Your contention is that !authentic != forged, which is not true. [...] If a message fails PGP, it is not authentic, and therefore forged
You're missing how these are indeed different: What if I send out a message claiming to be from you and don't sign it? How does your email server know that my message is forged? It doesn't unless there is a database of "always signed" senders somewhere, you register in it, and always sign your emails.
With SPF you can publish information for your domain so that any emails that get sent purporting to be from your domain can be easily identified as forged (unless they are actually sent from your domain).
The "web of trust" idea is not quite right. Unless you're going to require all incoming email to be signed, it doesn't help you to reject forged messages. Such a bold move would result in most people losing all their incoming email (since it wouldn't be signed).
What you'd need would be a way to look up the sender and see if they always sign their messages. If they do and this message is unsigned, it would be known to be a forgery. This method is not as effective as SPF because each user would have to change their email habits individually and publish their intent to always sign their messages individually (somehow). With SPF, each domain can effect the change for all their users, and (as long as the user's email software is setup right), the users will not have to learn a new habit for sending mail -- things just improve as more and more sites publish SPF records (and check it on delivery).
SPF and Caller ID are a solution until you end up sending emails from your outlook automatically... oh wait thats been done before
You'll note that all recent viruses and spam-bots spoof the From header, which means that they would NOT be valid email with SPF enabled for your domain. If virus writers and spammers have to go back to sending their emails with the real domain name of the host they're running on that would be very useful in helping to identify who is responsible for the virus or spam.
Remember, SPF doesn't claim to be a 100% solution to all email problems, nor does it need to be. It slams shut one huge open door in the current protocol, and it does so very effectively. I think it is a very good, targetted solution that will be of great benefit to the net.
You're confusing the extension API with the plugin API. Plugins are the things that web designers put into their pages to display extended content (such as a movie player or a flash object). This is completely separate from the extentions that you're talking about (which did change for 0.9): extensions are the things that end users add to their browser to extend its UI features.
Why in the world is this entertainment story in the "science" category on slashdot? Surely the editors can differentiate between "science fiction" and "science", can't they?
And to make matters worse, neither the story about StarshipOne going into space nor the story about fuel-cells for laptops were put into the science cateogry. Surely at least the first of those (if not both) should have been classified as science.
Linux did not have any Minux code in it. The early releases had to be compiled from another OS, typically Minix -- perhaps that is what you're remembering?
Linux 0.11 was the first release that was self-hosting (i.e. able to compile itself). There followed a 0.12 release and then 0.13 was released as version 0.95.
Re:New way to distribute viruses in popular files?
on
Freecache
·
· Score: 1
You need to review how things work again. I'm talking about a cache server modifying content that it serves from its cache. If you look at the freecache web site, they seem to let anyone who installs their CGI script automatically into the pool of cache servers. Here's how this can be exploited:
Each caching server has their own copy of the file. The one master web server redirects each user's request to one of the caching servers which serves them the file. If a caching server out there chooses to modify a file, a percentage of all the downloads will be bogus downloads that came from that server and there isn't any built-in means to notice that the file-tweaking has happened (users would have to take extra steps to verify the download.
So, if you choose to use this service to serve a big file from your web site, you are trusting all the cache servers in the pool to serve your content for you. I just hope that there are legal ramifications for a server if they are found to be serving modified content AND that there is a sign-up process that is verified enough so that these consequences could be carried out.
New way to distribute viruses in popular files?
on
Freecache
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I looked around the site and didn't see an answer to this question:
How does this system guard against doctored content coming from the cache sites? Since they allow sites to sign up to become a cache server, wouldn't it be possible for a malicious user to sign up and use some locally-modified code to add a virus to all the.exe files that get sent out from their cache? They could even customize the output of their CGI depending on what domain you are in, making it easy to target specific sites and/or hide their munging from other sites.
Yeah, I know, it requires actually having to read down to the second and third paragraphs of the associated article, but is that really too much to expect? Sadly, the entire premise of the parent article--that this is not a new TiVo feature--is wrong.
