I think I'll take this opportunity to mention Canada will hold an election on Nov. 27. Prime Minister Jean Chretien dissolved Parliament on Sunday at 11 am; he admitted Canada's worst-kept secret to opposition leader Stockwell Day over coffee on Friday.
It will be interesting to compare how the elections are conducted. Our campaign starts now; legally, the campaign can only run 36 days, from dissolution of Parliament to the election. We have at least four well-known parties throughout the country people regularly vote for - five in Quebec due to the strong separtist party in that province. For a while, the separtists were the official Opposition in our Parliament!
We also don't choose a separate president and majority party; the majority becomes the government, with the leader becoming prime minister. In the event of a plurality, the government can rule as a minority or form a coalition; the current leader of our Progressive Conservatives, Joe Clark, led a minority gov't for a few months back in 1980.
Our elections can get just as nasty, though I think in this election (IMHO, of course) Canada will focus more on the parties' overall platform and performance, whereas the US election seems to be centered on who will make a better president; the contest over the House and Senate seems much more fluid. I suppose that happens when the man currently in charge has a legacy of misadventures involving his johnson, and his potential successors are seen as the men who will have to restore prestige to the post.
Main reason I like our elections; they only last just over a month, instead of seeming to last forever:)
Let the best candidates and parties win, in both of our countries. -------------
I'll vote for Gore 'cuz its gonna be to close of an election to risk wasting my vote making a "Statement" on a 3rd party candidate)
Will you and Hemos please quit repeating this fucking lie? It's not "making a statement". It's "voting your conscience". Ever heard of that? It's where you select the person who is best for the job, not one of the big two "because they have a chance of winning."
I think I explained my position pretty well in this post, but I'll repeat the important thing here; the only true way to "waste" your vote is to pick someone just because you think they have a chance of winning, not because you think they'll do a good job. Even if your candidate gets no electoral votes, every vote is a sign of support the candidate and his/her party can build on, something they can point out to show they have supporters, people who believe there's a better way to do things. At the very least, 1/3 of the potential third-party supporters voting their conscience instead of the "sure thing" would probably take enough of a chunk out of the Big Two vote to turn some heads.
Is there any work being done in integrating it within (well, maybe as a plugin) in a Linux DVD player?
You can pipe the output of DeCSS though XMovie if you have the horses. If you don't, OMS integrates the css-auth code into a DVD player architecture. It's still very much in development, and hardware decoder drivers are iffy (if they work at all) but worth checking out - I managed to get a DVD to run through software decoding not too long ago, and I hope the hardware decoder drivers are fixed soon. -------------
First of all I'd just like to thank you for the intelligent reply.
Yer welcome - I've done my good deed for the day, back to Mozilla shilling now:)
In my opinion (and I'm sure many disagree), Browne is the best person for the job, and Bush is the lesser of the two evils (strangely enough, I've seen many say the same for Nader/Gore).
Probably because Nader, Browne and Buchanan all have something called an "opinion", which I think candidates for the Big Two aren't allowed to have anymore. Pretty sad, really; I tend to respect a candidate more if s/he takes a position and maybe even proposes actual solutions, even if I think the opinions and solutions are just plain bad (*coughBUCHANANcough*).
But, can you explain why it isn't throwing my vote away? Or why we shouldn't vote for the lesser of two evils?
A vote is as real as a slap in the face. There's no such voting category as "protest voting" or "voting against". When you put that mark down (or pull that lever, whatever), it's taken to mean you choose that candidate to do the best job possible. If you vote for someone because they're the lesser of two evils, not because you think they're the right person for the job, you're lying to yourself and your country.
Even if Nader/Browne/Buchanan get 5 votes total, those 5 votes still show support. Vote Browne if you think he's the right man for the job - even if it's a losing cause now, losing causes need support before they become winning ones, and voting is the best show of support you can make - because in the end, it's the votes that decide who is president. Not how much money was spent, or who had the flashier commercials. It's that vote tally at the end. I bet if all the people who voted for one of the Big Two out of resignation voted their conscience instead, I wouldn't have to make these kind of posts.
Voting for a dork just because they're a Republicrat with a chance of winning now just gives them more support and weakens the cause of third parties in the future - like I said, there is no such voting category as "protest voting" or "voting against" on the ballot, just "voting for".
If my favored candidate loses (i.e, Gore wins), I'm doomed to further expansion of the government, more programs, more taxes, etc.
Yeah, but are you going to vote for someone who you still disagree with just because they're not the other guy? Put it this way - it looks like things aren't going to go your way immediately this election (never does - change takes time and work), so you might as well vote for who you feel is right and prove to others trapped in the two-party lie that there are alternatives to vote for.
This seems to be an issue of principal versus practical effects.
Yeah, and practically, things still aren't going to go the way you want for a while yet. Best to at least start the work toward the future you want, rather than truly waste your vote by picking someone you don't support and take support away from those you think deserve it.
I'm still finding it difficult to see positive practical effects of voting 3rd party.
