Well, first, the CNN article directly refers to fishing as part of the footprint, but not the article at the WCS (http://wcs.org/humanfootprint) - it refers to fishing as one of the things humans do, but doesn't say people fish on land.
Second, people do fish on land. Fish farms come to my mind...
But none of this has anything to do with developing nations meeting in New Delhi about the Kyoto protocol http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2349289.stm
I wonder if ending organizational personhood would be a solution to this. Organizations are not people, and should not have the same rights as people. Organizations should not be able to influence politics as much as they do. Let's say individuals can buy 10,000 ads (and do other things, short of bribery), but organizations like the ACLU or the League of Conservation Voters can't buy ads to influence elections.
Except then rich individuals could still buy ads, so instead of, say, disney running pro-copyright-extension ads, you'd just have Eisner doing it.
In socialism the State is the owner of all the means of production.
Not necessarily. As Dictionary.com says:
"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
Socialism just requires that the means of production are owned collectively. Or as is oft stated, "the workers own the means of production" - as opposed to somebody else owning the means and dictating what the people actually doing the work should do, while reaping a good percentage off the top.
What needs to happen is for most, if not all, businesses to be come cooperatives. No one else but me should own the products of my labor, and no one else but me and my coworkers should have a say in how we do our work. The workplace should be democratic, not totalitarian.
The "free software" community is largely cooperative, sort of anyway. Distributions are not, although I think they should be. I would love to see a bunch of geeks get together and found an IT cooperative - it would be especially worthwhile in a major city like New York. They could be an ISP, or just provide programming services - or anything they want, really. The key would be that they pool their resources to do their own work, and elect their "leaders" from themselves.
I think such an organization would be quite sustainable. Sure, it would grow like a bacteria like so many businesses seem to think is the most important thing, but it would provide a benefit to its community, and the people in it would live well enough.
Once again, although I don't subscribe to Libertarian philosphy in all its "beauty", I have to defend them on this. Libertarians believe very strongly in social obligations -- through neighbor to neighbor obligations, not government to neighbor. The government forcibly taking from one person to give to another breeds resentment in the takee, and the faceless nature of it breeds dependency on the taker. Not to mention the extreme inefficiency. For these reasons, charity should be done voluntarily and locally.
I know this is getting offtopic, but I just felt like responding because I'm leaning towards the Greens on a lot of issues, and yet I pretty much agree with this. I think the issue would be what should be considered "charity". For example, I agree that just taking money from some people and giving it to others doesn't make sense. But if you frame that within a context of a specific example, sometimes it makes perfect sense.
For example, education is something that I think should remain a public institution - not a private business, and certainly not a charity. Society is made infinitely better by good education, and I believe any government has a responsibility to educate its future citizens. Furthermore, it only makes sense to me that education should be financed by taxes (everyone pays for it). What's more, I would argue that those who could benefit from it the most are most often those who can least afford to pay for it. Therefore, taxes for education should be weighted in favor of low-income citizens. In other words, the wealthy should be taxed more heavily, and the extra funds should go to education.
It's not just welfare - low-income citizens still have to go through the effort of getting their kids to school or applying for school themselves, and education will always be work (studying is hard for a reason!). But there's no good reason to penalize them right out of their own education, making it harder to obtain the very thing that will help them earn enough to pay for it in the first place!
Forgive the ramble, I agree with "neighbor to neighbor" obligations as a view of how society should function - I just think we need to rethink the very idea of government as the big "other" - it's run by our own neighbors - we elected them. And if it doesn't seem like that, then more social reform is needed to make the government truly of, by, and for the people (we and our neighbors). And I think the Greens are on to something with respect to how to do that.
At the very least, I just wish we would instantiate Instant Runoff Voting as the standard election practice in the USA...
I agree with you - while still being generally undecided on a firm position regarding copyright, the position that tends to get ignored is that copyright wasn't a concern until we could so easily copy things right and left.
For thousands of years of human history, culture was fluid and the past was history. Art is always something different in its own time from what it becomes once its time has passed. One might say the primary purpose of art is to influence the present to become the future, but once the present has passed it becomes the past. Any art you look at contains within it some hope for the future, even if only because its creator hoped that someone would experience it after it was created, but once created, art exists as something from the past, already created, immutable.
But art is not always immutable - our perceptions of it change, and if we are discussing it, our discussion will change. Art influences us, and we influence all the art yet to come. The past exists as our soil, and we are the plants growing from it, but very soon we will wilt and decay into the soil, to become part of the history out of which the next generation grows. We, the past, will be incorporated into the structure of the future, but only if we allow what is created to decay into the natural "cultural soil" from which great things are born. If we hold our creations steadfast and immutable, never to change, then the only hope we are expressing is that the future is the same as the present and the past.
