Yes and that will happen in every implementation of organized authority. It's the fate of mankind to be susceptible to greed. So before we go pointing the finger and say "fascist", we need to think how that really is different from communists or socialists. There's no doubt that communism and socialism are grand ideas spawned by great benevolent men (well, maybe) but the reality is that, in implementation, those who are willing to sacrifice morals and values and benevolence to stab thier constituents in the back (for their own profit) will be the ones ruthless enough to rise to the top. That's the way life goes.
And that isn't Fascism? You are again making my case. Lumping in the corrupt socialists doesn't undermine my point.
me: I can't call the U.S. government Marxist with a straight face, no one could
Strip away the layers and layers of propaganda of what you think to be true about your rights and what really is true.
Are you, or are you not insinuating that the U.S. government is Marxist? I'll tell you what it isn't: conservative or libertarian.
I agree with your sentiment. However, I wasn't talking about the population that works in the TV/Movie/Music industry (if I were, I would have given the link that you did). I was talking about the big media companies themselves. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/category.asp?txt=C 2400&cycle=2006 That's why I chose the listing that I did. The company PACs are pretty evenly distributed, with an edge to Republican candidates.
As a point of contrast between "the industry" and the industry's corporate overlords consider G.E. (a weapons contractor, among others). Here's the same corporation that is both providing you with corporate-media while at the same time equipping the most advanced fighting force on Earth. We bring good things to life. They have a vested interest in both the copyright cartels and continued military expansion and affect politics accordingly.
I don't really want to get into a debate about G.E. or anything. I'm just saying that there's a difference between the people that work in the industry and voice of that industry in the halls of power (i.e., the corporate PACs and lobbyists). Regular Joes like me aren't writing legislation and getting it sponsored and passed by Congress -- but corporate lobbyists are.
Maybe my distinction wasn't made clear in my previous post. If, so: apologies.
I think it would really bring home the cost of huge government if we did it this way:
Chart the incomes of everyone. Figure out the cost of all government expenditure (plus interest payments on the gigantic debt). Divide this year's cost of government by the number of people with income above the poverty line. Send that bill to everyone. When the proletariat, er I mean middle class, revolts at the size of the bill compared to their per annum income, the system will change to use a sliding scale. The fat-cats and corps will complain, but no-one that received the huge tax bill could vote FOR the fat-cats (at last people would vote in their economic best interest). At which point all other taxes could go away... except sales tax, to rope the tourists. We'd get a sales tax dividend if somehow magically the government finally brought in more money than they spent.
Big L Libertarians are classical Conservatives, in that they believe to a minimalist government which does not exceed the powers as strictly outlined in the charter documents.
But we're also classical Liberals -- you're blowing my mind!
me: There's no implication of state-ownership (like in communism)
In reality, though, is it any different? If the state owns your business directly, or you are beholden to them through taxes and regulations? At the end of the day there isn't any difference.
It may not be a difference, but it is still a relevant distinction. This is essentially what makes fascism different from communism. You are dangerously close to agreeing with me regarding the state of business in today's America -- a position you started this thread to discount: "The US differs from the (former) USSR only in a few extra levels of investors and banks between the regulators and the owners. If you think about the money pools, though, it's all about the same."
That about does it for me. It seems like we are about to repeat the spiral. Let me put it this way before I agree to disagree -- Authoritarian Right-wingers (Fascists) want to redistribute the wealth to themselves, Authoritarian Left-wingers (Marxists) want to redistribute the wealth to everyone. Either the majority are serfs of the power-elite or everyone but the corrupt are serfs of the state (witness China's continuing transition from one to the other, haha). I can't call the U.S. government Marxist with a straight face, no one could; but as liberty diminishes, authoritarianism grows. If you can agree with that statement, then that puts us dangerously near the bottom of the Nolan chart. Either way, both Fascism and Marxism suck.
They don't pay those taxes. At the end of the day, when I buy a bag of Tostitos, the price I pay covers their profit margin for those taxes so I'm the one paying it. Even if I remove that column, though, I'm still at 57%. Tax on wages, tax on every dollar I spend, tax on utility bills, tax on gas, tax on beer (that's really the last straw), tax on everything.
Yeah, I'm one of those nuts who thinks the Income Tax is a travesty. I don't mind consumption taxes, or property taxes, or even sales taxes, as for the most part they are voluntary. However, the "pay or get locked up" taxes, those are creepy. I mean Federal Income Tax wasn't even Constitutional until they screwed around with it ( I guess some argue it still isn't, but I'm not one of them).
Finally, if I'm going to get income taxed to hell (or at all), I surely want corporations to pay at equivalent rates. When I hear that some company can lease a subway system in another country to have the subway company lease it back from them just to lower their U.S. taxes or that reincorporating in the islands somewhere cuts your rates... I don't know I just go crazy.
Why can't I re-incorporate somewhere with lower income taxes? That's like saying immigrants only ever have to pay taxes to their country of birth. Wtf?
As I know it, right wing means conservative, and a traditional conservative is in favor of smaller government at every turn. So how can we have authoritarian state-run business with minimalist government?
Ah! Well here's out misunderstanding. I didn't say conservative (as the word has a loaded meaning in the U.S. beyond economics). Conservatives like to believe they are classical liberals (they usually aren't these days, or they would all be big-L Libertarians). Saying "traditional conservative" is proof of its warped meaning. Anyway, the Wikipedia seems to have a good breakdown on right-wing as I use the term (it also discusses in the history section the muddying of the waters here in the U.S. as we have no true aristocracy, only lines of traditionally very-rich white people [the same families that end up in politics haha]). That is, right-wing is just a convenient term for anti-left. How did we get the word fascist, we got it from Italy (the only true fascist government... describing any communist/Marxist or socialist state as fascist is basically wrong) when Mussolini systematically oppressed the left-wingers. So anyway, there you have your contradiction, the right-wing Authoritarian state. If, to you, right-wing only means Republican or conservative then we really are not sharing the same conversation. Right-wing carries the baggage of Aristocracy/classism, statism/elitism, and socialist-antipathy besides just the liberal economics.
