"i was disgusted with open source over Skylarov and now i dont know what to think - it seems that the concept or right and wrong no longer means anything to so many of you."
What the hell does Skylarov have to do with open source?
Well, I agree with you that the smut sites do go out of their way to trap people on their sites. But, I haven't found it very difficult at all to avoid those sites completely.
As for pop-ups etc, the Opera web browser allows you to disable Javascript pop-ups, which can be useful not only for avoiding porn traps, but on sites like time.com or cnn.com that pop-up annoying advertisements. In my opinion, those are just as offensive as the porn pop-ups, but that could just be me.
Before you get upset with me, realize that I am not one of the smut-peddlers trying to trick you into corrupting your soul. I took exception to your post, because I got the impression that you were demanding that "someone" do something about the fact that your browser doesn't operate in a way that pleases you. And, to that, my response is still that, if you are unhappy with it, do something about it yourself.
I would count myself as among the "anti-censorship" crowd, I suppose, but that's a pretty broad demographic. I don't think that ALL information should be pushed on ALL people. However, I don't like it when busy-bodies get together and decide that I should only be allowed to access certain information. That is censorship, and I don't like it. Anti-censorship is NOT the desire to push porn at everyone with eyes. You seem to be painting a very large and diverse group of people with an extremely narrow brush stroke, so I am taking exception to that.
Uhh, all the time. I'm doing that shit every single day. And, though I think the X way of doing copy/paste is great most of the time, it really fails badly in this one case. Ever copied a URL to the clipboard and then highlighted your current URL in your browser to then paste the new one in its place? I do that very frequently, but then maybe I'm crazy.
Just like in the "real" world, it is YOUR responsibility to censor what you choose to see. It's not my responsibility to make sure that you are easily able to avert your eyes from things that you do not want to see. If you don't have adequate tools to filter reality for yourself, then make the tools that you need. Take responsibility.
To one of your other points... SPAM is not free speech, it is commercial speech. There should be enforcable laws that regulate/ban SPAM.
However, this doesn't have anything to do with the topic of discussion, which centers more around web sites. Since you are not forced to point your browser to objectionable web sites, I'm failing to see where you have any point at all.
What if you want to censor what you see? Go right ahead. Avert your eyes. Build yourself a pair of e-blinders. Make a covenant with your eyes. Didn't you get that? Job didn't go around asking others to make a covenant with his eyes for him, he took responsibility and made that covenant with himself.
Was there a point to what you were saying that I missed?
The DeCSS issue is a matter of free speech, because the right to post the DeCSS code, which can be considered a form of speech, is being repressed. The idea being that the DeCSS code is no different than a bomb recipe. Bomb recipes, I believe, are generally protected speech. It is the making and using of the bomb and the use of the DeCSS code to make and distribute digital copies of DVDs that are illegal. The problem is with the DMCA and the fact that it makes it illegal to share that recipe.
In my opinion, it would be more justifiable to censor those who would share bomb recipes than to censor those who shared DeCSS code, because of the real possible cosequences that the former could have on our society. However, for some strange reason, our lawmakers seem to be placing a higher priority on the "right" of content producers to maximize the profitability of their IP than having a safe, secure society. Not that I believe either should be censored, mind you.
Set outlook express not to delete the mail from your mail server, and then forward your mail to yourself. Take a screenshot of your address book. and mail that to yourself. It's not that hard
You're failing to recognize that the RIAA controls the marketing and distribution mechanisms that lure teen record buyers, who are the largest marketing demographic. Member companies of the RIAA control what's played on MTV, hyped on the TV guide channel, used in soundtracks of teen flicks, etc. Unforunately, our youth (at least most of them) want what they are being sold. It's not until they gain the perspective that comes with age and a refinement of taste that they will recognize how the generations coming up behind them are also spoon fed the same crap. The record companies have been doing this type of marketing for years and have gotten increasingly good at it. So, no, I don't think the scenario you describe will take shape, at least not to the extent that you propose. More likely than not, teens will feel that these "free" independent webstreams are for crappy music that nobody can sell. They will view them as the stations for unpopular artists. The record companies will continue to define what's mainstream and popular, which is what get's pushed on commercial radio, will be pushed on commercial webcasts, and will be bought by twelve year old girls.
What they will have acheived though, is a monopoly on webcasting of mainstream music. They are crafting a HUGE cash cow, and doing so with clever effective strategy. Do not underestimate them.
