Opera is an alternative, standards compliant browser with a geeky/nerdy user base. Why should it not be interesting for a site which has "news for nerd. Stuff that matters"? It's a nerd's browser, so it's definitely relevant for nerds.
Are all pedophiles under investigation? I was speaking in general terms, about people who are pedophiles but have not been convicted of a crime (and are not under investigation). Of course, if you think anyone who is a pedophile should automatically be investigated or lose his rights, let me point you to the second to last paragraph of the text you replied to - that is what I have to say about this.
In the case of drugs, availability causes more demand because it addicts people, and they just need more and more. If they don't get it, they get physical reactions.
And there are plenty of naïve youngsters ready to try "something new and exciting", thereby creating more demand for it. The only way to stop the demand is to stop the supply, since the supply is what's used to create demand in the first place.
So does dealing with drug addicts work at all? Sure. You want them to come off drugs, and to rehabilitate themselves. You can try to make it harder to get hold of drugs too. But this is not a permanent solution. See above - if you bust one drug addict, several others are waiting in line because there is supply, and this supply creates demand.
I am not saying that we should leave drug addicts alone. Help them!
If you are going to deal with the problem of child pornography, focusing on pedophiles is a grave mistake. If anything, it is a way for lazy politicians to say "lookie, we are hunting pedophiles, we are doing something about child abuse and child porn!"... They are full of crap. If they were serious about the problem, they would go for the big guys - the ones that produce and make money from this.
Just like arresting drug addicts in no way helps stop drug abuse, arresting pedophiles or even monitoring them because you expect them to fuck some child is just stupid.
Like with drugs, the motivation behind child pornography is profit. To stop child pornography, you have to find the people who profit from them. And just like the ones who profit from drug abuse aren't really drug addicts themselves, don't automatically assume that those who profit from child pornography are actually pedophiles.
Are people who create child porn usually pedophiles?
Or is it just about profit?
You seem to be saying that you are paranoid of government intrusion, but at the same time, you want to take away the rights of people who haven't been convicted of any crimes.
That is a huge contradiction. Why should pedophiles be the victims of a witch hunt if they have done nothing wrong?
The simple fact is that pedophilia is not a crime. Pedophilia is what you are, not what you do. And you know, rape is often more about power than sex. What makes you think that most people who rape children are really pedophiles? You don't think it could have something to do with the fact that children are easier to keep quiet? Easy targets, for anyone with a twisted mind?
Does being a heterosexual man mean that you go around raping women? Should every heterosexual man have to register somewhere to "help keep predators at bay"?
It seems that you are just one of those "freedom and human rights for all, except if they are something I don't like" people. You are as dangerous to democracy and human rights as any oppressive government. You are the kind that gets these governments into power in the first place.
The bottom line is that if you are a pedophile but not convicted of any crime, there is no reason why you shouldn't have the exact same rights as anyone else. Say otherwise, and you are a hypocrite and a supporter of a Big Brother society where the government can pretty much do as it pleases to keep the people down.
Pedophiles have the exact same rights as everyone else to protect their identities, unless they have been convicted of a crime.
First, it was IBM's German division, wasn't it? Second, do you blame gun manufacturers when someone uses a gun they made to kill someone? No? Then why are you calling IBM evil?
The impression I get from speaking to IRC admins is that logging/monitoring traffic on the server takes too much resources for busy servers to make it a viable option. And unless you actually admin a server, you can't spy on others.
You may have found it before it was mentioned here, but thousands of others probably hadn't, and they all went at once. You are familiar with the term "Slashdotted", right?
Reborn? What do you mean? That UK site? Sorry, but that's not BM. It's a site using BM's code which was available for download from the BM site for a while.
I don't see how BitTorrent would be just another P2P app if it could do what it does now (one tracker with full control), and "distributed" trackers. The person running the tracker the torrent is released on could decide whether to use other trackers or not. Or the one who creates the torrent. I am sure a solution could be found.
On the other hand, this would benefit the warez community a lot, while I am not quite sure this would be necessary for legitimate files.