Now that everything seems to be recorded for posterity, people are obsessed with obtaining the "definitive edition" or the "original version" of books, films, albums, etc. If anything this stifles creativity - One imagines that the definitive version of all these stories has been cast in stone, and one wants to own it. Perhaps we then lose our ability to imagine something different, something new. Why not take elements of what has been created, and reconfigure it to your own imagination?
Well, the dictionary definition is a bit off from the Marxist concept of the workers owning the means of production. In my opinion, this is what the communists (and many socialists) got wrong. It was supposed to be an economic movement, not political. Cooperatives are more socialist than communism ever was.
Although political/governmental socialism is necessary on some levels as well.
tofu is not fake meat. Soybeans are not fake meat, and soy products like tempeh are also not fake meat. Tofu and Tempeh have been around for many hundreds of years. Unfortunately, just not in Europe or Europe's colonies, so people like you see vegetarians eating meals with tofu and think "they're just trying to substitute meat!"
In a way, soy products are a substitute - they substitute for the nutritional value of meat.
Other than that, I pretty much agree that the attempts to produce "meat look-alikes and taste-alikes" is rediculous. Although I like a nice spicy tempeh strip - all the flavor of some meats comes from the marinades, sauces, and spices, so just doing the same thing to tofu or tempeh, without processing it, results in pretty much the same flavor.
So basically I'm trying to point out that eating tofu and tempeh and other soy products is not necessarily a statement that one misses meat, but rather that one recognizes the nutritional advantages of soy, and likes to consume them with convenience.
You are a consumer. Unless you have radically altered your behavior, don't pretend otherwise.
What makes you think some visitors to Slashdot haven't altered their behavior? Or that they don't behave differently from you in the first place? Perhaps statistically a "typical Slashdot visitor" can be expected to behave a certain way, but that doesn't mean that statistics dictate reality.
I behave differently from you and have different values. Yet still I read Slashdot. Deal with it.
So instead of advocating prevention, you're waiting for tiny little robots? Sure, that's rational...
Of course prevention isn't the best cure - it's not a cure at all. It's called "prevention" for a reason.
The fact is, very few problems like these ever have just one solution. Prevention is one strategy, and there is no reason not to persue it. Yes, if little robots are invented as a cure, I'll welcome them with open arms, but they ain't coming anytime soon, no matter what your imagination allows, and prevention is available right here and now.
Good point - you can be more selective, allowing the software to send out information, but only to sites of your choosing. But why would you choose them? Because you trust them. It still comes down to a question of whether or not you trust the software creators. With proprietary software, you have no choice but to rely on trust. With open source software, if you wish, you can rely on facts. Facts are preferable to trust. At least by my reckoning.
Indeed - this really needs to be modded up. All knowledge is built on that which came before, and you can't build on something if you're disallowed access to it. And so it follows that in the lust for money and recognition, knowledge and innovation.
At the outset, I think the authors of patent and copyright laws sought to balance the interests of recognition and greed with those of knowledge and innovation, but things really seem to be getting out of hand these days.
Perhaps the problem is that our culture and the pace of knowledge have sped up as information and people move faster and faster, but the patent lengths haven't been shortened, and copyrights have only grown longer... In information technology, patents are often in effect longer than the technology they cover!
If no one is using something anymore, I think it should pass into the public domain. If the difficulty then becomes "how do you know if no one is using it", and the solution is to establish generic time limits, then as the culture moves and changes faster, the time limits should shorten, not lengthen.
WMP9: it still comes down to trust
on
Microsoft News Update
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
From the article:
"Welcome to Windows Media Player 9 Series," the opening screen of the Privacy Options panel reads. "Microsoft is committed to protecting your personal privacy. To enhance your experience with features including album art and pay-per-view-services, data must be sent and received over the Internet and/or saved on your PC. The options below enable you to customize these privacy settings."
OK, so right from the get-go users are presented with the issue of sending information from their computer. Certainly this is an enhancement feature, if done correctly and the user really has control over what is going on. In the long run, the real power and benefit of computers and networks comes with sharing information, and as people become more comfortable with it, software that includes network features will be more powerful and more popular. For example, see the popularity of the CDDB in CD players.
However, how do you really know what sort of information your software is sending over the network? As we start to take advantage of network features, it will become impossible to rely on personal firewalls to curb outbound traffic - you want your CD player to send some ID to the CDDB so it can retrief the correct tracklisting for the CD you're playing, so you have to tell your personal firewall to allow your CD player to connect to the net. After that point, you are trusting the CD player to behave properly and not betray you.