You don't understand. They're pricing all of the independent people off the web, so that they can make a DIFFERENT license with a company or companies under their control (whether the connection will be obvious or not, remains to be seen). They intend to maintain total control of the music industry and will be successful if they are allowed to make the rules.
That sounds good until you realize that the RIAA is using the already present civil disobedience as proof that consumers are copyright infringing music junkies that don't care if the artists get paid. The only way the RIAA is ever going to understand that the recording industry in its current form is dying, is when artists take their creations elsewhere and quit bending over for the recording industry ass fuck.
Calm down, nobody's "stealing" anything. Instead, why don't you suggest that all of the copyright violaters out there send a tip to their favorite artists. Hrm, well maybe that is what you were trying to suggest. I agree. Let's be preemptive and negate the necessity for all this fighting and just cut the industry out of the loop.
The concept of "natural rights" is based on the theory that humans do not need a "government" to tell them what their rights are. The Bill of Rights is actually built on top of this principle. In fact at the time that the Bill of Rights was created there was much debate over whether the codifying of those rights was necessary or even proper. One of the arguments against codifying them into a "Bill of Rights" is that it would give people the impression that it was the "Bill of Rights" itself which conferred those rights onto the people of this country, when in fact the people that were righting the Bill of Rights believed that those rights were natural and self-evident and could not be conferred by a silly little piece of paper or act of government. However, eventually consensus was reached that it was safer to codify these rights into law in order to safeguard them than to assume that people would not allow them to be violated otherwise. So, you see the Bill of Rights has, at least partially, served its purpose in safeguarding respect for those "natural rights" in this society. However, it has also given people the impression, as was feared, and as you demonstrated, that the Bill of Rights created those rights instead of the way they felt it really was, which is that the "natural rights" created the Bill. Just a slight difference in perspective I guess, but an important one.
Whether "natural rights" exist or not is still a subject of debate. The Chinese government seems to think that they don't, and it's hard to prove that they're wrong. But, when you look at how they treat their citizens, it does seem wrong, from our perspective. It seems like a violation of what is "right". Which is the basis for the acknowledgement that there are things that are naturally right and wrong. Which is the basis for the concept of a natural right.
I think I could have expressed your sentiment better, but I'm not willing to waste my time trying. Good show. Linux is not for everyone (just ask Roblimo, who is very good at stating the obvious).
Linux will continue to evolve, as it has, to fulfill the needs and desires of linux users. Just because linux is a virus, doesn't mean that the virus should be tailored to the specifications of the ignorant.
Whatever, linux is linux. You can argue that all day, but part of the.plan is to allow freedom within linux. Of course, I know that a linux power user can jack around with any distro until they have what they want, but, chances are, that the smart ones will choose a distribution that is close to what they want. Let the distro makers establish their own consistent look and feel, according to their own marketing aims. For mainstream Linux users, this distinction is irrelevant. One of the major advantages of linux is that, given enough effort, you can start with any distro template and end up wherever you want. You really can install debian and make an exact replica of Red Hat out of it. Why anyone would go to the trouble when they can just buy/download a Red Hat distro is beyond me, and that's why it doesn't happen.
Linux is not designed for the people that wan't a quick and easy install of whatever packages are given them by a distro maker. If you like it, you can spend the effortmaking it what you want. You don't have this opportunity with Winblows. Ho
Sure, it's possible to make a linux distro that is easy enough for grandma to install. But, what happens when she really tries to use it, or tries to modify the setup.
I think it's ridiculous to think that anyone can define a standard look and feel for linux. Even if you did, someone would come along and say, "I don't like Linux the way it is, so I'm going to create my own look and feel."
The real issue is getting linux applications up to the point that they can accomplish 100% of what any linux user want's to accomplish. We have to make existing linux users happy well before linux as a whole can be marketed to grandma.
Distros and the differences between window managers allow that to take place, by being different. There is absolutely no reason to transform linux into a "free" Winblows. When you do that, you take away it's primary assets.
Well sure, but, like you said, it's going to be a while before GNUstep can recreate the OSX GUI stuff. And also, based on what you're saying, I can't see any reason to dual boot OSX and linux, when OSX, being Unix-based, can run all of the software already. If anything OSX destroys the need for Linux on Mac hardware, at least until GNUstep offers a free replacement. Even then, however, will GNUstep be replacing Cocoa? If not, Office still won't be running on free software. So, my point still stands that the headline of Office running on BSD Unix is, not only stretching the truth, but irrelevant to everyone not running Apple's version of Unix.
