In NO linux distro is any browser so tied into the core OS that it is "impossible" to remove it. Why? Because that (web browsing, etc) is NOT a function of the core OS. Applications that run through the OS do that.
Linux, unlike Windoze, comes (usually) with a slew of selectable browsers. Take your pick. Netscape, mozilla, galleon, konqueror, links, lynx, and so on. No distro forces any one of them down your throat, makes it very difficult to install another, ties any browser in any way to the core OS.
Microsoft provides IE (a BETTER version of IE, by the way) for the Macintosh as a standalone browser. MacOS does just fine without an integrated, forced-down-your-throat browser in its os core. The fact that M$ can and does provide a fully functional IE for the Mac as a standalone means that it is NOT required to be in any OS at all (and shouldn't be). All M$ has to do is make the OS a true OS without applications tied into its inner workings. That's right, make the OS modular, exactly as the 9 states call for. Exactly like M$ has already done themselves with embedded XP. Any claim that it cannot be done is another purjoritive lie that needs to be punished by the courts.
And yet THEY and ONLY they are the final arbitors of what is and what is not Constitutional. They ARE the final word still on ANY case.
Microsoft is guilty. The Supremes will not hear any silly appeal they make after Microsoft finally receives its justified punishments (there is no Constitutional question here, afterall). The courts say they are guilty so Gates' opinion, Ballmer's opinion, Allchin's opinion are totally and absolutely irrelevant. The convicted criminal doesn't have a say in whether or not they are punished. It's as simple as that.
I assure you the Supreme Court will not hear this case. So many judges have already found them guilty this time there is no question that the Supremes would overrule all the judges who all acted appropriately and ruled according to law.
Appealing (again) to the Supremes will be nothing more than another delaying tactic with no ruling in Microsoft's favor. They are guilty. The End.
Move to a new fantasy world clown. The COURTS decide innocence and guilt, NOT you, not Gates. The courts, without question, without argument, without qualification found Microsoft GUILTY. That means they are GUILTY.
This is no different than YOU trying to claim that this or that act is "unConstitutional". No, you may THINK act x is unConstitutional but YOUR interpretation of the Constitution is irrelevant. It is the Supreme Court that has the final word. In other words, it is the courts again. The courts say Microsoft is guilty, plain and simple. They are.
So? A convicted criminal doesn't GET to have a say in whether s/he should have been found guilty. S/He WAS and that is the end of that. They ARE guilty, no question, no argument. They DID violate the law, no question, no argument. The MUST be punished, no question, no argument. End of story.
In NO other sort of case does the convict get to have a say in whether or not, and to what extent, they should be punished. Of COURSE they will be punished. That is beyond their authority to say anything about. Microsoft should be held to the same reality as EVERYONE else found guilty of crime.
I don't give a damn whether Gates, Ballmer, or Allchin accept that they did wrong, THEY DID and they don't get to have a say in the matter. Found. Guilty. The end of the story. Now it is time to pay the piper for their GUILT. Sheesh.
Where you been? This has been happening for a while. I use kismet. You can also use airsnort, prismdump, prismsnort and give a shot to wavestumbler - for the linux side. There is netstumbler for the windoze side. I've found dozens of networks in my city, most of which are totally wideopen. A few use strong WEP, others use VPN. I've parked outside an apartment complex I found on my way home from work one day within which someone had set themselves up with a wireless lan/AP. I connected no problem.
I've sat in airports (Detroit and St Louis) and picked up wireless networks there - though they were all encrypted/using strong WEP and there was no data transfers at the time so I couldn't get ANY real useful information from them. This has been going on for a while.
You let it slide?! Did you grade on a curve? Hope not because if you did you just the cheating little asshole screw over another classmate or two (classmates who DIDN'T cheat).
As for cheating catching up with them later in life as an excuse for allowing cheating to slip by, what you did was specifically teach an individual that lack of integrity and cheating CAN get you ahead. Perhaps we should allow lying to slip by too, not call anyone on it?
Character training is about as important as picking up knowledge. We're not talking religious mumbo-jumbo character training, we're talking generic, all-important, widely applicable character training supporting integrity, honesty, and accepting blanket responsibility for one's actions. Letting violations slide by ignored rewards and reinforces such behavior. We need MORE character training, not less, and certainly not laisse faire attitudes towards unacceptable behavior.
I certainly do hope the little shit got his payback later...but I also hope that on the road to his payback s/he didn't screw other innocents over.