The article acknowledges this:
"As more applications become Web-aware in order to provide services and information back to the user, consumers need to be aware of the quid pro quo that's taking place and exactly what information is being provided to the vendors," Gartenberg said. "What Microsoft appears to have done here looks like a step in the right direction, if it makes it into the final product."
So the issue boils down to trust. Do you trust Microsoft? I'm sorry, but I do not. No matter what they put in their GUI as far as options go, you can never quite be sure about what their software is sending back to them.
With open source, at the very least you're allowed to look at the code and see what your software is really doing...
I may be spoiled by Mac OS X (ok, ok, I KNOW I'm spoiled by Mac OS X), but I think KDE is still an ugly interface. What's up with that? They could make it purty,,,why don't they?
How is this insightful? Insightful would be examples and suggestions - if you noted specific areas where it needed improvement. Simply saying you think it is ugly, especially when admitting you're biased towards a proprietary interface, should not merit insightful mods. No, this is most definitely a troll.
Some people relentlessly insist on missing the point of open source software: you can contribute. If you have nothing to contribute, then don't complain. Complaining is not contributing. Complaining with specific observations and suggestions could be taken as contributing, in the sense of "constructive criticism". But the parent post is merely criticizing, and badly at that.
Besides, if you don't like the new "Keramik" interface style, then pick a different one. Can you do that on OS X? (BTW, that's an honest question - I won't be buying one any time soon, and haven't had the opportunity to use one, so I don't know). My own personal favorite "look" for KDE is the "Light style, rev. 3", which came built-in with the KDE 3 packages I downloaded for my distribution.
I don't have to purchase any of it, but I choose to because it gives me pleasure.
Good, you keep doing that. And people with weight problems should just keep buying sweets because the sugar gives them pleasure...
Hey, as long as you're convinced you're not being hurt by your behavior, and no one else is being hurt by it, just keep it up.
Anyway, did you have to buy it to enjoy it? What are libraries for if no one uses them? Forgive me for holding communistic ideals... They too are not trendy among some people. Too bad trendy is what so many people worry about.
First off, wouldn't you rather wait 2-3 more years and buy the Super-Duper Extra-Deluxe Lord Of The Rings "Trilogy" Geodesic-Box-Set Really-Awsomely-Special-Edition-With-Polka-Dots-An d-Stripes that you know they're going to put out after all three movies have run their course? Why would you want to buy the movies individually when you know there's going to be a box set later on that will have even more stuff to see? You're just going to have to buy it (you know you will, and they know you will), because it'll certainly have a few extras on it that they "left out" (whoopsie! How could we have done that! certainly we didn't mean it!) on these earlier "special editions".
Or, maybe you could say "Dammit, I'm not only frustrated with this kind of movie-industry crap, I'm fed up!" and just not buy the DVD at all. I mean, you've seen the movie in the theatre as it was intended (and probably more than once, huh?), so the people who made it have already been paid for their trouble. Now you want to buy copies of the film and give more money to the people who distribute it? Why? You've had your fun. You don't really need the DVD. You're just addicted.
Instead, buy another copy of the book if you really must buy something, and relive the real story.
Or even better, use the money to buy a new book that you haven't read, and add something new and refreshing to your life, instead of filling it up with copies of the same stuff over and over just because your'e a "fan" and therefore "have to have it", which is just an attitude you've been sold so you'll buy their stuff.
Yeah, Frozen-Bubble is plagirism like LTris and LBreakout2 are plagirism. And Freeciv. And any other free game that takes a popular game and reproduces it for free...
No, I think Frozen-Bubble is just a portable remake of a classic, and given that all the art is different, there's nothing plagiristic about it.
if Apple bundled OpenOffice with OSX. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't.
It sure would be neat (and I don't even own a Mac). But I can think of at least one thing that, while it may not be "a reason why they shouldn't" bundle OpenOffice, it's certainly a big consideration: they'd have to provide support. With MS Office, I imagine users with support questions get help from Microsoft. With an Apple-bundeled OpenOffice, Apple would have to have a team to handle support requests.
No, I don't agree with the AC post to which you were replying. But I don't agree with your sunset analogy, either. I was only replying to your sunset analogy. Sorry if I got carried way.
As for appreciating a good visual effect, I could appreciate it if I went to see it, but since I refuse to pay the MPAA, I don't see it, so I can't appreciate it...
