over to the advertisers and ask them why they want to serve 10 cookies with every monstrosity of a Flash / Java ad? Maybe then you'll see why people filter the ads out.
--
"...is to have all kinds of databases centrally registered by government agencies such as the NSA, CIA and FBI."
What the fuck are you smoking anyway?
If the NSA wants to know who I am, they're going to want more than my goddamned CD LIST! Do you think "Big Brother" cares if I listen to Metallica or Dr. Dre or Yanni or any other suckfest of a CD?
My advice to you is to go take all your little guns, and go into a cave somewhere in the Ozarks with all the other radical right-wing crackheads. Or you can lay off the crack and get your conspiracy theories out of your head.
It had to be said.
--
"Why? Because slashdot people don't vote. And when they do vote, they vote for third parties that have no chance of winning."
You, sir, are a complete dumbass.
Are you so disillusioned with third parties that you feel the Republicans and Democrats are the only choices out there? It's not like I can't vote for Nader, Browne, Buchanan, or anyone else, right? To insinuate that voting for a third party is a wasted vote is pure arrogance on your behalf. Yes, Nader, Browne, and Buchanan don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election. That doesn't mean that we can't stick it to the Big Two with a vote for a third party candidate, which says "We're sick of politics as usual, if you don't want to listen to us, we'll find a candidate who will." Eventually, the Big Two will look behind them, and see just how close those third parties are catching up. It's not going to happen today, tomorrow, next week, or even next year, but it will happen.
The elections aren't like a horse race. I'm not going to vote for Joe Candidate just because I think he'll win, I'm going to vote for Joe Candidate based on the issues. Take a look at Minnesota. Dear God, some third party professional wrestler is the governor over there! Those idiots who voted for him wasted their votes! They should've voted Republican or Democrat! Hmmmm, I guess those people voted on the issues. I know, I know...to you, it's a new concept, but it's a cool concept! You can say that Jesse Ventura got elected just because of his past with Hollywood and the WWF, but something lit a fire underneath the collective asses of Minnesota voters that got them to say "Go Ventura!" Say what you will about the guy, but he is an effective politician who's getting the job done, and he's not afraid to speak his mind on anything. Oh oh, wait...Reform Party...third party...wasted vote.
You think that voting for a third party is a wasted vote? Here's a wasted vote: voting for someone "just because." And I have a feeling that's how you vote.
--
"There would be hacks out for it shortly after it came out to circumvent the copy protection because it's such a crappy idea."
Still, do you want a MPAA-backed law that says you can't record that episode of "Law and Order" for later viewing in your own home? The Supreme Court said that recording some program off TV for later viewing is legal ( Sony v. Universal Studios ), and yet the MPAA wants to tell you what you can and can't do in your own home. Quite frankly, if this did go through, you could have all the hacks you wanted (even though this is a hardware issue). But no matter how many hacks you'd have, it wouldn't matter, because the MPAA won anyway.
--
"I'm saying that pages render correctly only in IE precisely because no one will write pages that work in anything else."
You're right, because IE is the majority browser on the web. And that's because people use it. Go ahead and villify IE users as people who want to help "establish Microsoft's supreme decision-making authority." "Broken" or not, people use IE, for whatever conspiracy theory you can think of. And others don't use IE, for whatever reason. Like the saying goes, "different strokes for different folks." But being one of those horrible IE users you villify, allow me to unofficially apologize, on behalf of all the IE users out there, for using IE. I'm sorry that not everybody uses software based on principle, as you seem to do.
--
"Unfortunately, by refusing to 'suffer' through a few improperly-rendered sites a day, you are contributing to the client stats on every web server that suggest to developers that IE is the only browser they really need to support."
So, you're saying that I should another browser and "suffer through a few improperly-rendered sites" just because IE has too much of a presence on the web? Pardon me if I sound inflammatory, but it's not my fault that other browsers may not display pages correctly. I don't use software based on principle, I use software based on if it gets the job done or not. And IE gets the job done for me. I used to be a Netscape user, until I got fed up with Netscape's bloatiness (does such a word exist?) and tendency to crash. Then I jumped to IE. Why? Because it works. Pages render nicely for me, and that's what matters.
If you don't like the fact that IE has a bigger web presence than other browsers out there, then (as the open source credo seems to say), go do something about it.
--
It's one thing to say, "Hey, look at us, we have webcams!" It's another to say, "Hey, look at us, we're using the technology to supplement our concerns over the issues people care about." It really doesn't matter how much of a technocrat a candidate is, that's not why someone gets voted into office. It's the issues that matter the most. Using the technology in your favor isn't as important, but you had better believe that it can help.
