As maintainer of the comp.mail.eudora.mac FAQ, I follow Eudora-related developments very closely. A recent post to comp.mail.eudora.mac from Qualcomm stated that:
1) Implimenting MoodWatch was a trivial addition to the program. It did not take months of man-hours to complete. The feature did not take away time from developing other features/bug fixes.
2) Qualcomm is against censoring anyone's mail. MoodWatch is for informational purposes only. Currently, I do not think you can even filter a message based on its MoodWatch rating.
Having talked with several people on the Eudora team, I do not think that they would ever allow MoodWatch to become anything more than what it is now - an interesting implimentation of a cool research finding.
People have been recording analog signals with VCRs. With the advance of digital-based recorders and digital signals (HDTV, etc), however, the MPAA and others are worried about what you would do with a digitally recorded copy.
You could easily upload it to the 'net for others to download *without commercials*. They could enjoy the same high-quality show you got (no degredation since it is digital)*for free*. This would be against their idea of copyrights. You could record it to a DVD and bootleg it (think about HBO sending a digitally recordable movie).
Heaven forbid!
It is the same reason that you will never see a digital video out on the back of a name brand DVD player - it would allow for too easy of a non-encrypted digital copy (the same problem the MPAA has with deCSS).
My opinion? As someone who is big into high-quality home theatre, I hope I am able to record digitally (maintaining the same quality of the original source) for later viewing. I hope the FCC rules in favor of the populace. I, for one, am not really against protections that allow for one generation digital copies and no more. I do want that one generation, though.
Funny, and I thought the Linux movement was all about choice.
Yes, Linux is currently more competition than Apple is. That does not warrant the "Apple is doomed" sentiment. Is there no room for more than one OS? If so, see ya *BSDs...
Remember that everyone complains about MS because they have a monopoly. There are other ways of doing OS's. Multiple OS's will be able to survive if MS is kicked out off their throne.
I think that Apple is good for the Linux/*BSD movement. We have an example of one possible easy to use system.
Users are used to having two different ports on the back of their machines (and more). So we used to have serial and parallel and PS/2. Macs had ADB and Serial and SCSI.
Users are not going to be overly confused by two ports on the back of their machines. "Slower devices with this type plug go into the USB connection. Faster types with this plug go into the Firewire port. Both are hot-swappable, and both are plug-and-play." (under ideal circumstances for that last one - up to software support).
Why can't someone come up with silicon that controls both USB and Firewire?
As others have said on this thread, the problem comes into play if you are using browser "z". I understand companies that are unwilling to design a site for anybrowser (as much as I think that is what is really needed), but to not even allow me to try is another story.
I run iCab Pre2.0 on my Mac. It has almost all of the features of a 4.x release. Several times, I have been prevented from entering a web site because my browser does not identify itself as a 4.x brwoser. Luckily, iCab offers the ability to change the User Agent field on the fly. So I change it to Netscape 4.x.
I get in and the site looks fine!
I got into an argument with LL Bean customer service a while back about this and, after a month or so of emailing, they finally gave in.
It is fine if you do not tailor your code so that any browser will work, but do not filter people off and prevent them from seeing your site.
Err, no. You obviously don't get it because you're spouting the same tired line about how copying music is stealing. It's not. Get your facts straight before going around spouting the IP world's propaganda.
Currently, not paying/asking permission for copywritten work is stealing. You may not agree with it, but that is the way it is.
So I work 40 hours in my workshop and end up with a oak table. Someone pays me $100 for it. If someone just came and took it without paying me, that would be staeling.
So I work 40 hours in my studio and end up with a song on DAT. I offer to sell the rights for $100. If someone came along and took it from me without paying, that would be "liberating the information that wants to be free"?
The system may not be perfect (far from it). There is going to be a new system of music distribution, whether the record labels like it or not. But to expect artists in the future to make music and distribute them for free is insane.
Do you want to try to compare it to Free Software? How do you sell "support" for your music? Do you try to live on tours? T-shirt sales? People's voluntary payments?
Eventually musicians, even the Metallicas out there, might be able to support themselves by MP3's (whether it be through download charges or something else).
