I'm an apple person, but I don't get you guys at all.
*grin*... I don't think "but" was quite the conjunction you were looking for there...:-)
Seriously, this reminds me heaps of my Palm Tungsten E - Palm made the T|E out of a shiny metal casing that scratches incredibly easily... there's heaps of forum posts on scratched T|Es out there. Stupid case designs abound in the electronic gadget world - apparently the creators never realised that we'd put these things in our pockets...
The police don't want to do this. But they'd rather do this than stand by as people get blown up. There were a lot of "indicators" here.
Personally, I'd rather live with the extremely minuscule chance of being blown up than have my civil liberties threatened as the article describes.
The sole point of a terrorist organisation is to create terror in a population, despite the fact that they are a threat to few if any members of it. After reading the article, it seems clear that the "War on Terrorism" is over, and that the terrorists have won.
The fact is, I had needed to RTFM in order to set up the functionality which I already get with yahoo by default.
Fair enough - I found it easy enough to work out, personally, and I like the concept of having mail with multiple labels rather than mail assigned to a single folder only. But I can see that it could confuse a lot of people, most of whom only want the latter functionality... *grin* - sorry for the google cheer-leading!
Anyway, thankfully both Yahoo and Gmail are free and people can choose... In which case I guess it's a good thing that they have different interfaces, so who am I to complain??:-)
It is exactly the case. Maybe you should actually try using Gmail before you make sweeping statements criticising it for lacking functionality that has always been there? Sheesh...
Scanning email by opening new pages for every email with old web interfaces was quite frustrating, even with GMails quicker load times.
But this is exactly the reason why Gmail prints out the first 60-80 chars of the email text right beside the email subject. That makes scanning email even quicker than Yahoo's interface - you don't need to even click on the thing to see what it's about.
I don't know - I moved to Gmail from PINE, and I could never stand those multi-paned Outlook Express clone interfaces in GUI mail clients. I can see why some people would like that type of thing, but to me Gmail has a minimalist beauty that's hard to dislike. Give me keyboard shortcuts and a lightening fast interface any day...
That undermines the "radio is cheap" argument. If it changes the bottom line cost of an iPod, most people won't want it in there because they won't use it.
What?? Did you misunderstand my post?? The radio is already in there - all Apple would need is a button marked "radio" or something and a little bit of circuit board connecting the relevant pins on the chip! There's no cost involved in that! When I said "stingy", I meant that they probably didn't want the shuffle to be too good, to the extent that it took business away from their other iPod family members. It's also quite possible that they decided to do without it because a radio's pretty useless without a screen, and to include the screen they'd have had to make the Shuffle into a useful device rather than a fashion accessory, but who knows?
I note with amusement that my original post was modded down - the first time that's ever happened to me in four years on/. - because I had the temerity to suggest that Apple could be evil. Well, shame on me!!
I expect they would put it in there if it didn't significantly increase the size of the product and such. Probably not enough of their users care - I don't. Keep complaining and maybe you'll get what you want.
You do realise that the iPod Shuffle is based on a standard SigmaTel chipset (yep, the same that powers just about *all* those flash mp3 players) that already *has* built-in FM-radio and voice-recorder support?? Apple made a decision not to support those functions in the Shuffle, because they're (a) stingy and (b) know that geeks who really ought to know better will buy a crippled device because it's made by Apple.
That Dell player's probably got exactly the same chip under the case as the shuffle - it'll sound the same, and you'll get the ability to drag'n'drop files music directly onto the device in any OS you care to name and you'll get a screen. But people won't buy it, because it's not made by Apple...
It's really sad that to be able to download a simple archive, which is all that you need to run firefox, you have to go through the "other platforms" links, back up a directory and into the linux-i686/en-US/ directory - they've made it extremely difficult to find and new users wouldn't even be aware of its existence. Does every linux user now use this superfluous linux-installer instead??
No it's not - I use 99.8% minimum purity Methanol all the time in the lab, and I can assure you it's pretty much harmless. No, you don't want to drink it and you don't want to shower in it. But that's about it... Seriously, if you believed all that safety crap you wouldn't put salt on your food as it "may cause skin, eye or respiratory irritation."
I think it'd be great to get these fuel cell players - I'd have permanent access to all the fuel I need:))
I have a palm Tungsten E and I love reading E-Books on it.
