for 2 reasons, one, to give a victory to the little guy, the start-ups, and 2, to make peopele pay royalties for those things, so that maybe we'll see them less. on the other hand, we get rid of one advertising technique, we'll probably get something even more annoying next.
This is true. Nearly all (random statistic) self-regulation attempts by industry are in response to a government threat of regulation. Often the gov't tells the industry to regulate itself or it will be regulated by the government. But the internet is different. Unless the government wants to behave like countries such as China where sites which are objected to can be blocked, this part of the bill should not be passed. Though in general I feel people should not participate in the things which the gov't is trying to regulate, the larger issue of free speech is more important. If we start regulating one thing, who knows but that something i do feel strongly about might someday in the future be censored. We don't want to give a precedence...
most people, once they discover that basic animations are easy to create in flash, simply use it for that. most people don't look into the more practical applications of flash. with the release of MX, flash included components that could be used for serious application development. flash's ActionScript (which changed only slightly betweend 5 and MX, as well as still currently supporting all older commands) is a surprisingly powerful language very similar to java. MX also has prebuilt components, such as scroll bars and combo boxes. however, most people don't take the time to learn these more powerful uses of flash. flash can be used as a front end for cgi, sql, or xml, and combined with it's own language, i feel in the future we will see flash based apps sprouting up on windows and mac boxes, and if a stable version can be run on linux, we'll see one there too.
unfortunately, i don't think we'll see the end of cheezey-flashy flash. however, refusing to use flash because of the bad flash content out there is like refusing to use the web because of the bad html out there(like, most geocities pages, or you can look at the crap code FrontPage spits out to see some real garbage). For the most part, we've moved on from telnet and ASCII art (though admitedly there's been some interesting and really good (a little treat for you slightly scary natalie portman fans) ASCII art made over the years). i don't think people who could afford flash and would be good at it should be turned off from it because of the crap some people have made though. it'll only get better as the geeks who can really push it to it's potential do so.
they must have, because i never saw it in flash 5 and i haven't seen it in MX either.
i was about to suggest the same thing...as long as you're students and the work you're doing is non-profit, i see no problem purchasing the education version. and if you're getting multiple copies for several people, you might be able to get a volume discount that might be even cheaper than 99 bucks a pop.
Re:How to make this work.
on
e-Denounce
·
· Score: 1
the obligation isn't you to the baker but the baker to you. if you bought wheat bread and you were given cheap white bread, and he wouldn't give you wheat bread, then you could sue the baker. but most people would just go to a different bakery.
how about, instead of sueing the spammer services, we go for the companies that are using the spammers? they'd be much easier to track down, and if they weren't U.S. companies, either have international laws or turn it over to a special group of sanctioned vigilantes. The only problem i have with vigilantes is i fear that they might make a mistake, or some sort of mole might get in and wreak havoc on legitimate people and might even try to protect the spammers. while we're at it, we could have theses vigilantes attack people doing kiddie porn...
in this case the trolls are something you don't like. if a method could be created to get rid of trolls, without completely destroying comments as we know it, i'm sure most people would stand behind it. in this case, spam is something people don't like. if a way could be provided to prevent spam without completely destroying e-mail as we know it, most people would stand behind it. currently the only way i've really seen is e-mail filters, or seeing what is on the server before you download. the second method doesn't work for those who have their own mail server, and the first is ineffective. I use a program called ePrompter and have it check my various mail accounts. it's nice because it tells me when i have mail and leaves it on the server. it can be configured to just read headers and i can usually tell when i have spam. if i'm not sure i can change the setting and read it. but this still uses bandwidth and i'd rather not have to read the e-mails before downloading. ideally, this would just have to tell me when i have mail, and i can decide whether or not i want to download it right now, instead of me having to determine whether it is spam.
out of curiosity, why are you taking up the spammers' cause? are you or have you ever been a spammer? (that wasn't really supposed to sound like the house un-american activities commitee questions, at least not too much (c; )or are you just a "free speech" person who feels that free speech protects spam?
