> Do you *seriously* think such a dubious argument would hold up in court? no, but that's sad, because the other way round they win with such arguments.
Just look at some example. I share a file, i will be sued as if 1000 people got the file from me. Okay, maybe 1000 people got the file, i am responsible. But they sue all 1000 as if they distributed 1000 copies. Why, either one is responsible for all, because he started it, or everyone is responsible for a little part.
And with such bullshit they win in court. And if i would try something like this, they would say "no, because the technical details are..."
Just look at how it is just yet. You come as normal user to a site, create an account, check you have accepted the TOS without even reading them. You agree by making a checkmark, the other party implicitly agrees by creating your account. Do they even agree to their full terms by creating an account? They do not explicitly say they agreed, too. The only signs for them agreeing is, that they designed the TOS and they created the account. What if they promise something in the TOS and later claim they never agreed to the TOS for your account?
And what i said is the other way round: For a lawyer the technical details are unimportant. You changed the text, then you clicked agree, if they designed their site in a way they do not even receive the text which is finally agreed on, its a bug of their site and their fault. When i have a contract with you and make handwritten changes and then sign it and you later sign it without reading the changes, it's just the same problem.
hm, lets say i run a little piece of javascript to make the readonly TOS-textarea read-write. Then i change it and click accept. The problem of the other party not being informed of the change is not my problem, i clicked agree, the other party did not disagree (as they never actually agree but only create your account and therefore implicitly agree), the only problem is, that they really do not know about it. So later in court you can have good chances, but before they will just act like you violated the contract, even when they may have violated the new one.
and you are recommending illegal things under your account name. seeding and downloading may be legal there, renting something with a false name is not.
okay, you did it for facebook. did you do it for all the other trackers too? This is much time consuming...
or you go the other approach, block everything not on a whitelist like RequestPolicy does. Now you destroyed your user experience, you need to allow 1-6 data sources per modern page before you get to the full content including images and the javascript menu.
both are no good approaches. Maybe adblock with a anti-tracking list is good, but you depend on the person updating the list (not to block something you want AND to block everything you do not want)
and what was the last time, you really used remote X? Everone uses ssh X-Forwarding for that. First, because ssh runs anyway, second most people do not want their x-server to listen on tcp, when using ssh is sufficient. And ssh is encrypted, remote X or even xdmcp is not.
I am waiting for someone, who forks Firefox and builds a stable basis with all the eyecandy and features as extensions. Then bundle them all together with an installer, which selects them by default. The poweruser can deselect them in the installer or uninstall/disable them later. Why did they build a nice lean browser with extension support, when they are now stuffing everything in the core? They could build extensions and preinstall them. No normal user would notice and the geeks would like the change.
Why? The computer converts the whole power input into heat energy. just run seti@home or a bitcoin miner, and the full 300-500W of your power supply will be used to produce heat.
no, the user knows the UI, the user does not want to learn a new one. The PC runs this system, the PC will run slow with the new system. long support is important.
and opera had usable tabs at bottom. a thing, which is missing from modern browsers. you can configure them to have the tabs at bottom, but not in a usable way, anymore
I would really like a blacklist mode. Everything loaded by default, but easy to blacklist from the RP-menu. Seems not that easy thing to do with the addon.
Slashdot Mirror
> Do you *seriously* think such a dubious argument would hold up in court?
no, but that's sad, because the other way round they win with such arguments.
Just look at some example. I share a file, i will be sued as if 1000 people got the file from me. Okay, maybe 1000 people got the file, i am responsible. But they sue all 1000 as if they distributed 1000 copies. Why, either one is responsible for all, because he started it, or everyone is responsible for a little part.
And with such bullshit they win in court. And if i would try something like this, they would say "no, because the technical details are ..."
Just look at how it is just yet. You come as normal user to a site, create an account, check you have accepted the TOS without even reading them. You agree by making a checkmark, the other party implicitly agrees by creating your account. Do they even agree to their full terms by creating an account? They do not explicitly say they agreed, too. The only signs for them agreeing is, that they designed the TOS and they created the account. What if they promise something in the TOS and later claim they never agreed to the TOS for your account?
And what i said is the other way round: For a lawyer the technical details are unimportant. You changed the text, then you clicked agree, if they designed their site in a way they do not even receive the text which is finally agreed on, its a bug of their site and their fault.
When i have a contract with you and make handwritten changes and then sign it and you later sign it without reading the changes, it's just the same problem.
why do the people always assume thats the problem of the customer? When you hide your e-mail address, its your fault when you will not get your mails.
hm, lets say i run a little piece of javascript to make the readonly TOS-textarea read-write. Then i change it and click accept. The problem of the other party not being informed of the change is not my problem, i clicked agree, the other party did not disagree (as they never actually agree but only create your account and therefore implicitly agree), the only problem is, that they really do not know about it. So later in court you can have good chances, but before they will just act like you violated the contract, even when they may have violated the new one.
and you are recommending illegal things under your account name. seeding and downloading may be legal there, renting something with a false name is not.
possible felony, you just let him sign it to be sure. That should be okay.
okay, you did it for facebook. ...
did you do it for all the other trackers too? This is much time consuming
or you go the other approach, block everything not on a whitelist like RequestPolicy does. Now you destroyed your user experience, you need to allow 1-6 data sources per modern page before you get to the full content including images and the javascript menu.
both are no good approaches. Maybe adblock with a anti-tracking list is good, but you depend on the person updating the list (not to block something you want AND to block everything you do not want)
Or correcting Referer to Referrer.
isn't this, what we have apparmor for?
> [goat.cx]
and what was the last time, you really used remote X? Everone uses ssh X-Forwarding for that. First, because ssh runs anyway, second most people do not want their x-server to listen on tcp, when using ssh is sufficient. And ssh is encrypted, remote X or even xdmcp is not.
scr. Like the screensaver extension on some operation systems.
8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 are the google dns servers
NXDOMAIN problems are less evil than swapping ads? a intelligent person will block ads anyway.
they should provide a api with own versions. then they can say "in firefox 8 we drop compatiblity to api version 3"
I am waiting for someone, who forks Firefox and builds a stable basis with all the eyecandy and features as extensions. Then bundle them all together with an installer, which selects them by default. The poweruser can deselect them in the installer or uninstall/disable them later. Why did they build a nice lean browser with extension support, when they are now stuffing everything in the core? They could build extensions and preinstall them. No normal user would notice and the geeks would like the change.
maybe there will be a successful firefox-fork.
updates should be done by your os, not by the programs themself.
When a program can install an addon, it can enable it, too.
Why? The computer converts the whole power input into heat energy. just run seti@home or a bitcoin miner, and the full 300-500W of your power supply will be used to produce heat.
wtf, edubuntu will use unity(2d)?!
xp stops getting updates, you can use 7 ...
no, the user knows the UI, the user does not want to learn a new one. The PC runs this system, the PC will run slow with the new system. long support is important.
and beeing absolutely useless to an average user.
and opera had usable tabs at bottom. a thing, which is missing from modern browsers. you can configure them to have the tabs at bottom, but not in a usable way, anymore
I would really like a blacklist mode. Everything loaded by default, but easy to blacklist from the RP-menu. Seems not that easy thing to do with the addon.