On Linux and Windows at least. "g blah" searching google for blah, and there's a bunch of others.
Mozilla also allows you to type something into the URL bar and then hit the down arrow key to go to "search [configurable search engine] for [what you typed" in the URL auto-completion drop-down box.
I know plenty of people in both categories. There are many people who download music in order to hear things they aren't familiar with, and then buy the CD if they really like it (or at least buy some of the CDs they really like). But I also know many other people who no longer ever buy CDs and instead burn their downloade mp3s to audio CDs. If asked why they don't buy CDs, the usual response is something along the lines of "I already made the CD myself, why would I pay to get the same thing?"
There's an increasing number of these "freeloaders," as it were, compared to say 3 or 4 years ago. By now the only people I know who still buy CDs are one of: 1) obsessive fans of a particular band, who buy everything that band puts out (but still pirate everything else) 2) music collectors (often self-described "audiophiles") who enjoy physically owning the CD because it increases the size of their music collection
There also used to be people who liked the liner notes and cover art and such, but with cheap scanners you can find most of those online these days anyway (many mp3-release groups release the scans along with the mp3s), so the only people who still care about that are the people who already fall into category (2) above, and want an authentic physical copy rather than a printout of a scan.
Epitaph (Bad Religion, NOFX, Rancid), Metropolis (KMFDM, VNV Nation, Front Line Assembly, Apoptygma Berzerk), Nitro (TSOL, The Vandals, AFI until recently), etc. Many of the "heavyweights" of the both the punk rock and industrial/synth genres aren't affiliated with the "big five" (and in fact Metropolis is the single biggest US label for EBM/synth/goth/etc. and it's independent). I'm not very familiar with other genres, but I'd imagine these aren't the only two...
They have plenty of other choices. There are literally thousands of labels out there. There is no reason an artist has to sign with the five biggest labels. The most common reason is that they're greedy, and signing with the absolute biggest labels in the industry is the quickest way to try to get rich.
If they'd be willing to settle for something less than "get rich quick" they could sign to any number of medium-sized labels.
That makes it a bit unclear what you can do with it. On the one hand it says "All rights reserved", which means you can't distribute derivative works without Volition's consent. But on the other hand, it explicitly says you can't sell or otherwise commercially exploit derivative works, which sort of implies that you can distribute them as long as you're not doing it for profit. But it'd be nice if this were more explicitly stated.
Last time I tried Linux (Slackware, sometime around 1996) I gave up trying to get X work, because it wanted all sorts of arcane details about my video card and monitor and kept warning me that it could permanently damage my hardware if I guessed wrong. So I went back to Windows, which auto-detected the information correctly.
But if XFree can auto-detect now, perhaps I should give it another try...
Especially when other terms like "Tech Lobby" are so readily available and better understood by the general public. When an average person thinks "geek" they likely think either "pimply-faced kid who sits around all day playing either Diablo 2 or Dungeons & Dragons" or if they're too old to think that they think "carnival freak who bites the heads off chickens."
Now "technology" on the other hand is a word whose meaning is mostly understood by the general public (even if the technology itself usually isn't...).
Most universities shy away from extensive use of per-course fees because they don't want the relative cost of different classes to influence what people choose to take (they should take what's most interesting/educational, not what has the cheapest lab fee). Exceptions for major items of course -- art studio type classes mostly. But both the admistrative paperwork and the aforementioned discouragement factor would make it better to just distribute the costs evenly over everyone. That's what they do for most things anyway -- you have to pay for the sports team even if you don't pay sports, you have to pay for the library even if you never research there, etc. It's how colleges work.
As I mentioned, I get flyers under my windshield wipers, flyers at my door, junk mail in my mailbox, etc. If I can charge a "reading fee" for email, I don't see why I can't charge one for that too.
If we're talking about the cost of bandwidth or hardware for receiving spam, I have no objections. What I'm objecting to is the notion that it's legitimate to charge a $50 fee for the time you spent reading the mail. The time I spend disposing of the other unsolicited junk is not billable, so I don't see why it should be different for spam.
Charging for actual costs incurred in the delivery of the email is another thing entirely, but does not even come close to approaching $50/message.
So as long as I state it ahead of time I can charge a $50 unsolicited viewing fee for every advertisement broadcast to my television. Or for every piece of junk mail sent to my house (via post)? Or for every one of those little fliers I get under my windshield wiper when I park?