Cheating always will happen but so will CATCHING cheaters. You cannot advocate turning a blind eye to cheating anymore than you can to burglary. Burglary will always happen...might as well just throw up your hands and assume (hope) that it will involve only a small percentage of the population so that you will only get hit with it once or twice in your lifetime BARRING locks, alarms, etc?
Just because something wrong happens (plaigerism) "all the time" does NOT mean you accept it and don't even try to nail the little sperm-burpers when they do it.
That's all well and good...except for English Composition classes where the entire point is to write compositions as a means of learning how to write. There is no other way to do it.
Then what about literature classes where you may be asked to expound upon some book or short story you've all read as part of the assignment? This is an area ripe for cheating and cheaters need to be REAMED. Reamed long, hard, and deep. Reamed with dry broomsticks.
There are simply some classes where the main means of learning and demonstrating learning is to write. They aren't going to go away (and shouldn't).
Having all information transfer and presentation on the web based on Flash would be GREAT! Then, instead of occassionally having 3 or 4 Macromedia Flash download pages popping up when I cruise to some website during my web ramblings, it would happen with each and every website I visited!
Only one of several problems he mentioned. Again, what about text-only? What about backward compatibility? What about speed?
Are you going to REQUIRE people to upgrade their OS to support an updated webbrowser that is graphics-loaded and ban text-only browsers from the web? That's exactly what you do if flash is used as the basis of web information transmission/presentation.
This more than anything else is antithetical to the whole IDEA of the web.
Oh yeah, with regards to my "...the best you can do is faithfully keep copying data/information from a dying "standard" to the latest, greatest new "standard" which will be OK for a decade or so, then transfer again ad infinitum" statement, this only holds safe and longterm barring any sort of civilization-trashing catastrophy. All the dilligent saving of information from CD to DVD to crystal to whatever comes later will be for squat when something happens that reduces technical society to something simpler. All that nice stored data becomes useless trash whereas an ancient book remains accessible.
Nonetheless, NOTHING we've developed beats good 'ole paper for longterm storage and useability. It is an absolute certainty that in 50 years, 100 years, all your CDs, DVDs, floppies, zip disks, etc, etc, will be useless and any data stored thereon will be unreachable. Not so with books (REAL books, of course, not bogus e-books). Books 2000 years old are still accessible and readable.
The only way to protect information for the long haul is some form of printed format for the REALLY important stuff. Beyond that, the best you can do is faithfully keep copying data/information from a dying "standard" to the latest, greatest new "standard" which will be OK for a decade or so, then transfer again ad infinitum.
Obviously, for some things, the high-tech solution is useful and neato but for anything long-term (we're talking many decades to centuries to millenia) high-tech is not the most efficient or safest way to go.
That is precisely my main complaint/criticism. CSI types do NOT do basic police work. The POLICE do that, the CSI types develop evidence that can be used by the POLICE foot soldiers to make arrests and the prosecutors to make a solid case.
That other pathology/CSI-like show...Crossing Jordan?...is only slightly more correct in this regard. MOST of their work is done in the morgue or lab, etc, and not doing the basic police work. It's a rather sucky show but in some ways it is more realistic in THAT regard.
Now Scrubs, that is reality at its best. Med school is EXACTLY like that. Really.
Re:And it can be so inaccurate and unscientific
on
The Rise of CSI
·
· Score: 2
Fair enough...but then, to really have a significant effect on the blood-iron level, you would likely be taking in toxic levels of iron. Iron IS bad if too much is taken. It isn't a freebee that you can just load up on.
I wouldn't even BEGIN to defend the DeCSS or Sklyarov bullcrap. These together with the title story are what is WRONG and it is this that I decry. Also, I responded to the statement "Wonder of Wonders. People outside the US have rights" which by its context and word defended this bullcrap.
If we wish to create global copyright and trademark, etc, rules/laws, then they should be based on some of the least restrictive rules rather than the most draconian (the US versions). The US has gone crazy and overboard with its corporatocracy-biased rules. Just because people across the pond have had US law improperly applied to them in their non-US residence doesn't make it OK or right and it doesn't make it OK and right to do the reverse. The entire setup is wrong and largely indefensible.
The statement holds true: If you like the fact that a US citizen was restricted/punished based on some European law, then you absolutely CANNOT complain when the opposite is true. In fact, it sucks both ways but if your attitude is the above, you have no right to complain one way or another.