I mean the short version is just as I put it, any anti-left (anti-socialist, thus right-wing) authoritarian government is fascist. I guess in that regard fascism doesn't imply conservatism or small government (small being almost meaningless here, but roughly "less-invasive" and "less-supportive" not necessarily smaller in apparatus). Anyhow, I shouldn't have said "State-run business" when referring to fascism, because the business isn't really run BY the state itself. When the citizen has committed himself to the state (willingly through nationalism, classism, elitism, or unwillingly by coercion or 'incentive'), he runs his business FOR the state at its discretion under its Law. There's no implication of state-ownership (like in communism). The effect of the business is that it is state-run (through its coercive policies, nationalistic allegiance, etc) even though it's not really run by the state. There's plenty of books about the rise of fascism in Italy. I only ever had to read one while studying WWII in school, so I'm no expert.
If the courts ever remove their heads from their butts and pass a decision like that, setting a precedent to support the taxpayer over the corporate overlord, I'll probably have a heart attack in surprise.
LOL. Seriously.
Me: What would really interest me would be a case before the court that challenged a copyright law on the grounds that it didn't promote science and the useful arts
SilverspurG: That's a rather ambiguous pursuit. While it might make for interesting court debate to see what attorneys can pull out of their behinds it'll do nothing to get to the actual issue. Just whose interests are we protecting here? The author or inventor, or the corporation to whom the government has given an economic upper hand?
Well really that's just it. The constitution doesn't say "Corporation's Science and Corporation's useful arts". It says "Science" as in all of it, the entire field. As corporations didn't have a special legal status at the time of framing, their protection can't really be covered in any real debate over intent. It would be troublesome to reach a consensus, but I think there is a possibility that if you could get Science together that its components might agree that current copyright laws are hampering progress, voiding the condition upon which the laws are founded, making them unconstitutional. I think the debate for the "useful Arts" is different. I think enough rich voices might agree that their progress is just the way they like it. Either way, an interesting outcome would be that monopoly law had to be re-written w/rt Science (inventors and patents) and the useful Arts (authors and copyright).
I basically agree with the rest of your post. The "less privileged" (i.e., middle class) are getting screwed. Middle class inventors and authors are getting screwed. There may be an argument that 'we' are getting coerced. If so, we have remedies for that. I mean the real, unavoidable truth is that people (including me) agree to these employment contracts. (I programmed for the county government. None of that code is mine. It's theirs, I gave it to them the day I agreed to take their money.) If we weren't agreeing to them they would change. There's any number of archived "Ask Slashdot" stories about taking your agreement to a lawyer, red-inking and initialing all the parts you hate, bringing it back signed and still getting the job. This isn't Wal*Mart jobs or what not, but neither are those (for the most part) creative positions.
Anyhow, yeah the little guy is getting screwed. That's necessary for the power-elite. With out the little guy getting screwed, how's the Social Darwinism supposed to help the rich guys stay on top? (Sorry for the jab from the other thread:-D ).
I think it's pretty clear that in my and Eisenhower's opinion that a desire for the unification of state and enterprise is the precondition for tyranny. You can call it fascism, like Mussolini did when he unified the right-wing state and enterprise; you can call it Marxism like when Lenin unified the left-wing state and enterprise; you can call it whatever you want.
How about we quit using the word fascism as name-calling against things we don't like and just agree that, no matter what they say on TV, politicians under ANY system of government in ANY nation of the world are intent on creating a pyramid scheme with which they can fleece the middle and lower classes for their own personal benefit. Once you accept the truth it becomes quite easy to demystify why Congress pulls the crap it does.
I did not insinuate a whiff of fascism merely for name-calling. I've hope I've explained it. It's pretty straight forward really. Authoritarian state-run business, right-wing politics: Fascism. Authoritarian state-run business, left-wing politics: Marxism. Our political climate is right-wing (especially when taken in the global context of these terms). In fact, I outlined this right before I quoted the Columbia. (Sorry Godwin) I didn't bring up Nazis, the Third-Reich, make comparisons of certain leaders to certain mustachioed zealots, I only mentioned that any trend toward state-run capitalism reeks of fascism, just like any trend toward state-run communism (the ubiquitous welfare state) reeks of Marxism. I further went on to say that authoritarian governments, left or right, socialist or capitalist, fascist or Marxist, are all on the bottom of my list because their ideologies are meaningless without freedom. If the casual reader is unable to detect my nuanced use of the word, that's really their problem. I know you are just looking out for them when you admonish me for its use.
(I've been getting a lot of flack lately for my deliberate, context and connotation considered word-choice. I haven't decided whether or not to tone it down. Cheers.)
It's really too bad that you've missed the second part of the Constitutional statement concerning the mode of implementation: "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".
Yes, I agree the that the full text of the commerce clause is relevant to the over-all debate. I was only trying to address my gripe with indefinite terms (readings of limited as "forever minus one year" make my blood boil).
Anyway, I further agree with your sentiment (I think) that the powers granted to congress by the commerce clause aren't really being used to to create laws that follow its intent. That is, the authors and inventors may be getting screwed by the copyright cartels. However, that is not unconstitutional, and it might not even be illegal as the laws stand. First, copyright is not an inalienable or natural right, that's why we need special clauses for it in the first place. Second, in a fine country like ours, governed by the Rule of Law, we can make honest agreements backed by the weight of that law. If I sign a contract, that is my business. If I sign a contract to give up my monopoly to someone else, that is also my business (it may be bad business to do so).
There are already laws against coercion. They should be brought to bear.
In short, I see no reason that entering a contract is unconstitutional. I think a stickier related question would be something like "what if I invented another form of sentient life?" If this creation in-fact has inalienable rights, do I have the authority to hold monopoly over its procreation (for limited times)?
What would really interest me would be a case before the court that challenged a copyright law on the grounds that it didn't promote science and the useful arts. I mean, even though it looks like inventors and authors are getting screwed in the current climate, they aren't really in the grand-scheme. These words are copyrighted; as their author I have life-plus-seventy to control them as I see fit. Like anyone else, any of my utterances or scribbles are completely mine (unless I give them away in a contract, or license them in someway). Now, is the law that gave me this power promoting science and the useful arts? Is it securing these rights for any reasonable definition of limited times?