Sure, they could make that switch if they are willing to throw their existing hardware out the window. This is still only relevant for Mac folks, because you have to have Mac hardware to run OS X. I'd like to run it, but I don't think I'll be scrapping my box in order to buy a Mac anytime soon. Maybe other people are different, but, for me and likely in the corporate realm as well, switching over to OSX/Linux dual boots is not happening anytime soon.
Are you really stupid enough to review THIS stupid fucking movie on Slashdot. Any idiot could tell that this is a worthless movie that was copy-pasted into the cultural mind by some asshole money-grubber. Not that that's different from anything else, but shit. This movie isn't worth my time to watch the previews. You actually sat down and "attempted" to write a serious article about it? Fuck you. I didn't read your review, nor will I. Fuck you again. I'd rather see you review Debbie Does Dallas as a retrospective. Not that you'd say anything interesting, but, through your inevitable idiocy, would find some way, yet again, to start a mobus strip argument between the trolls and the karma whores. Suck on my dick, Jon Katz! I wish I could blame your infinite stupidity on yourself, but, alas, it's not your fault.
Yet another stupid article about how IP hoarders are staring at the gaping maw of doom. Most people watch TV because they are too lazy to do anything else. Downloading movies and tv shows off the net using any of the napster-like file-sharing tools available is way too much hassle for the mass movement of couch-sitters. Nobody is going to go to the trouble to find and download tv shows, when they could just as easily have watched it in the first place. On a rare occasion someone might download a show they had missed, or make a collection of a series that they were really into. Wow, that's exactly like a VCR. The "piracy" in this scenario is somehow different than having a friend record a show for me and then having them bring it over to my house to watch?
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but when I watch a lot of TV, it's because I just want to sit and vegetate. There's nothing on TV that I would even consider recording, much less hunting it down on the net and downloading it, because it's all the same recycled crap that I'll end up seeing in reruns for years to come anyway. Anybody who thinks this is going to crush network television is smoking crack.
Slashdot Mirror
Blah, blah. Port Mac OSX to the x86 and I'll think about it.
I have no trouble AT ALL making the link open in another window. You can't tell very far..
.
Are you insane?
.
"i was disgusted with open source over Skylarov and now i dont know what to think - it seems that the concept or right and wrong no longer means anything to so many of you."
What the hell does Skylarov have to do with open source?
Well, I agree with you that the smut sites do go out of their way to trap people on their sites. But, I haven't found it very difficult at all to avoid those sites completely.
As for pop-ups etc, the Opera web browser allows you to disable Javascript pop-ups, which can be useful not only for avoiding porn traps, but on sites like time.com or cnn.com that pop-up annoying advertisements. In my opinion, those are just as offensive as the porn pop-ups, but that could just be me.
Before you get upset with me, realize that I am not one of the smut-peddlers trying to trick you into corrupting your soul. I took exception to your post, because I got the impression that you were demanding that "someone" do something about the fact that your browser doesn't operate in a way that pleases you. And, to that, my response is still that, if you are unhappy with it, do something about it yourself.
I would count myself as among the "anti-censorship" crowd, I suppose, but that's a pretty broad demographic. I don't think that ALL information should be pushed on ALL people. However, I don't like it when busy-bodies get together and decide that I should only be allowed to access certain information. That is censorship, and I don't like it. Anti-censorship is NOT the desire to push porn at everyone with eyes. You seem to be painting a very large and diverse group of people with an extremely narrow brush stroke, so I am taking exception to that.
.
highlight == copy
switch windows == click
highlight text to be replaced == copy
middle click == D'oh!!!
Doesn't get much more annoying than that.
.
Uhh, all the time. I'm doing that shit every single day. And, though I think the X way of doing copy/paste is great most of the time, it really fails badly in this one case. Ever copied a URL to the clipboard and then highlighted your current URL in your browser to then paste the new one in its place? I do that very frequently, but then maybe I'm crazy.
.
What?
I can't hear you!
.
Just like in the "real" world, it is YOUR responsibility to censor what you choose to see. It's not my responsibility to make sure that you are easily able to avert your eyes from things that you do not want to see. If you don't have adequate tools to filter reality for yourself, then make the tools that you need. Take responsibility.