Ah, so when YOU are restricted in your behavior in country X because of US Law, you wont complain.
The big problem with this sort of nonsense is that it restricts rights to the lowest common denominator. Who wants to be restricted to the "rights" of Iran? Saudi Arabia? China? (Name your country)?
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights must must must trump ALL other laws and regulations - for US citizens. YOUR country's constitution should be the sole definer or YOUR rights too. You in country X should not be held to the laws of Afghanistan.
Yeah, yeah, most of the WORST countries are not members of the WTO or WIPO...YET, but the PRINCIPAL is what is important. Do you want Europe to be subject to US patent and copyright laws? Say hello to Microsnot running your country the way it does the US. Kiss goodbye competitive industries you've developed in the absense of nonsensical US laws. It DOES flow both ways - if you are happy about YOUR laws applying/restricting US citizens, then you HAVE to be happy when the reverse is true.
And you are STILL dead wrong. The computer is not the master, the USER is. It belongs to the user to do with as they please. It is a tool with builtin flexibility. Let it be flexible.
I work MUCH faster on linux with my customized KDE than I do on the Mac (OS 9). I know what works best for ME. The computer is mine, it serves me. Customizing is NOT a waste of time. Hell, it takes a few minutes. Once you set it up to the proper way of doing things (your individual preference) you are done. There is no more tweaking necessary. Also, psychology plays here more than in simply having a base UI design that is efficient. If I cannot STAND the layout/workings/look/feel of a UI and I am not allowed to change it, it causes me stress. Undue and unproductive and damaging stress. This is bad, wrong, stupid. If I can personalize the UI to MY way of doing things (the right way...for ME) then I am happier. A happier me is a more productive me. I do not need nor want to have to fight a UI. The UI must ultimately serve ME, not me it.
You choose the wrong master (Jobs and some coders/academic pinheads). I am my own master fully capable of making my own productive decisions. In any case, a PROPERLY designed interface will allow for customization on a per-user basis so that when I log in, it behave MY way. When I log out and another logs in, it behaves THEIR way (ah yes, the beauty of a true and beautiful multi-user system like linux). The system is broken for other users, it is setup to behave MY way only when I am logged into it. Everyone else has their way which might be the default or their own tweaks. That is the TRUE path.
No matter how you slice it, the ULTIMATE arbiter of what works/what doesn't is the enduser. Sure, there are some nicely researched UI truisms to follow that are broadly applicable but it is dead-ass wrong to come out and basically say: "This is THE way the UI will be and YOU, the enduse will use it OUR way, period." No. Wrong. The enduser knows best, not some programmer or CEO.
It is one thing to start from a common framework upon install (you do have to start somewhere) but there should be NO (none, zero, zip, nada, nul, nechevo) hindrances to altering the layout, look, etc, of a UI to fit any given individual's preferences, conceits, pecadillos.
With OS X, there is the automatic and inevitable inertia of having longtime users have to switch from the old-way OS..7,8,9 to the new, almost totally different way of things, but that doesn't excuse not permitting proper individual customization. That is one of the things everyone always gets all emotional about on/. when GUI/environment comparisons come up.
Sure, with any environment there has to be some basic parameters which is what makes any given GUI or environment its particular flavor, but the strength of the linux GUIs or environments is the ability to diverge from the standard way with little pain at all. Apple would be well served to accept that fact early. Allow very wide latitude for the user to change this or that and NOT break anything (like the help tool as described in the diary).
Trust me, I DO know the best way to setup MY system to work for ME, the way I like to work, the way I prefer to work, the way I work best. No one else, ME, the enduser, knows this stuff.
The really telling thing is the forged headers. Even if you could argue the points of political mailings being spam/not being spam, as far as I'm concerned, using a fake email/forged headers makes it spam. Forged email/headers trumps all other arguments. It is spam.
And yet, I would (and will) make such modifications. I will not have Hollywood, M$, RIAA, etc, controlling how and what I use on my PC. Even if the case of a harddrive were sealed against opening and tampering, my trusty dremel will make quick work of it and I'll be in making mods as published on the web.
Even if I were not inclined to do anything "illegal" before this legislation, its passage will REQUIRE me to do something "illegal" on principal (circumvent the protection) and in an act of contempt and spite for the corporate masters.
Indeed, the DMCA and the SSSCA will create a "criminal" (likely many "criminals") like me. We wouldn't exist except that these laws FORCED us, DROVE us to exist.
