It would be a lot better for the game industry if these companies, including others like IGN.com, and Gamespy.com would work together on various projects.
This is a problem that needs to be addressed. I sent this question to Lawarence Lessig when/. did the interview, of course there were better questions to anwser.
My whole argument started with pop-up ads. By going to a website, you are agreeing to that sites terms of use. The sites are using advertising as revenue to provide the service that we as a user request. Now enter pop-up stopper software. Is it legal for you to effectively block there only source income that most of these sites have?
So then we get into the this issue,
"Well, I didn't give that site permission to use my RAM, my CPU, and my HD space."
Also, the same arguement applies for the installed ad-tracking software. I didn't tell them that I wanted that salsa.
So, there is a shareware program called AdAware(made by Lavasoft, great piece of software. It goes through the Windows Registry and finds a bunch of these little programs. Double-Click is by far the worst at doing this, last time I ran the program, I had 69 little programs tracking my use of the net.
This raises this question, Should I as a consumer have to pay for software that blocks companies from abusing my rights?
I've been pondering these questions for a few months, and still haven't found resolve.
This will not allow "true" competition in the browser market. You still have all of the underlying technology in the client OS, Microsoft's "enhancements" are specific to the most widely used desktop OS. Mozilla still does not support ActiveX.
I understand that there are reasons for that, and we have the w3c to give us a specification, but if technology exists before the specification is complete that can make the web a more enjoyable and fullfilling, then piss off w3c, your standards don't please me.
I do not want to re-write my site, and lose features because AOL decided they should do something with Netscape. How much did AOL buy Netscape for? Can't just waste the money.
I don't think that AOL should be allowed to sue MS as long as they are using MS technology.
This will not make a more standard web, this will make the web less "standard". The standard is MS IE, for the last two years the web has had one main browser, granted it has enhancements made by Microsoft, but it was a the only real browser for the last two years, hence making it the standard. AOL is making a big mistake, and will hurt the internet. Linux/UNIX fans must remember that they are running a OS that's best purpose is a dev box, or a server. It will never be a complete user-friendly home user box. I'm not trying to start a flame war here. Look at it this way, Mozilla probably had 10% of the browser market last month, after AOL switches, that will jump to 40%. I don't understand how everyone can think that will make a more standard web. Could someone explain it to me, in a logical, non-flame way?
PS. On my site, you must run Windows, with IE 5.5 or greater, and have DirectX installed, if not, piss off.
This will not help the fight against terrorism. We might get them here in the states, and most of the UN countries will probably use them. You think countries like Afganistan would use them? Perhaps we should try to help them get eletricity first.
If they become mandatory, I'm not paying for one.
I know who I am, and I don't need to broadcast that to everyone.
If you use ad-blocking software, are you stealing from the web site? Morally and Legally?
Ads are used to pay for the site, some sites rely on ads to pay for they bandwidth that we as the viewers are using. By going to the site, you're agreeing to a terms of service and agreeing to view what they give you to view.
On the flip side, are pop-up ads stealing from the viewer?
When you go to a site, are you giving them the right to open an application our your computer, there by using your ram, your processing power, and your hard drive space.
What about flash, or any other plugin? If we allow those to run, do we allow anything to run?
If the internet developed by DARPA, which we currently use, was as open and impossible to destroy, then the FBI would have a harder time installing carnivore.
Slashdot Mirror
English 101, not everyone speaks it.
English 102, not everyone cares.
English 103, press makes the grammar.
Stop being an ass.
That last part was directed to me.
It would be a lot better for the game industry if these companies, including others like IGN.com, and Gamespy.com would work together on various projects.
Sorry about the formating, I'm a tard.
This is a problem that needs to be addressed. I sent this question to Lawarence Lessig when /. did the interview, of course there were better questions to anwser.
My whole argument started with pop-up ads. By going to a website, you are agreeing to that sites terms of use. The sites are using advertising as revenue to provide the service that we as a user request. Now enter pop-up stopper software. Is it legal for you to effectively block there only source income that most of these sites have?
So then we get into the this issue,
"Well, I didn't give that site permission to use my RAM, my CPU, and my HD space."
Also, the same arguement applies for the installed ad-tracking software. I didn't tell them that I wanted that salsa.
So, there is a shareware program called AdAware(made by Lavasoft, great piece of software. It goes through the Windows Registry and finds a bunch of these little programs. Double-Click is by far the worst at doing this, last time I ran the program, I had 69 little programs tracking my use of the net.
This raises this question, Should I as a consumer have to pay for software that blocks companies from abusing my rights?
I've been pondering these questions for a few months, and still haven't found resolve.
This will not allow "true" competition in the browser market. You still have all of the underlying technology in the client OS, Microsoft's "enhancements" are specific to the most widely used desktop OS. Mozilla still does not support ActiveX.
I understand that there are reasons for that, and we have the w3c to give us a specification, but if technology exists before the specification is complete that can make the web a more enjoyable and fullfilling, then piss off w3c, your standards don't please me.
I do not want to re-write my site, and lose features because AOL decided they should do something with Netscape. How much did AOL buy Netscape for? Can't just waste the money.
I don't think that AOL should be allowed to sue MS as long as they are using MS technology.
This will not make a more standard web, this will make the web less "standard". The standard is MS IE, for the last two years the web has had one main browser, granted it has enhancements made by Microsoft, but it was a the only real browser for the last two years, hence making it the standard. AOL is making a big mistake, and will hurt the internet. Linux/UNIX fans must remember that they are running a OS that's best purpose is a dev box, or a server. It will never be a complete user-friendly home user box. I'm not trying to start a flame war here. Look at it this way, Mozilla probably had 10% of the browser market last month, after AOL switches, that will jump to 40%. I don't understand how everyone can think that will make a more standard web. Could someone explain it to me, in a logical, non-flame way?
PS.
On my site, you must run Windows, with IE 5.5 or greater, and have DirectX installed, if not, piss off.
NAT has been vital to the internet growth, and now you have to pay for it.
Great book, hard to find today, get one for yourself as well.
This will not help the fight against terrorism. We might get them here in the states, and most of the UN countries will probably use them. You think countries like Afganistan would use them? Perhaps we should try to help them get eletricity first.
If they become mandatory, I'm not paying for one.
I know who I am, and I don't need to broadcast that to everyone.
If you use ad-blocking software, are you stealing from the web site? Morally and Legally?
Ads are used to pay for the site, some sites rely on ads to pay for they bandwidth that we as the viewers are using. By going to the site, you're agreeing to a terms of service and agreeing to view what they give you to view.
On the flip side, are pop-up ads stealing from the viewer?
When you go to a site, are you giving them the right to open an application our your computer, there by using your ram, your processing power, and your hard drive space.
What about flash, or any other plugin? If we allow those to run, do we allow anything to run?
What would happen if Microsoft did this today?
Shouldn't we be fair, has the government done research to find out which database software would best fit their requirements?
If the internet developed by DARPA, which we currently use, was as open and impossible to destroy, then the FBI would have a harder time installing carnivore.
It has been posted three times that I can remember, it was on freak tech for a long time, I think it still is.