To one of your other points... SPAM is not free speech, it is commercial speech. There should be enforcable laws that regulate/ban SPAM.
However, this doesn't have anything to do with the topic of discussion, which centers more around web sites. Since you are not forced to point your browser to objectionable web sites, I'm failing to see where you have any point at all.
What if you want to censor what you see? Go right ahead. Avert your eyes. Build yourself a pair of e-blinders. Make a covenant with your eyes. Didn't you get that? Job didn't go around asking others to make a covenant with his eyes for him, he took responsibility and made that covenant with himself.
Was there a point to what you were saying that I missed?
.
The DeCSS issue is a matter of free speech, because the right to post the DeCSS code, which can be considered a form of speech, is being repressed. The idea being that the DeCSS code is no different than a bomb recipe. Bomb recipes, I believe, are generally protected speech. It is the making and using of the bomb and the use of the DeCSS code to make and distribute digital copies of DVDs that are illegal. The problem is with the DMCA and the fact that it makes it illegal to share that recipe.
In my opinion, it would be more justifiable to censor those who would share bomb recipes than to censor those who shared DeCSS code, because of the real possible cosequences that the former could have on our society. However, for some strange reason, our lawmakers seem to be placing a higher priority on the "right" of content producers to maximize the profitability of their IP than having a safe, secure society. Not that I believe either should be censored, mind you.
.
Set outlook express not to delete the mail from your mail server, and then forward your mail to yourself. Take a screenshot of your address book. and mail that to yourself. It's not that hard
.
You're failing to recognize that the RIAA controls the marketing and distribution mechanisms that lure teen record buyers, who are the largest marketing demographic. Member companies of the RIAA control what's played on MTV, hyped on the TV guide channel, used in soundtracks of teen flicks, etc. Unforunately, our youth (at least most of them) want what they are being sold. It's not until they gain the perspective that comes with age and a refinement of taste that they will recognize how the generations coming up behind them are also spoon fed the same crap. The record companies have been doing this type of marketing for years and have gotten increasingly good at it. So, no, I don't think the scenario you describe will take shape, at least not to the extent that you propose. More likely than not, teens will feel that these "free" independent webstreams are for crappy music that nobody can sell. They will view them as the stations for unpopular artists. The record companies will continue to define what's mainstream and popular, which is what get's pushed on commercial radio, will be pushed on commercial webcasts, and will be bought by twelve year old girls.
What they will have acheived though, is a monopoly on webcasting of mainstream music. They are crafting a HUGE cash cow, and doing so with clever effective strategy. Do not underestimate them.
.
You don't understand. They're pricing all of the independent people off the web, so that they can make a DIFFERENT license with a company or companies under their control (whether the connection will be obvious or not, remains to be seen). They intend to maintain total control of the music industry and will be successful if they are allowed to make the rules.
.
That sounds good until you realize that the RIAA is using the already present civil disobedience as proof that consumers are copyright infringing music junkies that don't care if the artists get paid. The only way the RIAA is ever going to understand that the recording industry in its current form is dying, is when artists take their creations elsewhere and quit bending over for the recording industry ass fuck.
.
Calm down, nobody's "stealing" anything. Instead, why don't you suggest that all of the copyright violaters out there send a tip to their favorite artists. Hrm, well maybe that is what you were trying to suggest. I agree. Let's be preemptive and negate the necessity for all this fighting and just cut the industry out of the loop.
The concept of "natural rights" is based on the theory that humans do not need a "government" to tell them what their rights are. The Bill of Rights is actually built on top of this principle. In fact at the time that the Bill of Rights was created there was much debate over whether the codifying of those rights was necessary or even proper. One of the arguments against codifying them into a "Bill of Rights" is that it would give people the impression that it was the "Bill of Rights" itself which conferred those rights onto the people of this country, when in fact the people that were righting the Bill of Rights believed that those rights were natural and self-evident and could not be conferred by a silly little piece of paper or act of government. However, eventually consensus was reached that it was safer to codify these rights into law in order to safeguard them than to assume that people would not allow them to be violated otherwise. So, you see the Bill of Rights has, at least partially, served its purpose in safeguarding respect for those "natural rights" in this society. However, it has also given people the impression, as was feared, and as you demonstrated, that the Bill of Rights created those rights instead of the way they felt it really was, which is that the "natural rights" created the Bill. Just a slight difference in perspective I guess, but an important one.