Not so fast. If you are gay and "married" in a state that supports this, and you then move to most other states, they have specific recent legislation that says they will NOT recognize that marriage as legit.
That said, M$ is not right. All they need to do is quit adding IE source to os source. SImple. It does NOT need to be so integrated anymore than Konqueror, netscape, mozilla, etc need to be fully blended into Linux or MacOS source (WRT Netscape at least) to work perfectly fine. The fact that M$ IS blending apps into the source for the OS proper is only a ploy to tie it all together whether you want it or not. It is a ploy to continue tie-in and prevent competition.
There is NO logical reason that IE NEEDS to be part of the OS. It is an APPLICATION that works through the OS no different than Netscape, et al. If M$ properly and correctly modularized their system (ala linux) then retailers/computer sellers could pick and choose "modules" that they want in THEIR offering. Some would choose IE some might choose something else.
By the way, if IE (for instance) just HAS to be part of the OS, then why does it work fine with the MacOS? It sure isn't part of that OS is it? It is, in a word, bullshit. Unadulterated bullshit. ALL the apps that M$ bundles and (now) blends into the core OS are perfectly functional as standalone apps, which is what they are. IE is NOT an OS function no matter how you slice it. Word isn't either but if they are not required to modularize Windoze and quit forcing their apps on people (merely a monopoly-supporting ploy, nothing more) then in rather short order you WILL see Office blended into the OS...but it will still work fine standalone on the Mac. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Yeah, but the author is long dead. HIS creativity died with him. He can no longer benefit and his family already has. The copyright should end...or, I do rather like the proposal of another poster. Have the copyright end after 20 years and then auction it off. The author/family is free at that point to participate in the auction. I would imagine that MOST of the time, the family would have a bigger interest than anyone else and so would win the auction.
Or...screw the auction. After 20 years, if you want to extend the copyright you may do so by paying a fee that extends it another 10 years. After that, the price goes up and you have the option of another 10 years but that's it - it then becomes public domain.
Perhaps it SHOULD use QT (and GTK and anything else too). The GUI should be totally separate and divorced from what it does internally. Let there be multiple frontends with the same core. A UI isn't the app, it is just the means of communicating with the app.
Slashdot Mirror
In NO linux distro is any browser so tied into the core OS that it is "impossible" to remove it. Why? Because that (web browsing, etc) is NOT a function of the core OS. Applications that run through the OS do that.
Linux, unlike Windoze, comes (usually) with a slew of selectable browsers. Take your pick. Netscape, mozilla, galleon, konqueror, links, lynx, and so on. No distro forces any one of them down your throat, makes it very difficult to install another, ties any browser in any way to the core OS.
Microsoft provides IE (a BETTER version of IE, by the way) for the Macintosh as a standalone browser. MacOS does just fine without an integrated, forced-down-your-throat browser in its os core. The fact that M$ can and does provide a fully functional IE for the Mac as a standalone means that it is NOT required to be in any OS at all (and shouldn't be). All M$ has to do is make the OS a true OS without applications tied into its inner workings. That's right, make the OS modular, exactly as the 9 states call for. Exactly like M$ has already done themselves with embedded XP. Any claim that it cannot be done is another purjoritive lie that needs to be punished by the courts.
And yet THEY and ONLY they are the final arbitors of what is and what is not Constitutional. They ARE the final word still on ANY case.
Microsoft is guilty. The Supremes will not hear any silly appeal they make after Microsoft finally receives its justified punishments (there is no Constitutional question here, afterall). The courts say they are guilty so Gates' opinion, Ballmer's opinion, Allchin's opinion are totally and absolutely irrelevant. The convicted criminal doesn't have a say in whether or not they are punished. It's as simple as that.
I assure you the Supreme Court will not hear this case. So many judges have already found them guilty this time there is no question that the Supremes would overrule all the judges who all acted appropriately and ruled according to law.
Appealing (again) to the Supremes will be nothing more than another delaying tactic with no ruling in Microsoft's favor. They are guilty. The End.
Move to a new fantasy world clown. The COURTS decide innocence and guilt, NOT you, not Gates. The courts, without question, without argument, without qualification found Microsoft GUILTY. That means they are GUILTY.
This is no different than YOU trying to claim that this or that act is "unConstitutional". No, you may THINK act x is unConstitutional but YOUR interpretation of the Constitution is irrelevant. It is the Supreme Court that has the final word. In other words, it is the courts again. The courts say Microsoft is guilty, plain and simple. They are.