But it definitely wouldn't make BT just another P2P app.
A bit too paranoid there. If the MPAA is consciously making something available for download, anyone is free to download it. I doubt downloading a movie using BitTorrent led to a letter from the MPAA.
The point is that you are comparing Windows the operating system to an operating system (Linux) and the thousands of applications that are available for it, but not part of the operating system itself. You claim that Windows is more secure, which is false. Look at Microsoft's other products. Apache is far more secure than IIS - has far fewer security holes. This, despite the fact that Apache has a far higher market share in the web server market than IIS. How does this go together with your claims? Hm?
"Where do you think the term root kit comes from. Windows doesn't even use the term root.
Oh dear. The term "root" was around long before Windows was even considered. This is completely irrelevant and says nothing about security.
"Ok, NT was built with security as its main feature, pick up Inside Windows NT so you don't sound silly next time you post."
I'm just echoing what a Microsoft representative said recently.
It did the rounds on Slashdot and other sites, including CNET and all those. A Microsoft representative said that they had been bad at security so far, but now they started their "security initiative" to make their products more secure. Did you not see this, or are you just here to throw around nonsensical statements about how others are silly when they criticize Microsoft?
Bill Gates even sent out a note about how they would have to start focusing on security rather than features:
Now maybe you can get back to answering my questions, rather than ignoring the issue altogether: Microsoft have been focusing on features rather than security in the past - by admission of a representative of Microsoft, and also Bill Gates himself.
Or could it be that the system is as secure as it was built to be from the ground up, rather than relying on patches to be secure? Or, to rephrase, isn't it better that the system is built for security to begin with? Didn't a Microsoft representative say that their products had never been created with security in mind, but "we'll make it better now, honest!"?
What does this have to do with how many people is running it? Joe Blow won't be looking for security holes, now will he? Please think before you post - your argument has been blown to tiny little pieces a thousand times already.
"Microsoft paid what is pocket change to them to deliver the final blow to the stake in the heart of what was once their biggest competitor in the browser arena."
Is that so? What about Opera, the browser which is the preferred browser for Symbian OS (used by Nokia, Motorola, Sony Ericsson, etc.)? Microsoft's embedded browser is a joke. And Internet devices are really catching on now. The major growth now is in the embedded market, not the desktop market.
Opera is backed by major players, such as IBM and Nokia, and could actually prove to be a far more dangerous competitor than Mozilla. Why? Because Opera is eating up embedded market shares due to the strong product - it is using the same core on desktop and devices.
"Honestly though, most people don't give a rat's ass about being compliant with W3C, Microsoft, or anyone else's. We just want the damned web sites to render right."
Funny you should say that. You see, as decent as KHTML is, it still has major problems with badly coded sites compared to Mozilla and Opera. Maybe Apple can help with their "report sites that don't work" thing in Safari. But unfortunately, Opera and Mozilla got a head start, and KHTML has some catching up to do, both in handling pages on the real web and with standards compliance.
Now, maybe Safari caters for your needs. Maybe you are just a casual surfer. But for me, Safari simply does not cut it. I need mouse gestures, keyboard shortcuts, proper tabbed browsing, and a whole host of other features that simply are not offered to me by Safari.
Safari is a very basic browser, and it does the basic browser thing well apart from compatibility problems with a bit too many sites. But it simply cannot compete with Mozilla or Opera when it comes to feature completeness and general usability.
As for you putting down features like Mozilla mail, composer, address book, chatzilla and bugzilla - maybe you don't need them. But lots of other people like these features.
If Mozilla is bloated, then Safari is severely lacking in the feature and usability department. But most importantly, it has lots of catching up to do when it tries to show pages on the web.
Opera is a commercial product which offers an intergrated package of numerous useful features, available from the moment you install Opera. This includes popup blocking, mouse gestures, easy searching, dictionary lookup and translation, and also an e-mail client and newsreader - all in a 3 MB package. This list of Opera features might be interesting.
