I don't think anyone's forcing anything. Just because something comes up for legislative discussion doesn't mean it will pass, and just because you don't agree with the outcome doesn't mean it was achieved by sinister means.
To answer your question, some of my criteria for choosing a browser (as an end-user...when making web pages, standards compliance == happiness): - Works on Linux - Easy to tinker with - Stays the heck out of my way and lets me see the web pages, not the web browser. In this respect, a lack of UI is preferable. Though that could be considered a UI "feature" as well, I suppose.
>look Dark There's nothing you can taste, nothing you can see, nothing you can hear, nothing you can feel, nothing you can smell, you do not even know who you are.
Either way, though, Wal-Mart would probably be paying the same proceeds (or buying more) to the record companies and the 10 cents would be coming from Wal-Mart's pockets. The music industry still gets their cut for each one, so they've got no reason to care if Wal-Mart gives them away for free.
Doh! Guess I should have read the next sentence. Please excuse my above ramblings.
Like other open standards extremists Mozilla are too insular. They should work on what end users want (UI) instead of what a whiny minority of web developers want.
I'd like to point out here that were it not for those "whiny" web developers, there would exist no webpages over which to place your shiny UI. Kinda like those XML pages in IE now!
It's obvious to the most casual observer that Firefox UI is orders of magnitude better than that of IE6, but that is (relatively) minor to correct. After which, there will be no compelling reason to use it.
Yes, we all use it for the UI.
(On second thought, maybe Windows users do only judge a program based on its UI? That's an interesting implication. Certainly would explain why they're using Windows in the first place, I guess.)
No, but the really interesting thing is that they used the flaw to determine the IP address from which the worm originated. In a nutshell (assuming I'm interpreting this correctly), it seems that they had a list of machines that theoretically should have been hit, but weren't, due to the flaw. They then traced the algorithm to determine what the starting point had to have been to miss that specific block of addresses. Turns out they found exactly one IP address that could have produced the hit-and-miss profile of the flaw on the same IP addresses, and were thus able to identify the initial point of insertion. Cool!
Patents cover ideas, not code. The statement means that if Nokia has a concept patented that would be beneficial to have in the kernel, the developers can write it and include it without fear of litigation. The fact that this is a concern in the first place is the basis for the outcries against software patents.
Sounds more to me like a blanket statement meant to cover any use whatsoever of their patented stuff, and not necessarily declaring that there is any in the kernel. Retroactive absolution, so to speak, to clarify that any and all currently Nokia-patented stuff in the kernel, whether its there already or put in in the future, is protected from litigation.
Yes, but all it does is put a red stripe across your screen that reads, "The OS you are using appears to be dead. Consider installing something trendier."
...and today, a new standard of total sadness was achieved as it was announced that the first commercial venture to put humans in space will be in the form of a reality television show.
Nobody stopped him from saying what he wanted to say. They stopped him from organizing an audience for it on their facilities. Don't confuse the right to speak your mind with the right to be heard. Nobody has a right to an audience of 500 kids on a college campus to hear their views.
According to TFA, it was the students that ASKED him to give the lecture. He already had his audience.
Just because someone expresses their dislike for your words doesn't mean they believe that you should not be allowed to say them. It's all free thinking. The above-quoted have the right to say those things, as much as you have the right to mock them for doing so. They then, of course, have the right to think you're a stupid nitwit, after which you might exercise your right to doubt the integrity of their bloodlines. Naturally, they can then declare YOU unpatriotic, if they so please, and you can call them stinking doody-heads, if YOU so please! In a free society, neither they nor you will be persecuted for this.
Not to pick nits, he makes it a point to be emphatically clear in the comments that the blog was NOT about him having to resign. What upset him was the censoring. I'm sure he will have no problems finding another job, especially after the publicity he will receive from this.
That's actually not a bad idea at all, especially if the e-mail subjects clearly state that it's an advertisement. It would be a much better way to "pay" for content, and it might have some extra value in that e-mail is less transient than webpage ads, so advertisers may pay more.
Of course, it'd be rediculously easy to circumvent, which is unfortunate in the sense that it'd probably keep this method from ever being put into practice. If they were tasteful and relevant, I think I would actually check out one or two per day.
Making the viewing of the ads voluntary would certainly make the consumers feel less threatened by them. Done correctly, I think this system would benefit both consumers and businesses in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anyone's forcing anything. Just because something comes up for legislative discussion doesn't mean it will pass, and just because you don't agree with the outcome doesn't mean it was achieved by sinister means.
Well, one easy way to make it simpler would be to remove the need to fingerprint all UK non-US citizens on the way in...
Perhaps if there were some sort of ID card, instead...one that could be read in one swipe by the airports at both ends of the trip.
Hmmm...
