I have both installed on my computer. I've used opera since the 5.x versions. My basic summary is this. I liek Opera "feel" better. Clicks seem to be more responsive. mouse gestures, have less of a delay. That could just be me though.
On the other hand, i can't deny, just how useful Firefox's extensiona are sometimes.
i was also using opera's mail client exclusively, until i switched to gmail.
overall, i end up use Firefox more, because i've become addicted to the extentions. if Opera wants to compete, i think they'll need to make some kind of feature so that it's users can create and distribute customizations.
The point is I strongly believe it's wrong for a Linux distro to have so much (if any!) bundled applications.
is this satire here? you have a whole bunch of applications you can get on your own for free and it's wrong to include them with the CD?
1) Adobe will have much less chance of making money on the Linux market, because the Gimp is preinstalled on so many machines. This breaks the 3rd party market on Linux machines. This also has the implication that 3rd party developers (e.g. Adobe/MacroMedia, discreet, etc) have less reasons to support free OSs and more and more reasons to support MS only and eventually Apple.
The Gimp is available on Windows too, but i hardly see Adobe losing money over it. Macs have free image editors too, but i don't see Adobe losing sales over it. The people who buy and use Photoshop are not going to settle for anything else, cause everything else is a step behind (or more).
2) MS will never be able to compete with that just because (rightly) it cannot bundle applications in the OS.
3) Contradicting #2, MS could eventually bundle a good graphics application in the OS. Whenever Adobe sue them, they'll go in court and say : "hey every other OS have a graphics app in the OS.. this GIMP thingy.. Why they can and we cannot ?"
because no other OS has tied, bolted, welded, THEIR OWN applications to the their monopoly OS in order to to destroy the potential market for a competitor.
i'm a windows user, but sometimes windows and the actions of microsoft, seriously piss me off.
The point is that if it was possible to do that, it _would_ hamper you in more than one way. There's no free meal: someone has to pay. For each pirated copy, someone else paid extra. _That_ is my beef with pirates. They steal not from some corporation, they steal from people like _me_.
The point is that it's impossible to just take some software and clone my car. That is the whole point, it's silly to compare physical property with intellectual property. In fact i can see a flaw in my own analogy, that i don't think you mentioned. MP3s are imperfect copies of the actual CD. The car would have to be a perfect copy, rather than a "compressed" one or there will be many safety issues. I specifically mentioned cars, because that is the most common stupid analogy people try and use when making this invalid comparason.
Look at software for example: there used to be a market for all niches. E.g., you didn't have just MS Word as a doc format, you also had WordStar, WordPerfect, AmiPro, StarOffice and a bunch of others as valid options. They might not have had 100% of the MS Word features, but they were also cheaper. Except in the face of the "or pirate MS Office for free" choice, they all failed. StarOffice is only "surviving" because Sun is bleeding money to artifficially keep its carcass alive, and even that's not going that well.
so, how is it that a pirated copy of MS word drives everythign but MS word out of bussiness? That sounds faulty to me. IMHO, what drove the others out of busssiness was not the existence of pirated copies of MS Word, but because the people who were buying were only buying MS Word. There are many possble explainations for that; MS Word was better, MS had better marketing, MS used anti-competitive tactics, etal.
haha nice one
well, i personally am not interested in picking them up, but it does boost the ego, when a girl passes by and thinks your car is hot. even told my gf "this is my new "penis compensation chick-maget."
not YOU, the artist and the record company. they are most definetely losing money.
well, that might be what you intended, but what you said sounded different.
geeze. they are getting SOMETHING.
in some cases they are getting debt... lots of it, cause they end up owing more money for the millions of records they sold than they made. it was suggested this thread that the music is owned by society. in that case, they get NOTHING.
why do they automatically get nothing? musicians existed before and managed to make a living, at least the good ones did. even if you go back only 200+ years to the founging of this coutnry, they also believed that arts and science were meant to be part of the public domain, but the creator woudl still get a limited copyright to make money off his work, before it got absored into thepublic domain. yes, it's an outrage that they do not get a larger % of the profit. however, it's pretty hard to argue that it's in an artist's best (monetary) interest to throw out the entire music copyright system. rally your energy to artists' rights and supporting independent labels in that case
i never said throw out the entire copyright system. i said get rid of the new laws that abuse the consumer and the artist alike. get rid of the industry that makes it's money by leechign off both ends of the music spectrum. so yes.. i DO rally for artists' rights and indipendant labels. geeze 2. if all that was going on is legal owners making copies of the music they own, the RIAA wouldn't give a crap. we all know that this is not what it's about. because you live in a world with 6 billion people, you do not get individual attention. no law is going to be forged in your name to protect your right to make and use copies of your CDs. the laws apply to the masses, the masses who are illegally DISTRIBUTING media.