Mozilla Firebird is an open-source project which offers a basic set of features when you install it from a 6 MB package. It does not have an e-mail client. However, Firebird's strength lies in the way you can install extensions for it. This means that you don't have to put up with too many features that you never use anyway, so you can basically choose what to do.
But Opera is easier to customize because you can drag and drop user interface elements just about anywhere. It also has lots and lots of little things that help you out, such as quick preferences - press F12 for quick access to settings you might change often. Opera's window management ("tabs") is also more mature and flexible than Firebird's. With Opera you can also save sessions, continue where you left off last time, and so on.
But anyway... Mozilla Firebird is a basic, no-nonsense browser which you can install extensions for to make it do what you need. Opera is an intergrated package with everything you might need in one download, but probably some stuff you won't need as well.
Oh, and with Opera, you either have to accept an ad banner in the top right part of the user interface, or you will have to pay to get rid of the ads. Then again, the ads are very well behaved, and Opera doesn't use popup ads - it stays in its corner at all times.
Slashdot Mirror
Opera is an alternative, standards compliant browser with a geeky/nerdy user base. Why should it not be interesting for a site which has "news for nerd. Stuff that matters"? It's a nerd's browser, so it's definitely relevant for nerds.
Are all pedophiles under investigation? I was speaking in general terms, about people who are pedophiles but have not been convicted of a crime (and are not under investigation). Of course, if you think anyone who is a pedophile should automatically be investigated or lose his rights, let me point you to the second to last paragraph of the text you replied to - that is what I have to say about this.
And there are plenty of naïve youngsters ready to try "something new and exciting", thereby creating more demand for it. The only way to stop the demand is to stop the supply, since the supply is what's used to create demand in the first place.
So does dealing with drug addicts work at all? Sure. You want them to come off drugs, and to rehabilitate themselves. You can try to make it harder to get hold of drugs too. But this is not a permanent solution. See above - if you bust one drug addict, several others are waiting in line because there is supply, and this supply creates demand.
I am not saying that we should leave drug addicts alone. Help them!
Just like arresting drug addicts in no way helps stop drug abuse, arresting pedophiles or even monitoring them because you expect them to fuck some child is just stupid.
Like with drugs, the motivation behind child pornography is profit. To stop child pornography, you have to find the people who profit from them. And just like the ones who profit from drug abuse aren't really drug addicts themselves, don't automatically assume that those who profit from child pornography are actually pedophiles.
Are liquor company execs usually alcoholics?
Are drug pushers usually drug addicts?
Are people who create child porn usually pedophiles?
Or is it just about profit?
You seem to be saying that you are paranoid of government intrusion, but at the same time, you want to take away the rights of people who haven't been convicted of any crimes.
That is a huge contradiction. Why should pedophiles be the victims of a witch hunt if they have done nothing wrong?
The simple fact is that pedophilia is not a crime. Pedophilia is what you are, not what you do. And you know, rape is often more about power than sex. What makes you think that most people who rape children are really pedophiles? You don't think it could have something to do with the fact that children are easier to keep quiet? Easy targets, for anyone with a twisted mind?
Does being a heterosexual man mean that you go around raping women? Should every heterosexual man have to register somewhere to "help keep predators at bay"?
It seems that you are just one of those "freedom and human rights for all, except if they are something I don't like" people. You are as dangerous to democracy and human rights as any oppressive government. You are the kind that gets these governments into power in the first place.
The bottom line is that if you are a pedophile but not convicted of any crime, there is no reason why you shouldn't have the exact same rights as anyone else. Say otherwise, and you are a hypocrite and a supporter of a Big Brother society where the government can pretty much do as it pleases to keep the people down.
Pedophiles have the exact same rights as everyone else to protect their identities, unless they have been convicted of a crime.
No rule without exceptions. McBride of Caldera, er, SCO, looks like a retarded gimp who has had his face smashed by an angry dwarf:
http://www.caldera.com/images/execs/dmcbride_reg.j pg
If it bothers HELLO.JPG so much, why hasn't this person spoken out more?
Why? If you pay for this, you are bending to SCO's mafia tactics. Everyone I know will refuse to pay a single dime to SCO.