actually, many plans (though this is decreasing) charge for any minutes you use, whether or not you initiated the call. unless that is what you meant by the only expense being time...
however, looking at caller id for me isn't very useful on my cell phone, because unless the number is recognized from my phone book, my phone still doesn't tell me who someone is, just their number. then i'm presented with a delimma...do i answer it and hope it's a friend, and possibly waste minutes talking to a telemarketer, or do i let it go into voice mail, where if it is someone i know, i'll get billed for the time they took leaving a message, billed for the time it took me to listen to the message, and billed for the time it takes me to return the call. fortuanately, i so far haven't had much trouble with telemarketers on my cell phone. but i face a similar problem on my computer with e-mails. it might be a friend, or it might not be. on the one hand, i risk deleting a friend's e-mail, but on the other, i risk downloading some spam from someone who made the e-mail look like it might be from a friend. in that case i've wasted bandwidth and disk space and it angers me.
Slashdot Mirror
for 2 reasons, one, to give a victory to the little guy, the start-ups, and 2, to make peopele pay royalties for those things, so that maybe we'll see them less. on the other hand, we get rid of one advertising technique, we'll probably get something even more annoying next.
This is true. Nearly all (random statistic) self-regulation attempts by industry are in response to a government threat of regulation. Often the gov't tells the industry to regulate itself or it will be regulated by the government. But the internet is different. Unless the government wants to behave like countries such as China where sites which are objected to can be blocked, this part of the bill should not be passed. Though in general I feel people should not participate in the things which the gov't is trying to regulate, the larger issue of free speech is more important. If we start regulating one thing, who knows but that something i do feel strongly about might someday in the future be censored. We don't want to give a precedence...
unfortunately, i don't think we'll see the end of cheezey-flashy flash. however, refusing to use flash because of the bad flash content out there is like refusing to use the web because of the bad html out there(like, most geocities pages, or you can look at the crap code FrontPage spits out to see some real garbage). For the most part, we've moved on from telnet and ASCII art (though admitedly there's been some interesting and really good (a little treat for you slightly scary natalie portman fans) ASCII art made over the years). i don't think people who could afford flash and would be good at it should be turned off from it because of the crap some people have made though. it'll only get better as the geeks who can really push it to it's potential do so.
they must have, because i never saw it in flash 5 and i haven't seen it in MX either. i was about to suggest the same thing...as long as you're students and the work you're doing is non-profit, i see no problem purchasing the education version. and if you're getting multiple copies for several people, you might be able to get a volume discount that might be even cheaper than 99 bucks a pop.
the obligation isn't you to the baker but the baker to you. if you bought wheat bread and you were given cheap white bread, and he wouldn't give you wheat bread, then you could sue the baker. but most people would just go to a different bakery.
what do you think?
that sounds good...this is a troll i like, probably up there with OOG THE CAVEMAN
out of curiosity, why are you taking up the spammers' cause? are you or have you ever been a spammer? (that wasn't really supposed to sound like the house un-american activities commitee questions, at least not too much (c; )or are you just a "free speech" person who feels that free speech protects spam?
actually, many plans (though this is decreasing) charge for any minutes you use, whether or not you initiated the call. unless that is what you meant by the only expense being time...
however, looking at caller id for me isn't very useful on my cell phone, because unless the number is recognized from my phone book, my phone still doesn't tell me who someone is, just their number. then i'm presented with a delimma...do i answer it and hope it's a friend, and possibly waste minutes talking to a telemarketer, or do i let it go into voice mail, where if it is someone i know, i'll get billed for the time they took leaving a message, billed for the time it took me to listen to the message, and billed for the time it takes me to return the call. fortuanately, i so far haven't had much trouble with telemarketers on my cell phone. but i face a similar problem on my computer with e-mails. it might be a friend, or it might not be. on the one hand, i risk deleting a friend's e-mail, but on the other, i risk downloading some spam from someone who made the e-mail look like it might be from a friend. in that case i've wasted bandwidth and disk space and it angers me.