So you make the argument that people who listen to MP3's buy more CD's than the general public. OK, then, why weren't you protesting before? The CD distribution system is the same as it was before Napster (and has no clear reason to change. Lemme see here - people are going to buy more of the same product? Why change?). Was RIAA not wrong before?
So maybe the RIAA shold not be complaining - if people are going to be buying more CD's. But does that in anyway change RIAA's business model at all? About the only thing is that their advertising fees go down, since now Napster can do all of that work.
But MP3 fans have a definite proble withteh current CD distribution system. Do they want to go over completely to MP3 distribution? That raises the questions I had above - how do you make money off freely available MP3's? SUppose as an independent musician in the future, I want to use the new distribution system. Where does my income come from? I have not seen a good answer to this one.
Damn! I have v2.0 (1995) of that disk. It happened to be sitting on my desk in a stack of AOL disks (I am a camp counselor and I am going to use them as name tags for the campers' doors).
As you predicted, none of the Easter Eggs made their way into the second version. I am so mad. I never used that disk for anything and I was so excited to read ithad something interesting on it.
While partly a PR stunt, this is also an attempt to show the possibility of a completely different method of distribution. Mailing thousands of reels of film for one movie is very expensive. If an infrastructure could be set up to distribute movies digitally, there is a lot of money to be saved.
It is similar to concempt cars. True, on one level they are PR stunts, but they also teach the manufacturer about new fabrication ideas and design ideas. The cars themselves may never be mass-produced, but most of the time you can see their influences later on.
Studios see a lot of money in digital distribution. This could be seen as a test bed to see the possibiity.
1) OK, so the XBox is supposed to compete with the Playstation2, but is coming out almost a year later? Does the Playstation2 coming out take back all of the money that Sega has made from the Dreamcast? Christmas is always the biggest time for console systems, and MS is going to miss an entire season. I can understand consumers waiting a month or two to compere two systems, but waiting a year in order to make a more informed decision? That is crazy.
2) From the XBox FAQ on the same site:
Won't the processor be a little slow by the time the system is launched?
A 733MHz PIII processor is incredibly fast, but we all know that in 18 months it won't seem so fantastic when pitted against the gigahertz+ power of desktop computers. A separate graphics processor changes everything however, by taking the load off of the processor. Graphical data will be sent to the graphics processor while that spunky little 733MHz PIII will be able to focus solely on the computing powers at hand, instead of just pushing pixels.
Gee, why didn't everyone else think about that before? grin
3) The Raven pictures are pretty nice
4) Using a modified Win2k kernel. There is a great base to put a platform on.
I do not think that the original poster was saying that he wants a web without graphics, but rather that he wants a web with text. For example, take a look at my college's home page, http://www.ius.indiana.edu/ *with graphics turned off*. Now try to get somewhere specific. Can you do it?
The web allows for many different medias, and yet too often people only use graphics (and the occasional text).
I think that browsers such as the newest IE for the Mac (as much as I despise MS) and iCab (a very compliant browser, even showing HTML mistakes) are the futureof browsers: Compliant.
Other people on this thread are correct: Clients are the problem. Try showing them what their web page looks like in Lynx, or in iCab. "Do you want people coming to your web page to see this?"
Then we come to my pet-peeve: JavaScript. I cannot stand pages that depend on JS-support. It is fine to use, but as soon as I get to a page that is impossible to navigate without JS, I leave.
My final point: People need to realize that the web allows for a relatively seemless media environment. This does not mean, however, that you should pick one form of media and rely on it exclusively on your page.
The error randomly rotates, so the solution you mention would not work. Some GPSs would try to compensate by taking several readings from several satelites and average them out over several minutes (if one satelite says you are within this thirty foot radius and the other one says that you are within *this* thirty foot radius, you obviously must be in the space where they overlap (GPS actually works with more than just two satellites, which makes this process more exact, but still not perfect).
It will be interesting to see how such GPSs deal with the loss of the error. Will they still try to compensate?
I imagine it will not make too much difference. Now both satellites (or however many you get reports from) will report about the same position,and the GPS will average those.