there are already laws in place, that don't get enforced.. why do i want to get MY use harmed by new laws that will do little to stop the pirates? the new laws and anti-cpying technology has proven to be able to stop no one, but has several cases of abuse... especially the DMCA.
let me sum up my stance again so you don't continue to argue against me on points that are not mine: 1) i am in favour of limited copyrights as per the original rules. a way to allow the creator of a work to recoupe for their for, for a limtied time, before beign part of the public domain 2) i am against new laws that do more consumer harm than protect the artists (eg. DMCA) 3) i am against an industry that abuses the very creators of the work they live off of, then claim to be protecting them. 4) i am against using government money to persecute criminals who's activity has never been proven to be harmful. i think that's a good summary for now.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
- The Constitution:
The foundations of the coutry already had it set in that arts and sciences were meant to enhance and enrich our culture, but creators had a limited time to recoupe their loses. the current system locks modern art from being able to be added to our public domain and enriching our culture.
old property rights analogies cannot be applied to such new mediums as this.
that is kind of my point by saying that. i hate car analogies for ip... i guess i didn't come of sarcastic enough, sorry.
the reason is that your copying of music takes money away from the people that actually did something to produce it. if i make a copy of your car, i am not reducing your income... unless i am devaluing your car because there is now 100k of them.
that too is faulty, because if you copy a CD i bought, *I* am not losing any money over it. you are not reducing my incme any. on the other hand, Mitsubishi, might be pissed that you've made an exact copy of my car, rather than buying it from them.
so let's see. because the artists are getting a poor deal, you want to give them no deal at all? or was it since they are being screwed it's okay to screw them worse?
you mis interpret me or pursposely twist my meaning to suit yoru needs. i honestly think that artists woudl do better for themselves if they didn't sign their souls away to record companies that might leave them in debt after selling a million albums.
they would do better if they signed with an indie label that offered them more and allowed them to retain ownership of their work. they could also just be completly independant. even many of the biggest performers make their money on performances, rather than album sales.
i don't think artist would be scrwed at all if they got rid of the RIAA road blocks on music distribution.
agreed, but they won't make money from it. artists, as members of homo sapiens, will always try to maximize their profit. my only point was that if you asked an artist, they would NOT be in favor of giving all of their music away for free. so if the artists wouldn't support it, and the artists agents don't support it, why exactly would you think that you own the music?
right now, they are giving away their music.. to the record industry. the industry exists only to perpetuate itself and paart of this existence is based on tactics that maximize what they can draw from the real artists and minimize what they give back. combine that with a near strangehold on music distribution and you have a very anti-artist industry.
i don't think i own "the music," but i do feel that i should own "the copy" that i bought. i should be able to play it any way i like.
good point, since it is a file that tricks you into DLing it onto your computer (thinkign it's good music) rather than a song that infects other songs, wouldn't it be more accuratly a Trojan?
not everyone who is against the RIAA supports music piracy. some of us are grown adults who just want things liek ot be able to get the music we want to buy and play it on any music player we own (much liek apprently hillary wants). we don't want to be hampered by anti-copyign schemes which restricts our fair use rights, costs us money, and in the end do next to nothing to stop the REAL pirates.
you wanna share my wife? that's a different story. let's talk about something that really is property? change that to a car. want to borrow my car? not likely. want to make an exact copy of my car and leave mien intact and not hamper me in any way, feel free.
as for the "laws" the RIAA is enforcing... in case you didnt' know.. they bought those laws, to serve their own interest. they took the original copyright laws, which were intended to give the artist a LIMITED time to recoupe some money from their work, then be contributed to the public domain and changed them so that the middle men, who have nothign to do with the creation or performign of the music make most of the the money. artists went broke long before P2P.. it's because the industry is ripping them off far worse than any pirate ever has.
i also contend that there would be no music if there were no copyright laws.. history proves otherwise. people who want to make music will make music. especially in this day and age, it's very easy for a small time artist to make music and get it distributed, even if he/she doesn't want to make any profit from it.