Adding support to a 3rd party gives them backing for the next election it can build on. There are legitimate financial benefits related to party support that someone else (I think in this thread) mentioned. Practical effects != immediate satisfaction. I know we all want change now, but short of an armed revolution and coup d'etat it just doesn't happen that way, and the violent solution usually wrecks things for a long time afterward in ways the revolutionaries never intended. Hey, that's life, do what you can.
However, I'm only 19.. and though I thought I was final in my decision to vote for Bush, your post has forced me to re-consider
I'm 20. I've voted once before in a local byelection, but this is the first time I'll be able to vote in a federal election (oh, I should mention - there's a very good chance Canada will have an election called in the next week - might even have been called as I type this - which means we'll vote very soon after you do - this will be rather interesting).
Glad to hear something I said has had (what I think is) a positive result. Hope you come to a conclusion you're comfortable with, whatever the consequences.
The solution is not throwing away your vote every 4 years for the same lost cause,
This is the Big Lie that's ruined the chances of any third party and wrecked what was once the model of democracy for the rest of the world to follow.
Voting for someone you're pretty sure won't win isn't "throwing your vote away." A poster on Slashdot long ago said "It's not a horse race." You're choosing who you think is the best person for the job, not "the lesser of two evils."
You, and the rest of the country, have more than two choices for President, Governor, House and Senate members, etc. It's just the largest two parties have done a good enough job of skewing the electoral system in their favour that other voices almost never get a chance to be heard - witness Nader not even being allowed to view the debate even though he had a ticket, never mind - horror of horrors - he could actually get a chance to espouse his left-wing, anti-corporate views in front of a nation that believes it only has two choices. And Harry Browne and his Libertarian wingnuts? He absolutely must be kept silent, lest people start thinking they actually have a choice that could result in politicians having less power and individuals having more freedom.
I suppose that Jesse Ventura guy in Minnesota doesn't exist - after all, he's not a Republican or Democrat, so Minnesota voters must have thrown their votes away.
Vote your conscience - vote for Brown (or Nader, or whomeever). Don't give extra votes to people you think are morons just because they're the "lesser of two evils" (even though you have more than two choices!), and don't eschew going to the polls. Elections are the one time when individuals such as yourself actually wield more power over the formation and direction of government than lobbyists and "friends", and it's a shame more people don't exercise that power. Even if your favoured candidate loses, your vote shows there are some people who believe a candidate is right. The more people who vote their conscience rather than just stay home because "it doesn't matter," the more it proves to others that non-Republicrats might be worth listening to. -------------
If you're in Windows, I dunno where the userContent.css file goes - probably whatever dir the user prefs are stored in. Either way, it should go in a chrome directory.
If that doesn't work, I'm out of ideas. I only know about this because I always run new builds in a console for the first time, and they used to mention looking for the userContent.css file (among other names and files). -------------
My main problems are that it still (as of the 10/6 snapshot, anyway) doesn't have "don't underline links" active,
The option is there, and I think it works. It's called "underline links", so unchecking it should work.
I actually have a stylesheet set up that eliminates underlining, and italicizes all links. If you're in *nix, you can place a stylesheet called userContent.css under.mozilla/default/chrome that defines how Mozilla should render pages. I dunno whether this is possible under Windows, or where you'd put the file if you can - mostly likely in whatever the user preferences directory is.
it doesn't have that IE feature that when you go back, you go back to the spot on the page from which you left,
Strangely, I recall this feature being in a few nightly builds during the M18 cycle, though I'm not sure if it was taken out or it doesn't work on all pages. -------------
-Go to Blackdown's site.
-Click on "OK" when the window pops up asking if you want to get the plugin (it's the standard plugin download dialog box).
-It will (should?) take you to a page where you can download the Java plugin.
If you want to do things the slightly harder way (like I did a week ago; I jumped the gun:), you can go to Blackdown, click on Download, pick a mirror, go into JDK-1.3.0/i386/rc1 and grab j2re-1.3.0-RC1-linux-i386.tar.bz2. Then you can install the Java runtime yourself; it includes the plugin.
Of course, if you just want to get to the tarball with no searching, you can just click her e.
Have fun! I am! -------------
Re:Wow...the Linux community really IS "the enemy"
on
SDMI Cracked Too Soon
·
· Score: 1
Thanks Andrew.
I completely misinterpreted that sentence, especially after seeing the words "hacker boycott" - it set off alarms.
My bad on spouting off; just being overcautious. -------------
Re:Wow...the Linux community really IS "the enemy"
on
SDMI Cracked Too Soon
·
· Score: 1
It was probably the wrong word to use, in that case, and the editors still should have caught it before it went to print.
Bad interpretation on my part, but I think the adjective "suspicious" should have been replaced by "some" - less chance for misinterpretation, especially since the term "hacker boycott" was used in the same sentence - and we all know what the word "hacker" tends to mean to media outlets other than geek sites and 2600 allies.
My bad. -------------
Wow...the Linux community really IS "the enemy"!
on
SDMI Cracked Too Soon
·
· Score: 1
The hacker boycott of SDMI organized by suspicious members of the programming community has turned out to be irrelevant.
Apparently, if you don't want to do everything the RIAA and other corporate cartels want you to do, you're "suspicious".
Cute implication.