Likewise - I'm gradually rediscovering the classics thanks to my T|E and Project Gutenberg.
If you haven't already discovered it, can I suggest you have a look at PalmFiction (babelfish translation if you can't read Russian:) - it's by far the best Ebook reader I've seen for the palm (reads.zip.gz.rtf.html.whatever straight from your SD card, antialiased fonts, great customisability... and it's even opensource) It's the only software I've found that I'm comfortable reading long periods with...
I've never ever used Photoshop. I got used to the Gimp the same way you got used to Photoshop: I learned the interface and got used to it. I can get around great in Gimp, but that's because I didn't know any better. If you hadn't learned something else first, the Gimp wouldn't feel so "different" to you. "Difference" is relative to what you already know.
You know, the thing that always gets missed in these flames about the Gimp's interface is the fact that Photoshop's interface is far, far less intuitive. I use Gimp most of the time, but occasionally have to delve into the murky world of Adobe, and I can't believe that they have so many supporters out there.
Let's think about photoshop for a second:
* Tools that only appear when you click and hold another tool, with no apparent logical grouping (I've lost count of the times I couldn't find a tool because I didn't know what button it was behind)
* Little windows all over the place - Navigator, Tools, Palette, History, Layers... they always seem to end up being bunted half off-screen, and that's never a good sign! (At least the gimps windows are dockable, so you can have every window docked into the tools window - try it! I find it works great)
* MDI interface. Can I just puke now??
Now, it could be that for most people Photoshop is intuitive... but I've seen too many newbies trying and failing over photoshop to believe that. I think it's more that most/.ers grew up on pirated Photoshop copies before they moved to linux, and thus Photoshop was the interface they learned first.
Let's face it - both Gimp and Photoshop were not designed for the simple user playing around with happy snaps. They're powerful graphic editing tools that have not suffered from any attempt to dumb them down. Neither of them are very intuitive, and both have a learning curve. The solution is not to make the Gimp look like Photoshop - that'll create just as many problems!
Note that only one of those is a 'critical' flaw, and that one is an ActiveX buffer overflow than can be avoided by just not using ActiveX. The rest are spoofing or system information flaws.
Actually, at least one other involves the possible exploitation of malicious code, although it requires active user input to do so.
But let's look at that one big famous doozie, the ActiveX exploit. That was reported in August 2003 - that's over two years ago!! It requires no user intervention if ActiveX is enabled, can do just about anything it wants to and it affects any MS ActiveX enabled product that can read HTML. The only solution is to turn off ActiveX, or to get it to prompt the user before it installs anything (which is not guarantee of safety). This is far, far worse than any exploit Firefox has ever had!
But even if it wasn't so potentially disasterous, don't you think MS would have been interested in fixing something that involves their pride-and-joy, ActiveX?? How could anyone ever look at such incompetence and claim that IE is more secure?!
There is one significant difference. I'm a knowledgable user. I program and sys-admin. I practice good security. Regardless of the number of exploits out there, I've never been hit by a FF exploit. I have been hit by IE exploits.
Yes, you see, it's the unpublished exploits that you have to watch out for... Microsoft has made similar claims about Apache for years, but I'm pretty sure most users would choose Apache over IIS for security.
As far as I can see, this whole article is an MS troll - every recent article in his blog praises MS software against OSS alternatives, with often outrageously stupid claims - e.g. that Word documents are an "open format" because everyone uses Word!
The nice thing about the "Go" menu for me is when you want to revist a recently closed tab, without having to troll through all your history. It's quick, accessible, and doesn't do any harm - it's hardly going to confuse new users, after all.
I always activate the search by hitting "/" and then typing the words I am searching for. When using it in this manner, I feel the unobtrusive box at the bottom is most appropriate for this operation.
Couldn't agree more - it doesn't matter where the search box is if you don't have to look at it to click a button or move it out of the way, and that's exactly what firefox has managed to create. [/] to bring up the search bar, [enter] to find the term, [esc] to exit - it's just what vi, less and other modal text editors/viewers have been doing for years, which is probably why I find it so intuitive.
*grin*... I guess that's also the reason why an IE developer finds it less than intuitive:-)
I just checked, and my GMail account still says "Gmail by Google BETA".