Something that I've never understood is how do (internet-era) libertarians differentiate from Intellectual Property and all other kinds of property? I find that both have the same theoretical fundations. [sic]
In a contrast to Doubleoh's long response, I can just say this: "Intellectual Property" is not property. Things that are property are things that can be possessed, like your own person, your own labor, what you can wear, carry, sit on. Some libertarians even have philosophical misgivings about land-ownership (as in, what gives someone the sovereignty over a piece of ground that was there long before them and long after them, and is in no way 'theirs' anymore than they can muster violence to hold it). Expression-monopolies are relatively new anthropologically speaking (just a fact, not an appeal to antiquity/novelty fallacy). We already have (and have had for ages) legal, ethical and cultural structures to deal with contracts (trust) and plagiarism (fraud), why then do we need the additional State intervention? Well there's at least one good reason, and it's spelled out in our Constitution: "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". As long as limited-time expression-monopolies are fulfilling their mission -- promoting science and the useful arts -- I'm their biggest fan. Still, calling it Intellectual (arguably) Property (it's not) only belies its true nature: State-granted Monopoly.
Slashbots would be irate if Microsoft was given an indefinite State-granted monopoly on boxed computer software (Real Property), so why should you feel different about expression?
Haha, that you've provided your "joke" assertion no rigorous defense only makes my point. The fact that an aside about the hint of fascism scared you away is even more telling. However, I'm probably not alone in catching whiffs of State control and nationalism trumping all in today's political (and corporate) climate. From my perspective (bias): Libertarianism is the opposite of Authoritarianism (sovereignty rests in the individual, not the state); Capitalism is the opposite of Socialism. I despise the Socialist-Authoritarian state to the same degree that I despise the Capitalist-Authoritarian state, that is to say, how right- or left-wing you are is meaningless if you intend to deprive me of Liberty.
Characteristics of Fascist Philosophy
Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state's benefit. This "total state" is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.
A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma.
Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part from the romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Carlyle, and Richard Wagner, is closely linked with fascism's rejection of reason and intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and "the will."
"fascism." The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Columbia University Press., 2003. Answers.com GuruNet Corp. 29 Sep. 2005. http://www.answers.com/topic/fascism
Maybe a little research about fascist desires to unite the State with its most powerful businesses will recontextualize my former comments in a way that is less offensive; At which point, you may be willing to address my only question -- why is the comment on examples of right-wing anti-capitalism a joke?
The movie and record industry (well their giant corporate overlords, Disney, G.E., News, Sony, Viacom and TimeWarner) are fond funders of the Republican party and their candidates. In a sense you could construe this to mean "Hollywood and records companies are [...] major contributors to the right-wing." Haha you were being sarcastic... but didn't know you were actually basically correct. Maybe it would be more precise if you'd implied "stage-hands, directors, and garage-bands" aren't major contributors to the right-wing. The content-monopoly companies sure as hell are.
You can look up the rest at the same site. Basically, all companies give money to support their vest interests. The expression-monopolizers want more copyright extensions, so they'll support anyone that will give it to them. U.S. car companies want the most profitable vehicles, so they'll make sure they support anyone that won't raise milage standards, etc.
Squashing the commons is in the Intellectual Monopoly industry's best interests. This is is an example of the government being pro-business, but not an example of the government being PRO-CAPITALIST. That's why:
"Capitalism has been bypassed here.
Precisely. This is a wonderful example of the right wing using activist courts to promote their economic adjenda."
...is just so correct. It's not a joke. are you missing the big picture? Promoting the cartels is not capitalism. Anyone promoting the runaway expression-monopoly industry is promoting an agenda that is Corporatist but not Capitalist. I'll believe our current crop of Republicans are serious about capitalism the day they pass a bill (and attendant treaty re-writes) to push U.S. copyrights back to 14-years plus fee-based extension. It wouldn't hurt to see the corporate-welfare tax-holes legislated out either.
I don't see how any capitalist or libertarian could be in favor of State-Granted lifetime Monopolies. It boggles the mind. State-Granted Monopolies! Wedding the Corporate to the State, the Military-Industrial complex. It reeks of anything but capitalism (and not to poison this post, it does reek of fascism).
I have a journal about this, kinda. Most of those users seem to have fled, or don't post anymore.:-)
I don't see how I always get suckered into 'low UID' threads (somehow they always get modded up past my threshold). Oh, and to all you haters: I did not buy this UID on eBay:-D what is a 2-digit ID worth? I saw from upthread that people must actually sell them. What will people pay for them?
Parent: Just call them the proper term--copyright infringers. Not "thieves," not "pirates," just copyright infringers. That way the term doesn't reflect the emotions of the corporations, and reflects on the actual acts that the infringers are doing.
Yeah this was my point. I'm glad we agree. Words have meaning; words also have the power we attach to them. Using nigger or pirate is a way to change the balance of power -- a rhetorical device that appeals to fear and blinds the true debate/discussion (by triggering feelings associated with prejudice, whether for racial oppression or mortal peril).
Either way, calling copyright infringers pirates is a slur, as much as any other. The fact that anyone is desensitized to the point where they throw it around all the time is as much a victory for the copyright cartel as the rampant use of 'nigger' was for the old-south. I know the comparison of the plantation system with the intellectual-monopoly system is a bit unfair, but I think the damage to culture is just as real (possibly with both wider [spatially] and further-reaching [chronologically] effects).
Additionally -- Parent: (Just to clarify things, I am black, too).
Maybe I was unclear. In the interests of being totally honest, I am not. I was only asking if it would alter your perception if I were (and did it?). I stick to the claim that America is still racist because I have an "interracial" marriage (whatever that means) and as a result prejudice crops up now and again in social settings (haha, like in hurricane preparedness and relief). It's only funny because it's real;). I enjoy the 'net because for the most part it is colorblind (meritocracies usually are, hacker's manifesto and all).
I typed in "Baghdad" (a flying carpet "Joust"-like game) in by hand from a listing (I think it was in BYTE or Run on with my C64. There's no big story there... Just that I too spent god knows how long (without a 10-key) typing in endless strings of hex numbers.
However, in a day when Impossible Mission took 20 minutes to load off data-cassette, you have to understand that we are spoiled now wrt how long anything took computer-wise. Thank god for the 1541.:-D
Every time I have to launch Photoshop and tap my foot for a second I think, "... at least I'm not still using tape."
Anyhow, Jumpman (and Jumpman Junior and it's brother in spirit Wizard) and Impossible Mission, and Dino Eggs are still such favorites that I still play them.:-) I sometimes wonder why people aren't mining these old classics for new titles to wring the life out of.