On the other hand, I also don't think the SDMI crew wanted everything to get cracked either:)
Karma (aka the Golden Rule, etc.) is real, and it is biting the RIAA in the ass, my friends...
And shame on Janelle Brown, the author of the piece, and/or her editors, for putting that defamatory line in the article. Not going along with a cartel's wishes does not make one "suspicious" except in the eyes of the cartel and its allies. Are you an ally of the cartel, Miss Brown/Salon?
I think this development of force-feedback response for normal computer tasks is a greater development than any kind of "talk-type" software, in that now GUI interfaces can be truly accessible for the blind.
Think of it. Instead of rolling the mouse or trackball around, blindly trying to hit the "sweet spot" that will trigger the vocal signal, or being stuck with a command line interface that no one (in the Windows/Mac world) programs for, force-feedback reactions to desktop features and talk-response can be combined to make point-and-click applications and interfaces really usable. In effect, the mouse and mousing surface can replace the monitor.
I'd buy a force-feedback mouse and apps just to support the technology, even though I still have enough sight to use a normal computer (albeit with a honking huge monitor that I still sit almost nose-to-screen with). This is really good news when it comes to making computers accessible to those of us who got dealt a bad hand at birth:) -------------
No matter how you look at them, Naked PCs are bad for your customers.
And bad for our bottom line and ability to inflate user numbers.
Which means they are also bad for you.
Man, tell me if that doesn't read like a not-so-thinly-veiled threat. When can I expect "the boys" to hit the computer shops about ten blocks away from me?
Politely decline to expose your buyers or their businesses to such troubles.
So M$ is encouraging OEMs and indie shops to refuse to sell bare computers to anyone who doesn't want to pay the M$ tax. This is probably the most laughable statement in the whole thing; M$ blatantly telling computer-retailer business owners how to run their business.
Sell your PCs fully equipped with legally licensed operating systems preinstalled.
I don't suppose the DoJ can bring up new evidence in the appeal case, because this looks like a rather pointed warning to OEMs and other computer sellers to install Windows and pay the tax or else. How else do you say 'smoking gun"?
And the part I don't get...or else what? Since when did it become illegal to sell a computer without an OS? Will MS start going after those who sell "naked PCs" as "accessories to piracy" now? I hope they do and prove once and for all how much they really care for competition. -------------
Let's take her prose apart piece by piece, shall we?
We aren't against online music; we're leading the way.
In that case, I'll start looking for "download our artist's new album here, only $1/song!" sites at RIAA members' pages right now.
What? There aren't any?
Never mind then.
Our concern is with those who consistently and intentionally fail to recognize that theft is theft simply because the method is new and their immediate benefit is great -- and then argue that stealing from a successful industry somehow justifies their actions.
Actually, this does describe a good chunk of Napster's userbase.
But that doesn't justify SDMI and watermarking. I make perfectly legal use of MP3s every day. So do thousands of others. Fight the pirate, not the technology.
[...] but rather one of defending the creative community's right to do with their craft and their property how they wish. And what they wish -- I assure you -- is to meet consumer demand and bring music to the Internet.
I'll come back to that first point. Smashing Pumpkins, the Offspring, Chuck D, Elvis Costello, a host of artists on MP3.com, and Bob-knows-how-many indie artists are already offering their music on the Internet, sometimes even selling it. What's your excuse?
Mr. Somerson wrongly claims that if the entertainment industry had its way, people would "never again own anything outright."
Divx. SDMI. The "licenses" that people agree to when they purchase CDs and DVDs. Thank you, goodnight.
The fact is, if Mr. Somerson had his way, artists would never again own their own music, and there wouldn't be any further incentive to make it.
For one thing...artists that sign with labels don't own their own music, do they Hillary? They just "work for hire" - their efforts end up being owned by the company.
For another...consider the word "artist". The root word is "art". People who create works of art don't always do it for money. Oh, I know many do, and I don't begrudge them that right - they deserve to get paid for their hard work. But I don't think the fall of the record cartel would wipe out the music industry. It would just take a new form, hopefully one without an oligarchy controlling the production, distribtion, marketing, and ultimately all the money flowing in and out.
Some people make music because they want to; that's enough incentive.
Finally, he asks, as though his hand was just caught in the cookie jar, "Are you so snow-white perfect?"
Didn't Courtney Love make the same accusation in her Salon piece?
What is wrong is profiting from others' hard work and knowingly stealing another individual's copyrighted works.
Yes, Hillary. Individual's copyrighted works. Not corporations that try to get those individuals to sign away their copyright. More power to Elvis Costello for selling his back catalouge online, to Offspring for releasing the music and providing added value on the CD, to Smashing Pumpkins for releasing music they felt should be released when the label didn't want to let it out, to Chuck D for being forward-thinking, to every indie artist who puts up a website and sells CDs for the pure heck of it or to try and "make it big".
The tighter you squeeze, the more artists that will slip through your fingers. This isn't a prediction; it's already happening. It's conflict betweeen the artists and the marketing and control machines built around them that will destroy the industry far more than small-time MP3 copying. -------------
"It all kind of got out of proportion," Merkey said of the threats. He spoke about them only after some of his private e-mail was intercepted and posted on the Internet.