But, interestingly, a while back gmail quietly changed its domain name and atom feeds from "gmail.google.com/gmail" to "mail.google.com/mail"... in fact, they shut the gmail.google atom feed down (which is how I found out about it)
I always wondered why they did this - perhaps this might be the reason??
The movie player requires that files are in the magic folder with magic filenames... You could install some programs on it, but as I mentioned above everyone required payment for their crappy utilities.
For video playback that's open source and plays just about anything, you might give TCPMP a try...
There's no real solution for free mp3 playback, but Aeroplayer will play OGG files for free, and handles folders fine.
I do not know if this is a problem with firefox, SpellBound, or a combination of the two, but it's pretty damn annoying after a while.
It's a mozilla dictionaries problem, I think - the dictionaries (which spellbound doesn't provide itself) install into the Firefox application folder, rather than into your profile folder - so when you overwrite that folder, you've just nuked your dictionaries.
If this annoys you, you could always ask the spellbound devs to provide dictionaries that install into your profile... It amuses me the way people are far happier to post complaints on/., where they achieve nothing, instead of sending the same complaint direct to the developer, where they might fix the problem!
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
You're seriously joking right? This "review" was a biased advertisement stroking the right-wing conservatives egos that their missionary-position bi-monthly sex acts are acceptable and even encouraged while their co-workers' healthy and exciting sex life is deviant and unacceptable.
Whoa, there! Steady on, buddy... As with everything in this world, different people respond to things differently. Sure, you may have a good relationship based on porn, and that's great. But it doesn't follow that just because the two of you enjoy viewing porn together, pornography is therefore a service that only does good and never does harm.
For many people, internet porn is addictive - I've felt it myself (heh, while I've been feeling myself:)... and I happen to know of people who are seriously addicted to porn, to the extent that they feel they cannot function without it. Personally, I don't think there's any/much harm in porn created by consenting adults... however, when it leads people into exploitive forms of pornography (child or non-consensual) that's a problem.
Even discounting the issues of exploitation, porn often causes problems in relationships. I know that you personally are lucky in that you've found a partner who's comfortable exploring porn with you, and there's nothing wrong with that. But I've known relationships to be broken up by guys who can't stop wanting porn even when their partner's lying in bed waiting for them... And unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, this is the more likely case when porn extends into relationships.
So don't take the book personally, but do recognise that in being able to cope with porn without being addicted and without hurting anyone, you're the exception rather than the rule. This book deals with the majority case, and although I haven't read it and don't know if I'd agree with the conclusions, it sounds a valuable thing just for being a comprehensive study on the effects of porn in society.
This isn't a right-wing Christian view point, btw - for the record, I'm extremely left-wing in my politics, and agnostic in my religion (although FSM beckons:)... Oh, and I enjoy looking at porn too, while I'm single:)
I think what he didn't like was the fact that they used his game to promote their website, in a way (judging from the screenshots) that made it seem like they created the game - without mentioning that they didn't, and without linking back to his actual site, and of course, hot-linking the game, too.
They didn't really hot-link the game, though, did they? It's just a link - it's not like the game's embedded in the page, any more than this is... There, now - am I guilty of hot-linking too??
And I don't think the company was intentionally claiming the game as theirs - it was probably more a case of the webmaster finding a clone of burgertime, thinking that'd be a fun thing to have a link to and providing the link. It seems an unlikely thing to have been done out of malice, it's much more likely to be the result of thoughtlessness. After all, the start screen of the game provides a prominent link to the author's page - perhaps they thought that that was enough? Sadly, the game's author didn't take the time to find out what their intentions were before launching his all-out attack...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely defending Fuddruckers - they certainly should have acknowledged the authorship of the game, and a polite email to the guy asking if they could link to his game would have been nice as well. It's just that none of the above warranted anything remotely like his response...
And how does the complimentee respond? By kicking virtual sand in their face because it generates too much interest. Something wrong with just putting a static 'Thanks for the interest, but we can't cope with the bandwidth right now' message up? Ie. being pleasant and polite?
The funniest thing of all is that the amount of bandwidth fuddruckers was taking up was 5% or less, judging by the graph on his site. I mean, sheesh, what a loser this guy is - not only does he get upset that someone thought his work worthwhile enough to link to, but then he actually thinks his response was not only justified but also pretty damn clever. He writes - and you can see him smirking all the way - "But did I do this right away? No! I waited until the Friday evening before a three-day weekend. So either it'll be up for three days, or someone is going to have to go in during their vacation to fix it. My only hope is that an executive from Fuddruckers finds out about it before that happens. Because, really, stupidity like that deserves losing your job over."