First, it was IBM's German division, wasn't it? Second, do you blame gun manufacturers when someone uses a gun they made to kill someone? No? Then why are you calling IBM evil?
Intersting text about IBM's response. When will the "interpretation" of the newest legal documents be available?
Putting up a server is no problem. Getting it connected to a network, such as IRCnet or EFNet is another matter.
The impression I get from speaking to IRC admins is that logging/monitoring traffic on the server takes too much resources for busy servers to make it a viable option. And unless you actually admin a server, you can't spy on others.
Except someone has to pay the bandwidth bill, and if that someone can't, then the site goes down permanently.
You may have found it before it was mentioned here, but thousands of others probably hadn't, and they all went at once. You are familiar with the term "Slashdotted", right?
BM is definitely dead.
On the other hand, this would benefit the warez community a lot, while I am not quite sure this would be necessary for legitimate files.
But it definitely wouldn't make BT just another P2P app.
A bit too paranoid there. If the MPAA is consciously making something available for download, anyone is free to download it. I doubt downloading a movie using BitTorrent led to a letter from the MPAA.
It did the rounds on Slashdot and other sites, including CNET and all those. A Microsoft representative said that they had been bad at security so far, but now they started their "security initiative" to make their products more secure. Did you not see this, or are you just here to throw around nonsensical statements about how others are silly when they criticize Microsoft?
Bill Gates even sent out a note about how they would have to start focusing on security rather than features:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-816880.html
Now maybe you can get back to answering my questions, rather than ignoring the issue altogether: Microsoft have been focusing on features rather than security in the past - by admission of a representative of Microsoft, and also Bill Gates himself.
Or could it be that the system is as secure as it was built to be from the ground up, rather than relying on patches to be secure? Or, to rephrase, isn't it better that the system is built for security to begin with? Didn't a Microsoft representative say that their products had never been created with security in mind, but "we'll make it better now, honest!"?
What does this have to do with how many people is running it? Joe Blow won't be looking for security holes, now will he? Please think before you post - your argument has been blown to tiny little pieces a thousand times already.
Opera is backed by major players, such as IBM and Nokia, and could actually prove to be a far more dangerous competitor than Mozilla. Why? Because Opera is eating up embedded market shares due to the strong product - it is using the same core on desktop and devices.
Now, maybe Safari caters for your needs. Maybe you are just a casual surfer. But for me, Safari simply does not cut it. I need mouse gestures, keyboard shortcuts, proper tabbed browsing, and a whole host of other features that simply are not offered to me by Safari.
Safari is a very basic browser, and it does the basic browser thing well apart from compatibility problems with a bit too many sites. But it simply cannot compete with Mozilla or Opera when it comes to feature completeness and general usability.
As for you putting down features like Mozilla mail, composer, address book, chatzilla and bugzilla - maybe you don't need them. But lots of other people like these features.
If Mozilla is bloated, then Safari is severely lacking in the feature and usability department. But most importantly, it has lots of catching up to do when it tries to show pages on the web.
Mozilla Firebird is an open-source project which offers a basic set of features when you install it from a 6 MB package. It does not have an e-mail client. However, Firebird's strength lies in the way you can install extensions for it. This means that you don't have to put up with too many features that you never use anyway, so you can basically choose what to do.
But Opera is easier to customize because you can drag and drop user interface elements just about anywhere. It also has lots and lots of little things that help you out, such as quick preferences - press F12 for quick access to settings you might change often. Opera's window management ("tabs") is also more mature and flexible than Firebird's. With Opera you can also save sessions, continue where you left off last time, and so on.
But anyway... Mozilla Firebird is a basic, no-nonsense browser which you can install extensions for to make it do what you need. Opera is an intergrated package with everything you might need in one download, but probably some stuff you won't need as well.
Oh, and with Opera, you either have to accept an ad banner in the top right part of the user interface, or you will have to pay to get rid of the ads. Then again, the ads are very well behaved, and Opera doesn't use popup ads - it stays in its corner at all times.