I hope that no one would ever actually adopt a penguin, and that these remarks are facetious.
Dogs are unique in their ability to be companion animals. Most dogs love people and view them as members of their own pack. It is hard to imagine a penguin running up to a strange human and demanding to be petted, but dogs do it all the time.
Please adopt a dog, cat, bird or rabbit from your local animal shelter, and stay away from exotic and/or illegal pets.
I agree that the quality of pages on GeoCities is less than what you find on sites whose authors own their own domain names. At the same time, people are more likely to open their wallets when they are in familiar surroundings, and Geocities is one of the most visited --and therefore most familiar -- sites on the web.
Geocities is McDonalds, while slashdot.org is a five-star. But people like McDonalds.
I don't agree that putting one's web pages on a server used for random stuff is better, and here is why.
I sell Amazon books on my site, and I believe that users are more comfortable clicking through to Amazon from a Geocities URL than they would be from a domain that they had never heard of. In addition, Geocities puts national advertising on the top of my page which also may reassure potential purchasers that I am legitimate.
The Geocities servers are more reliable than those of my old ISP.
When I dropped my old ISP all of the links to my old pages with them went bad. Since Geocities, Tripod etc. are free there is never any financial incentive to drop your pages, and so the links to those pages will never go bad.
Although I recently purchased a domain name from NSI in my view there is not much that is better on the web than Geocities, Fortunecity and other web hosting outfits that give you free pages and without popup adds (boo, Tripod).
As far as Geocities getting the right to sell the content of my pages, good luck to them if they can sell my jottings. I am reminded of the Shakespeare quote, "He who steals my purse, steals trash."
As long as mail and phone order sales are not taxed then internet order sales should not be taxed either. As of this year only states only lose about $200M in revenue on internet sales, as opposed to about $4B through phone orders. That is because many items sold over the web, like transportation tickets, are not subject to tax. Other sales, like Dell sales to businesses, are also subject to sales tax.
First let them collect sales taxes from LL Bean phone orders, and then I will gladly pay sales taxes on Amazon.
I thought the idea of Mozilla was that if you didn't like a feature you could disable the code for that feature and then recompile.
If all people are doing is running the precompiled binaries and are not messing with the code then why is Mozilla any better than any other beta product?
Sun have said they're working on some stuff to help people writing software that works correctly on Solaris and Linux more easily. It'd be nice if they made their compilers work under Linux and be free to non-commercial useage.
But why would Sun want to make their compilers work with Linux? It seems to me that they would want to encourage people to use Solaris by making their compilers for Solaris and other Sun OS's only.
Ivan has already posted that porn filters when left to their own devices judge the Starr Report pornographic and filter it out. If the pornographic Starr Report was "necessary" then that is all the more reason to permit patrons of public libraries to read this "necessary" pornographic report. We will not be able to read it and be proud of the great porn that Kenneth W. Starr was able to write if public libraries are required to filter out pornography.
In case you missed it, the report showed that Clinton was fingering Monica each time she was caressing him...
Let's get back to the topic of censorship. Starr and Congress wrote and released in HTML format the pornographic Starr report which described in detail a man "fingering," as you put it, a woman.
Don't people who rely on public libraries for their access have a right to know that Congress is misusing their money in this way? Shouldn't they be able to see this evidence of Congressmen wasting tax dollars producing pornography?
Do you think that only people with home internet connections should be able to read the pornographic Starr report, and those who rely on libraries should not be able to do so?
but that's what you get from idiotic collectivism
Do you mean, like, collectively deciding what people can read in public libraries, and what they cannot?
Thanks for the information, Ivan, about how some porn filters actually did block the Starr Report, classifying it as the Congressionally-published pornography it was.
There you have it -- an impartial computer determined that the Starr Report was indeed pornography. These Congressmen who released it (and gave its pathetic author Starr a standing ovation) are in no moral position to force America's local librarians to do anything at all regarding internet access in local libraries.
Who is more moral, upstanding, and able able to regulate library internet usage? (1) your average librarian; or (2) your average Congressman, as exemplified by Henry "Homewrecker" Hyde and Helen "Love Those Married Men" Chenoweth, who released the pornographic Starr Report.