I read the first chapter and I am going to read the other four eventually. It starts out pretty well (concerning Petra returning).
I read the series through _Children of the Mind_ and generally reccomend to friends that they read _Game_, _Shadow_, and probably _Speaker_ (probably in that order). _Speaker_ is not quite as good, but wraps stuff up enough.
I also really liked _The Worthing Saga_, a collection of stories. If you like Card's work, I would pick it up. It is different from the Ender series, but is still a very good read.
People might be aware of this, but I thought I would pass it along anyway - There is a GNU/Chess program. I believe that the playing ability of the computer depends on the processing power fo the computer (it has been a few years since I played it).
With source code available, it might be a place to start.
First of all, I have yet to see the American government "trying to force international free software projects down everyone's throats." Can you please clarify this statement?
Second of all, as a Libertarian, I feel a need to step and and clarify what the federal government is doing in regards to MS. The federal government represents the people, and the people's interests (in an ideal world, but we will not get into that). The federal government is acting on behalf of the American public to stop what it perceives as a corporation that is hurting that same American public.
The federal government has a ridiculously short list of tasks it is given (most are spelled out in the Constitution). While one of them is to stay back from the economy whenever possible (Laissez-Faire), it also has an obligation to see that the rules of capitalism are not broken. These two "rules" are sometimes at odds.
According to the federal government's findings, Microsoft has practiced behaviours that are monopolistic in nature. The federal government has a right, and an obligation, to step in and prevent such actions in order to further the capitalistic system we have, despite its general Laissez-Faire approach.
Third, Linux has gotten to the point where "word of mouth" is no longer going to be the only form of "evangilism" and advertising. This is not due to anyone's set wishes, but simply rather due to the acceptance and size that Linux currently has. "Word of mouth" would not have Redhat boxes on store shelves. "Word of mouth" would not have the now infamous Linux-related IPOs. Your post screams of radical conservatism, and cries for returning to "the good old days". This simply is not possible.
As with anything, time goes on and things change. Sometimes we may not like these things, but they happen regardless. The best thing the Linux community can do is adapt to the changing conditions, just as the operating system itself has done over the years. This does not require GNU/Linux people to "sell out", but rather adapt. They have come this far, getting bigger is not going to change those base ideals now. It might just change the approach taken.
Posssibly not (although The Mac crowd has its fair share of hackers, both hardware and software based). What you need to remember, though, is that AirPort technology is 802.11-based. This means that the technology should work for other wireless cards, including Lucent's WaveLan cards.
As an answer to a previous post, the original article menations that the author found that the hack was legal in New Zealand (where he is based), and believes that the same requirements go in the States, as well.
Leave it to the FCC, though, to find a way to make it illegal.
What I would really like to see is affordable WaveLan/Airport-like Internet access sold like cell phone access. ("For $19.95/month - unlimited dial-up. For $29.95/month, unlimited wireless access. For $29.95/month - unlimited cell phone access.")
I suppose that will happen the day that xDSL-like technologies are actually affordable.
I apparently signed up Thu, 3 Sep 1998 and was user #2031, so apprently the original poster was in September of 1998.
The reason I know the exact date is that I have the original "Here is your password" email.
Talk about exponential growth.
ObSlashhot: I would like to see when I and other people signed up. Yet another field to add in the user database. Also, in the Moderation hidden discussion, we were talking about meta-moderation getting screwed up (some people not being able to meta-moderate). Has this been fixed?
If anyone wants to see an intelligent way of handling cookies, take a look at iCab on the Mac. Very extensive rules and it is not too over-bearing. I can set it up to accept all cookies from slashdot.org, and reject all from doubleclick.com without any problems. You can view, edit, and delete individual cookies.
You touched on the very reason - Slashdot only reviews bad movies. They figure that sending five Slashdot employees to a bad movie will prevent the thousands of Slashdot reads out there from going. Better 5 people giving money to the studios than the thousands of Slashdot readers.
ObMovie: My friends and I (all big movie buffs) play a game called "The last time that was made, it was called..." We watch previews and commercials for movies and see the reused plotline. "Mission to Mars" was decided as "The last time they made that movie, it was called 2001, and, unlike MTM, it was a good movie."