So, yes, Fuddruckers should have sent the guy an email out of courtesy, but that's the only way that I can see that they did anything wrong. An acknowledgement on their website would also have been nice, but considering the game clearly states on the main page who it was written by that's hardly necessary. But these things didn't seem to upset the game's author anyway - what he seemed most pissed off about was that Fuddruckers had linked to his game, rather than copying it and hosting it on their site. Now, there's no obvious copyright on the games and nothing to suggest that they're open source or public domain... so surely it would have been much worse if Fuddruckers had copied the game and placed it on their site!? That would have been a possible breach of copyright, after all!
it's got some klunky parts that they need to fix up a bit.
Actually, I've noticed it's improved heaps recently - the latest versions support drag'n'drop into and out of archives, which was a much-missed feature.
Personally, I can't believe people out there pay for WinZip when an OSS alternative like 7-zip exists... It's a sad testament to the fact that market share begets more market share, I guess:-(
The kernel.org tarball is not meant for end-users, it's meant for kernel developers and vendors.
Err... what planet did you spring from? There's plenty of end-users out there who've been compiling their kernels for years. It's part of being a linux user, being able to customise the kernel to suit your own needs, getting rid of the dross, compiling in the good stuff, patching in extra bits that you want.
How many laptop linux users do you think use vanilla distro kernels?? Ever heard of swsusp2? Really, I never thought I'd hear building a linux kernel described as only for kernel developers and vendors!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an apple person, but I don't get you guys at all.
... I don't think "but" was quite the conjunction you were looking for there ... :-)
... there's heaps of forum posts on scratched T|Es out there. Stupid case designs abound in the electronic gadget world - apparently the creators never realised that we'd put these things in our pockets ...
*grin*
Seriously, this reminds me heaps of my Palm Tungsten E - Palm made the T|E out of a shiny metal casing that scratches incredibly easily
The police don't want to do this. But they'd rather do this than stand by as people get blown up. There were a lot of "indicators" here.
Personally, I'd rather live with the extremely minuscule chance of being blown up than have my civil liberties threatened as the article describes.
The sole point of a terrorist organisation is to create terror in a population, despite the fact that they are a threat to few if any members of it. After reading the article, it seems clear that the "War on Terrorism" is over, and that the terrorists have won.
The fact is, I had needed to RTFM in order to set up the functionality which I already get with yahoo by default.
... *grin* - sorry for the google cheer-leading!
... In which case I guess it's a good thing that they have different interfaces, so who am I to complain?? :-)
Fair enough - I found it easy enough to work out, personally, and I like the concept of having mail with multiple labels rather than mail assigned to a single folder only. But I can see that it could confuse a lot of people, most of whom only want the latter functionality
Anyway, thankfully both Yahoo and Gmail are free and people can choose
I don't know if this is the case of not
...
It is exactly the case. Maybe you should actually try using Gmail before you make sweeping statements criticising it for lacking functionality that has always been there? Sheesh
Scanning email by opening new pages for every email with old web interfaces was quite frustrating, even with GMails quicker load times.
...
But this is exactly the reason why Gmail prints out the first 60-80 chars of the email text right beside the email subject. That makes scanning email even quicker than Yahoo's interface - you don't need to even click on the thing to see what it's about.
I don't know - I moved to Gmail from PINE, and I could never stand those multi-paned Outlook Express clone interfaces in GUI mail clients. I can see why some people would like that type of thing, but to me Gmail has a minimalist beauty that's hard to dislike. Give me keyboard shortcuts and a lightening fast interface any day
That undermines the "radio is cheap" argument. If it changes the bottom line cost of an iPod, most people won't want it in there because they won't use it.
/. - because I had the temerity to suggest that Apple could be evil. Well, shame on me!!
What?? Did you misunderstand my post?? The radio is already in there - all Apple would need is a button marked "radio" or something and a little bit of circuit board connecting the relevant pins on the chip! There's no cost involved in that! When I said "stingy", I meant that they probably didn't want the shuffle to be too good, to the extent that it took business away from their other iPod family members. It's also quite possible that they decided to do without it because a radio's pretty useless without a screen, and to include the screen they'd have had to make the Shuffle into a useful device rather than a fashion accessory, but who knows?