Yes. iTMS (at least my version, the U.S. store) carries all of those Records as well as 8 more (including Queen On Fire: Live at the Bowl, Queen at the BBC Live, Greatest Hits III, Platinum Collection, and 46664 1 Year On [a $4 EP] with the Queen and Mandela track).
The Queen page is also much different between the U.S. and Canadian stores -- the U.S. store has pictures, video, biography, etc. that I didn't see when I set iTMS to Canada.
So again, I'm sorry. It seems there really is a significant difference between what you see (well you could see it too if you wanted to, so I should say what you can buy) and what I can see/buy.
I haven't tried buying anything from the "foreign" stores yet. I'm always intrigued by getting stuff from the U.K. or Japanese 'stores' without the 'import' costs -- but I've never tried. It's all just artificial barriers anyhow. Stupid international licensing and import laws.:-D
You: Oh, please! Piracy and the "n word" are two completely different things and topics altogether. The "n word" (I don't feel like typing it here) isn't just a descriptive adjective, it is a racial slur. Piracy is a term used for infringing on the copyrights of software and music by copying it without the owner's permission. Please never compare "piracy" to a racial slur (especially the "n word"); it makes you look immature and ignorant.
[...]
Just NEVER compare piracy to the "n word" ever again!
Piracy as a term conflates bootlegging and copyright infringement with the attack and robbery of (originally) ships at sea. Piracy carries a connotation therefore of attack, as well as theft, and additionally, the other baggage of heinous crimes committed by actual pirates like rape, murder, and the occasional arson or bombardment of a port. Just to let that sink in -- pirates attacked, robbed, raped, and murdered their victims. Now why would we want to call kids using Napster pirates again?
Defending the use of the word piracy for the context of copyright infringement ('illegal copying') while denouncing the pejorative uses of "the N-word" is just about retarded. People don't like nigger for the same reasons that [some] people don't like the word 'piracy' (or the term 'music piracy') -- the words encompass more than their denotation (to a significant population of people). It carries a connotation of racial supremacy/dominion AND the baggage of servitude, lynching, and the like. Tangent: The population of people saying "what's up, pirate?" (while I'm sure common in some IRC channels) is probably miniscule compared to the debate about "the N-word".
Piracy was a word chosen just for this effect; In that sense, using it has the same purpose as using nigger. Sorry for not taking your admonition seriously. In a sense, I'm agreeing with the GP (even as it was rated troll), despite the fact that I accept that copyright infringement is illegal (just like actual piracy and its attack, robbery, rape, and murder). Those who conflate copyright infringement with piracy are either lazy or malicious. (Sorry for the either-or fallacy, it's merely rhetorical.)
Now that you're all mad, would it change your opinion if I told you I was black? America is full of racists.
(I think it's already been explained why Harrison doesn't appear.)
Sorry for the earlier response -- I wasn't aware of your circumstances. There surely is a smaller Jamiroquai selection in the Canadian iTMS. I haven't tried... but how do they prevent you from buying from the U.S. store? (You can change stores with a selection at the very bottom of the main iTMS page.)
Their biggest hits are there, too. I don't the physical CDs, so I can't say what's missing from the partial album (that is, I'm not willing to do your homework for you and compare the listings to Amazon, haha).
(I know this whole thread is kinda trollish, so don't take this comment too personally.)
You could do this with Quartz Composer writing no lines of code.:-)
Create the eyecandy swirling cubes with whatever resources you want (let's say quicktime movies mapped to the surfaces of the buttons). We'll add in keyboard and mouse hooks. We'll save the composition, launch Interface Builder. Put the composition on a window and save the nib. We'll open Xcode, start a new project, load up the resources. Save it. and then build it. We've written no code. To further the exercise -- we'll start writing code on the mouse and keyboard events from the.qtz. Yay.
QC doesn't use a grid, it uses a coordinate space. Interface Builder can (of course) use a grid.
I don't know if I want spinning-movie-buttons, but if you did, you could have had them the day Tiger came out.
Finally, I know you were talking about (trashing) XUL, so this is mostly off-topic. I think it concievable to bind Quartz with XUL/chrome, but no one is doing it because it won't be... you guessed it... cross-platform. Just like Avalon will be marginally cross-platform or cross-platform in name only.
Full disclosure: I am largely platform agnostic. I use Windows and Debian frequently and OS X regularly. I don't like a lot of things Microsoft do. I have never bought a Wintel from a single source vendor. I donate to the EFF. You may see contradictions here. Cheers.
I could tell you were talking about framesets. I understood what you mean. I just wanted to be perfectly clear that the bug you posted is likely not ever going to be worked on (not anytime soon anyhow, Moz development is way down the totem pole now with Firefox and the related standalone apps for mail and calendarring. To directly answer your question, yes some Mozilla code is used in Firefox, the only part that relates to UI though is the underlying xul/chrome stuff -- what menus/gui Moz has will not in anyway affect FF). I was hoping to just make perfectly clear that the bug should be submitted against FireFox with the word "Frameset" and not "Frame" (because the latter feature already exists).
Anyhow. I wasn't trying to be condescending or anything -- just trying to make sure that your itch got scratched.:-D
I can definitely see how bookmarking a complete Frameset would be just as useful as bookmarking a set of tabs. Bookmarking a frameset is a little trickier though -- because it's not just a set of urls to remember in a file. You have to copy the source frameset to a file, re-write the frame-tag's urls to be the ones currently displaying, and then cache/store that new frameset docuemnt somewhere (in a seperate file under your profile? embedded in your bookmarks file?). Currently the "HTML file stores all bookmarks"-paradigm won't suit your solution. (there's no elegant way to store the frameset docuemnt inside an a-tag in the bookmarks file. I imagine this is why it hasn't been done, as it breaks the current bookmark storage and leads to IE-style "Favorites" or "Saved Webpages" sort of scenario.
I don't even think you have to press Command... ymmv (I have "full keyboard access" enabled on my Macs).
Anyhow, anecdote: When I command-w something in Photoshop CS and it asks if I want to save it, I can just follow the cmd-w with escape (cancel) d (Don't save) or s (save, or enter as it's the hilighted button). I'll grant though that this is not obvious to Windows-only users because they have been trained so well with &underscored &letters (you wouldn't know that the typing the first unique string would activate a control).