The current TiVo setup has the one ad-spot at the bottom of the "home" page on the TiVo box that rotates between the various ad-spots in the showcase area. This is not what the article is talking about. The new feature will create a "link" to an ad from a commercial of a recorded program. This is the difference that TiVo hopes will make their ad spots more appealing to advertisers. Previously the only "link" that could be attached to a commercial was the "press thumbs up to record" feature that could be used to help promote upcoming shows.
So, this is something new. See the article for details. Note that the part of the article that describes the Porsche commercial is talking about the existing technology. The later section discussing a Carnival Cruise ad is the new stuff.
A lie is a knowingly untruthful statement made with the intent of deceiving.
I would make that more general since a lie can be an implied untruth in a conversation. So, I'd simplify that definition to be this:
A lie is an act of communication that is intended to deceive someone.
For example, let's say that Ainsley Hayes just received a hurtful boquet from a couple coworkers. The boquet came with a card that has only the "B" word on it. Let's also say that you (another coworker in the West Wing) know who hand-delivered the boquet. Someone has just asked you, "Do you know who sent this boquet?" One possible lie would be: "No, I have no idea." (A direct, untrue statement.) Another more subtle lie would be to make a statement of truth that implies a lie: "I didn't see a name on the card." This answer to the question implies the statement: "No, I don't know who sent it, though I did check the card to see if I could find out." I consider both of these options to be lies because they were both made with the intent to bring about the same act of deception.
Of course, it's not a lie if someone "reads between the lines" and assumes something untrue that you didn't intend to convey. That would be a mistaken communication rather than a lie.
The only problem with that quote is that it makes it sound like the SCO Group is no longer a perennial loser at selling Linux, i.e. they're succeeding at something, when it's just that they stopped selling Linux.
I'm finding it hard to believe how many people keep complaining about the primary selection as if it were the only way to copy text in X. You can do what you want by simply following a selection with Ctrl-C (or Ctrl-X) and then using Ctrl-V to paste it, even after selecting some other text (check your app to see if it uses some alternate keystrokes, such as adding the Shift key in gnome-terminal). The middle-click pasting of the last selection is an abbreviated copy/paste method that doesn't actually affect the clipboard. If you're wanting to overwrite some selected text or paste something multiple times, you're better off actually copying the text to the clipboard.
Sounds like you mixed up the selection buffer and the clipboard. Either that or Klipper in KDE is overcoming one shortcoming of X (where you using Gnome, perchance?).
To explain: if you merely selected the text in the xterm, closed that window, and then tried to use either Ctrl-Shift-V or the Paste option in the right-click menu to paste into gnome-terminal, you tried to paste the wrong thing (the clipboard instead of the selection). Middle-clicking should have pasted the selection value (it did in my test).
I tried both mere selection copying, and also starting up a gnome-terminal, doing an actual copy to the clipboard using Ctrl-Shift-C, closing that window, and the text was still available to be pasted into another gnome-terminal window via Ctrl-Shift-V.
Wouldn't you know it? I just implemented a vim macro that lets me easily update the yyyymmddNN value in my zone files (after years of manual tweaking), and now this. Typical. Just typical.
SCO can request that the code be removed and users running that code may be requested to stop running that code, but this must be done in a reasonable manner.
I don't believe that SCO can ask end users to stop running the code. They can get damages from whomever created the copies, but this has no affect the end user's use of the code.
As an example of why I believe this is true, consider a book being published and distributed before someone successfully sues the author/publisher for copyright infringement. AFAIK, they can get the copying stopped and can receive damages for the copying that already occurred, but the owners of the existing book copies don't have to do anything--they can continue to use the book without concern. This is because the receiver of a copyrighted work is not guilty of any copyright infringement; the one who made the copy is.
So, unless I'm wrong, the folks who have received a legal copy of Linux (which is still legal until somone manages to prove that copyright infringement exists in it) will be able to continue to use it, just not copy it (since the GPL would cease to apply to a work that was not wholly GPLed). The hypothetical party who owned the copyrighted code would have legal recourse against those that created copies of Linux, but no legal authority to try to force licenses on end users or to request these innocent parties to pay additional damages.