I note with amusement that my original post was modded down - the first time that's ever happened to me in four years on
I expect they would put it in there if it didn't significantly increase the size of the product and such. Probably not enough of their users care - I don't. Keep complaining and maybe you'll get what you want.
...
You do realise that the iPod Shuffle is based on a standard SigmaTel chipset (yep, the same that powers just about *all* those flash mp3 players) that already *has* built-in FM-radio and voice-recorder support?? Apple made a decision not to support those functions in the Shuffle, because they're (a) stingy and (b) know that geeks who really ought to know better will buy a crippled device because it's made by Apple.
That Dell player's probably got exactly the same chip under the case as the shuffle - it'll sound the same, and you'll get the ability to drag'n'drop files music directly onto the device in any OS you care to name and you'll get a screen. But people won't buy it, because it's not made by Apple
Then do what I do: don't use your distro's tools to install Firefox, use their Linux installer and install to a subdir in your user directory.
l eases/1.0.7/linux-i686/en-US/firefox-1.0.7.tar.gz )
Better yet, just get the firefox tar.gz archive rather than the installer and extract it where you will. (you can get it here: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/re
It's really sad that to be able to download a simple archive, which is all that you need to run firefox, you have to go through the "other platforms" links, back up a directory and into the linux-i686/en-US/ directory - they've made it extremely difficult to find and new users wouldn't even be aware of its existence. Does every linux user now use this superfluous linux-installer instead??
Its vapor is also very dangerous.
... Seriously, if you believed all that safety crap you wouldn't put salt on your food as it "may cause skin, eye or respiratory irritation."
:))
No it's not - I use 99.8% minimum purity Methanol all the time in the lab, and I can assure you it's pretty much harmless. No, you don't want to drink it and you don't want to shower in it. But that's about it
I think it'd be great to get these fuel cell players - I'd have permanent access to all the fuel I need
I have a palm Tungsten E and I love reading E-Books on it.
:) - it's by far the best Ebook reader I've seen for the palm (reads .zip .gz .rtf .html .whatever straight from your SD card, antialiased fonts, great customisability ... and it's even opensource) It's the only software I've found that I'm comfortable reading long periods with ...
Likewise - I'm gradually rediscovering the classics thanks to my T|E and Project Gutenberg.
If you haven't already discovered it, can I suggest you have a look at PalmFiction (babelfish translation if you can't read Russian
I've never ever used Photoshop. I got used to the Gimp the same way you got used to Photoshop: I learned the interface and got used to it. I can get around great in Gimp, but that's because I didn't know any better. If you hadn't learned something else first, the Gimp wouldn't feel so "different" to you. "Difference" is relative to what you already know.
... they always seem to end up being bunted half off-screen, and that's never a good sign! (At least the gimps windows are dockable, so you can have every window docked into the tools window - try it! I find it works great)
... but I've seen too many newbies trying and failing over photoshop to believe that. I think it's more that most /.ers grew up on pirated Photoshop copies before they moved to linux, and thus Photoshop was the interface they learned first.
You know, the thing that always gets missed in these flames about the Gimp's interface is the fact that Photoshop's interface is far, far less intuitive. I use Gimp most of the time, but occasionally have to delve into the murky world of Adobe, and I can't believe that they have so many supporters out there.
Let's think about photoshop for a second:
* Tools that only appear when you click and hold another tool, with no apparent logical grouping (I've lost count of the times I couldn't find a tool because I didn't know what button it was behind)
* Little windows all over the place - Navigator, Tools, Palette, History, Layers
* MDI interface. Can I just puke now??
Now, it could be that for most people Photoshop is intuitive
Let's face it - both Gimp and Photoshop were not designed for the simple user playing around with happy snaps. They're powerful graphic editing tools that have not suffered from any attempt to dumb them down. Neither of them are very intuitive, and both have a learning curve. The solution is not to make the Gimp look like Photoshop - that'll create just as many problems!
Note that only one of those is a 'critical' flaw, and that one is an ActiveX buffer overflow than can be avoided by just not using ActiveX. The rest are spoofing or system information flaws.