Basically I agree with your entire post, but I still think your analogy is flawed and suggests, whether you intended it or not, that it's OK to watch movies even if you disagree with the business practices of the producers. And I think that's wrong. But maybe that's just me.
You know, I used to tell people that I'm an aspiring animator, but now that you've shown me the light, I'll start saying I'm an aspiring MPAA member.
I'm confused. Are animators the "smog"? Or the "sunsets"? Or are they in fact neither, in which case you're supporting my point that the smog/sunset analogy is a bad one?
In any case, I'd gladly pay you for your animation (if it's something I want to see), but I won't pay the MPAA for your animation. Get it?
You're either for them or against them. There's no middle ground.
You don't pay for sunsets, so there is not a direct relationship between enjoying a good sunset and encouraging (or discouraging) smog production. Smog is related to cars (etc.), and cars are also not related to sunsets, unles you use one to go driving to your favorite sunset-watching spot.
In movies, if we don't like the MPAA and what they are doing, we can't separate our visual effects addictions from the industry that makes them. Yes, I can enjoy a good visual effect, and I absolutely adore a good movie (which doesn't necessarily have good visual effects, of course), but since spending my money on them would encourage the behavior of the MPAA members, I've given it up.
Spending money on movies made by MPAA members is exactly the same as giving money to MPAA members.
Sorry, you're right, I didn't read the article. I always think badly of people who don't read the articles, and here I went and posted without reading it myself - that'll learn me!
And your point is extremely valid - with IE it's very easy to change around the interface and customize it. Heck, right-clicking on the toolbar gives you a context menu with options for customization. Once you've learned the concept of "right-click for a context menu", how much more easy can it get? I mean, it's the first thing I tried when I first used Mozilla. Then I remembered the old days of Netscape Navigator and looked for the Preferences option under the Edit menu.
It shouldn't be too difficult to at least kludge this feature in by providing for a context menu when a user right-clicks on one of the toolbars, even if the menu only has one option ("customize toolbars"). Clicking on the "customize toolbars" option would bring the user straight to the "Themes" section of the Preferences dialog. That would go one big step towards making Mozilla a little more usable for new users.
Providing for themes to have built-in options like "text or no text on buttons" and "small or large icons" would be even better. You could load your favorite Mozilla XUL theme, and the author would have provided for the interface to be able to have text on the buttons or not, and perhaps two sets of icons (big and small), and these two options would be set in the Themes pane of the Preferences dialog.
This would be a lot more work, but it'd be more usable, I would think. Unfortunately it would rely on Themes designers providing for these capabilities - if a theme didn't offer these capabilities, the Themes pane of the Preferences dialog would gray out the options...
Here's hoping something like this is considered for Mozilla 2.0 (or 1.5 or something)...
I use Mozilla myself, and I try to get others to use Mozilla. I think it's great, and can only get better.
However, you and others are right in pointing out that a barrier to entry is the fact that the program doesn't follow the "standard" Windows user interface. When it's not what people are used to, they can't immediately begin using it; it doesn't "feel" as much as if it were "part of the system".
Still, the solution you propose of using the Windows XUL theme would, I believe, only make things worse. How? Because then, the browser would still only have most of the appearance of a "normal" Windows application (it still looks a little different), and it still wouldn't act the same. For example, the little "grab" area on the very left side of the toolbars don't work the same way. Having the interface look mostly the same as other apps, but function differently, would only confused people more.
Besides, the real question should be whether having the browser interface be "non-standard" is a significant barrier to using the application, not just whether it is different. And while I think the Mozilla 1.0 default interface is worse than it could be, I don't think it's too significant a difference. Other applications have very different interfaces, yet they are learned. For example, WinAmp is one of the most popular and widely used digital audio players, yet its interface is very different from the standard Windows interface. In fact, Winamp alone is probably the reason Microsoft made Windows Media Player skinnable.
Granted, people learned Winamp because, for a time, it was the only MP3 player available, or significantly better than other offerings, so the entry barrier of having to learn a new interface was less important. So perhaps the UI difference is more significant for Mozilla since Mozilla's features aren't too far advanced over those of Internet Explorer (on the surface, anyway, as far as the average user would think). So, because it presents fewer other reasons to switch, the different UI becomes more significant as a reason not to switch.
The solution, I think, is not to changed the default Mozilla UI to a Windows-like one, which would confuse things even more, but instead to create something "similar, but different" - something closer to the default Windows interface, but obviously different so people wouldn't expect it to behave exactly the same. I would nominate Lo-Fi, because it takes on the Windows UI colors, and it's simple and to-the-point in its working, but it still isn't quite right. Beginners should still have text labels on all the toolbar buttons, and the Lo-Fi icons in Mozilla Mail are a little abstract and confusing.