(Caveat: IANAL--don't construe this as legal advice.)
Re:Goddamn, this is ALWAYS the same BS about the w
on
20 Years of Virii
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Now, people claiming it's necessary to 'nip it in the butt'...
I believe you meant to say "nip it in the bud", which is a saying that has its roots in gardening.
Keep in mind that the music that is used in a trailer often bears no relation to the music that goes in the actual movie. For instance, trailer producers a few years ago were very keen on using the Third Eye Blind song Semi-Charmed Life, but it hardly ever made it into the associated movie. So, using music from the original Shrek in a trailer for Shrek 2 doesn't necessarily mean that it will actually occur in the sequel -- well have to wait and see.
After reading all the replies here about how not having a keyboard sucks, it looks to me that one huge obstacle to tablet PC acceptence is that people seem to think that they're all "slate" style. However, the majority of tablet PCs are of a transformable style that comes with the same keyboard setup as a notebook, plus the extra capabilities for folded-down use and pen interaction. This makes the majority of the "tablets" more flexible than a laptop, not less.
Personally, I'd love to have a transformable tablet PC. If they'd just make one with a larger screen, a faster CPU, and give it a decent price (not the $1000 markup of the current ones), it would be an easy choice for me because I'd get all the functionality of a modern laptop plus the ability to fold the screen down and read a book or browse the web in portrait mode. I think that would be cool, especially if the PC was running some kind of tablet-Linux OS and not XP.
I find it fascinating that the absolute budget way to import a foreign film--by slapping on some subtitles--is treated as a near-perfect way to watch a foreign film while dubbed films are derided as crap. I think that part of the equation is the standard human reaction to being a part of an "elite" crowd that enjoys something that the teeming masses does not. However, I think the majority of the reaction has to do with both the lack of quality that is often put into a dub combined with the perception that a subtitled version is somehow closer to the director's vision for a film--that subtitles preserve a film's essence while a dub destroys it and replaces it with something different.
My perception is somewhat different. I believe that both subtitles and dubbing distort a film from the original, each in its own way. I find that each distortion gives me a slightly different view into the essence of the original film, and that combining both is more satisfying that having to choose one or the other. If you don't agree that subtitles are a distortion of the original film, consider the following:
First off, dialog in subtitles is always simplified when it gets too wordy. You can see examples of this in your native language if you watch a film with the subtitles set to the same language as the soundtrack--the basic essence of the phrases are the same, but the subtitles are not quite as good as the original dialog.
Secondly, the timing of the subtitles and the words spoken is poorly synchronized, which leads to distortions of comedy and of dramatic tension. For example, when I was watching Crouching Tiger in the theater, there was a joke that appeared on screen several seconds before the female character even spoke it. Sadly, the audience's laughter had already come and gone by the time that the character delivered the humorous line, diminishing the effects of her good comic timing. In more dramatic scenes, the subtitles often show both sides of the conversation at the same moment, tipping you off on reactions to come to words that have not even been spoken yet.
The only other distortion I'll mention is the one of transferring auditory information to the eyes, which distracts the eyes from simply drinking in the visuals. When I'm in the theater (without a rewind button) I find that I typically miss one line in a movie because my eyes were so immersed in some aspect of a scene that they don't get back to the subtitles in time to read it. But even more than just sometimes missing some dialog is the fundamental change in how the movie is perceived--for me it's a fairly subtle thing (since I still enjoy subtitled movies), but the movie can be less engrossing or feel less natural when having to read what the characters say.
Certainly none of these things are fatal flaws or anything, but I do hope that you agree that a subtitled movie is not quite the pristine original that some people make it out to be. Sure, the original actors' voices are there, and it's a joy to be able to hear them, but without being able to understand the original language as it flows from their lips, the result is somehow slightly diminished.
Which brings me to dubbing ("...and speaking of diminished...":-) ). A dub is a very curious thing. It too has its own set of problems that can distort or even destroy a film. It also has its own set of strengths that can greatly improve a film for a non-native speaker, but only if done well (which is not easy). Let's start with just two distortions:
Words need to be simplified in order to time them with the moving of the actor's lips. This often requires significant dialog changes.