I don't think the linux-kernel mailing list is exactly "private e-mail". I wouldn't expect Pat to know what a mailing list is, but come on here. It seems as if Pat didn't even bother digging up the post that started it all. I wonder if Pat even asked Merkey about how the incident flared up.
Well, of course! We know it's not relevant - or, at least, shouldn't be relevant. The DMCA, bought and paid for by software companies and "content providers", makes it relevant, in the face of fair use and logic. Just being able to control distribution isn't enough - digital, computer-based technology can give the cartel the power to control use, in your own home, whether you, or Joe User, knows it or not. It can also give individuals an outlet to distribute and purchase art and entertainment outside of traditional, controlled channels. And that scares a lot of people who run businesses that rely on control over those channels - in short, RIAA, MPAA, and their allies. -------------
Of course he's a shill. He's the head of the MPAA. It's his job to protect the revenue stream of the MPAA members at any cost.
Out of one side of his mouth, he blathers about free speech and art whenever a crusading Representative, Senator or lobbyist launches another broadside at the violence and sex in many current movies.
Out of the other side, he screams piracy whenever someone brings up fair use and interopability. Apparently, redirecting a DeCSS stream to XMovie, or sending it to your (large) hard drive to be played by an MPEG-2 player later is hacking, evil, and should be punished by jail time or massive fines, because a Legit DVD Software Player is coming Real Soon Now (sorry Intervideo, I know you're working hard, I don't mean to attack you, but until the product comes out, it's still not available, and Valenti shouldn't be able to use that argument without questioning it.) And questioning the MPAA's motives isn't "free speech", it's condoning piracy, and should be silenced. You shouldn't even be allowed to link to pages with the software, Kosh forbid you have a copy yourself.
What a fscking mess. I don't expect the MPAA to gain any sense any time soon, but all of this (the 2600 lawsuit, the Johansen arrest) could have been avoided if the MPAA had thrown Linux/*BSD users a bone by at least going after people who use the software for piracy instead of the software and the programmers.
----------- -------------
In short, DC is going after someone once again for being able to read CueCat output. Rather like Adobe claiming they own that PDF you just produced of your master's thesis, and using xpdf to read it is a violation of their EULA. It's that stupid.
DC really didn't think this product through, did they? I have to ask; who are these jokers? -------------
I'm going to upgrade so I can start fresh. When I first started using Linux full-time a year ago, I was a newbie, so I did a lot of stuff that, if I knew then what I know now, I sure as hell wouldn't have done. As well, I have a rather ugly mishmash of new packages and old cruft from Red Hat 7.0 that somehow works just fine, thank you very much. I just want to clean it all up in one fell swoop while taking advantage of some newer features with a bit more knowledge and wisdom under my belt than before.
Another reason is that I'm pretty sure newer RPMs from RedHat's rawhide dir are no longer compatible with older distros - they're being compiled using a new version of glibc. If I install it (and I've tried), every other program on the computer complains. I'm not sure if RH7 uses the new glibc, but better safe than sorry. (Or maybe bero-rh would like to enlighten me:)... At this point, it will be easier to upgrade to 7 and install whatever updated packages I need - despite the whinging of some (ok, most) people, RPMs aren't hell to upgrade, especially if you make liberal use of RPMfind.
Hell, maybe I should have just installed Mandrake. Or gone over to Slackware.
For the record, I'm still using the same Red Hat 6.0 install from a year ago. It's been pretty heavily modified by now, though. I think it's about time to upgrade.
I quickly parsed the story, mostly looking to see if RedHat said anything about the infamous default installs. Lo and behold, there are claims that the default installs will be "more secure for cable and ADSL users" - does this mean no more apache, login, shell, nfs, etc. by default?
On the one hand, "It's about time a major distributor got around to thinking about security."
On the other hand, it just goes to prove that enough people demanding something will make it happen - how often do people complain about the wide-open default installs from most major Linux distros nowadays?
Re: USB support. I was kinda forced to try out USB support under Linux when my new Epson couldn't print using my parallel-port scanner's pass-through - the scanner's fault, I think. All it took was a quick kernel recompile, a quick skim of a howto, and that was it. Works like a dream.
As long as a rash of exploits don't appear in the two weeks after 7.0's release, it sounds like this version will be worth upgrading to. Of course, if you already have Mandrake 7.0 installed, then why bother - same stuff, looks like.
My main reason for even considering an upgrade is the fact that Red Hat, and other distributors, seem to be moving toward using a new glibc in compiling their brand-spanking-new packages. Go ahead, try a rawhide package. There's a good chance it won't install, giving you a dependency error requesting...glibc2.2? News to me, but if I want to keep up, I'll have to upgrade. For free, of course:)
---------- -------------
Slashdot Mirror
I think I'll take this opportunity to mention Canada will hold an election on Nov. 27. Prime Minister Jean Chretien dissolved Parliament on Sunday at 11 am; he admitted Canada's worst-kept secret to opposition leader Stockwell Day over coffee on Friday.
It will be interesting to compare how the elections are conducted. Our campaign starts now; legally, the campaign can only run 36 days, from dissolution of Parliament to the election. We have at least four well-known parties throughout the country people regularly vote for - five in Quebec due to the strong separtist party in that province. For a while, the separtists were the official Opposition in our Parliament!