Related side note, as this has an interesting benefit: Turn on UI scripting and you can do insane crap with AppleScript/osascript. I'd imagine Vista is going to bring GUI scripting to Windows... right?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and that will happen in every implementation of organized authority. It's the fate of mankind to be susceptible to greed. So before we go pointing the finger and say "fascist", we need to think how that really is different from communists or socialists. There's no doubt that communism and socialism are grand ideas spawned by great benevolent men (well, maybe) but the reality is that, in implementation, those who are willing to sacrifice morals and values and benevolence to stab thier constituents in the back (for their own profit) will be the ones ruthless enough to rise to the top. That's the way life goes.
And that isn't Fascism? You are again making my case. Lumping in the corrupt socialists doesn't undermine my point.
me: I can't call the U.S. government Marxist with a straight face, no one could
Strip away the layers and layers of propaganda of what you think to be true about your rights and what really is true.
Are you, or are you not insinuating that the U.S. government is Marxist? I'll tell you what it isn't: conservative or libertarian.
If only you could read...
Quoth the Cpt.: "What would be nice, however, [...]"
I agree with your sentiment. However, I wasn't talking about the population that works in the TV/Movie/Music industry (if I were, I would have given the link that you did). I was talking about the big media companies themselves. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/category.asp?txt=C 2400&cycle=2006 That's why I chose the listing that I did. The company PACs are pretty evenly distributed, with an edge to Republican candidates.
As a point of contrast between "the industry" and the industry's corporate overlords consider G.E. (a weapons contractor, among others). Here's the same corporation that is both providing you with corporate-media while at the same time equipping the most advanced fighting force on Earth. We bring good things to life. They have a vested interest in both the copyright cartels and continued military expansion and affect politics accordingly.
I don't really want to get into a debate about G.E. or anything. I'm just saying that there's a difference between the people that work in the industry and voice of that industry in the halls of power (i.e., the corporate PACs and lobbyists). Regular Joes like me aren't writing legislation and getting it sponsored and passed by Congress -- but corporate lobbyists are.
Maybe my distinction wasn't made clear in my previous post. If, so: apologies.
I think it would really bring home the cost of huge government if we did it this way:
Chart the incomes of everyone. Figure out the cost of all government expenditure (plus interest payments on the gigantic debt). Divide this year's cost of government by the number of people with income above the poverty line. Send that bill to everyone. When the proletariat, er I mean middle class, revolts at the size of the bill compared to their per annum income, the system will change to use a sliding scale. The fat-cats and corps will complain, but no-one that received the huge tax bill could vote FOR the fat-cats (at last people would vote in their economic best interest). At which point all other taxes could go away... except sales tax, to rope the tourists. We'd get a sales tax dividend if somehow magically the government finally brought in more money than they spent.
There's my two-tax pipe-dream.
Big L Libertarians are classical Conservatives, in that they believe to a minimalist government which does not exceed the powers as strictly outlined in the charter documents.
But we're also classical Liberals -- you're blowing my mind!
me: There's no implication of state-ownership (like in communism)
In reality, though, is it any different? If the state owns your business directly, or you are beholden to them through taxes and regulations? At the end of the day there isn't any difference.
It may not be a difference, but it is still a relevant distinction. This is essentially what makes fascism different from communism. You are dangerously close to agreeing with me regarding the state of business in today's America -- a position you started this thread to discount: "The US differs from the (former) USSR only in a few extra levels of investors and banks between the regulators and the owners. If you think about the money pools, though, it's all about the same."
That about does it for me. It seems like we are about to repeat the spiral. Let me put it this way before I agree to disagree -- Authoritarian Right-wingers (Fascists) want to redistribute the wealth to themselves, Authoritarian Left-wingers (Marxists) want to redistribute the wealth to everyone. Either the majority are serfs of the power-elite or everyone but the corrupt are serfs of the state (witness China's continuing transition from one to the other, haha). I can't call the U.S. government Marxist with a straight face, no one could; but as liberty diminishes, authoritarianism grows. If you can agree with that statement, then that puts us dangerously near the bottom of the Nolan chart. Either way, both Fascism and Marxism suck.
They don't pay those taxes. At the end of the day, when I buy a bag of Tostitos, the price I pay covers their profit margin for those taxes so I'm the one paying it. Even if I remove that column, though, I'm still at 57%. Tax on wages, tax on every dollar I spend, tax on utility bills, tax on gas, tax on beer (that's really the last straw), tax on everything.
Yeah, I'm one of those nuts who thinks the Income Tax is a travesty. I don't mind consumption taxes, or property taxes, or even sales taxes, as for the most part they are voluntary. However, the "pay or get locked up" taxes, those are creepy. I mean Federal Income Tax wasn't even Constitutional until they screwed around with it ( I guess some argue it still isn't, but I'm not one of them).
Finally, if I'm going to get income taxed to hell (or at all), I surely want corporations to pay at equivalent rates. When I hear that some company can lease a subway system in another country to have the subway company lease it back from them just to lower their U.S. taxes or that reincorporating in the islands somewhere cuts your rates... I don't know I just go crazy.
Why can't I re-incorporate somewhere with lower income taxes? That's like saying immigrants only ever have to pay taxes to their country of birth. Wtf?
As I know it, right wing means conservative, and a traditional conservative is in favor of smaller government at every turn. So how can we have authoritarian state-run business with minimalist government?
Ah! Well here's out misunderstanding. I didn't say conservative (as the word has a loaded meaning in the U.S. beyond economics). Conservatives like to believe they are classical liberals (they usually aren't these days, or they would all be big-L Libertarians). Saying "traditional conservative" is proof of its warped meaning. Anyway, the Wikipedia seems to have a good breakdown on right-wing as I use the term (it also discusses in the history section the muddying of the waters here in the U.S. as we have no true aristocracy, only lines of traditionally very-rich white people [the same families that end up in politics haha]). That is, right-wing is just a convenient term for anti-left. How did we get the word fascist, we got it from Italy (the only true fascist government... describing any communist/Marxist or socialist state as fascist is basically wrong) when Mussolini systematically oppressed the left-wingers. So anyway, there you have your contradiction, the right-wing Authoritarian state. If, to you, right-wing only means Republican or conservative then we really are not sharing the same conversation. Right-wing carries the baggage of Aristocracy/classism, statism/elitism, and socialist-antipathy besides just the liberal economics.