Point well-made.
To answer your question, some of my criteria for choosing a browser (as an end-user...when making web pages, standards compliance == happiness):
- Works on Linux
- Easy to tinker with
- Stays the heck out of my way and lets me see the web pages, not the web browser. In this respect, a lack of UI is preferable. Though that could be considered a UI "feature" as well, I suppose.
I guess it all depends on how you look at it. >8)
>look
Dark
There's nothing you can taste, nothing you can see, nothing you can hear,
nothing you can feel, nothing you can smell, you do not even know who you are.
>
Either way, though, Wal-Mart would probably be paying the same proceeds (or buying more) to the record companies and the 10 cents would be coming from Wal-Mart's pockets. The music industry still gets their cut for each one, so they've got no reason to care if Wal-Mart gives them away for free.
Doh! Guess I should have read the next sentence. Please excuse my above ramblings.
Like other open standards extremists Mozilla are too insular. They should work on what end users want (UI) instead of what a whiny minority of web developers want.
I'd like to point out here that were it not for those "whiny" web developers, there would exist no webpages over which to place your shiny UI. Kinda like those XML pages in IE now!
My favorite:
It's obvious to the most casual observer that Firefox UI is orders of magnitude better than that of IE6, but that is (relatively) minor to correct. After which, there will be no compelling reason to use it.
Yes, we all use it for the UI.
(On second thought, maybe Windows users do only judge a program based on its UI? That's an interesting implication. Certainly would explain why they're using Windows in the first place, I guess.)
No, but it flattens everything within the breadth of its widest leaves, even around the trunk.
No, but the really interesting thing is that they used the flaw to determine the IP address from which the worm originated. In a nutshell (assuming I'm interpreting this correctly), it seems that they had a list of machines that theoretically should have been hit, but weren't, due to the flaw. They then traced the algorithm to determine what the starting point had to have been to miss that specific block of addresses. Turns out they found exactly one IP address that could have produced the hit-and-miss profile of the flaw on the same IP addresses, and were thus able to identify the initial point of insertion. Cool!
90%
Patents cover ideas, not code. The statement means that if Nokia has a concept patented that would be beneficial to have in the kernel, the developers can write it and include it without fear of litigation. The fact that this is a concern in the first place is the basis for the outcries against software patents.
Sounds more to me like a blanket statement meant to cover any use whatsoever of their patented stuff, and not necessarily declaring that there is any in the kernel. Retroactive absolution, so to speak, to clarify that any and all currently Nokia-patented stuff in the kernel, whether its there already or put in in the future, is protected from litigation.
but lack of BGP/RIP2/whatever configuration resulted in packets loosing their way to hosts."
Those mischevious packets. Unraveling networks where'er they roam.
MSRP is $350 (U.S.)
Yes, but all it does is put a red stripe across your screen that reads, "The OS you are using appears to be dead. Consider installing something trendier."
...and today, a new standard of total sadness was achieved as it was announced that the first commercial venture to put humans in space will be in the form of a reality television show.
*insert Pac Man death-sound here*
According to TFA, it was the students that ASKED him to give the lecture. He already had his audience.
So what you're saying is that we should expect the Spanish Inquisition?
Yea, but you do have to admit that "Feminists: why each man should own at least one" is pretty funny. >8D
Just because someone expresses their dislike for your words doesn't mean they believe that you should not be allowed to say them. It's all free thinking. The above-quoted have the right to say those things, as much as you have the right to mock them for doing so. They then, of course, have the right to think you're a stupid nitwit, after which you might exercise your right to doubt the integrity of their bloodlines. Naturally, they can then declare YOU unpatriotic, if they so please, and you can call them stinking doody-heads, if YOU so please! In a free society, neither they nor you will be persecuted for this.
Not everyone thinks the American game of "Yes, Mr. President!" is the only way to live life.
Yes, I was just noticing how you never hear any anti-Bush statements at all these days...
Where the heck did you pull that one out of?
Not to pick nits, he makes it a point to be emphatically clear in the comments that the blog was NOT about him having to resign. What upset him was the censoring. I'm sure he will have no problems finding another job, especially after the publicity he will receive from this.
That's actually not a bad idea at all, especially if the e-mail subjects clearly state that it's an advertisement. It would be a much better way to "pay" for content, and it might have some extra value in that e-mail is less transient than webpage ads, so advertisers may pay more.
Of course, it'd be rediculously easy to circumvent, which is unfortunate in the sense that it'd probably keep this method from ever being put into practice. If they were tasteful and relevant, I think I would actually check out one or two per day.
Making the viewing of the ads voluntary would certainly make the consumers feel less threatened by them. Done correctly, I think this system would benefit both consumers and businesses in the long run.
It means he makes a little dough.