Actually, at least one other involves the possible exploitation of malicious code, although it requires active user input to do so.
But let's look at that one big famous doozie, the ActiveX exploit. That was reported in August 2003 - that's over two years ago!! It requires no user intervention if ActiveX is enabled, can do just about anything it wants to and it affects any MS ActiveX enabled product that can read HTML. The only solution is to turn off ActiveX, or to get it to prompt the user before it installs anything (which is not guarantee of safety). This is far, far worse than any exploit Firefox has ever had!
But even if it wasn't so potentially disasterous, don't you think MS would have been interested in fixing something that involves their pride-and-joy, ActiveX?? How could anyone ever look at such incompetence and claim that IE is more secure?!
There is one significant difference. I'm a knowledgable user. I program and sys-admin. I practice good security. Regardless of the number of exploits out there, I've never been hit by a FF exploit. I have been hit by IE exploits.
... Microsoft has made similar claims about Apache for years, but I'm pretty sure most users would choose Apache over IIS for security.
Yes, you see, it's the unpublished exploits that you have to watch out for
As far as I can see, this whole article is an MS troll - every recent article in his blog praises MS software against OSS alternatives, with often outrageously stupid claims - e.g. that Word documents are an "open format" because everyone uses Word!
The nice thing about the "Go" menu for me is when you want to revist a recently closed tab, without having to troll through all your history. It's quick, accessible, and doesn't do any harm - it's hardly going to confuse new users, after all.
Right hand = mouse
... no ... I can think of at least one important activity for which you're missing a hand ... ;-)
Left hand = Ctrl A W D Space (roughly)
From this setup, I can do most anything in FF.
Um
I always activate the search by hitting "/" and then typing the words I am searching for. When using it in this manner, I feel the unobtrusive box at the bottom is most appropriate for this operation.
... I guess that's also the reason why an IE developer finds it less than intuitive :-)
Couldn't agree more - it doesn't matter where the search box is if you don't have to look at it to click a button or move it out of the way, and that's exactly what firefox has managed to create. [/] to bring up the search bar, [enter] to find the term, [esc] to exit - it's just what vi, less and other modal text editors/viewers have been doing for years, which is probably why I find it so intuitive.
*grin*
I just checked, and my GMail account still says "Gmail by Google BETA".
... in fact, they shut the gmail.google atom feed down (which is how I found out about it)
But, interestingly, a while back gmail quietly changed its domain name and atom feeds from "gmail.google.com/gmail" to "mail.google.com/mail"
I always wondered why they did this - perhaps this might be the reason??
The movie player requires that files are in the magic folder with magic filenames ... You could install some programs on it, but as I mentioned above everyone required payment for their crappy utilities.
...
For video playback that's open source and plays just about anything, you might give TCPMP a try
There's no real solution for free mp3 playback, but Aeroplayer will play OGG files for free, and handles folders fine.
I do not know if this is a problem with firefox, SpellBound, or a combination of the two, but it's pretty damn annoying after a while.
... It amuses me the way people are far happier to post complaints on /., where they achieve nothing, instead of sending the same complaint direct to the developer, where they might fix the problem!
It's a mozilla dictionaries problem, I think - the dictionaries (which spellbound doesn't provide itself) install into the Firefox application folder, rather than into your profile folder - so when you overwrite that folder, you've just nuked your dictionaries.
If this annoys you, you could always ask the spellbound devs to provide dictionaries that install into your profile
You're seriously joking right? This "review" was a biased advertisement stroking the right-wing conservatives egos that their missionary-position bi-monthly sex acts are acceptable and even encouraged while their co-workers' healthy and exciting sex life is deviant and unacceptable.
... As with everything in this world, different people respond to things differently. Sure, you may have a good relationship based on porn, and that's great. But it doesn't follow that just because the two of you enjoy viewing porn together, pornography is therefore a service that only does good and never does harm.
:) ... and I happen to know of people who are seriously addicted to porn, to the extent that they feel they cannot function without it. Personally, I don't think there's any/much harm in porn created by consenting adults ... however, when it leads people into exploitive forms of pornography (child or non-consensual) that's a problem.
... And unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, this is the more likely case when porn extends into relationships.