So? A convicted criminal doesn't GET to have a say in whether s/he should have been found guilty. S/He WAS and that is the end of that. They ARE guilty, no question, no argument. They DID violate the law, no question, no argument. The MUST be punished, no question, no argument. End of story.
In NO other sort of case does the convict get to have a say in whether or not, and to what extent, they should be punished. Of COURSE they will be punished. That is beyond their authority to say anything about. Microsoft should be held to the same reality as EVERYONE else found guilty of crime.
I don't give a damn whether Gates, Ballmer, or Allchin accept that they did wrong, THEY DID and they don't get to have a say in the matter. Found. Guilty. The end of the story. Now it is time to pay the piper for their GUILT. Sheesh.
Where you been? This has been happening for a while. I use kismet. You can also use airsnort, prismdump, prismsnort and give a shot to wavestumbler - for the linux side. There is netstumbler for the windoze side. I've found dozens of networks in my city, most of which are totally wideopen. A few use strong WEP, others use VPN. I've parked outside an apartment complex I found on my way home from work one day within which someone had set themselves up with a wireless lan/AP. I connected no problem.
I've sat in airports (Detroit and St Louis) and picked up wireless networks there - though they were all encrypted/using strong WEP and there was no data transfers at the time so I couldn't get ANY real useful information from them. This has been going on for a while.
How long indeed.
You let it slide?! Did you grade on a curve? Hope not because if you did you just the cheating little asshole screw over another classmate or two (classmates who DIDN'T cheat).
As for cheating catching up with them later in life as an excuse for allowing cheating to slip by, what you did was specifically teach an individual that lack of integrity and cheating CAN get you ahead. Perhaps we should allow lying to slip by too, not call anyone on it?
Character training is about as important as picking up knowledge. We're not talking religious mumbo-jumbo character training, we're talking generic, all-important, widely applicable character training supporting integrity, honesty, and accepting blanket responsibility for one's actions. Letting violations slide by ignored rewards and reinforces such behavior. We need MORE character training, not less, and certainly not laisse faire attitudes towards unacceptable behavior.
I certainly do hope the little shit got his payback later...but I also hope that on the road to his payback s/he didn't screw other innocents over.
Cheating always will happen but so will CATCHING cheaters. You cannot advocate turning a blind eye to cheating anymore than you can to burglary. Burglary will always happen...might as well just throw up your hands and assume (hope) that it will involve only a small percentage of the population so that you will only get hit with it once or twice in your lifetime BARRING locks, alarms, etc?
Just because something wrong happens (plaigerism) "all the time" does NOT mean you accept it and don't even try to nail the little sperm-burpers when they do it.
That's all well and good...except for English Composition classes where the entire point is to write compositions as a means of learning how to write. There is no other way to do it.
Then what about literature classes where you may be asked to expound upon some book or short story you've all read as part of the assignment? This is an area ripe for cheating and cheaters need to be REAMED. Reamed long, hard, and deep. Reamed with dry broomsticks.
There are simply some classes where the main means of learning and demonstrating learning is to write. They aren't going to go away (and shouldn't).
Piracy is not a technological problem, it is a social problem (paraphrasing here).
Having all information transfer and presentation on the web based on Flash would be GREAT! Then, instead of occassionally having 3 or 4 Macromedia Flash download pages popping up when I cruise to some website during my web ramblings, it would happen with each and every website I visited!
I'd LOVE that!
Only one of several problems he mentioned. Again, what about text-only? What about backward compatibility? What about speed?
Are you going to REQUIRE people to upgrade their OS to support an updated webbrowser that is graphics-loaded and ban text-only browsers from the web? That's exactly what you do if flash is used as the basis of web information transmission/presentation.
This more than anything else is antithetical to the whole IDEA of the web.
Oh yeah, with regards to my "...the best you can do is faithfully keep copying data/information from a dying "standard" to the latest, greatest new "standard" which will be OK for a decade or so, then transfer again ad infinitum" statement, this only holds safe and longterm barring any sort of civilization-trashing catastrophy. All the dilligent saving of information from CD to DVD to crystal to whatever comes later will be for squat when something happens that reduces technical society to something simpler. All that nice stored data becomes useless trash whereas an ancient book remains accessible.
