Or have they stopped collecting the information on what you're looking for when you search altavista?
Seems to me that when an advertiser gets the list of search words you're wanting, and pops a cookie on your system (you *DO* reject cookies from other than the site you're connected to, right?) for later recall (you *DO* edit you cookie lists, don't you?), they're going too far.
(Update - I just popped over to altavista, and it looks like they're not doing ads with doubleclick any longer - at least this time. But I'll still nominate them for historical reasons.)
Or maybe I'm just paranoid.
Interested, Watching, and TOTALLY Clueless
on
Microsoft and Linux
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps you should try reading things in context instead of assuming I've got Linux blinders on.
Microsoft is not built on intellectual property rights; it is built on abuse of intellelectual property rights. There is a difference.
Open source is not antithetical to intellectual property rights; it is quite the opposite.
Maybe you should go re-read the GPL.
Interested, Watching, and TOTALLY Clueless
on
Microsoft and Linux
·
· Score: 1
That last sentence tells all: "Microsoft is built on intellectual property rights, and it's never going to do acquiesce to a model, namely open source, that is antithetical to its intellectual property rights,".
Antithetical to intellectual property rights?
Spend some of those billions and buy a clue, Bill!
OK, so the article refers to GNU/Linux. We know which side of the story they got.
I'm tired of hearing about this. I don't call my Solaris system GNU/Solaris; I don't call my HP/UX system GNU/HP/UX (although I will have to confess to having called it other things).
GNU/Linux isn't the proper name, Linux isn't an abbreviated form, and the only thing that RMS is getting is labelled: BABY.
Slashdot Mirror
Or have they stopped collecting the information on what you're looking for when you search altavista?
Seems to me that when an advertiser gets the list of search words you're wanting, and pops a cookie on your system (you *DO* reject cookies from other than the site you're connected to, right?) for later recall (you *DO* edit you cookie lists, don't you?), they're going too far.
(Update - I just popped over to altavista, and it looks like they're not doing ads with doubleclick any longer - at least this time. But I'll still nominate them for historical reasons.)
Or maybe I'm just paranoid.
Perhaps you should try reading things in context instead of assuming I've got Linux blinders on.
Microsoft is not built on intellectual property rights; it is built on abuse of intellelectual property rights. There is a difference.
Open source is not antithetical to intellectual property rights; it is quite the opposite.
Maybe you should go re-read the GPL.
That last sentence tells all: "Microsoft is built on intellectual property rights, and it's never going to do acquiesce to a model, namely open source, that is antithetical to its intellectual property rights,".
Antithetical to intellectual property rights?
Spend some of those billions and buy a clue, Bill!
OK, so the article refers to GNU/Linux. We know which side of the story they got.
I'm tired of hearing about this. I don't call my Solaris system GNU/Solaris; I don't call my HP/UX system GNU/HP/UX (although I will have to confess to having called it other things).
GNU/Linux isn't the proper name, Linux isn't an abbreviated form, and the only thing that RMS is getting is labelled: BABY.