I mean the short version is just as I put it, any anti-left (anti-socialist, thus right-wing) authoritarian government is fascist. I guess in that regard fascism doesn't imply conservatism or small government (small being almost meaningless here, but roughly "less-invasive" and "less-supportive" not necessarily smaller in apparatus). Anyhow, I shouldn't have said "State-run business" when referring to fascism, because the business isn't really run BY the state itself. When the citizen has committed himself to the state (willingly through nationalism, classism, elitism, or unwillingly by coercion or 'incentive'), he runs his business FOR the state at its discretion under its Law. There's no implication of state-ownership (like in communism). The effect of the business is that it is state-run (through its coercive policies, nationalistic allegiance, etc) even though it's not really run by the state. There's plenty of books about the rise of fascism in Italy. I only ever had to read one while studying WWII in school, so I'm no expert.
Additionally, for all the crap Left and Right means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Right_politics
LOL. Seriously.
Well really that's just it. The constitution doesn't say "Corporation's Science and Corporation's useful arts". It says "Science" as in all of it, the entire field. As corporations didn't have a special legal status at the time of framing, their protection can't really be covered in any real debate over intent. It would be troublesome to reach a consensus, but I think there is a possibility that if you could get Science together that its components might agree that current copyright laws are hampering progress, voiding the condition upon which the laws are founded, making them unconstitutional. I think the debate for the "useful Arts" is different. I think enough rich voices might agree that their progress is just the way they like it. Either way, an interesting outcome would be that monopoly law had to be re-written w/rt Science (inventors and patents) and the useful Arts (authors and copyright).
I basically agree with the rest of your post. The "less privileged" (i.e., middle class) are getting screwed. Middle class inventors and authors are getting screwed. There may be an argument that 'we' are getting coerced. If so, we have remedies for that. I mean the real, unavoidable truth is that people (including me) agree to these employment contracts. (I programmed for the county government. None of that code is mine. It's theirs, I gave it to them the day I agreed to take their money.) If we weren't agreeing to them they would change. There's any number of archived "Ask Slashdot" stories about taking your agreement to a lawyer, red-inking and initialing all the parts you hate, bringing it back signed and still getting the job. This isn't Wal*Mart jobs or what not, but neither are those (for the most part) creative positions.
Anyhow, yeah the little guy is getting screwed. That's necessary for the power-elite. With out the little guy getting screwed, how's the Social Darwinism supposed to help the rich guys stay on top? (Sorry for the jab from the other thread
Um. Yeah.
I think it's pretty clear that in my and Eisenhower's opinion that a desire for the unification of state and enterprise is the precondition for tyranny. You can call it fascism, like Mussolini did when he unified the right-wing state and enterprise; you can call it Marxism like when Lenin unified the left-wing state and enterprise; you can call it whatever you want.
How about we quit using the word fascism as name-calling against things we don't like and just agree that, no matter what they say on TV, politicians under ANY system of government in ANY nation of the world are intent on creating a pyramid scheme with which they can fleece the middle and lower classes for their own personal benefit. Once you accept the truth it becomes quite easy to demystify why Congress pulls the crap it does.
I did not insinuate a whiff of fascism merely for name-calling. I've hope I've explained it. It's pretty straight forward really. Authoritarian state-run business, right-wing politics: Fascism. Authoritarian state-run business, left-wing politics: Marxism. Our political climate is right-wing (especially when taken in the global context of these terms). In fact, I outlined this right before I quoted the Columbia. (Sorry Godwin) I didn't bring up Nazis, the Third-Reich, make comparisons of certain leaders to certain mustachioed zealots, I only mentioned that any trend toward state-run capitalism reeks of fascism, just like any trend toward state-run communism (the ubiquitous welfare state) reeks of Marxism. I further went on to say that authoritarian governments, left or right, socialist or capitalist, fascist or Marxist, are all on the bottom of my list because their ideologies are meaningless without freedom. If the casual reader is unable to detect my nuanced use of the word, that's really their problem. I know you are just looking out for them when you admonish me for its use.
(I've been getting a lot of flack lately for my deliberate, context and connotation considered word-choice. I haven't decided whether or not to tone it down. Cheers.)
It's really too bad that you've missed the second part of the Constitutional statement concerning the mode of implementation: "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".
Yes, I agree the that the full text of the commerce clause is relevant to the over-all debate. I was only trying to address my gripe with indefinite terms (readings of limited as "forever minus one year" make my blood boil).
Anyway, I further agree with your sentiment (I think) that the powers granted to congress by the commerce clause aren't really being used to to create laws that follow its intent. That is, the authors and inventors may be getting screwed by the copyright cartels. However, that is not unconstitutional, and it might not even be illegal as the laws stand. First, copyright is not an inalienable or natural right, that's why we need special clauses for it in the first place. Second, in a fine country like ours, governed by the Rule of Law, we can make honest agreements backed by the weight of that law. If I sign a contract, that is my business. If I sign a contract to give up my monopoly to someone else, that is also my business (it may be bad business to do so).
There are already laws against coercion. They should be brought to bear.
In short, I see no reason that entering a contract is unconstitutional. I think a stickier related question would be something like "what if I invented another form of sentient life?" If this creation in-fact has inalienable rights, do I have the authority to hold monopoly over its procreation (for limited times)?
What would really interest me would be a case before the court that challenged a copyright law on the grounds that it didn't promote science and the useful arts. I mean, even though it looks like inventors and authors are getting screwed in the current climate, they aren't really in the grand-scheme. These words are copyrighted; as their author I have life-plus-seventy to control them as I see fit. Like anyone else, any of my utterances or scribbles are completely mine (unless I give them away in a contract, or license them in someway). Now, is the law that gave me this power promoting science and the useful arts? Is it securing these rights for any reasonable definition of limited times?
(Sorry for the small rant. Cheers.)
Something that I've never understood is how do (internet-era) libertarians differentiate from Intellectual Property and all other kinds of property? I find that both have the same theoretical fundations. [sic]
In a contrast to Doubleoh's long response, I can just say this: "Intellectual Property" is not property. Things that are property are things that can be possessed, like your own person, your own labor, what you can wear, carry, sit on. Some libertarians even have philosophical misgivings about land-ownership (as in, what gives someone the sovereignty over a piece of ground that was there long before them and long after them, and is in no way 'theirs' anymore than they can muster violence to hold it). Expression-monopolies are relatively new anthropologically speaking (just a fact, not an appeal to antiquity/novelty fallacy). We already have (and have had for ages) legal, ethical and cultural structures to deal with contracts (trust) and plagiarism (fraud), why then do we need the additional State intervention? Well there's at least one good reason, and it's spelled out in our Constitution: "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". As long as limited-time expression-monopolies are fulfilling their mission -- promoting science and the useful arts -- I'm their biggest fan. Still, calling it Intellectual (arguably) Property (it's not) only belies its true nature: State-granted Monopoly.