Nonetheless, NOTHING we've developed beats good 'ole paper for longterm storage and useability. It is an absolute certainty that in 50 years, 100 years, all your CDs, DVDs, floppies, zip disks, etc, etc, will be useless and any data stored thereon will be unreachable. Not so with books (REAL books, of course, not bogus e-books). Books 2000 years old are still accessible and readable.
The only way to protect information for the long haul is some form of printed format for the REALLY important stuff. Beyond that, the best you can do is faithfully keep copying data/information from a dying "standard" to the latest, greatest new "standard" which will be OK for a decade or so, then transfer again ad infinitum.
Obviously, for some things, the high-tech solution is useful and neato but for anything long-term (we're talking many decades to centuries to millenia) high-tech is not the most efficient or safest way to go.
That is precisely my main complaint/criticism. CSI types do NOT do basic police work. The POLICE do that, the CSI types develop evidence that can be used by the POLICE foot soldiers to make arrests and the prosecutors to make a solid case.
That other pathology/CSI-like show...Crossing Jordan?...is only slightly more correct in this regard. MOST of their work is done in the morgue or lab, etc, and not doing the basic police work. It's a rather sucky show but in some ways it is more realistic in THAT regard.
Now Scrubs, that is reality at its best. Med school is EXACTLY like that. Really.
Fair enough...but then, to really have a significant effect on the blood-iron level, you would likely be taking in toxic levels of iron. Iron IS bad if too much is taken. It isn't a freebee that you can just load up on.
I wouldn't even BEGIN to defend the DeCSS or Sklyarov bullcrap. These together with the title story are what is WRONG and it is this that I decry. Also, I responded to the statement "Wonder of Wonders. People outside the US have rights" which by its context and word defended this bullcrap.
If we wish to create global copyright and trademark, etc, rules/laws, then they should be based on some of the least restrictive rules rather than the most draconian (the US versions). The US has gone crazy and overboard with its corporatocracy-biased rules. Just because people across the pond have had US law improperly applied to them in their non-US residence doesn't make it OK or right and it doesn't make it OK and right to do the reverse. The entire setup is wrong and largely indefensible.
The statement holds true: If you like the fact that a US citizen was restricted/punished based on some European law, then you absolutely CANNOT complain when the opposite is true. In fact, it sucks both ways but if your attitude is the above, you have no right to complain one way or another.
Ah, so when YOU are restricted in your behavior in country X because of US Law, you wont complain.
The big problem with this sort of nonsense is that it restricts rights to the lowest common denominator. Who wants to be restricted to the "rights" of Iran? Saudi Arabia? China? (Name your country)?
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights must must must trump ALL other laws and regulations - for US citizens. YOUR country's constitution should be the sole definer or YOUR rights too. You in country X should not be held to the laws of Afghanistan.
Yeah, yeah, most of the WORST countries are not members of the WTO or WIPO...YET, but the PRINCIPAL is what is important. Do you want Europe to be subject to US patent and copyright laws? Say hello to Microsnot running your country the way it does the US. Kiss goodbye competitive industries you've developed in the absense of nonsensical US laws. It DOES flow both ways - if you are happy about YOUR laws applying/restricting US citizens, then you HAVE to be happy when the reverse is true.
And you are STILL dead wrong. The computer is not the master, the USER is. It belongs to the user to do with as they please. It is a tool with builtin flexibility. Let it be flexible.
I work MUCH faster on linux with my customized KDE than I do on the Mac (OS 9). I know what works best for ME. The computer is mine, it serves me. Customizing is NOT a waste of time. Hell, it takes a few minutes. Once you set it up to the proper way of doing things (your individual preference) you are done. There is no more tweaking necessary. Also, psychology plays here more than in simply having a base UI design that is efficient. If I cannot STAND the layout/workings/look/feel of a UI and I am not allowed to change it, it causes me stress. Undue and unproductive and damaging stress. This is bad, wrong, stupid. If I can personalize the UI to MY way of doing things (the right way...for ME) then I am happier. A happier me is a more productive me. I do not need nor want to have to fight a UI. The UI must ultimately serve ME, not me it.
You choose the wrong master (Jobs and some coders/academic pinheads). I am my own master fully capable of making my own productive decisions. In any case, a PROPERLY designed interface will allow for customization on a per-user basis so that when I log in, it behave MY way. When I log out and another logs in, it behaves THEIR way (ah yes, the beauty of a true and beautiful multi-user system like linux). The system is broken for other users, it is setup to behave MY way only when I am logged into it. Everyone else has their way which might be the default or their own tweaks. That is the TRUE path.