The loss of the original voices takes away a significant portion of the original actor's performance, changing the movie. I would argue that it's not quite as large of a loss as some hard-core subtitlers make out since a good chunk of the actor's spoken performance is already lost when you can't understand it. However, there i
I hate it when double-click in mozilla's address bar copys the address into the clip buffer.
Solution #1: train yourself to just press Ctrl-L before typing an address (it's easier than double clicking once you learn it).
Solution #2: turn on the auto-select urlbar feature. Go to about:config and look for something like browser.urlbar.clickSelectsAll (which is the name in my pre-release version of MozillaFirebird 0.7). This single-click selection highlights the URL without affecting the clipboard.
Solution #3: train yourself to use the secondary clipboard (the one that Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V accesses) for longer-term things so that you aren't annoyed when the highlight/middle-click clipboard gets overwritten with short-term data. This solution is more of a hassle to learn, but it does have the benefit of working with other apps than just mozilla.
I also hate how middle click in mozilla attempts to open the clip buffer as a web adress.
In the next release of Firebird, middle-click starts auto-scroll and you have to middle-click again to get the behavior you dislike. You can also turn off either of these features in the config. Look for middlemouse.paste and general.autoScroll in the aforementioned about:config screen (I didn't verify the names of the various options in a "normal" mozilla release, so you may need to look around a bit if you don't want to just install MozillaFirebird).
If someone would like to buy a copy of this great CD-ROM, I should be able to find a copy or two around here someplace and put it/them up for sale on Ebay.
I had a similar initial reaction to the hot-coffee suit (especially given the media coverage), but when I looked deeper, I discovered that there was more to the case than someone winning a "frivolous lawsuit". Summary: the coffee wasn't just hot (like we'd make it at home) it was so scalding hot that it caused 3rd degree burns. McDonalds knew that people had suffered 3rd degree burns before, and had refused to do anything about it (and yes, they required their restaurants to maintain the coffee at 185 degrees F). Also, the lady involved attempted to settle the case for a very reasonable sum (given the hospitalization and skin grafting), but McDonalds said no.
For a good summary of the case, check out this page. Read the whole thing for a good summary of all the mitigating facts that make this a totally non-frivolous lawsuit.
"Linux" has ALWAYS refered to the kernel in that the only SINGLE package which is called "Linux" is the kernel.
This is self-evident and nothing I wrote contradicts this. I simply said that "Linux" also refers to the OS, and the best way to avoid confusion when someone may not know what "Linux" you're talking about is to refer to the kernel as "the Linux kernel". You can, of course, also refer to the kernel as simply "Linux" if the context does not warrent the extra verbosity.
Nothing is being redefined.
Read the documents that RMS puts out. He always says that Linux only refers to the kernel, and it's the GNU folks who combined "Linux" (the kernel) and the GNU system into a complete OS. This is historical BS, as can be clearly seen from the
early postings of Linus himself (the document uses the term "Linux" in both contexts). RMS is trying to get people to redefine the word so that it does not refer to the OS.
people say a lot of crap about "Linux" when there is no reason it couldn't apply to... NetBSD, Solaris, or even Cygwin to name a couple.
Very true. I used to refer to all the group of unix-like OSes (including Linux) as "unix" (to use the term in its generic sense). However, I have come to realize that that some people think of this term as being much more narrowly defined, so I'm currently in search of a good generic term for these OSes. Suggestions are welcomed.
Because Linux is not an operating system, but a kernel.
History disagrees with you. The OS created by combining the Linux kernel with a lot of other software was referred to as "Linux" from the early days of its inception. RMS would simply like to redefine the term Linux to only refer to the kernel. Since Linus himself has said that the OS is called "Linux", the best way to avoid confusion between the OS and the kernel is to refer to the kernel as "the Linux kernel".
The operating system is GNU.