yeah, i remember that theory too, but i'm a bigger fan of gundam than niven.p
Re:Light saber = plasma in a magnetic bubble
on
How Lightsabers Work
·
· Score: 1
yeah pretty much... it explains many things much better than if it was light. i forget where i first heard the plasma bottle theory. it might have been "Mobile Suit Gundam."
and what do you expect? everyone has an opinion and many people can't seperate their opinion from objectivity. don't like the way some peopel mod? we have meta moderation... of perhaps we need meta-meta-moderation?
when it comes down to it, the mod points are jsut there to help point out which comments other people might find interesting (that and to fuel our own egos). in general, this is going to be based on a majority concensus. the more people that like it, in the community, the more people will get to see it. either, learn to accept that each community is going to have certain prevailing opinions or take your fragile ego elsewhere.
oh yeah.. and you do realise that your statement sounds like you feel pro-dem is anti-us and pro-bush is pro-us. maybe, that is not what you meant, but it only makes you sound more foolish. unless you mean to say that 48% (based on the 2004 election results) of the US is anti-us...
I'm not anti-us... i'm not even anti-republican; i'm anti-religious fanatics in positions of governmental power.
but they aren't really laser right? from what i understood their "blasters" were more liekly plasma accerators... all you need to deflect them in a strong magentic field.
SCO's basic claim against IBM (NYSE: IBM - news) is simple. According to SCO, it is the legal successor to AT&T (NYSE: T - news) with respect to licensing of the AT&T Unix source code and its derivatives.
Isn't that still in dispute or did the Novel vs. SCO case for who actually own the copyrights to SysV get settled? To me, SCO really shouldn't be allowed to progress on any case, until it can prove that it really is the legal owner of the copyright.
Why just the republicans? The democracts have had just as much involvement with the errosion of our fair use rights. Several of the bills were co-sposored by Lahey(D) as much as Hatch(R). This is very much a bi-partisan corruption...
Slashdot Mirror
just just render, but which is better for stripping the pics and vids off the sites!
I have both installed on my computer. I've used opera since the 5.x versions. My basic summary is this. I liek Opera "feel" better. Clicks seem to be more responsive. mouse gestures, have less of a delay. That could just be me though.
On the other hand, i can't deny, just how useful Firefox's extensiona are sometimes.
i was also using opera's mail client exclusively, until i switched to gmail.
overall, i end up use Firefox more, because i've become addicted to the extentions. if Opera wants to compete, i think they'll need to make some kind of feature so that it's users can create and distribute customizations.
i know it's not thourough, but hope it helps.
The point is I strongly believe it's wrong for a Linux distro to have so much (if any!) bundled applications.
is this satire here? you have a whole bunch of applications you can get on your own for free and it's wrong to include them with the CD?
1) Adobe will have much less chance of making money on the Linux market, because the Gimp is preinstalled on so many machines. This breaks the 3rd party market on Linux machines. This also has the implication that 3rd party developers (e.g. Adobe/MacroMedia, discreet, etc) have less reasons to support free OSs and more and more reasons to support MS only and eventually Apple.
The Gimp is available on Windows too, but i hardly see Adobe losing money over it. Macs have free image editors too, but i don't see Adobe losing sales over it. The people who buy and use Photoshop are not going to settle for anything else, cause everything else is a step behind (or more).
2) MS will never be able to compete with that just because (rightly) it cannot bundle applications in the OS. 3) Contradicting #2, MS could eventually bundle a good graphics application in the OS. Whenever Adobe sue them, they'll go in court and say : "hey every other OS have a graphics app in the OS.. this GIMP thingy.. Why they can and we cannot ?"
because no other OS has tied, bolted, welded, THEIR OWN applications to the their monopoly OS in order to to destroy the potential market for a competitor.
i'm a windows user, but sometimes windows and the actions of microsoft, seriously piss me off.
good point. the world would be so much easier it i had a giant stupid mallet and was allowed to smite such people though .)
i am for the mandated public domain as soon as the authour will no longer support the code/product or license it to someone else for support.
"Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3."
same thing... Mr. Miyagi, centuries earlier...
same thing.. Yoda, a LONG tiem ago, in a galaxy far far away...
The point is that if it was possible to do that, it _would_ hamper you in more than one way. There's no free meal: someone has to pay. For each pirated copy, someone else paid extra. _That_ is my beef with pirates. They steal not from some corporation, they steal from people like _me_.