As for filtering porns sites in public libraries, what is the problem here? My old high school had cable access, but they didn't have the playboy channel or skinemax. Was that censorship too?
Speaking of cable TV, you may remember last Fall, when Congress released a sexually explicit videotape of Kenneth Starr's minions grilling President Clinton about what parts of Monica's body he had touched and about who touched who's genitalia.
Some hypocrite Congressman, perhaps Dick Armey, said at the time that if people were offended by the sexual nature of the testimony then they did not have to watch it.
Fast forward to today and this legislation. It is interesting how these Congressional hypocrites seem to change their principles as it suits them. If people don't want to view sexually-oriented sites at the library then they don't have to. Same principle that Dick Armey enunciated with respect the video-tape that Starr made of Starr's victims being forced to talk about their own sex lives.
Don't you agree it is the same principle? No public funding for viewing porn in libraries ought to mean no public funding for Congress to release the pornographic Starr report and the perverted videotape that Starr made of Starr's victims being forced to talk about their own private sex lives.
Say, do you think these nitwits will filter out their own pornographic Starr Report? They chose to encourage Starr to write it and then they released it on the web where kids could see it.
Why is it okay for Congress to let kids look at sexual literature, but not okay for public libraries? I understand that Kenneth Starr intended his report to titillate Congress rather than kids in public libraries, but what is the difference?
"When people read this, they will want to throw up!" -- Kenneth Starr describing, approvingly, his report just prior to its release.
Microsoft's servers are closed source, so we cannot verify the quality of the security of the code, and we cannot fix them quickly if there are problems.
That sounds reasonable, but I think that there may be a flip side to it. Namely, once code is made public the crackers can rummage through it as well, and possibly find holes they would not otherwise have known about.
I agree that Netscape 4's implementation of CSS was god-awful. I had a simple page that used CSS for backgrounds and other simple stuff. It displayed fine in both Opera and IE. w3.org validated the style sheet as correct.
Netscape could not even display the page! I got a blank screen. I had to stop using stylesheets because of Netscape's awful browser.
Netscape is a company that would rather spend millions suing Microsoft than fix their own defective product. How much would it have cost to fix the worst CSS bugs in Navigator? One million? Two million? I am sure Netscape spent several times that suing Microsoft.
Netscape should stop putting out junk, or else the mere association of their name with Mozilla will kill the project.
Slashdot Mirror
Consumers only want to buy an upgrade if it contains new features. But they also want backwards compatibility. Hence, bloat.
Once upon a time anything that ran in more than 512K of memory was bloated. Anything that required more than a 14.4K modem was bloated.
Love bloat. Bloat is your friend. Accept your bloatedness.
Dogs are unique in their ability to be companion animals. Most dogs love people and view them as members of their own pack. It is hard to imagine a penguin running up to a strange human and demanding to be petted, but dogs do it all the time.
Please adopt a dog, cat, bird or rabbit from your local animal shelter, and stay away from exotic and/or illegal pets.
I agree that the quality of pages on GeoCities is less than what you find on sites whose authors own their own domain names. At the same time, people are more likely to open their wallets when they are in familiar surroundings, and Geocities is one of the most visited --and therefore most familiar -- sites on the web.
Geocities is McDonalds, while slashdot.org is a five-star. But people like McDonalds.
Although I recently purchased a domain name from NSI in my view there is not much that is better on the web than Geocities, Fortunecity and other web hosting outfits that give you free pages and without popup adds (boo, Tripod).
As far as Geocities getting the right to sell the content of my pages, good luck to them if they can sell my jottings. I am reminded of the Shakespeare quote, "He who steals my purse, steals trash."
I meant to say that business-to-business sales such as Dell computer sales to other business's are NOT subject to state sales taxes.
As long as mail and phone order sales are not taxed then internet order sales should not be taxed either. As of this year only states only lose about $200M in revenue on internet sales, as opposed to about $4B through phone orders. That is because many items sold over the web, like transportation tickets, are not subject to tax. Other sales, like Dell sales to businesses, are also subject to sales tax.