I could have told you MTM was going to suck. Just a feeling.
As soon as the bugs get worked out. A few comments/questions:
If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation.
I do not not neccisarily want to agree with future versions of the license. Does this mean that I could write...under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.0, with the Invariant Sections...?
Is it just me or does everyone feel like a lawyer trying to figure out what Invariant Sections and Transparant vs. Opaque are? grin
At least on the Macintosh, development of Standalone/Navigator stopped at 4.0.7 (I think that 4.0.8 brought a bug fix and "What's related"). The reasoning is that (right or wrong), there is no reason to go with a standalone client. If all you do is browse on the Mac (and not use Composer, Messenger, and others), the RAM requirements and speed are the same as the standalone. The only real difference, then, would be in HD space wasted (which they argue is not that important in the days of 40gig IDE drives).
My opinion? Netscape is really missing out. At least on the Mac, iCab is really hot right now. There is a market for standalone clients out there, even if you argue that the all-in-one is better.
I would certainly hope that kits are going to be available for LinuxPPC. Remember that all B&W G3's and all G4 computers ship with either a Page 128 or Rage 128 Pro, so most people running LinuxPPC on these machines have an ATI card installed.
As for everyone sayign that this weakens the deCSS case, I might agree, but there are still very strong arguments to be made - everyone who is not running a Rage 128 card under Linux.
Everything that the Palm isn't? What about OS upgradability? Last I heard, the Visor was stuck at PalmOS 3.1, and could never be upgraded past that (to the new 3.5, for example).
Qualcomm has nothing to lose on this. They were already using the paid-full/free-light model for Eudora. With these two options remaining, Qualcomm only has a gain. With MS's venture into the mail client market, with Outlook Express and Netscape's client both available for free, Qualcomm was faced with getting people to pay for a client that competes with full-featured free clients.
FreePC failed for other reasons - people are used to paying for computers. If Compaq, HP, and Dell all started giving away all of their consumer-market computers, you would see any non-free consumer-level PC company go down the drains.
The important aspect is that the two products must be able to reasonably compete.
Slashdot Mirror
As maintainer of the comp.mail.eudora.mac FAQ, I follow Eudora-related developments very closely. A recent post to comp.mail.eudora.mac from Qualcomm stated that:
1) Implimenting MoodWatch was a trivial addition to the program. It did not take months of man-hours to complete. The feature did not take away time from developing other features/bug fixes.
2) Qualcomm is against censoring anyone's mail. MoodWatch is for informational purposes only. Currently, I do not think you can even filter a message based on its MoodWatch rating.
Having talked with several people on the Eudora team, I do not think that they would ever allow MoodWatch to become anything more than what it is now - an interesting implimentation of a cool research finding.
One minor point: Eudora keeps its mail in standard ASCII mbox format.
People have been recording analog signals with VCRs. With the advance of digital-based recorders and digital signals (HDTV, etc), however, the MPAA and others are worried about what you would do with a digitally recorded copy.
You could easily upload it to the 'net for others to download *without commercials*. They could enjoy the same high-quality show you got (no degredation since it is digital)*for free*. This would be against their idea of copyrights. You could record it to a DVD and bootleg it (think about HBO sending a digitally recordable movie).
Heaven forbid!
It is the same reason that you will never see a digital video out on the back of a name brand DVD player - it would allow for too easy of a non-encrypted digital copy (the same problem the MPAA has with deCSS).
My opinion? As someone who is big into high-quality home theatre, I hope I am able to record digitally (maintaining the same quality of the original source) for later viewing. I hope the FCC rules in favor of the populace. I, for one, am not really against protections that allow for one generation digital copies and no more. I do want that one generation, though.
Funny, and I thought the Linux movement was all about choice.
Yes, Linux is currently more competition than Apple is. That does not warrant the "Apple is doomed" sentiment. Is there no room for more than one OS? If so, see ya *BSDs...
Remember that everyone complains about MS because they have a monopoly. There are other ways of doing OS's. Multiple OS's will be able to survive if MS is kicked out off their throne.