We also don't choose a separate president and majority party; the majority becomes the government, with the leader becoming prime minister. In the event of a plurality, the government can rule as a minority or form a coalition; the current leader of our Progressive Conservatives, Joe Clark, led a minority gov't for a few months back in 1980.
Our elections can get just as nasty, though I think in this election (IMHO, of course) Canada will focus more on the parties' overall platform and performance, whereas the US election seems to be centered on who will make a better president; the contest over the House and Senate seems much more fluid. I suppose that happens when the man currently in charge has a legacy of misadventures involving his johnson, and his potential successors are seen as the men who will have to restore prestige to the post.
Main reason I like our elections; they only last just over a month, instead of seeming to last forever:)
Let the best candidates and parties win, in both of our countries.
-------------
The party is more important than the man. Freedom is better than pseudo-socialism.
Somehow, I find this statement rather ironic. I'm sure it's unintentional:)
-------------
Dear Taco:
I'll vote for Gore 'cuz its gonna be to close of an election to risk wasting my vote making a "Statement" on a 3rd party candidate)
Will you and Hemos please quit repeating this fucking lie? It's not "making a statement". It's "voting your conscience". Ever heard of that? It's where you select the person who is best for the job, not one of the big two "because they have a chance of winning."
I think I explained my position pretty well in this post, but I'll repeat the important thing here; the only true way to "waste" your vote is to pick someone just because you think they have a chance of winning, not because you think they'll do a good job. Even if your candidate gets no electoral votes, every vote is a sign of support the candidate and his/her party can build on, something they can point out to show they have supporters, people who believe there's a better way to do things. At the very least, 1/3 of the potential third-party supporters voting their conscience instead of the "sure thing" would probably take enough of a chunk out of the Big Two vote to turn some heads.
-------------
Is there any work being done in integrating it within (well, maybe as a plugin) in a Linux DVD player?
You can pipe the output of DeCSS though XMovie if you have the horses. If you don't, OMS integrates the css-auth code into a DVD player architecture. It's still very much in development, and hardware decoder drivers are iffy (if they work at all) but worth checking out - I managed to get a DVD to run through software decoding not too long ago, and I hope the hardware decoder drivers are fixed soon.
-------------
First of all I'd just like to thank you for the intelligent reply.
Yer welcome - I've done my good deed for the day, back to Mozilla shilling now:)
In my opinion (and I'm sure many disagree), Browne is the best person for the job, and Bush is the lesser of the two evils (strangely enough, I've seen many say the same for Nader/Gore).
Probably because Nader, Browne and Buchanan all have something called an "opinion", which I think candidates for the Big Two aren't allowed to have anymore. Pretty sad, really; I tend to respect a candidate more if s/he takes a position and maybe even proposes actual solutions, even if I think the opinions and solutions are just plain bad (*coughBUCHANANcough*).
But, can you explain why it isn't throwing my vote away? Or why we shouldn't vote for the lesser of two evils?
A vote is as real as a slap in the face. There's no such voting category as "protest voting" or "voting against". When you put that mark down (or pull that lever, whatever), it's taken to mean you choose that candidate to do the best job possible. If you vote for someone because they're the lesser of two evils, not because you think they're the right person for the job, you're lying to yourself and your country.
Even if Nader/Browne/Buchanan get 5 votes total, those 5 votes still show support. Vote Browne if you think he's the right man for the job - even if it's a losing cause now, losing causes need support before they become winning ones, and voting is the best show of support you can make - because in the end, it's the votes that decide who is president. Not how much money was spent, or who had the flashier commercials. It's that vote tally at the end. I bet if all the people who voted for one of the Big Two out of resignation voted their conscience instead, I wouldn't have to make these kind of posts.
Voting for a dork just because they're a Republicrat with a chance of winning now just gives them more support and weakens the cause of third parties in the future - like I said, there is no such voting category as "protest voting" or "voting against" on the ballot, just "voting for".
If my favored candidate loses (i.e, Gore wins), I'm doomed to further expansion of the government, more programs, more taxes, etc.
Yeah, but are you going to vote for someone who you still disagree with just because they're not the other guy? Put it this way - it looks like things aren't going to go your way immediately this election (never does - change takes time and work), so you might as well vote for who you feel is right and prove to others trapped in the two-party lie that there are alternatives to vote for.
This seems to be an issue of principal versus practical effects.
Yeah, and practically, things still aren't going to go the way you want for a while yet. Best to at least start the work toward the future you want, rather than truly waste your vote by picking someone you don't support and take support away from those you think deserve it.
I'm still finding it difficult to see positive practical effects of voting 3rd party.
Adding support to a 3rd party gives them backing for the next election it can build on. There are legitimate financial benefits related to party support that someone else (I think in this thread) mentioned. Practical effects != immediate satisfaction. I know we all want change now, but short of an armed revolution and coup d'etat it just doesn't happen that way, and the violent solution usually wrecks things for a long time afterward in ways the revolutionaries never intended. Hey, that's life, do what you can.