Unfortunately, I don't think any of the currently available XUL themes for Mozilla are good for people new to Mozilla, especially people who are used to Internet Explorer and the standard Windows UI.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, first, the CNN article directly refers to fishing as part of the footprint, but not the article at the WCS (http://wcs.org/humanfootprint) - it refers to fishing as one of the things humans do, but doesn't say people fish on land.
Second, people do fish on land. Fish farms come to my mind...
But none of this has anything to do with developing nations meeting in New Delhi about the Kyoto protocol http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2349289.stm
They use the Earth's surface to fish? Now that is a technological breakthrough worth discussing...
If you aren't aware of boats and related marine technology...
Seriously, I don't think fishing occurs under the surface of the earth (ie, beneath the crust).
I wonder if ending organizational personhood would be a solution to this. Organizations are not people, and should not have the same rights as people. Organizations should not be able to influence politics as much as they do. Let's say individuals can buy 10,000 ads (and do other things, short of bribery), but organizations like the ACLU or the League of Conservation Voters can't buy ads to influence elections.
Except then rich individuals could still buy ads, so instead of, say, disney running pro-copyright-extension ads, you'd just have Eisner doing it.
Oh well, it was just an idea...
In socialism the State is the owner of all the means of production.
Not necessarily. As Dictionary.com says:
"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
Socialism just requires that the means of production are owned collectively. Or as is oft stated, "the workers own the means of production" - as opposed to somebody else owning the means and dictating what the people actually doing the work should do, while reaping a good percentage off the top.
What needs to happen is for most, if not all, businesses to be come cooperatives. No one else but me should own the products of my labor, and no one else but me and my coworkers should have a say in how we do our work. The workplace should be democratic, not totalitarian.
The "free software" community is largely cooperative, sort of anyway. Distributions are not, although I think they should be. I would love to see a bunch of geeks get together and found an IT cooperative - it would be especially worthwhile in a major city like New York. They could be an ISP, or just provide programming services - or anything they want, really. The key would be that they pool their resources to do their own work, and elect their "leaders" from themselves.
I think such an organization would be quite sustainable. Sure, it would grow like a bacteria like so many businesses seem to think is the most important thing, but it would provide a benefit to its community, and the people in it would live well enough.
Once again, although I don't subscribe to Libertarian philosphy in all its "beauty", I have to defend them on this. Libertarians believe very strongly in social obligations -- through neighbor to neighbor obligations, not government to neighbor. The government forcibly taking from one person to give to another breeds resentment in the takee, and the faceless nature of it breeds dependency on the taker. Not to mention the extreme inefficiency. For these reasons, charity should be done voluntarily and locally.
I know this is getting offtopic, but I just felt like responding because I'm leaning towards the Greens on a lot of issues, and yet I pretty much agree with this. I think the issue would be what should be considered "charity". For example, I agree that just taking money from some people and giving it to others doesn't make sense. But if you frame that within a context of a specific example, sometimes it makes perfect sense.
For example, education is something that I think should remain a public institution - not a private business, and certainly not a charity. Society is made infinitely better by good education, and I believe any government has a responsibility to educate its future citizens. Furthermore, it only makes sense to me that education should be financed by taxes (everyone pays for it). What's more, I would argue that those who could benefit from it the most are most often those who can least afford to pay for it. Therefore, taxes for education should be weighted in favor of low-income citizens. In other words, the wealthy should be taxed more heavily, and the extra funds should go to education.
It's not just welfare - low-income citizens still have to go through the effort of getting their kids to school or applying for school themselves, and education will always be work (studying is hard for a reason!). But there's no good reason to penalize them right out of their own education, making it harder to obtain the very thing that will help them earn enough to pay for it in the first place!
Forgive the ramble, I agree with "neighbor to neighbor" obligations as a view of how society should function - I just think we need to rethink the very idea of government as the big "other" - it's run by our own neighbors - we elected them. And if it doesn't seem like that, then more social reform is needed to make the government truly of, by, and for the people (we and our neighbors). And I think the Greens are on to something with respect to how to do that.
At the very least, I just wish we would instantiate Instant Runoff Voting as the standard election practice in the USA...
I agree with you - while still being generally undecided on a firm position regarding copyright, the position that tends to get ignored is that copyright wasn't a concern until we could so easily copy things right and left.
For thousands of years of human history, culture was fluid and the past was history. Art is always something different in its own time from what it becomes once its time has passed. One might say the primary purpose of art is to influence the present to become the future, but once the present has passed it becomes the past. Any art you look at contains within it some hope for the future, even if only because its creator hoped that someone would experience it after it was created, but once created, art exists as something from the past, already created, immutable.