The point is that it's impossible to just take some software and clone my car. That is the whole point, it's silly to compare physical property with intellectual property. In fact i can see a flaw in my own analogy, that i don't think you mentioned. MP3s are imperfect copies of the actual CD. The car would have to be a perfect copy, rather than a "compressed" one or there will be many safety issues. I specifically mentioned cars, because that is the most common stupid analogy people try and use when making this invalid comparason.
Look at software for example: there used to be a market for all niches. E.g., you didn't have just MS Word as a doc format, you also had WordStar, WordPerfect, AmiPro, StarOffice and a bunch of others as valid options. They might not have had 100% of the MS Word features, but they were also cheaper. Except in the face of the "or pirate MS Office for free" choice, they all failed. StarOffice is only "surviving" because Sun is bleeding money to artifficially keep its carcass alive, and even that's not going that well.
so, how is it that a pirated copy of MS word drives everythign but MS word out of bussiness? That sounds faulty to me. IMHO, what drove the others out of busssiness was not the existence of pirated copies of MS Word, but because the people who were buying were only buying MS Word. There are many possble explainations for that; MS Word was better, MS had better marketing, MS used anti-competitive tactics, etal.
haha nice one well, i personally am not interested in picking them up, but it does boost the ego, when a girl passes by and thinks your car is hot. even told my gf "this is my new "penis compensation chick-maget."
The Prius get's 45 MPG average? nice.. now if only they coudl design the body so that owners might actually be able to pick up chicks .p
sorry, i don't recall what post that said society owned all music, without restriction.
not YOU, the artist and the record company. they are most definetely losing money.
well, that might be what you intended, but what you said sounded different.
geeze. they are getting SOMETHING. in some cases they are getting debt... lots of it, cause they end up owing more money for the millions of records they sold than they made.
it was suggested this thread that the music is owned by society. in that case, they get NOTHING.
why do they automatically get nothing? musicians existed before and managed to make a living, at least the good ones did. even if you go back only 200+ years to the founging of this coutnry, they also believed that arts and science were meant to be part of the public domain, but the creator woudl still get a limited copyright to make money off his work, before it got absored into thepublic domain.
yes, it's an outrage that they do not get a larger % of the profit. however, it's pretty hard to argue that it's in an artist's best (monetary) interest to throw out the entire music copyright system. rally your energy to artists' rights and supporting independent labels in that case i never said throw out the entire copyright system. i said get rid of the new laws that abuse the consumer and the artist alike. get rid of the industry that makes it's money by leechign off both ends of the music spectrum. so yes.. i DO rally for artists' rights and indipendant labels.
geeze 2. if all that was going on is legal owners making copies of the music they own, the RIAA wouldn't give a crap. we all know that this is not what it's about. because you live in a world with 6 billion people, you do not get individual attention. no law is going to be forged in your name to protect your right to make and use copies of your CDs. the laws apply to the masses, the masses who are illegally DISTRIBUTING media.
there are already laws in place, that don't get enforced.. why do i want to get MY use harmed by new laws that will do little to stop the pirates? the new laws and anti-cpying technology has proven to be able to stop no one, but has several cases of abuse... especially the DMCA.
let me sum up my stance again so you don't continue to argue against me on points that are not mine: 1) i am in favour of limited copyrights as per the original rules. a way to allow the creator of a work to recoupe for their for, for a limtied time, before beign part of the public domain 2) i am against new laws that do more consumer harm than protect the artists (eg. DMCA) 3) i am against an industry that abuses the very creators of the work they live off of, then claim to be protecting them. 4) i am against using government money to persecute criminals who's activity has never been proven to be harmful. i think that's a good summary for now.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
- The Constitution:
The foundations of the coutry already had it set in that arts and sciences were meant to enhance and enrich our culture, but creators had a limited time to recoupe their loses. the current system locks modern art from being able to be added to our public domain and enriching our culture.
yes exactly
old property rights analogies cannot be applied to such new mediums as this.