Slashbots would be irate if Microsoft was given an indefinite State-granted monopoly on boxed computer software (Real Property), so why should you feel different about expression?
"fascism." The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Columbia University Press., 2003. Answers.com GuruNet Corp. 29 Sep. 2005. http://www.answers.com/topic/fascism
Maybe a little research about fascist desires to unite the State with its most powerful businesses will recontextualize my former comments in a way that is less offensive; At which point, you may be willing to address my only question -- why is the comment on examples of right-wing anti-capitalism a joke?
The movie and record industry (well their giant corporate overlords, Disney, G.E., News, Sony, Viacom and TimeWarner) are fond funders of the Republican party and their candidates. In a sense you could construe this to mean "Hollywood and records companies are [...] major contributors to the right-wing." Haha you were being sarcastic... but didn't know you were actually basically correct. Maybe it would be more precise if you'd implied "stage-hands, directors, and garage-bands" aren't major contributors to the right-wing. The content-monopoly companies sure as hell are.
C 00197749&Cycle=2004
C 2400&cycle=2004
To get you started:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expend.asp?strID=
You can look up the rest at the same site. Basically, all companies give money to support their vest interests. The expression-monopolizers want more copyright extensions, so they'll support anyone that will give it to them. U.S. car companies want the most profitable vehicles, so they'll make sure they support anyone that won't raise milage standards, etc.
So - while "they" don't feel indebted to Hollywood for Legally Blonde, they might feel indebted to them for their favorable contributions. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/category.asp?txt=
"Capitalism has been bypassed here.
Precisely. This is a wonderful example of the right wing using activist courts to promote their economic adjenda."
...is just so correct. It's not a joke. are you missing the big picture? Promoting the cartels is not capitalism. Anyone promoting the runaway expression-monopoly industry is promoting an agenda that is Corporatist but not Capitalist. I'll believe our current crop of Republicans are serious about capitalism the day they pass a bill (and attendant treaty re-writes) to push U.S. copyrights back to 14-years plus fee-based extension. It wouldn't hurt to see the corporate-welfare tax-holes legislated out either.
I don't see how any capitalist or libertarian could be in favor of State-Granted lifetime Monopolies. It boggles the mind. State-Granted Monopolies! Wedding the Corporate to the State, the Military-Industrial complex. It reeks of anything but capitalism (and not to poison this post, it does reek of fascism).
So in closing, where's the joke?
I have a journal about this, kinda. Most of those users seem to have fled, or don't post anymore. :-)
:-D what is a 2-digit ID worth? I saw from upthread that people must actually sell them. What will people pay for them?
I don't see how I always get suckered into 'low UID' threads (somehow they always get modded up past my threshold). Oh, and to all you haters: I did not buy this UID on eBay
Parent: Just call them the proper term--copyright infringers. Not "thieves," not "pirates," just copyright infringers. That way the term doesn't reflect the emotions of the corporations, and reflects on the actual acts that the infringers are doing.
n edy/
;). I enjoy the 'net because for the most part it is colorblind (meritocracies usually are, hacker's manifesto and all).
Yeah this was my point. I'm glad we agree. Words have meaning; words also have the power we attach to them. Using nigger or pirate is a way to change the balance of power -- a rhetorical device that appeals to fear and blinds the true debate/discussion (by triggering feelings associated with prejudice, whether for racial oppression or mortal peril).
There's a great book about this particular debate. Here's a review:
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/01/22/ken
Either way, calling copyright infringers pirates is a slur, as much as any other. The fact that anyone is desensitized to the point where they throw it around all the time is as much a victory for the copyright cartel as the rampant use of 'nigger' was for the old-south. I know the comparison of the plantation system with the intellectual-monopoly system is a bit unfair, but I think the damage to culture is just as real (possibly with both wider [spatially] and further-reaching [chronologically] effects).
Additionally --
Parent: (Just to clarify things, I am black, too).
Maybe I was unclear. In the interests of being totally honest, I am not. I was only asking if it would alter your perception if I were (and did it?). I stick to the claim that America is still racist because I have an "interracial" marriage (whatever that means) and as a result prejudice crops up now and again in social settings (haha, like in hurricane preparedness and relief). It's only funny because it's real
I typed in "Baghdad" (a flying carpet "Joust"-like game) in by hand from a listing (I think it was in BYTE or Run on with my C64. There's no big story there... Just that I too spent god knows how long (without a 10-key) typing in endless strings of hex numbers.
:-D
... at least I'm not still using tape."
:-) I sometimes wonder why people aren't mining these old classics for new titles to wring the life out of.
However, in a day when Impossible Mission took 20 minutes to load off data-cassette, you have to understand that we are spoiled now wrt how long anything took computer-wise. Thank god for the 1541.
Every time I have to launch Photoshop and tap my foot for a second I think, "
Anyhow, Jumpman (and Jumpman Junior and it's brother in spirit Wizard) and Impossible Mission, and Dino Eggs are still such favorites that I still play them.
Anyhow, cheers from a kindred spirit.
Yes. iTMS (at least my version, the U.S. store) carries all of those Records as well as 8 more (including Queen On Fire: Live at the Bowl, Queen at the BBC Live, Greatest Hits III, Platinum Collection, and 46664 1 Year On [a $4 EP] with the Queen and Mandela track).
:-D
The Queen page is also much different between the U.S. and Canadian stores -- the U.S. store has pictures, video, biography, etc. that I didn't see when I set iTMS to Canada.
So again, I'm sorry. It seems there really is a significant difference between what you see (well you could see it too if you wanted to, so I should say what you can buy) and what I can see/buy.
I haven't tried buying anything from the "foreign" stores yet. I'm always intrigued by getting stuff from the U.K. or Japanese 'stores' without the 'import' costs -- but I've never tried. It's all just artificial barriers anyhow. Stupid international licensing and import laws.