Whether "natural rights" exist or not is still a subject of debate. The Chinese government seems to think that they don't, and it's hard to prove that they're wrong. But, when you look at how they treat their citizens, it does seem wrong, from our perspective. It seems like a violation of what is "right". Which is the basis for the acknowledgement that there are things that are naturally right and wrong. Which is the basis for the concept of a natural right.
You can buy it or not. But that's the gist of it.
I think I could have expressed your sentiment better, but I'm not willing to waste my time trying. Good show. Linux is not for everyone (just ask Roblimo, who is very good at stating the obvious).
Linux will continue to evolve, as it has, to fulfill the needs and desires of linux users. Just because linux is a virus, doesn't mean that the virus should be tailored to the specifications of the ignorant.
.
Whatever, linux is linux. You can argue that all day, but part of the
Linux is not designed for the people that wan't a quick and easy install of whatever packages are given them by a distro maker. If you like it, you can spend the effortmaking it what you want. You don't have this opportunity with Winblows. Ho
Sure, it's possible to make a linux distro that is easy enough for grandma to install. But, what happens when she really tries to use it, or tries to modify the setup.
I think it's ridiculous to think that anyone can define a standard look and feel for linux. Even if you did, someone would come along and say, "I don't like Linux the way it is, so I'm going to create my own look and feel."
The real issue is getting linux applications up to the point that they can accomplish 100% of what any linux user want's to accomplish. We have to make existing linux users happy well before linux as a whole can be marketed to grandma.
Distros and the differences between window managers allow that to take place, by being different. There is absolutely no reason to transform linux into a "free" Winblows. When you do that, you take away it's primary assets.
.
yawn...
zzzZZZzzz,
clone304
Well sure, but, like you said, it's going to be a while before GNUstep can recreate the OSX GUI stuff. And also, based on what you're saying, I can't see any reason to dual boot OSX and linux, when OSX, being Unix-based, can run all of the software already. If anything OSX destroys the need for Linux on Mac hardware, at least until GNUstep offers a free replacement. Even then, however, will GNUstep be replacing Cocoa? If not, Office still won't be running on free software. So, my point still stands that the headline of Office running on BSD Unix is, not only stretching the truth, but irrelevant to everyone not running Apple's version of Unix.
Sure, they could make that switch if they are willing to throw their existing hardware out the window. This is still only relevant for Mac folks, because you have to have Mac hardware to run OS X. I'd like to run it, but I don't think I'll be scrapping my box in order to buy a Mac anytime soon. Maybe other people are different, but, for me and likely in the corporate realm as well, switching over to OSX/Linux dual boots is not happening anytime soon.
Are you really stupid enough to review THIS stupid fucking movie on Slashdot. Any idiot could tell that this is a worthless movie that was copy-pasted into the cultural mind by some asshole money-grubber. Not that that's different from anything else, but shit. This movie isn't worth my time to watch the previews. You actually sat down and "attempted" to write a serious article about it? Fuck you. I didn't read your review, nor will I. Fuck you again. I'd rather see you review Debbie Does Dallas as a retrospective. Not that you'd say anything interesting, but, through your inevitable idiocy, would find some way, yet again, to start a mobus strip argument between the trolls and the karma whores. Suck on my dick, Jon Katz! I wish I could blame your infinite stupidity on yourself, but, alas, it's not your fault.
.
You wasted your time editing commercials out of Three's Company? Man, I thought my life was boring.
.
Yet another stupid article about how IP hoarders are staring at the gaping maw of doom. Most people watch TV because they are too lazy to do anything else. Downloading movies and tv shows off the net using any of the napster-like file-sharing tools available is way too much hassle for the mass movement of couch-sitters. Nobody is going to go to the trouble to find and download tv shows, when they could just as easily have watched it in the first place. On a rare occasion someone might download a show they had missed, or make a collection of a series that they were really into. Wow, that's exactly like a VCR. The "piracy" in this scenario is somehow different than having a friend record a show for me and then having them bring it over to my house to watch?
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but when I watch a lot of TV, it's because I just want to sit and vegetate. There's nothing on TV that I would even consider recording, much less hunting it down on the net and downloading it, because it's all the same recycled crap that I'll end up seeing in reruns for years to come anyway. Anybody who thinks this is going to crush network television is smoking crack.
Uhh, slamb didn't seem to be bitching. Why are you reacting so strongly, when he was saying exactly what you are. Are you retarded?