However, I'm only 19.. and though I thought I was final in my decision to vote for Bush, your post has forced me to re-consider
I'm 20. I've voted once before in a local byelection, but this is the first time I'll be able to vote in a federal election (oh, I should mention - there's a very good chance Canada will have an election called in the next week - might even have been called as I type this - which means we'll vote very soon after you do - this will be rather interesting).
Glad to hear something I said has had (what I think is) a positive result. Hope you come to a conclusion you're comfortable with, whatever the consequences.
-------------
Hemos said it right. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.
Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.
-------------
The solution is not throwing away your vote every 4 years for the same lost cause,
This is the Big Lie that's ruined the chances of any third party and wrecked what was once the model of democracy for the rest of the world to follow.
Voting for someone you're pretty sure won't win isn't "throwing your vote away." A poster on Slashdot long ago said "It's not a horse race." You're choosing who you think is the best person for the job, not "the lesser of two evils."
You, and the rest of the country, have more than two choices for President, Governor, House and Senate members, etc. It's just the largest two parties have done a good enough job of skewing the electoral system in their favour that other voices almost never get a chance to be heard - witness Nader not even being allowed to view the debate even though he had a ticket, never mind - horror of horrors - he could actually get a chance to espouse his left-wing, anti-corporate views in front of a nation that believes it only has two choices. And Harry Browne and his Libertarian wingnuts? He absolutely must be kept silent, lest people start thinking they actually have a choice that could result in politicians having less power and individuals having more freedom.
I suppose that Jesse Ventura guy in Minnesota doesn't exist - after all, he's not a Republican or Democrat, so Minnesota voters must have thrown their votes away.
Vote your conscience - vote for Brown (or Nader, or whomeever). Don't give extra votes to people you think are morons just because they're the "lesser of two evils" (even though you have more than two choices!), and don't eschew going to the polls. Elections are the one time when individuals such as yourself actually wield more power over the formation and direction of government than lobbyists and "friends", and it's a shame more people don't exercise that power. Even if your favoured candidate loses, your vote shows there are some people who believe a candidate is right. The more people who vote their conscience rather than just stay home because "it doesn't matter," the more it proves to others that non-Republicrats might be worth listening to.
-------------
It doesn't. It never has. Neither in Windows nor Linux.
/home/$USER/.mozilla/default/chrome:
Awright, then drop the following pair of lines into a file called userContent.css under
A:link {text-decoration: none}
A:visited {text-decoration: none}
If you're in Windows, I dunno where the userContent.css file goes - probably whatever dir the user prefs are stored in. Either way, it should go in a chrome directory.
If that doesn't work, I'm out of ideas. I only know about this because I always run new builds in a console for the first time, and they used to mention looking for the userContent.css file (among other names and files).
-------------
My main problems are that it still (as of the 10/6 snapshot, anyway) doesn't have "don't underline links" active,
.mozilla/default/chrome that defines how Mozilla should render pages. I dunno whether this is possible under Windows, or where you'd put the file if you can - mostly likely in whatever the user preferences directory is.
The option is there, and I think it works. It's called "underline links", so unchecking it should work.
I actually have a stylesheet set up that eliminates underlining, and italicizes all links. If you're in *nix, you can place a stylesheet called userContent.css under
it doesn't have that IE feature that when you go back, you go back to the spot on the page from which you left,
Strangely, I recall this feature being in a few nightly builds during the M18 cycle, though I'm not sure if it was taken out or it doesn't work on all pages.
-------------
Actually, yeah, that's exactly it:
-Go to Blackdown's site.
-Click on "OK" when the window pops up asking if you want to get the plugin (it's the standard plugin download dialog box).
-It will (should?) take you to a page where you can download the Java plugin.
If you want to do things the slightly harder way (like I did a week ago; I jumped the gun:), you can go to Blackdown, click on Download, pick a mirror, go into JDK-1.3.0/i386/rc1 and grab j2re-1.3.0-RC1-linux-i386.tar.bz2. Then you can install the Java runtime yourself; it includes the plugin.
Of course, if you just want to get to the tarball with no searching, you can just click her e.
Have fun! I am!
-------------
Thanks Andrew.
I completely misinterpreted that sentence, especially after seeing the words "hacker boycott" - it set off alarms.
My bad on spouting off; just being overcautious.
-------------
It was probably the wrong word to use, in that case, and the editors still should have caught it before it went to print.
Bad interpretation on my part, but I think the adjective "suspicious" should have been replaced by "some" - less chance for misinterpretation, especially since the term "hacker boycott" was used in the same sentence - and we all know what the word "hacker" tends to mean to media outlets other than geek sites and 2600 allies.
My bad.
-------------
The hacker boycott of SDMI organized by suspicious members of the programming community has turned out to be irrelevant.
Wow. I didn't know Don Marti, technical editor of Linux Journal was a "suspicious member" of the programming community.
Apparently, if you don't want to do everything the RIAA and other corporate cartels want you to do, you're "suspicious".
Cute implication.
On the other hand, I also don't think the SDMI crew wanted everything to get cracked either:)
Karma (aka the Golden Rule, etc.) is real, and it is biting the RIAA in the ass, my friends...