And if their business model assumed broadband users wouldn't actually use the bandwidth, that's also THEIR fault, not yours.
And if they realize their mistake and change their business model to one that doesn't give you an absolute guarantee to flat-rate bandwidth, then that's your problem, not theirs.
For home users your solution isn't that good. Home users on average do not need a constant bandwidth 24/7 like servers do, so it's a better deal for them to get higher burst service in return for having a limit on total data transfer.
As even for servers, you'll note almost no major colo facilities offer flat rates -- you pay by the gigabyte past a certain threshhold. Otherwise Slashdot would be paying the same flat bandwidth rate as Joe's Knitting Site.
Sure, it was marketed as flat rate. Then they decided that wasn't a good business model, and they're switching away from flat rate to metered past a threshhold. Nobody guaranteed you perpetual flat rate.
Not on most compilers/platforms. On the SPARC (and many other RISC) platforms, for example, there is no ++ or -- instruction -- "inc %l0" is a pseudoinstruction that expands to "add 1, %l0". On the x86 there is an inc, but gcc will optimize a +1 to be inc anyway.
As I recall, this came up with the anti-flag-burning amendment as well. Though he had (along with most people) supported the amendment in previous years, last year he spoke out against it at a veteran's rally and voted against it, since he said it wasn't worth weakening the Bill of Rights over.
Well subsidize the internet sure -- but information can be gotten just fine from the internet over a dial-up modem connection. If the idea is to get everyone access to information, we should be subsidizing dial-up ISPs, not broadband.
I can see vaccinations, I can see schools, I can see libraries, hell I can even see internet access. But is broadband internet access really in that category of things everyone really needs for society to be better? For just getting information dial-up is adequate -- I used it for years. And if you want streaming video, it'd make more sense to subsidize buying people TVs so they can watch the nightly news rather than subsidizing broadband.
Slashdot Mirror
On Linux and Windows at least. "g blah" searching google for blah, and there's a bunch of others.
Mozilla also allows you to type something into the URL bar and then hit the down arrow key to go to "search [configurable search engine] for [what you typed" in the URL auto-completion drop-down box.
But the proposal here was to include a payment to artists in ISP charges. Since I need an ISP, I'd then have no choice.
If it's a separate voluntary network, then I have no problems with it.
Since I already buy physical copies of my music legally (on CD), I don't see why I should be forced to pay for it again.
I know plenty of people in both categories. There are many people who download music in order to hear things they aren't familiar with, and then buy the CD if they really like it (or at least buy some of the CDs they really like). But I also know many other people who no longer ever buy CDs and instead burn their downloade mp3s to audio CDs. If asked why they don't buy CDs, the usual response is something along the lines of "I already made the CD myself, why would I pay to get the same thing?"
There's an increasing number of these "freeloaders," as it were, compared to say 3 or 4 years ago. By now the only people I know who still buy CDs are one of:
1) obsessive fans of a particular band, who buy everything that band puts out (but still pirate everything else)
2) music collectors (often self-described "audiophiles") who enjoy physically owning the CD because it increases the size of their music collection
There also used to be people who liked the liner notes and cover art and such, but with cheap scanners you can find most of those online these days anyway (many mp3-release groups release the scans along with the mp3s), so the only people who still care about that are the people who already fall into category (2) above, and want an authentic physical copy rather than a printout of a scan.
Epitaph (Bad Religion, NOFX, Rancid), Metropolis (KMFDM, VNV Nation, Front Line Assembly, Apoptygma Berzerk), Nitro (TSOL, The Vandals, AFI until recently), etc. Many of the "heavyweights" of the both the punk rock and industrial/synth genres aren't affiliated with the "big five" (and in fact Metropolis is the single biggest US label for EBM/synth/goth/etc. and it's independent). I'm not very familiar with other genres, but I'd imagine these aren't the only two...
They have plenty of other choices. There are literally thousands of labels out there. There is no reason an artist has to sign with the five biggest labels. The most common reason is that they're greedy, and signing with the absolute biggest labels in the industry is the quickest way to try to get rich.
If they'd be willing to settle for something less than "get rich quick" they could sign to any number of medium-sized labels.
That makes it a bit unclear what you can do with it. On the one hand it says "All rights reserved", which means you can't distribute derivative works without Volition's consent. But on the other hand, it explicitly says you can't sell or otherwise commercially exploit derivative works, which sort of implies that you can distribute them as long as you're not doing it for profit. But it'd be nice if this were more explicitly stated.