No matter how you slice it, the ULTIMATE arbiter of what works/what doesn't is the enduser. Sure, there are some nicely researched UI truisms to follow that are broadly applicable but it is dead-ass wrong to come out and basically say: "This is THE way the UI will be and YOU, the enduse will use it OUR way, period." No. Wrong. The enduser knows best, not some programmer or CEO.
It is one thing to start from a common framework upon install (you do have to start somewhere) but there should be NO (none, zero, zip, nada, nul, nechevo) hindrances to altering the layout, look, etc, of a UI to fit any given individual's preferences, conceits, pecadillos.
With OS X, there is the automatic and inevitable inertia of having longtime users have to switch from the old-way OS ..7,8,9 to the new, almost totally different way of things, but that doesn't excuse not permitting proper individual customization. That is one of the things everyone always gets all emotional about on /. when GUI/environment comparisons come up.
Sure, with any environment there has to be some basic parameters which is what makes any given GUI or environment its particular flavor, but the strength of the linux GUIs or environments is the ability to diverge from the standard way with little pain at all. Apple would be well served to accept that fact early. Allow very wide latitude for the user to change this or that and NOT break anything (like the help tool as described in the diary).
Trust me, I DO know the best way to setup MY system to work for ME, the way I like to work, the way I prefer to work, the way I work best. No one else, ME, the enduser, knows this stuff.
The really telling thing is the forged headers. Even if you could argue the points of political mailings being spam/not being spam, as far as I'm concerned, using a fake email/forged headers makes it spam. Forged email/headers trumps all other arguments. It is spam.
And yet, I would (and will) make such modifications. I will not have Hollywood, M$, RIAA, etc, controlling how and what I use on my PC. Even if the case of a harddrive were sealed against opening and tampering, my trusty dremel will make quick work of it and I'll be in making mods as published on the web.
Even if I were not inclined to do anything "illegal" before this legislation, its passage will REQUIRE me to do something "illegal" on principal (circumvent the protection) and in an act of contempt and spite for the corporate masters.
Indeed, the DMCA and the SSSCA will create a "criminal" (likely many "criminals") like me. We wouldn't exist except that these laws FORCED us, DROVE us to exist.
Not so fast. If you are gay and "married" in a state that supports this, and you then move to most other states, they have specific recent legislation that says they will NOT recognize that marriage as legit.
That said, M$ is not right. All they need to do is quit adding IE source to os source. SImple. It does NOT need to be so integrated anymore than Konqueror, netscape, mozilla, etc need to be fully blended into Linux or MacOS source (WRT Netscape at least) to work perfectly fine. The fact that M$ IS blending apps into the source for the OS proper is only a ploy to tie it all together whether you want it or not. It is a ploy to continue tie-in and prevent competition.
There is NO logical reason that IE NEEDS to be part of the OS. It is an APPLICATION that works through the OS no different than Netscape, et al. If M$ properly and correctly modularized their system (ala linux) then retailers/computer sellers could pick and choose "modules" that they want in THEIR offering. Some would choose IE some might choose something else.
By the way, if IE (for instance) just HAS to be part of the OS, then why does it work fine with the MacOS? It sure isn't part of that OS is it? It is, in a word, bullshit. Unadulterated bullshit. ALL the apps that M$ bundles and (now) blends into the core OS are perfectly functional as standalone apps, which is what they are. IE is NOT an OS function no matter how you slice it. Word isn't either but if they are not required to modularize Windoze and quit forcing their apps on people (merely a monopoly-supporting ploy, nothing more) then in rather short order you WILL see Office blended into the OS...but it will still work fine standalone on the Mac. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Yeah, but the author is long dead. HIS creativity died with him. He can no longer benefit and his family already has. The copyright should end...or, I do rather like the proposal of another poster. Have the copyright end after 20 years and then auction it off. The author/family is free at that point to participate in the auction. I would imagine that MOST of the time, the family would have a bigger interest than anyone else and so would win the auction.
Or...screw the auction. After 20 years, if you want to extend the copyright you may do so by paying a fee that extends it another 10 years. After that, the price goes up and you have the option of another 10 years but that's it - it then becomes public domain.
Perhaps it SHOULD use QT (and GTK and anything else too). The GUI should be totally separate and divorced from what it does internally. Let there be multiple frontends with the same core. A UI isn't the app, it is just the means of communicating with the app.
This is one of the areas where M$ goes wrong.