GNU is a software project created and run by the FSF. It has very strict "free software" ideals that are laid out in the FSF literature. So, while the GNU project has certainly created and released an entire OS (e.g. Debian GNU/Linux), that doesn't mean that everything that makes use of the FSF software is called GNU, nor should it be. If the folks creating an OS have a more "open source" mindset, they should definitely avoid the GNU prefix, since the GNU project strongly objects to any use of closed-source software while the open source movement believes it is OK in certain circumstances.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing how these are indeed different: What if I send out a message claiming to be from you and don't sign it? How does your email server know that my message is forged? It doesn't unless there is a database of "always signed" senders somewhere, you register in it, and always sign your emails.
With SPF you can publish information for your domain so that any emails that get sent purporting to be from your domain can be easily identified as forged (unless they are actually sent from your domain).
The "web of trust" idea is not quite right. Unless you're going to require all incoming email to be signed, it doesn't help you to reject forged messages. Such a bold move would result in most people losing all their incoming email (since it wouldn't be signed).
What you'd need would be a way to look up the sender and see if they always sign their messages. If they do and this message is unsigned, it would be known to be a forgery. This method is not as effective as SPF because each user would have to change their email habits individually and publish their intent to always sign their messages individually (somehow). With SPF, each domain can effect the change for all their users, and (as long as the user's email software is setup right), the users will not have to learn a new habit for sending mail -- things just improve as more and more sites publish SPF records (and check it on delivery).
You'll note that all recent viruses and spam-bots spoof the From header, which means that they would NOT be valid email with SPF enabled for your domain. If virus writers and spammers have to go back to sending their emails with the real domain name of the host they're running on that would be very useful in helping to identify who is responsible for the virus or spam.
Remember, SPF doesn't claim to be a 100% solution to all email problems, nor does it need to be. It slams shut one huge open door in the current protocol, and it does so very effectively. I think it is a very good, targetted solution that will be of great benefit to the net.
You're confusing the extension API with the plugin API. Plugins are the things that web designers put into their pages to display extended content (such as a movie player or a flash object). This is completely separate from the extentions that you're talking about (which did change for 0.9): extensions are the things that end users add to their browser to extend its UI features.
Why in the world is this entertainment story in the "science" category on slashdot? Surely the editors can differentiate between "science fiction" and "science", can't they?
And to make matters worse, neither the story about StarshipOne going into space nor the story about fuel-cells for laptops were put into the science cateogry. Surely at least the first of those (if not both) should have been classified as science.
Linux 0.11 was the first release that was self-hosting (i.e. able to compile itself). There followed a 0.12 release and then 0.13 was released as version 0.95.
Each caching server has their own copy of the file. The one master web server redirects each user's request to one of the caching servers which serves them the file. If a caching server out there chooses to modify a file, a percentage of all the downloads will be bogus downloads that came from that server and there isn't any built-in means to notice that the file-tweaking has happened (users would have to take extra steps to verify the download.
So, if you choose to use this service to serve a big file from your web site, you are trusting all the cache servers in the pool to serve your content for you. I just hope that there are legal ramifications for a server if they are found to be serving modified content AND that there is a sign-up process that is verified enough so that these consequences could be carried out.
How does this system guard against doctored content coming from the cache sites? Since they allow sites to sign up to become a cache server, wouldn't it be possible for a malicious user to sign up and use some locally-modified code to add a virus to all the .exe files that get sent out from their cache? They could even customize the output of their CGI depending on what domain you are in, making it easy to target specific sites and/or hide their munging from other sites.
The current TiVo setup has the one ad-spot at the bottom of the "home" page on the TiVo box that rotates between the various ad-spots in the showcase area. This is not what the article is talking about. The new feature will create a "link" to an ad from a commercial of a recorded program. This is the difference that TiVo hopes will make their ad spots more appealing to advertisers. Previously the only "link" that could be attached to a commercial was the "press thumbs up to record" feature that could be used to help promote upcoming shows.
So, this is something new. See the article for details. Note that the part of the article that describes the Porsche commercial is talking about the existing technology. The later section discussing a Carnival Cruise ad is the new stuff.
I would make that more general since a lie can be an implied untruth in a conversation. So, I'd simplify that definition to be this:
A lie is an act of communication that is intended to deceive someone.