:) ... Oh, and I enjoy looking at porn too, while I'm single :)
Whoa, there! Steady on, buddy
For many people, internet porn is addictive - I've felt it myself (heh, while I've been feeling myself
Even discounting the issues of exploitation, porn often causes problems in relationships. I know that you personally are lucky in that you've found a partner who's comfortable exploring porn with you, and there's nothing wrong with that. But I've known relationships to be broken up by guys who can't stop wanting porn even when their partner's lying in bed waiting for them
So don't take the book personally, but do recognise that in being able to cope with porn without being addicted and without hurting anyone, you're the exception rather than the rule. This book deals with the majority case, and although I haven't read it and don't know if I'd agree with the conclusions, it sounds a valuable thing just for being a comprehensive study on the effects of porn in society.
This isn't a right-wing Christian view point, btw - for the record, I'm extremely left-wing in my politics, and agnostic in my religion (although FSM beckons
So you wouldn't be upset if I siphoned off 5% of your gas after each fill up?
Not if I was only filling up to let people take my gas. Or are you suggesting that this guy hosts games which he doesn't want people to use!?!
I think what he didn't like was the fact that they used his game to promote their website, in a way (judging from the screenshots) that made it seem like they created the game - without mentioning that they didn't, and without linking back to his actual site, and of course, hot-linking the game, too.
... There, now - am I guilty of hot-linking too??
...
...
They didn't really hot-link the game, though, did they? It's just a link - it's not like the game's embedded in the page, any more than this is
And I don't think the company was intentionally claiming the game as theirs - it was probably more a case of the webmaster finding a clone of burgertime, thinking that'd be a fun thing to have a link to and providing the link. It seems an unlikely thing to have been done out of malice, it's much more likely to be the result of thoughtlessness. After all, the start screen of the game provides a prominent link to the author's page - perhaps they thought that that was enough? Sadly, the game's author didn't take the time to find out what their intentions were before launching his all-out attack
Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely defending Fuddruckers - they certainly should have acknowledged the authorship of the game, and a polite email to the guy asking if they could link to his game would have been nice as well. It's just that none of the above warranted anything remotely like his response
And how does the complimentee respond? By kicking virtual sand in their face because it generates too much interest. Something wrong with just putting a static 'Thanks for the interest, but we can't cope with the bandwidth right now' message up? Ie. being pleasant and polite?
... so surely it would have been much worse if Fuddruckers had copied the game and placed it on their site!? That would have been a possible breach of copyright, after all!
The funniest thing of all is that the amount of bandwidth fuddruckers was taking up was 5% or less, judging by the graph on his site. I mean, sheesh, what a loser this guy is - not only does he get upset that someone thought his work worthwhile enough to link to, but then he actually thinks his response was not only justified but also pretty damn clever. He writes - and you can see him smirking all the way - "But did I do this right away? No! I waited until the Friday evening before a three-day weekend. So either it'll be up for three days, or someone is going to have to go in during their vacation to fix it. My only hope is that an executive from Fuddruckers finds out about it before that happens. Because, really, stupidity like that deserves losing your job over."
So, yes, Fuddruckers should have sent the guy an email out of courtesy, but that's the only way that I can see that they did anything wrong. An acknowledgement on their website would also have been nice, but considering the game clearly states on the main page who it was written by that's hardly necessary. But these things didn't seem to upset the game's author anyway - what he seemed most pissed off about was that Fuddruckers had linked to his game, rather than copying it and hosting it on their site. Now, there's no obvious copyright on the games and nothing to suggest that they're open source or public domain
it's got some klunky parts that they need to fix up a bit.
... It's a sad testament to the fact that market share begets more market share, I guess :-(
Actually, I've noticed it's improved heaps recently - the latest versions support drag'n'drop into and out of archives, which was a much-missed feature.
Personally, I can't believe people out there pay for WinZip when an OSS alternative like 7-zip exists
The kernel.org tarball is not meant for end-users, it's meant for kernel developers and vendors.
... what planet did you spring from? There's plenty of end-users out there who've been compiling their kernels for years. It's part of being a linux user, being able to customise the kernel to suit your own needs, getting rid of the dross, compiling in the good stuff, patching in extra bits that you want.
Err
How many laptop linux users do you think use vanilla distro kernels?? Ever heard of swsusp2? Really, I never thought I'd hear building a linux kernel described as only for kernel developers and vendors!