Remember Jesse Ventura? His appeal to everyone out there was that he a take-shit-from-nobody kind of guy. He spoke his mind on the issues, and made no apologies for it. Some people didn't like what he had to say, but they have him credit for having the balls to say what he said. That's the main reason why he was so successful in Minnesota. What also made him successful was his JesseNet. It's really nothing more than a glorified mailing list, but it was certainly able to band together Ventura supporters to go out and promote the guy.
It doesn't matter if you're a technocrat or not, being one doesn't guarantee victory. We don't elect people because their website has the most webcams or java applets. We elect people because of their concern (or lack thereof) of the issues we care about most. I doubt Ventura is a big technocrat, yet he still won over two established candidates. And it was because of the issues. As soon as candidates start listening to and focusing on issues people care about most, then maybe more people will get involved with the political process.
And on an unrelated note, I'm surprised Al Gore isn't embracing the technology in his campaign. C'mon, he did invent the Internet, right?
--
"It was getting interesting before you stepped in."
:P
Shit happens. Deal with it
--
"You have just repeated *another* myth: Linux does not have good hardware support. Well I just installed on Red Hat 6.2 on my pretty recent system, and it configured everything automatically."
:)
Well, you've proved (in your case) that Red Hat has good hardware support, not Linux.
Oh, and I have used Linux before as well. Sorry to burst your bubble
--
"What you get from using Linux, or other free operating systems is freedom. Freedom from corporate decisions. Decisions that are made from a view that people are consumers and should be tricked and lured into giving up their money for as little as possible. Freedom to fix the code yourself. Freedom to share the code and binaries with your friends. Freedom to get it for free. A platform you know won't change in the future on the whims of corporate greed and hype."
And your comment brings up a serious question here. The freedom you get with Linux is great, there's no denying that. But can you sell Linux to the average user on the fact that it's free (as in speech)?
I don't honestly think that the average user would even care if Linux came with source code or not. Think about it here for a second. What good is the source code to someone who doesn't have a programming background? Sure, the code is neat to poke through, and may give you an inkling of an idea about how the system runs, but what good is it to the average user? We have to remember that not every Linux user is a programmer.
You may be able to sell Linux to the masses based on the fact that's it's free as in beer, but if you try selling it based on the fact that it's free as in speech, people will get confused and say, "So what?"
--
"There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution." - Linux Advocacy HOWTO
No matter what side it comes from, FUD is still FUD.
--
You're basing your claim that "Linux is ready for the desktop!" on the experience of one person? I'm sorry, but you're jumping to conclusions. If you wanted it to be a bit more effective, why not let your friend install Red Hat on there himself? Why not see if the average person can get past a Linux installation?
The fact isn't if people are willing to learn or not. Yes, people can learn how to use Linux if they sit down and learn it. Now how about getting devices like your sound card, your scanner, your printer, your modem, or your digital camera to work efficiently under Linux? Now we hit the snag. Some people may find Linux is easy to use, but what about device support? Yes, there is support for such devices under Linux, but it's still not as good as the device support you get under Windows. Not everything will work under Windows, but I'm willing to bet that there's a lot more that won't work under Linux.
Sure, Linux is supposedly easy to use for the average user to toy with. But it's still behind Windows when it comes to desktop readiness. Before you spout your FUD at me, is an OS that can be easily used (after learning it) yet doesn't have device support for everyday components ready for the desktop? I don't think so.
--
I've heard all the jokes about Communications majors, and I've laughed at a lot of them. But being a Communications major myself, I'd just like to point out that not all of the majors out there are 4 AM pot smokers (at my school we call them Business majors :)).
:)
And while I haven't been walking to and from labs at 4 AM, I do spend quite a bit of time working at the university TV station (editing, audio, camerawork, etc.), and do the rounds on the radio station as a DJ for two shows.
I realize that this is all horribly irrelevant to the topic. But I felt it proper to clear the air about Communications majors. Yes, I have my aspirations to work in the news media, and no, I haven't been up at 4 AM smoking pot
There are Communications majors who smoke pot and slide by in college, and there are Communications majors who work their asses off and get the experience for the workplace. A college major is only as good as the work you put into it.
--
Time to play the devil's advocate here...
To all of those who say, "AOL on Linux will help us destroy the evil Microsoft that we must all help to destroy," don't get too excited yet.