For example, let's say that Ainsley Hayes just received a hurtful boquet from a couple coworkers. The boquet came with a card that has only the "B" word on it. Let's also say that you (another coworker in the West Wing) know who hand-delivered the boquet. Someone has just asked you, "Do you know who sent this boquet?" One possible lie would be: "No, I have no idea." (A direct, untrue statement.) Another more subtle lie would be to make a statement of truth that implies a lie: "I didn't see a name on the card." This answer to the question implies the statement: "No, I don't know who sent it, though I did check the card to see if I could find out." I consider both of these options to be lies because they were both made with the intent to bring about the same act of deception.
Of course, it's not a lie if someone "reads between the lines" and assumes something untrue that you didn't intend to convey. That would be a mistaken communication rather than a lie.
The only problem with that quote is that it makes it sound like the SCO Group is no longer a perennial loser at selling Linux, i.e. they're succeeding at something, when it's just that they stopped selling Linux.
I'm finding it hard to believe how many people keep complaining about the primary selection as if it were the only way to copy text in X. You can do what you want by simply following a selection with Ctrl-C (or Ctrl-X) and then using Ctrl-V to paste it, even after selecting some other text (check your app to see if it uses some alternate keystrokes, such as adding the Shift key in gnome-terminal). The middle-click pasting of the last selection is an abbreviated copy/paste method that doesn't actually affect the clipboard. If you're wanting to overwrite some selected text or paste something multiple times, you're better off actually copying the text to the clipboard.
To explain: if you merely selected the text in the xterm, closed that window, and then tried to use either Ctrl-Shift-V or the Paste option in the right-click menu to paste into gnome-terminal, you tried to paste the wrong thing (the clipboard instead of the selection). Middle-clicking should have pasted the selection value (it did in my test).
I tried both mere selection copying, and also starting up a gnome-terminal, doing an actual copy to the clipboard using Ctrl-Shift-C, closing that window, and the text was still available to be pasted into another gnome-terminal window via Ctrl-Shift-V.
Wouldn't you know it? I just implemented a vim macro that lets me easily update the yyyymmddNN value in my zone files (after years of manual tweaking), and now this. Typical. Just typical.
Oh wait, thats stealing!!!
No, the Supreme Court of the U.S. was very specific when it ruled that copyright infringement is not stealing. It's copyright infringement.
I don't believe that SCO can ask end users to stop running the code. They can get damages from whomever created the copies, but this has no affect the end user's use of the code.
As an example of why I believe this is true, consider a book being published and distributed before someone successfully sues the author/publisher for copyright infringement. AFAIK, they can get the copying stopped and can receive damages for the copying that already occurred, but the owners of the existing book copies don't have to do anything--they can continue to use the book without concern. This is because the receiver of a copyrighted work is not guilty of any copyright infringement; the one who made the copy is.
So, unless I'm wrong, the folks who have received a legal copy of Linux (which is still legal until somone manages to prove that copyright infringement exists in it) will be able to continue to use it, just not copy it (since the GPL would cease to apply to a work that was not wholly GPLed). The hypothetical party who owned the copyrighted code would have legal recourse against those that created copies of Linux, but no legal authority to try to force licenses on end users or to request these innocent parties to pay additional damages.
(Caveat: IANAL--don't construe this as legal advice.)
I believe you meant to say "nip it in the bud", which is a saying that has its roots in gardening.
Keep in mind that the music that is used in a trailer often bears no relation to the music that goes in the actual movie. For instance, trailer producers a few years ago were very keen on using the Third Eye Blind song Semi-Charmed Life, but it hardly ever made it into the associated movie. So, using music from the original Shrek in a trailer for Shrek 2 doesn't necessarily mean that it will actually occur in the sequel -- well have to wait and see.
Personally, I'd love to have a transformable tablet PC. If they'd just make one with a larger screen, a faster CPU, and give it a decent price (not the $1000 markup of the current ones), it would be an easy choice for me because I'd get all the functionality of a modern laptop plus the ability to fold the screen down and read a book or browse the web in portrait mode. I think that would be cool, especially if the PC was running some kind of tablet-Linux OS and not XP.