The other half have a little "Made in the USSR" sticker on them, and except for the Chechnyans, nobody's too mad at Russia...
Last time I tried Linux (Slackware, sometime around 1996) I gave up trying to get X work, because it wanted all sorts of arcane details about my video card and monitor and kept warning me that it could permanently damage my hardware if I guessed wrong. So I went back to Windows, which auto-detected the information correctly.
But if XFree can auto-detect now, perhaps I should give it another try...
Especially when other terms like "Tech Lobby" are so readily available and better understood by the general public. When an average person thinks "geek" they likely think either "pimply-faced kid who sits around all day playing either Diablo 2 or Dungeons & Dragons" or if they're too old to think that they think "carnival freak who bites the heads off chickens."
Now "technology" on the other hand is a word whose meaning is mostly understood by the general public (even if the technology itself usually isn't...).
Most universities shy away from extensive use of per-course fees because they don't want the relative cost of different classes to influence what people choose to take (they should take what's most interesting/educational, not what has the cheapest lab fee). Exceptions for major items of course -- art studio type classes mostly. But both the admistrative paperwork and the aforementioned discouragement factor would make it better to just distribute the costs evenly over everyone. That's what they do for most things anyway -- you have to pay for the sports team even if you don't pay sports, you have to pay for the library even if you never research there, etc. It's how colleges work.
It seems you only read the first sentence...
There's always the possibility that one of the nightly Mozilla builds will have a nasty IMAP bug that corrupts/damages the online folders.
As I mentioned, I get flyers under my windshield wipers, flyers at my door, junk mail in my mailbox, etc. If I can charge a "reading fee" for email, I don't see why I can't charge one for that too.
You can always get the nightly builds...
If we're talking about the cost of bandwidth or hardware for receiving spam, I have no objections. What I'm objecting to is the notion that it's legitimate to charge a $50 fee for the time you spent reading the mail. The time I spend disposing of the other unsolicited junk is not billable, so I don't see why it should be different for spam.
Charging for actual costs incurred in the delivery of the email is another thing entirely, but does not even come close to approaching $50/message.
So as long as I state it ahead of time I can charge a $50 unsolicited viewing fee for every advertisement broadcast to my television. Or for every piece of junk mail sent to my house (via post)? Or for every one of those little fliers I get under my windshield wiper when I park?
The business-level accounts (~$150/month) are unlimited.
And if their business model assumed broadband users wouldn't actually use the bandwidth, that's also THEIR fault, not yours.
And if they realize their mistake and change their business model to one that doesn't give you an absolute guarantee to flat-rate bandwidth, then that's your problem, not theirs.
For home users your solution isn't that good. Home users on average do not need a constant bandwidth 24/7 like servers do, so it's a better deal for them to get higher burst service in return for having a limit on total data transfer.
As even for servers, you'll note almost no major colo facilities offer flat rates -- you pay by the gigabyte past a certain threshhold. Otherwise Slashdot would be paying the same flat bandwidth rate as Joe's Knitting Site.
Sure, it was marketed as flat rate. Then they decided that wasn't a good business model, and they're switching away from flat rate to metered past a threshhold. Nobody guaranteed you perpetual flat rate.
Not on most compilers/platforms. On the SPARC (and many other RISC) platforms, for example, there is no ++ or -- instruction -- "inc %l0" is a pseudoinstruction that expands to "add 1, %l0". On the x86 there is an inc, but gcc will optimize a +1 to be inc anyway.
As I recall, this came up with the anti-flag-burning amendment as well. Though he had (along with most people) supported the amendment in previous years, last year he spoke out against it at a veteran's rally and voted against it, since he said it wasn't worth weakening the Bill of Rights over.
Well subsidize the internet sure -- but information can be gotten just fine from the internet over a dial-up modem connection. If the idea is to get everyone access to information, we should be subsidizing dial-up ISPs, not broadband.
I can see vaccinations, I can see schools, I can see libraries, hell I can even see internet access. But is broadband internet access really in that category of things everyone really needs for society to be better? For just getting information dial-up is adequate -- I used it for years. And if you want streaming video, it'd make more sense to subsidize buying people TVs so they can watch the nightly news rather than subsidizing broadband.