But art is not always immutable - our perceptions of it change, and if we are discussing it, our discussion will change. Art influences us, and we influence all the art yet to come. The past exists as our soil, and we are the plants growing from it, but very soon we will wilt and decay into the soil, to become part of the history out of which the next generation grows. We, the past, will be incorporated into the structure of the future, but only if we allow what is created to decay into the natural "cultural soil" from which great things are born. If we hold our creations steadfast and immutable, never to change, then the only hope we are expressing is that the future is the same as the present and the past.
Now that everything seems to be recorded for posterity, people are obsessed with obtaining the "definitive edition" or the "original version" of books, films, albums, etc. If anything this stifles creativity - One imagines that the definitive version of all these stories has been cast in stone, and one wants to own it. Perhaps we then lose our ability to imagine something different, something new. Why not take elements of what has been created, and reconfigure it to your own imagination?
Well, the dictionary definition is a bit off from the Marxist concept of the workers owning the means of production. In my opinion, this is what the communists (and many socialists) got wrong. It was supposed to be an economic movement, not political. Cooperatives are more socialist than communism ever was.
Although political/governmental socialism is necessary on some levels as well.
Maybe I'm missing something, but the Nazis were fascist, not socialist. They were closer to communism than socialism...
tofu is not fake meat. Soybeans are not fake meat, and soy products like tempeh are also not fake meat. Tofu and Tempeh have been around for many hundreds of years. Unfortunately, just not in Europe or Europe's colonies, so people like you see vegetarians eating meals with tofu and think "they're just trying to substitute meat!"
In a way, soy products are a substitute - they substitute for the nutritional value of meat.
Other than that, I pretty much agree that the attempts to produce "meat look-alikes and taste-alikes" is rediculous. Although I like a nice spicy tempeh strip - all the flavor of some meats comes from the marinades, sauces, and spices, so just doing the same thing to tofu or tempeh, without processing it, results in pretty much the same flavor.
So basically I'm trying to point out that eating tofu and tempeh and other soy products is not necessarily a statement that one misses meat, but rather that one recognizes the nutritional advantages of soy, and likes to consume them with convenience.
You are a consumer. Unless you have radically altered your behavior, don't pretend otherwise.
What makes you think some visitors to Slashdot haven't altered their behavior? Or that they don't behave differently from you in the first place? Perhaps statistically a "typical Slashdot visitor" can be expected to behave a certain way, but that doesn't mean that statistics dictate reality.
I behave differently from you and have different values. Yet still I read Slashdot. Deal with it.
So instead of advocating prevention, you're waiting for tiny little robots? Sure, that's rational...
Of course prevention isn't the best cure - it's not a cure at all. It's called "prevention" for a reason.
The fact is, very few problems like these ever have just one solution. Prevention is one strategy, and there is no reason not to persue it. Yes, if little robots are invented as a cure, I'll welcome them with open arms, but they ain't coming anytime soon, no matter what your imagination allows, and prevention is available right here and now.
Good point - you can be more selective, allowing the software to send out information, but only to sites of your choosing. But why would you choose them? Because you trust them. It still comes down to a question of whether or not you trust the software creators. With proprietary software, you have no choice but to rely on trust. With open source software, if you wish, you can rely on facts. Facts are preferable to trust. At least by my reckoning.
Indeed - this really needs to be modded up. All knowledge is built on that which came before, and you can't build on something if you're disallowed access to it. And so it follows that in the lust for money and recognition, knowledge and innovation.
At the outset, I think the authors of patent and copyright laws sought to balance the interests of recognition and greed with those of knowledge and innovation, but things really seem to be getting out of hand these days.
Perhaps the problem is that our culture and the pace of knowledge have sped up as information and people move faster and faster, but the patent lengths haven't been shortened, and copyrights have only grown longer... In information technology, patents are often in effect longer than the technology they cover!
If no one is using something anymore, I think it should pass into the public domain. If the difficulty then becomes "how do you know if no one is using it", and the solution is to establish generic time limits, then as the culture moves and changes faster, the time limits should shorten, not lengthen.
From the article:
"Welcome to Windows Media Player 9 Series," the opening screen of the Privacy Options panel reads. "Microsoft is committed to protecting your personal privacy. To enhance your experience with features including album art and pay-per-view-services, data must be sent and received over the Internet and/or saved on your PC. The options below enable you to customize these privacy settings."