And shame on Janelle Brown, the author of the piece, and/or her editors, for putting that defamatory line in the article. Not going along with a cartel's wishes does not make one "suspicious" except in the eyes of the cartel and its allies. Are you an ally of the cartel, Miss Brown/Salon?
-------------
I think this development of force-feedback response for normal computer tasks is a greater development than any kind of "talk-type" software, in that now GUI interfaces can be truly accessible for the blind.
Think of it. Instead of rolling the mouse or trackball around, blindly trying to hit the "sweet spot" that will trigger the vocal signal, or being stuck with a command line interface that no one (in the Windows/Mac world) programs for, force-feedback reactions to desktop features and talk-response can be combined to make point-and-click applications and interfaces really usable. In effect, the mouse and mousing surface can replace the monitor.
I'd buy a force-feedback mouse and apps just to support the technology, even though I still have enough sight to use a normal computer (albeit with a honking huge monitor that I still sit almost nose-to-screen with). This is really good news when it comes to making computers accessible to those of us who got dealt a bad hand at birth:)
-------------
...but what the hey, I'm bored.
No matter how you look at them, Naked PCs are bad for your customers.
And bad for our bottom line and ability to inflate user numbers.
Which means they are also bad for you.
Man, tell me if that doesn't read like a not-so-thinly-veiled threat. When can I expect "the boys" to hit the computer shops about ten blocks away from me?
Politely decline to expose your buyers or their businesses to such troubles.
So M$ is encouraging OEMs and indie shops to refuse to sell bare computers to anyone who doesn't want to pay the M$ tax. This is probably the most laughable statement in the whole thing; M$ blatantly telling computer-retailer business owners how to run their business.
Sell your PCs fully equipped with legally licensed operating systems preinstalled.
You mean like this one?
I don't suppose the DoJ can bring up new evidence in the appeal case, because this looks like a rather pointed warning to OEMs and other computer sellers to install Windows and pay the tax or else. How else do you say 'smoking gun"?
And the part I don't get...or else what? Since when did it become illegal to sell a computer without an OS? Will MS start going after those who sell "naked PCs" as "accessories to piracy" now? I hope they do and prove once and for all how much they really care for competition.
-------------
Let's take her prose apart piece by piece, shall we?
We aren't against online music; we're leading the way.
In that case, I'll start looking for "download our artist's new album here, only $1/song!" sites at RIAA members' pages right now.
What? There aren't any?
Never mind then.
Our concern is with those who consistently and intentionally fail to recognize that theft is theft simply because the method is new and their immediate benefit is great -- and then argue that stealing from a successful industry somehow justifies their actions.
Actually, this does describe a good chunk of Napster's userbase.
But that doesn't justify SDMI and watermarking. I make perfectly legal use of MP3s every day. So do thousands of others. Fight the pirate, not the technology.
[...] but rather one of defending the creative community's right to do with their craft and their property how they wish. And what they wish -- I assure you -- is to meet consumer demand and bring music to the Internet.
I'll come back to that first point. Smashing Pumpkins, the Offspring, Chuck D, Elvis Costello, a host of artists on MP3.com, and Bob-knows-how-many indie artists are already offering their music on the Internet, sometimes even selling it. What's your excuse?
Mr. Somerson wrongly claims that if the entertainment industry had its way, people would "never again own anything outright."
Divx. SDMI. The "licenses" that people agree to when they purchase CDs and DVDs. Thank you, goodnight.
The fact is, if Mr. Somerson had his way, artists would never again own their own music, and there wouldn't be any further incentive to make it.
For one thing...artists that sign with labels don't own their own music, do they Hillary? They just "work for hire" - their efforts end up being owned by the company.
For another...consider the word "artist". The root word is "art". People who create works of art don't always do it for money. Oh, I know many do, and I don't begrudge them that right - they deserve to get paid for their hard work. But I don't think the fall of the record cartel would wipe out the music industry. It would just take a new form, hopefully one without an oligarchy controlling the production, distribtion, marketing, and ultimately all the money flowing in and out.
Some people make music because they want to; that's enough incentive.
Finally, he asks, as though his hand was just caught in the cookie jar, "Are you so snow-white perfect?"
Didn't Courtney Love make the same accusation in her Salon piece?
What is wrong is profiting from others' hard work and knowingly stealing another individual's copyrighted works.
Yes, Hillary. Individual's copyrighted works. Not corporations that try to get those individuals to sign away their copyright. More power to Elvis Costello for selling his back catalouge online, to Offspring for releasing the music and providing added value on the CD, to Smashing Pumpkins for releasing music they felt should be released when the label didn't want to let it out, to Chuck D for being forward-thinking, to every indie artist who puts up a website and sells CDs for the pure heck of it or to try and "make it big".
The tighter you squeeze, the more artists that will slip through your fingers. This isn't a prediction; it's already happening. It's conflict betweeen the artists and the marketing and control machines built around them that will destroy the industry far more than small-time MP3 copying.
-------------
...is this one.
Thanks you slashcode for borking the previous link and cutting off 40 bugs.
-------------
Try 250 and climbing.