First let them collect sales taxes from LL Bean phone orders, and then I will gladly pay sales taxes on Amazon.
I thought the idea of Mozilla was that if you didn't like a feature you could disable the code for that feature and then recompile.
If all people are doing is running the precompiled binaries and are not messing with the code then why is Mozilla any better than any other beta product?
But why would Sun want to make their compilers work with Linux? It seems to me that they would want to encourage people to use Solaris by making their compilers for Solaris and other Sun OS's only.
Ivan has already posted that porn filters when left to their own devices judge the Starr Report pornographic and filter it out. If the pornographic Starr Report was "necessary" then that is all the more reason to permit patrons of public libraries to read this "necessary" pornographic report. We will not be able to read it and be proud of the great porn that Kenneth W. Starr was able to write if public libraries are required to filter out pornography.
Let's get back to the topic of censorship. Starr and Congress wrote and released in HTML format the pornographic Starr report which described in detail a man "fingering," as you put it, a woman.
Don't people who rely on public libraries for their access have a right to know that Congress is misusing their money in this way? Shouldn't they be able to see this evidence of Congressmen wasting tax dollars producing pornography?
Do you think that only people with home internet connections should be able to read the pornographic Starr report, and those who rely on libraries should not be able to do so?
Do you mean, like, collectively deciding what people can read in public libraries, and what they cannot?
Thanks for the information, Ivan, about how some porn filters actually did block the Starr Report, classifying it as the Congressionally-published pornography it was.
There you have it -- an impartial computer determined that the Starr Report was indeed pornography. These Congressmen who released it (and gave its pathetic author Starr a standing ovation) are in no moral position to force America's local librarians to do anything at all regarding internet access in local libraries.
Who is more moral, upstanding, and able able to regulate library internet usage? (1) your average librarian; or (2) your average Congressman, as exemplified by Henry "Homewrecker" Hyde and Helen "Love Those Married Men" Chenoweth, who released the pornographic Starr Report.
Speaking of cable TV, you may remember last Fall, when Congress released a sexually explicit videotape of Kenneth Starr's minions grilling President Clinton about what parts of Monica's body he had touched and about who touched who's genitalia.
Some hypocrite Congressman, perhaps Dick Armey, said at the time that if people were offended by the sexual nature of the testimony then they did not have to watch it.
Fast forward to today and this legislation. It is interesting how these Congressional hypocrites seem to change their principles as it suits them. If people don't want to view sexually-oriented sites at the library then they don't have to. Same principle that Dick Armey enunciated with respect the video-tape that Starr made of Starr's victims being forced to talk about their own sex lives.
Don't you agree it is the same principle? No public funding for viewing porn in libraries ought to mean no public funding for Congress to release the pornographic Starr report and the perverted videotape that Starr made of Starr's victims being forced to talk about their own private sex lives.
Say, do you think these nitwits will filter out their own pornographic Starr Report? They chose to encourage Starr to write it and then they released it on the web where kids could see it.
Why is it okay for Congress to let kids look at sexual literature, but not okay for public libraries? I understand that Kenneth Starr intended his report to titillate Congress rather than kids in public libraries, but what is the difference?
"When people read this, they will want to throw up!" -- Kenneth Starr describing, approvingly, his report just prior to its release.
In what way has Al Gore, personally, protected NSI? Details, please.
That sounds reasonable, but I think that there may be a flip side to it. Namely, once code is made public the crackers can rummage through it as well, and possibly find holes they would not otherwise have known about.
I agree that Netscape 4's implementation of CSS was god-awful. I had a simple page that used CSS for backgrounds and other simple stuff. It displayed fine in both Opera and IE. w3.org validated the style sheet as correct.
Netscape could not even display the page! I got a blank screen. I had to stop using stylesheets because of Netscape's awful browser.
Netscape is a company that would rather spend millions suing Microsoft than fix their own defective product. How much would it have cost to fix the worst CSS bugs in Navigator? One million? Two million? I am sure Netscape spent several times that suing Microsoft.
Netscape should stop putting out junk, or else the mere association of their name with Mozilla will kill the project.