OK, so right from the get-go users are presented with the issue of sending information from their computer. Certainly this is an enhancement feature, if done correctly and the user really has control over what is going on. In the long run, the real power and benefit of computers and networks comes with sharing information, and as people become more comfortable with it, software that includes network features will be more powerful and more popular. For example, see the popularity of the CDDB in CD players.
However, how do you really know what sort of information your software is sending over the network? As we start to take advantage of network features, it will become impossible to rely on personal firewalls to curb outbound traffic - you want your CD player to send some ID to the CDDB so it can retrief the correct tracklisting for the CD you're playing, so you have to tell your personal firewall to allow your CD player to connect to the net. After that point, you are trusting the CD player to behave properly and not betray you.
The article acknowledges this:
"As more applications become Web-aware in order to provide services and information back to the user, consumers need to be aware of the quid pro quo that's taking place and exactly what information is being provided to the vendors," Gartenberg said. "What Microsoft appears to have done here looks like a step in the right direction, if it makes it into the final product."
So the issue boils down to trust. Do you trust Microsoft? I'm sorry, but I do not. No matter what they put in their GUI as far as options go, you can never quite be sure about what their software is sending back to them.
With open source, at the very least you're allowed to look at the code and see what your software is really doing...
How is this insightful? Insightful would be examples and suggestions - if you noted specific areas where it needed improvement. Simply saying you think it is ugly, especially when admitting you're biased towards a proprietary interface, should not merit insightful mods. No, this is most definitely a troll.
Some people relentlessly insist on missing the point of open source software: you can contribute. If you have nothing to contribute, then don't complain. Complaining is not contributing. Complaining with specific observations and suggestions could be taken as contributing, in the sense of "constructive criticism". But the parent post is merely criticizing, and badly at that.
Besides, if you don't like the new "Keramik" interface style, then pick a different one. Can you do that on OS X? (BTW, that's an honest question - I won't be buying one any time soon, and haven't had the opportunity to use one, so I don't know). My own personal favorite "look" for KDE is the "Light style, rev. 3", which came built-in with the KDE 3 packages I downloaded for my distribution.
I don't have to purchase any of it, but I choose to because it gives me pleasure.
Good, you keep doing that. And people with weight problems should just keep buying sweets because the sugar gives them pleasure...
Hey, as long as you're convinced you're not being hurt by your behavior, and no one else is being hurt by it, just keep it up.
Anyway, did you have to buy it to enjoy it? What are libraries for if no one uses them? Forgive me for holding communistic ideals... They too are not trendy among some people. Too bad trendy is what so many people worry about.
Use a different web browser.
;-)
(or better yet, a different OS altogether...)
First off, wouldn't you rather wait 2-3 more years and buy the Super-Duper Extra-Deluxe Lord Of The Rings "Trilogy" Geodesic-Box-Set Really-Awsomely-Special-Edition-With-Polka-Dots-An d-Stripes that you know they're going to put out after all three movies have run their course? Why would you want to buy the movies individually when you know there's going to be a box set later on that will have even more stuff to see? You're just going to have to buy it (you know you will, and they know you will), because it'll certainly have a few extras on it that they "left out" (whoopsie! How could we have done that! certainly we didn't mean it!) on these earlier "special editions".
Or, maybe you could say "Dammit, I'm not only frustrated with this kind of movie-industry crap, I'm fed up!" and just not buy the DVD at all. I mean, you've seen the movie in the theatre as it was intended (and probably more than once, huh?), so the people who made it have already been paid for their trouble. Now you want to buy copies of the film and give more money to the people who distribute it? Why? You've had your fun. You don't really need the DVD. You're just addicted.
Instead, buy another copy of the book if you really must buy something, and relive the real story.
Or even better, use the money to buy a new book that you haven't read, and add something new and refreshing to your life, instead of filling it up with copies of the same stuff over and over just because your'e a "fan" and therefore "have to have it", which is just an attitude you've been sold so you'll buy their stuff.
Yeah, Frozen-Bubble is plagirism like LTris and LBreakout2 are plagirism. And Freeciv. And any other free game that takes a popular game and reproduces it for free...
No, I think Frozen-Bubble is just a portable remake of a classic, and given that all the art is different, there's nothing plagiristic about it.
No, I don't agree with the AC post to which you were replying. But I don't agree with your sunset analogy, either. I was only replying to your sunset analogy. Sorry if I got carried way.
As for appreciating a good visual effect, I could appreciate it if I went to see it, but since I refuse to pay the MPAA, I don't see it, so I can't appreciate it...