I think that Apple is good for the Linux/*BSD movement. We have an example of one possible easy to use system.
Users are used to having two different ports on the back of their machines (and more). So we used to have serial and parallel and PS/2. Macs had ADB and Serial and SCSI.
Users are not going to be overly confused by two ports on the back of their machines. "Slower devices with this type plug go into the USB connection. Faster types with this plug go into the Firewire port. Both are hot-swappable, and both are plug-and-play." (under ideal circumstances for that last one - up to software support).
Why can't someone come up with silicon that controls both USB and Firewire?
As others have said on this thread, the problem comes into play if you are using browser "z". I understand companies that are unwilling to design a site for anybrowser (as much as I think that is what is really needed), but to not even allow me to try is another story.
I run iCab Pre2.0 on my Mac. It has almost all of the features of a 4.x release. Several times, I have been prevented from entering a web site because my browser does not identify itself as a 4.x brwoser. Luckily, iCab offers the ability to change the User Agent field on the fly. So I change it to Netscape 4.x.
I get in and the site looks fine!
I got into an argument with LL Bean customer service a while back about this and, after a month or so of emailing, they finally gave in.
It is fine if you do not tailor your code so that any browser will work, but do not filter people off and prevent them from seeing your site.
Currently, not paying/asking permission for copywritten work is stealing. You may not agree with it, but that is the way it is.
So I work 40 hours in my workshop and end up with a oak table. Someone pays me $100 for it. If someone just came and took it without paying me, that would be staeling.
So I work 40 hours in my studio and end up with a song on DAT. I offer to sell the rights for $100. If someone came along and took it from me without paying, that would be "liberating the information that wants to be free"?
The system may not be perfect (far from it). There is going to be a new system of music distribution, whether the record labels like it or not. But to expect artists in the future to make music and distribute them for free is insane.
Do you want to try to compare it to Free Software? How do you sell "support" for your music? Do you try to live on tours? T-shirt sales? People's voluntary payments?
Eventually musicians, even the Metallicas out there, might be able to support themselves by MP3's (whether it be through download charges or something else).
So you make the argument that people who listen to MP3's buy more CD's than the general public. OK, then, why weren't you protesting before? The CD distribution system is the same as it was before Napster (and has no clear reason to change. Lemme see here - people are going to buy more of the same product? Why change?). Was RIAA not wrong before?
So maybe the RIAA shold not be complaining - if people are going to be buying more CD's. But does that in anyway change RIAA's business model at all? About the only thing is that their advertising fees go down, since now Napster can do all of that work.
But MP3 fans have a definite proble withteh current CD distribution system. Do they want to go over completely to MP3 distribution? That raises the questions I had above - how do you make money off freely available MP3's? SUppose as an independent musician in the future, I want to use the new distribution system. Where does my income come from? I have not seen a good answer to this one.
Damn! I have v2.0 (1995) of that disk. It happened to be sitting on my desk in a stack of AOL disks (I am a camp counselor and I am going to use them as name tags for the campers' doors).
As you predicted, none of the Easter Eggs made their way into the second version. I am so mad. I never used that disk for anything and I was so excited to read ithad something interesting on it.
Damn!
While partly a PR stunt, this is also an attempt to show the possibility of a completely different method of distribution. Mailing thousands of reels of film for one movie is very expensive. If an infrastructure could be set up to distribute movies digitally, there is a lot of money to be saved.
It is similar to concempt cars. True, on one level they are PR stunts, but they also teach the manufacturer about new fabrication ideas and design ideas. The cars themselves may never be mass-produced, but most of the time you can see their influences later on.
Studios see a lot of money in digital distribution. This could be seen as a test bed to see the possibiity.
1) OK, so the XBox is supposed to compete with the Playstation2, but is coming out almost a year later? Does the Playstation2 coming out take back all of the money that Sega has made from the Dreamcast? Christmas is always the biggest time for console systems, and MS is going to miss an entire season. I can understand consumers waiting a month or two to compere two systems, but waiting a year in order to make a more informed decision? That is crazy.