... unless i am devaluing your car because there is now 100k of them.
that is kind of my point by saying that. i hate car analogies for ip... i guess i didn't come of sarcastic enough, sorry.
the reason is that your copying of music takes money away from the people that actually did something to produce it. if i make a copy of your car, i am not reducing your income
that too is faulty, because if you copy a CD i bought, *I* am not losing any money over it. you are not reducing my incme any. on the other hand, Mitsubishi, might be pissed that you've made an exact copy of my car, rather than buying it from them.
so let's see. because the artists are getting a poor deal, you want to give them no deal at all? or was it since they are being screwed it's okay to screw them worse?
you mis interpret me or pursposely twist my meaning to suit yoru needs. i honestly think that artists woudl do better for themselves if they didn't sign their souls away to record companies that might leave them in debt after selling a million albums.
they would do better if they signed with an indie label that offered them more and allowed them to retain ownership of their work. they could also just be completly independant. even many of the biggest performers make their money on performances, rather than album sales.
i don't think artist would be scrwed at all if they got rid of the RIAA road blocks on music distribution.
agreed, but they won't make money from it. artists, as members of homo sapiens, will always try to maximize their profit. my only point was that if you asked an artist, they would NOT be in favor of giving all of their music away for free. so if the artists wouldn't support it, and the artists agents don't support it, why exactly would you think that you own the music?
right now, they are giving away their music.. to the record industry. the industry exists only to perpetuate itself and paart of this existence is based on tactics that maximize what they can draw from the real artists and minimize what they give back. combine that with a near strangehold on music distribution and you have a very anti-artist industry.
i don't think i own "the music," but i do feel that i should own "the copy" that i bought. i should be able to play it any way i like.
good point, since it is a file that tricks you into DLing it onto your computer (thinkign it's good music) rather than a song that infects other songs, wouldn't it be more accuratly a Trojan?
not everyone who is against the RIAA supports music piracy. some of us are grown adults who just want things liek ot be able to get the music we want to buy and play it on any music player we own (much liek apprently hillary wants). we don't want to be hampered by anti-copyign schemes which restricts our fair use rights, costs us money, and in the end do next to nothing to stop the REAL pirates.
you wanna share my wife? that's a different story. let's talk about something that really is property? change that to a car. want to borrow my car? not likely. want to make an exact copy of my car and leave mien intact and not hamper me in any way, feel free.
as for the "laws" the RIAA is enforcing... in case you didnt' know.. they bought those laws, to serve their own interest. they took the original copyright laws, which were intended to give the artist a LIMITED time to recoupe some money from their work, then be contributed to the public domain and changed them so that the middle men, who have nothign to do with the creation or performign of the music make most of the the money. artists went broke long before P2P.. it's because the industry is ripping them off far worse than any pirate ever has.
i also contend that there would be no music if there were no copyright laws.. history proves otherwise. people who want to make music will make music. especially in this day and age, it's very easy for a small time artist to make music and get it distributed, even if he/she doesn't want to make any profit from it.
yeah, i remember that theory too, but i'm a bigger fan of gundam than niven .p
yeah pretty much... it explains many things much better than if it was light. i forget where i first heard the plasma bottle theory. it might have been "Mobile Suit Gundam."
and what do you expect? everyone has an opinion and many people can't seperate their opinion from objectivity. don't like the way some peopel mod? we have meta moderation... of perhaps we need meta-meta-moderation?
when it comes down to it, the mod points are jsut there to help point out which comments other people might find interesting (that and to fuel our own egos). in general, this is going to be based on a majority concensus. the more people that like it, in the community, the more people will get to see it. either, learn to accept that each community is going to have certain prevailing opinions or take your fragile ego elsewhere.
oh yeah.. and you do realise that your statement sounds like you feel pro-dem is anti-us and pro-bush is pro-us. maybe, that is not what you meant, but it only makes you sound more foolish. unless you mean to say that 48% (based on the 2004 election results) of the US is anti-us...
I'm not anti-us... i'm not even anti-republican; i'm anti-religious fanatics in positions of governmental power.
but they aren't really laser right? from what i understood their "blasters" were more liekly plasma accerators... all you need to deflect them in a strong magentic field.
i'm still waiting for Google Porn... i mean, i'm sure they didn't sue Booble for nothign right?
SCO's basic claim against IBM (NYSE: IBM - news) is simple. According to SCO, it is the legal successor to AT&T (NYSE: T - news) with respect to licensing of the AT&T Unix source code and its derivatives.
Isn't that still in dispute or did the Novel vs. SCO case for who actually own the copyrights to SysV get settled? To me, SCO really shouldn't be allowed to progress on any case, until it can prove that it really is the legal owner of the copyright.
Why just the republicans? The democracts have had just as much involvement with the errosion of our fair use rights. Several of the bills were co-sposored by Lahey(D) as much as Hatch(R). This is very much a bi-partisan corruption...
but it's so fun to slam Bush... why not? then again, it's much more fun to do it for stuff that's actually his fault...
not if it had 2 GB of britney spears pics and vids...