Basically I agree with your entire post, but I still think your analogy is flawed and suggests, whether you intended it or not, that it's OK to watch movies even if you disagree with the business practices of the producers. And I think that's wrong. But maybe that's just me.
In any case, I'd gladly pay you for your animation (if it's something I want to see), but I won't pay the MPAA for your animation. Get it?
You're either for them or against them. There's no middle ground.
You don't pay for sunsets, so there is not a direct relationship between enjoying a good sunset and encouraging (or discouraging) smog production. Smog is related to cars (etc.), and cars are also not related to sunsets, unles you use one to go driving to your favorite sunset-watching spot.
In movies, if we don't like the MPAA and what they are doing, we can't separate our visual effects addictions from the industry that makes them. Yes, I can enjoy a good visual effect, and I absolutely adore a good movie (which doesn't necessarily have good visual effects, of course), but since spending my money on them would encourage the behavior of the MPAA members, I've given it up.
Spending money on movies made by MPAA members is exactly the same as giving money to MPAA members.
Only addicts refuse to accept this concept.
Sorry, you're right, I didn't read the article. I always think badly of people who don't read the articles, and here I went and posted without reading it myself - that'll learn me!
And your point is extremely valid - with IE it's very easy to change around the interface and customize it. Heck, right-clicking on the toolbar gives you a context menu with options for customization. Once you've learned the concept of "right-click for a context menu", how much more easy can it get? I mean, it's the first thing I tried when I first used Mozilla. Then I remembered the old days of Netscape Navigator and looked for the Preferences option under the Edit menu.
It shouldn't be too difficult to at least kludge this feature in by providing for a context menu when a user right-clicks on one of the toolbars, even if the menu only has one option ("customize toolbars"). Clicking on the "customize toolbars" option would bring the user straight to the "Themes" section of the Preferences dialog. That would go one big step towards making Mozilla a little more usable for new users.
Providing for themes to have built-in options like "text or no text on buttons" and "small or large icons" would be even better. You could load your favorite Mozilla XUL theme, and the author would have provided for the interface to be able to have text on the buttons or not, and perhaps two sets of icons (big and small), and these two options would be set in the Themes pane of the Preferences dialog.
This would be a lot more work, but it'd be more usable, I would think. Unfortunately it would rely on Themes designers providing for these capabilities - if a theme didn't offer these capabilities, the Themes pane of the Preferences dialog would gray out the options...
Here's hoping something like this is considered for Mozilla 2.0 (or 1.5 or something)...
I use Mozilla myself, and I try to get others to use Mozilla. I think it's great, and can only get better.
However, you and others are right in pointing out that a barrier to entry is the fact that the program doesn't follow the "standard" Windows user interface. When it's not what people are used to, they can't immediately begin using it; it doesn't "feel" as much as if it were "part of the system".
Still, the solution you propose of using the Windows XUL theme would, I believe, only make things worse. How? Because then, the browser would still only have most of the appearance of a "normal" Windows application (it still looks a little different), and it still wouldn't act the same. For example, the little "grab" area on the very left side of the toolbars don't work the same way. Having the interface look mostly the same as other apps, but function differently, would only confused people more.
Besides, the real question should be whether having the browser interface be "non-standard" is a significant barrier to using the application, not just whether it is different. And while I think the Mozilla 1.0 default interface is worse than it could be, I don't think it's too significant a difference. Other applications have very different interfaces, yet they are learned. For example, WinAmp is one of the most popular and widely used digital audio players, yet its interface is very different from the standard Windows interface. In fact, Winamp alone is probably the reason Microsoft made Windows Media Player skinnable.
Granted, people learned Winamp because, for a time, it was the only MP3 player available, or significantly better than other offerings, so the entry barrier of having to learn a new interface was less important. So perhaps the UI difference is more significant for Mozilla since Mozilla's features aren't too far advanced over those of Internet Explorer (on the surface, anyway, as far as the average user would think). So, because it presents fewer other reasons to switch, the different UI becomes more significant as a reason not to switch.
The solution, I think, is not to changed the default Mozilla UI to a Windows-like one, which would confuse things even more, but instead to create something "similar, but different" - something closer to the default Windows interface, but obviously different so people wouldn't expect it to behave exactly the same. I would nominate Lo-Fi, because it takes on the Windows UI colors, and it's simple and to-the-point in its working, but it still isn't quite right. Beginners should still have text labels on all the toolbar buttons, and the Lo-Fi icons in Mozilla Mail are a little abstract and confusing.
Unfortunately, I don't think any of the currently available XUL themes for Mozilla are good for people new to Mozilla, especially people who are used to Internet Explorer and the standard Windows UI.