2) From the XBox FAQ on the same site:
Won't the processor be a little slow by the time the system is launched?
A 733MHz PIII processor is incredibly fast, but we all know that in 18 months it won't seem so fantastic when pitted against the gigahertz+ power of desktop computers. A separate graphics processor changes everything however, by taking the load off of the processor. Graphical data will be sent to the graphics processor while that spunky little 733MHz PIII will be able to focus solely on the computing powers at hand, instead of just pushing pixels.
Gee, why didn't everyone else think about that before? grin
3) The Raven pictures are pretty nice
4) Using a modified Win2k kernel. There is a great base to put a platform on.
I do not think that the original poster was saying that he wants a web without graphics, but rather that he wants a web with text. For example, take a look at my college's home page, http://www.ius.indiana.edu/ *with graphics turned off*. Now try to get somewhere specific. Can you do it?
The web allows for many different medias, and yet too often people only use graphics (and the occasional text).
I think that browsers such as the newest IE for the Mac (as much as I despise MS) and iCab (a very compliant browser, even showing HTML mistakes) are the futureof browsers: Compliant.
Other people on this thread are correct: Clients are the problem. Try showing them what their web page looks like in Lynx, or in iCab. "Do you want people coming to your web page to see this?"
Then we come to my pet-peeve: JavaScript. I cannot stand pages that depend on JS-support. It is fine to use, but as soon as I get to a page that is impossible to navigate without JS, I leave.
My final point: People need to realize that the web allows for a relatively seemless media environment. This does not mean, however, that you should pick one form of media and rely on it exclusively on your page.
If they are big on privacy, why do they use cookies on all of their pages?
The entire MS relationship is a little too much (MS only, and they seem to be running IIS).
The error randomly rotates, so the solution you mention would not work. Some GPSs would try to compensate by taking several readings from several satelites and average them out over several minutes (if one satelite says you are within this thirty foot radius and the other one says that you are within *this* thirty foot radius, you obviously must be in the space where they overlap (GPS actually works with more than just two satellites, which makes this process more exact, but still not perfect).
It will be interesting to see how such GPSs deal with the loss of the error. Will they still try to compensate?
I imagine it will not make too much difference. Now both satellites (or however many you get reports from) will report about the same position,and the GPS will average those.
I read the first chapter and I am going to read the other four eventually. It starts out pretty well (concerning Petra returning).
I read the series through _Children of the Mind_ and generally reccomend to friends that they read _Game_, _Shadow_, and probably _Speaker_ (probably in that order). _Speaker_ is not quite as good, but wraps stuff up enough.
I also really liked _The Worthing Saga_, a collection of stories. If you like Card's work, I would pick it up. It is different from the Ender series, but is still a very good read.
People might be aware of this, but I thought I would pass it along anyway - There is a GNU/Chess program. I believe that the playing ability of the computer depends on the processing power fo the computer (it has been a few years since I played it).
With source code available, it might be a place to start.
First of all, I have yet to see the American government "trying to force international free software projects down everyone's throats." Can you please clarify this statement?
Second of all, as a Libertarian, I feel a need to step and and clarify what the federal government is doing in regards to MS. The federal government represents the people, and the people's interests (in an ideal world, but we will not get into that). The federal government is acting on behalf of the American public to stop what it perceives as a corporation that is hurting that same American public.
The federal government has a ridiculously short list of tasks it is given (most are spelled out in the Constitution). While one of them is to stay back from the economy whenever possible (Laissez-Faire), it also has an obligation to see that the rules of capitalism are not broken. These two "rules" are sometimes at odds.
According to the federal government's findings, Microsoft has practiced behaviours that are monopolistic in nature. The federal government has a right, and an obligation, to step in and prevent such actions in order to further the capitalistic system we have, despite its general Laissez-Faire approach.
Third, Linux has gotten to the point where "word of mouth" is no longer going to be the only form of "evangilism" and advertising. This is not due to anyone's set wishes, but simply rather due to the acceptance and size that Linux currently has. "Word of mouth" would not have Redhat boxes on store shelves. "Word of mouth" would not have the now infamous Linux-related IPOs. Your post screams of radical conservatism, and cries for returning to "the good old days". This simply is not possible.