You: Oh, please! Piracy and the "n word" are two completely different things and topics altogether. The "n word" (I don't feel like typing it here) isn't just a descriptive adjective, it is a racial slur. Piracy is a term used for infringing on the copyrights of software and music by copying it without the owner's permission. Please never compare "piracy" to a racial slur (especially the "n word"); it makes you look immature and ignorant.
[...]
Just NEVER compare piracy to the "n word" ever again!
Piracy as a term conflates bootlegging and copyright infringement with the attack and robbery of (originally) ships at sea. Piracy carries a connotation therefore of attack, as well as theft, and additionally, the other baggage of heinous crimes committed by actual pirates like rape, murder, and the occasional arson or bombardment of a port. Just to let that sink in -- pirates attacked, robbed, raped, and murdered their victims. Now why would we want to call kids using Napster pirates again?
Defending the use of the word piracy for the context of copyright infringement ('illegal copying') while denouncing the pejorative uses of "the N-word" is just about retarded. People don't like nigger for the same reasons that [some] people don't like the word 'piracy' (or the term 'music piracy') -- the words encompass more than their denotation (to a significant population of people). It carries a connotation of racial supremacy/dominion AND the baggage of servitude, lynching, and the like. Tangent: The population of people saying "what's up, pirate?" (while I'm sure common in some IRC channels) is probably miniscule compared to the debate about "the N-word".
Piracy was a word chosen just for this effect; In that sense, using it has the same purpose as using nigger. Sorry for not taking your admonition seriously. In a sense, I'm agreeing with the GP (even as it was rated troll), despite the fact that I accept that copyright infringement is illegal (just like actual piracy and its attack, robbery, rape, and murder). Those who conflate copyright infringement with piracy are either lazy or malicious. (Sorry for the either-or fallacy, it's merely rhetorical.)
Now that you're all mad, would it change your opinion if I told you I was black? America is full of racists.
Sorry, the URLs I posted were for the American store. Let me update those:
/ viewArtist?artistId=3296287
/ viewArtist?artistId=475902
... but how do they prevent you from buying from the U.S. store? (You can change stores with a selection at the very bottom of the main iTMS page.)
Queen (only 20 instead of 29): http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa
Jamiroquai (painfully, only 2 partial albums, guess their Label Sucks, because those other albums aren't licensed for Canada but are available elsewhere) http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa
(I think it's already been explained why Harrison doesn't appear.)
Sorry for the earlier response -- I wasn't aware of your circumstances. There surely is a smaller Jamiroquai selection in the Canadian iTMS. I haven't tried
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/ viewArtist?artistId=475902
/ viewArtist?artistId=3296287
3 Full albums.
4 Partial albums.
Their biggest hits are there, too. I don't the physical CDs, so I can't say what's missing from the partial album (that is, I'm not willing to do your homework for you and compare the listings to Amazon, haha).
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa
Wow. 29 albums for Queen. Well anyhow. Nothing personal, just your comments are pretty highly moderated for being essentially wrong.
Cheers.
Sparkle sounds interesting. I'm glad some real information beyond "omg, Flash killer!" is coming out.
(I know this whole thread is kinda trollish, so don't take this comment too personally.)
:-)
.qtz. Yay.
... you guessed it ... cross-platform. Just like Avalon will be marginally cross-platform or cross-platform in name only.
You could do this with Quartz Composer writing no lines of code.
Create the eyecandy swirling cubes with whatever resources you want (let's say quicktime movies mapped to the surfaces of the buttons). We'll add in keyboard and mouse hooks. We'll save the composition, launch Interface Builder. Put the composition on a window and save the nib. We'll open Xcode, start a new project, load up the resources. Save it. and then build it. We've written no code. To further the exercise -- we'll start writing code on the mouse and keyboard events from the
QC doesn't use a grid, it uses a coordinate space. Interface Builder can (of course) use a grid.
I don't know if I want spinning-movie-buttons, but if you did, you could have had them the day Tiger came out.
Finally, I know you were talking about (trashing) XUL, so this is mostly off-topic. I think it concievable to bind Quartz with XUL/chrome, but no one is doing it because it won't be
Full disclosure: I am largely platform agnostic. I use Windows and Debian frequently and OS X regularly. I don't like a lot of things Microsoft do. I have never bought a Wintel from a single source vendor. I donate to the EFF. You may see contradictions here. Cheers.
I could tell you were talking about framesets. I understood what you mean. I just wanted to be perfectly clear that the bug you posted is likely not ever going to be worked on (not anytime soon anyhow, Moz development is way down the totem pole now with Firefox and the related standalone apps for mail and calendarring. To directly answer your question, yes some Mozilla code is used in Firefox, the only part that relates to UI though is the underlying xul/chrome stuff -- what menus/gui Moz has will not in anyway affect FF). I was hoping to just make perfectly clear that the bug should be submitted against FireFox with the word "Frameset" and not "Frame" (because the latter feature already exists).
:-D
Anyhow. I wasn't trying to be condescending or anything -- just trying to make sure that your itch got scratched.
I can definitely see how bookmarking a complete Frameset would be just as useful as bookmarking a set of tabs. Bookmarking a frameset is a little trickier though -- because it's not just a set of urls to remember in a file. You have to copy the source frameset to a file, re-write the frame-tag's urls to be the ones currently displaying, and then cache/store that new frameset docuemnt somewhere (in a seperate file under your profile? embedded in your bookmarks file?). Currently the "HTML file stores all bookmarks"-paradigm won't suit your solution. (there's no elegant way to store the frameset docuemnt inside an a-tag in the bookmarks file. I imagine this is why it hasn't been done, as it breaks the current bookmark storage and leads to IE-style "Favorites" or "Saved Webpages" sort of scenario.
I don't even think you have to press Command... ymmv (I have "full keyboard access" enabled on my Macs).
... right?
Anyhow, anecdote: When I command-w something in Photoshop CS and it asks if I want to save it, I can just follow the cmd-w with escape (cancel) d (Don't save) or s (save, or enter as it's the hilighted button). I'll grant though that this is not obvious to Windows-only users because they have been trained so well with &underscored &letters (you wouldn't know that the typing the first unique string would activate a control).
Related side note, as this has an interesting benefit: Turn on UI scripting and you can do insane crap with AppleScript/osascript. I'd imagine Vista is going to bring GUI scripting to Windows