Let's face it, MSN really was never a viable competitor to AOL. MSN started out rather quickly, hoping to capitalize on all of the new Windows 95 users (remember the MSN icon on the desktop?). But they ended up getting hit by all of the problems you'd associate AOL with: busy signals, poor service, etc. MSN has finally gotten their shit together and made themselves into a decent service, but they will never be on the level that AOL is. They came into the arena when AOL was ten years ahead of them, and they're still paying for it.
And BFD if we get AOL on Linux, that's NOT going to bring more newbies over to Linux's side to warrant a dent in Microsoft's revenue. Do you want to dent their revenue? Rather than drooling over having some 15-year-old lamers using Linux because it can run AOL, focus your attention on the office suites out there. StarOffice anyone? While it's true that a lot of people use AOL, a lot more use Microsoft Office. And while Johnny Q. Newbie can check his AOL mail on Linux, he can't open, and work with, his Word documents or Excel spreadsheets on Linux either.
Let's not forget getting support for all of Johnny Q. Newbie's peripherals either. Sound card doesn't work? Video card doesn't work? Digital camera doesn't work? Scanner doesn't work? Printer doesn't work? Then what's the point of jumping to Linux if your major components don't work?
Now, I expect that people will tell me, "But Linux is OPEN SOURCE, so people will flock to it!" Folks, if people wanted to use Linux because it was open source, they'd be using it by now. Pardon me if I sound inflammatory, but a lot of people out there couldn't give a shit if the OS they were using was open source (or free as in speech, depending on what distro you use). They want to be able to get their work done, to be able to do the same things they could do on Windows.
I'm sorry to bust your bubbles, but while AOL on Linux is certainly a good step, you've got a long way to go before Linux can become comparable to Windows in the home user market.
Think about it.
--
"Okay, it takes you an extra 3 seconds per page."
Actually, before I installed Ad Filter on my machine, some pages I regularly visit would take nearly five minutes to load, because the stupid ad server had to force the banner on me. And this was all on a T1 too. Waiting three seconds is no problem, waiting five minutes is.
"It gives them 1/10 of a cent, and might let them survive."
That's only if someone clicks on the banner ad in the first place.
"Is doubleclick really so horrible that you have to go out of your way to kill websites with your ad-filtering proxies and your mutated hosts files?"
Yes it is. When an advertiser subverts to trying to track me without me knowing, I get suspicious. Where I go online is none of Doubleclick's, or anyone's, concern. If one rotten apple in the class fucks it up, everyone has to suffer.
--
"Why do so few free services appear these days? What happened to, 'I'm doing it for fun, and if I make a few bucks, then that's icing on the cake?'"
Simply put, because there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. It'd be nice to have plentiful free services on the web, but remember, the guy behind neato-free-crap.com has to pay the bills too.
--
"Fuck no. You need an arrest warrant for that."
Try a search warrant, dumbass.
--
Yeah, this story was already posted...
Of all the comments to this story, the ones that get to me are the ones complaining about the lack of MP3s. People, we have enough Napster-like clones out there, we don't need any more! File-sharing programs are a Good Thing(tm), but because of programs like Napster, Gnutella, and Freenet, people see this programs as only being useful to MP3 traders and warez kiddies. The great thing about Publius is that it implements true free speech, i.e. the sharing of sensitive and critical information without fear of reprisal, without worrying about MP3 traders and warez kiddies. And because of that, maybe some people will get turned on to the idea of file-sharing programs, and will see them as something more than another road for piracy. It'll be interesting to see how this program will function down the road, and I hope it continues to develop.
Remember, just because you can't download a copy of AutoCAD or a Britney Spears CD from it doesn't make Publius useless. There's plenty of Napster-like programs out there, don't make Publius into another one.
--
Ahhh, should've been more specific on that. What I meant was that, even though the spammer could be using ISP X for his spam run, they could just stick a Hotmail throwaway in there, since it is a valid address.
HTH
--
"Doesn't do a lot of good? Are you mad??"
:)
No, but I play a madman on TV
But seriously, filter all you want...I expect that you may be doing more of it (I'm assuming you live in Colorado). Remember when Sen. Frank Murkowski tried pushing his spam-friendly bill through Congress (S.1618 IIRC)? It never became law, yet I saw a rise in spams that had a disclaimer at the end that read something like "This can't be called SPAM under S.1618 as long as we provide a remove request." All this bill will do is make spam more legitamite, which, in turn, will likely increase the spam flow.
--