As with anything, time goes on and things change. Sometimes we may not like these things, but they happen regardless. The best thing the Linux community can do is adapt to the changing conditions, just as the operating system itself has done over the years. This does not require GNU/Linux people to "sell out", but rather adapt. They have come this far, getting bigger is not going to change those base ideals now. It might just change the approach taken.
Posssibly not (although The Mac crowd has its fair share of hackers, both hardware and software based). What you need to remember, though, is that AirPort technology is 802.11-based. This means that the technology should work for other wireless cards, including Lucent's WaveLan cards.
As an answer to a previous post, the original article menations that the author found that the hack was legal in New Zealand (where he is based), and believes that the same requirements go in the States, as well.
Leave it to the FCC, though, to find a way to make it illegal.
What I would really like to see is affordable WaveLan/Airport-like Internet access sold like cell phone access. ("For $19.95/month - unlimited dial-up. For $29.95/month, unlimited wireless access. For $29.95/month - unlimited cell phone access.")
I suppose that will happen the day that xDSL-like technologies are actually affordable.
I apparently signed up Thu, 3 Sep 1998 and was user #2031, so apprently the original poster was in September of 1998.
The reason I know the exact date is that I have the original "Here is your password" email.
Talk about exponential growth.
ObSlashhot: I would like to see when I and other people signed up. Yet another field to add in the user database. Also, in the Moderation hidden discussion, we were talking about meta-moderation getting screwed up (some people not being able to meta-moderate). Has this been fixed?
If anyone wants to see an intelligent way of handling cookies, take a look at iCab on the Mac. Very extensive rules and it is not too over-bearing. I can set it up to accept all cookies from slashdot.org, and reject all from doubleclick.com without any problems. You can view, edit, and delete individual cookies.
http://www.icab.de/
You touched on the very reason - Slashdot only reviews bad movies. They figure that sending five Slashdot employees to a bad movie will prevent the thousands of Slashdot reads out there from going. Better 5 people giving money to the studios than the thousands of Slashdot readers.
ObMovie: My friends and I (all big movie buffs) play a game called "The last time that was made, it was called..." We watch previews and commercials for movies and see the reused plotline. "Mission to Mars" was decided as "The last time they made that movie, it was called 2001, and, unlike MTM, it was a good movie."
I could have told you MTM was going to suck. Just a feeling.
If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation.
At least on the Macintosh, development of Standalone/Navigator stopped at 4.0.7 (I think that 4.0.8 brought a bug fix and "What's related"). The reasoning is that (right or wrong), there is no reason to go with a standalone client. If all you do is browse on the Mac (and not use Composer, Messenger, and others), the RAM requirements and speed are the same as the standalone. The only real difference, then, would be in HD space wasted (which they argue is not that important in the days of 40gig IDE drives).
My opinion? Netscape is really missing out. At least on the Mac, iCab is really hot right now. There is a market for standalone clients out there, even if you argue that the all-in-one is better.
I would certainly hope that kits are going to be available for LinuxPPC. Remember that all B&W G3's and all G4 computers ship with either a Page 128 or Rage 128 Pro, so most people running LinuxPPC on these machines have an ATI card installed.
As for everyone sayign that this weakens the deCSS case, I might agree, but there are still very strong arguments to be made - everyone who is not running a Rage 128 card under Linux.
Everything that the Palm isn't? What about OS upgradability? Last I heard, the Visor was stuck at PalmOS 3.1, and could never be upgraded past that (to the new 3.5, for example).
Qualcomm has nothing to lose on this. They were already using the paid-full/free-light model for Eudora. With these two options remaining, Qualcomm only has a gain. With MS's venture into the mail client market, with Outlook Express and Netscape's client both available for free, Qualcomm was faced with getting people to pay for a client that competes with full-featured free clients.
FreePC failed for other reasons - people are used to paying for computers. If Compaq, HP, and Dell all started giving away all of their consumer-market computers, you would see any non-free consumer-level PC company go down the drains.
The important aspect is that the two products must be able to reasonably compete.