.before you post something that include a statistic
Seriously guys, at least check your numbers
-------------
"It all kind of got out of proportion," Merkey said of the threats. He spoke about them only after some of his private e-mail was intercepted and posted on the Internet.
I don't think the linux-kernel mailing list is exactly "private e-mail". I wouldn't expect Pat to know what a mailing list is, but come on here. It seems as if Pat didn't even bother digging up the post that started it all. I wonder if Pat even asked Merkey about how the incident flared up.
sheesh, basic story research...
-------------
But this isn't that slightest bit relevant.
Well, of course! We know it's not relevant - or, at least, shouldn't be relevant. The DMCA, bought and paid for by software companies and "content providers", makes it relevant, in the face of fair use and logic. Just being able to control distribution isn't enough - digital, computer-based technology can give the cartel the power to control use, in your own home, whether you, or Joe User, knows it or not. It can also give individuals an outlet to distribute and purchase art and entertainment outside of traditional, controlled channels. And that scares a lot of people who run businesses that rely on control over those channels - in short, RIAA, MPAA, and their allies.
-------------
Of course he's a shill. He's the head of the MPAA. It's his job to protect the revenue stream of the MPAA members at any cost.
Out of one side of his mouth, he blathers about free speech and art whenever a crusading Representative, Senator or lobbyist launches another broadside at the violence and sex in many current movies.
Out of the other side, he screams piracy whenever someone brings up fair use and interopability. Apparently, redirecting a DeCSS stream to XMovie, or sending it to your (large) hard drive to be played by an MPEG-2 player later is hacking, evil, and should be punished by jail time or massive fines, because a Legit DVD Software Player is coming Real Soon Now (sorry Intervideo, I know you're working hard, I don't mean to attack you, but until the product comes out, it's still not available, and Valenti shouldn't be able to use that argument without questioning it.) And questioning the MPAA's motives isn't "free speech", it's condoning piracy, and should be silenced. You shouldn't even be allowed to link to pages with the software, Kosh forbid you have a copy yourself.
What a fscking mess. I don't expect the MPAA to gain any sense any time soon, but all of this (the 2600 lawsuit, the Johansen arrest) could have been avoided if the MPAA had thrown Linux/*BSD users a bone by at least going after people who use the software for piracy instead of the software and the programmers.
-----------
-------------
In short, DC is going after someone once again for being able to read CueCat output. Rather like Adobe claiming they own that PDF you just produced of your master's thesis, and using xpdf to read it is a violation of their EULA. It's that stupid.
DC really didn't think this product through, did they? I have to ask; who are these jokers?
-------------
I'm going to upgrade so I can start fresh. When I first started using Linux full-time a year ago, I was a newbie, so I did a lot of stuff that, if I knew then what I know now, I sure as hell wouldn't have done. As well, I have a rather ugly mishmash of new packages and old cruft from Red Hat 7.0 that somehow works just fine, thank you very much. I just want to clean it all up in one fell swoop while taking advantage of some newer features with a bit more knowledge and wisdom under my belt than before.
Another reason is that I'm pretty sure newer RPMs from RedHat's rawhide dir are no longer compatible with older distros - they're being compiled using a new version of glibc. If I install it (and I've tried), every other program on the computer complains. I'm not sure if RH7 uses the new glibc, but better safe than sorry. (Or maybe bero-rh would like to enlighten me:)... At this point, it will be easier to upgrade to 7 and install whatever updated packages I need - despite the whinging of some (ok, most) people, RPMs aren't hell to upgrade, especially if you make liberal use of RPMfind.
Hell, maybe I should have just installed Mandrake. Or gone over to Slackware.
Ain't choice grand?:)
-------------
The only thing that I found inapproprately running was identd as a stand-alone server, a service that I am morally opposed to.
Morally opposed to?
Enlighten me.
-------------
For the record, I'm still using the same Red Hat 6.0 install from a year ago. It's been pretty heavily modified by now, though. I think it's about time to upgrade.
I quickly parsed the story, mostly looking to see if RedHat said anything about the infamous default installs. Lo and behold, there are claims that the default installs will be "more secure for cable and ADSL users" - does this mean no more apache, login, shell, nfs, etc. by default?
On the one hand, "It's about time a major distributor got around to thinking about security."
On the other hand, it just goes to prove that enough people demanding something will make it happen - how often do people complain about the wide-open default installs from most major Linux distros nowadays?
Re: USB support. I was kinda forced to try out USB support under Linux when my new Epson couldn't print using my parallel-port scanner's pass-through - the scanner's fault, I think. All it took was a quick kernel recompile, a quick skim of a howto, and that was it. Works like a dream.
As long as a rash of exploits don't appear in the two weeks after 7.0's release, it sounds like this version will be worth upgrading to. Of course, if you already have Mandrake 7.0 installed, then why bother - same stuff, looks like.
My main reason for even considering an upgrade is the fact that Red Hat, and other distributors, seem to be moving toward using a new glibc in compiling their brand-spanking-new packages. Go ahead, try a rawhide package. There's a good chance it won't install, giving you a dependency error requesting...glibc2.2? News to me, but if I want to keep up, I'll have to upgrade. For free, of course:)
----------
-------------