The TV show is being released on DVD, including the unaired episodes. I'm looking forward to that.
Joss is working on a script for a Firefly Movie. It's still in the early stages, so it's still speculation if and when it might actually show up.
My perception is somewhat different. I believe that both subtitles and dubbing distort a film from the original, each in its own way. I find that each distortion gives me a slightly different view into the essence of the original film, and that combining both is more satisfying that having to choose one or the other. If you don't agree that subtitles are a distortion of the original film, consider the following:
Certainly none of these things are fatal flaws or anything, but I do hope that you agree that a subtitled movie is not quite the pristine original that some people make it out to be. Sure, the original actors' voices are there, and it's a joy to be able to hear them, but without being able to understand the original language as it flows from their lips, the result is somehow slightly diminished.
Which brings me to dubbing ("...and speaking of diminished..." :-) ). A dub is a very curious thing. It too has its own set of problems that can distort or even destroy a film. It also has its own set of strengths that can greatly improve a film for a non-native speaker, but only if done well (which is not easy). Let's start with just two distortions:
Solution #1: train yourself to just press Ctrl-L before typing an address (it's easier than double clicking once you learn it).
Solution #2: turn on the auto-select urlbar feature. Go to about:config and look for something like browser.urlbar.clickSelectsAll (which is the name in my pre-release version of MozillaFirebird 0.7). This single-click selection highlights the URL without affecting the clipboard.
Solution #3: train yourself to use the secondary clipboard (the one that Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V accesses) for longer-term things so that you aren't annoyed when the highlight/middle-click clipboard gets overwritten with short-term data. This solution is more of a hassle to learn, but it does have the benefit of working with other apps than just mozilla.
I also hate how middle click in mozilla attempts to open the clip buffer as a web adress.
In the next release of Firebird, middle-click starts auto-scroll and you have to middle-click again to get the behavior you dislike. You can also turn off either of these features in the config. Look for middlemouse.paste and general.autoScroll in the aforementioned about:config screen (I didn't verify the names of the various options in a "normal" mozilla release, so you may need to look around a bit if you don't want to just install MozillaFirebird).
If someone would like to buy a copy of this great CD-ROM, I should be able to find a copy or two around here someplace and put it/them up for sale on Ebay.
For a good summary of the case, check out this page. Read the whole thing for a good summary of all the mitigating facts that make this a totally non-frivolous lawsuit.
This is self-evident and nothing I wrote contradicts this. I simply said that "Linux" also refers to the OS, and the best way to avoid confusion when someone may not know what "Linux" you're talking about is to refer to the kernel as "the Linux kernel". You can, of course, also refer to the kernel as simply "Linux" if the context does not warrent the extra verbosity.
Read the documents that RMS puts out. He always says that Linux only refers to the kernel, and it's the GNU folks who combined "Linux" (the kernel) and the GNU system into a complete OS. This is historical BS, as can be clearly seen from the early postings of Linus himself (the document uses the term "Linux" in both contexts). RMS is trying to get people to redefine the word so that it does not refer to the OS.
Very true. I used to refer to all the group of unix-like OSes (including Linux) as "unix" (to use the term in its generic sense). However, I have come to realize that that some people think of this term as being much more narrowly defined, so I'm currently in search of a good generic term for these OSes. Suggestions are welcomed.
History disagrees with you. The OS created by combining the Linux kernel with a lot of other software was referred to as "Linux" from the early days of its inception. RMS would simply like to redefine the term Linux to only refer to the kernel. Since Linus himself has said that the OS is called "Linux", the best way to avoid confusion between the OS and the kernel is to refer to the kernel as "the Linux kernel".
The operating system is GNU.
GNU is a software project created and run by the FSF. It has very strict "free software" ideals that are laid out in the FSF literature. So, while the GNU project has certainly created and released an entire OS (e.g. Debian GNU/Linux), that doesn't mean that everything that makes use of the FSF software is called GNU, nor should it be. If the folks creating an OS have a more "open source" mindset, they should definitely avoid the GNU prefix, since the GNU project strongly objects to any use of closed-source software while the open source movement believes it is OK in certain circumstances.