I don't think that kind of immersion is much related to the graphics, really. Graphics is more like this: Imagine you were sitting down to watch the latest Bond movie. You don't think you're Bond, you have no control over the action - but there's a story unfolding. Now Bond trips over something so it breaks and you see it's only a cardboard prop. That'd break all the immersion and remind you it's all just illusion.
Interesting perspective. Of course, one of the most immersive experiences anyone can have is to sit and read a good book for a few hours. And that, in most cases, doesn't involve
graphics at all. The imagery and the immersion is all inside the reader's head. In some ways that's always going to be better than anything you see on the screen. I suspect the
same thing is true of the roguelikes.
For that matter, it's probably true to an extent of all those old, old games with 8 and 16 bit graphics. I mean, I can remember being just as
enthralled playing Doomdark's Revenge on the Spectrum as ever I've been playing Oblivion. It's not as if you take the pictures on the monitor
for actual reality: the graphics just provide the outline of a scene: the player's imagination fleshes out the details.
I'm not suggesting immersion isn't important. From a game design viewpoint it's vital. But then, immersion is what it's always been about -
ever since the first caveman told the first fireside ghost story. Immersion is a desirable quality in any media experience,
but as in the case of a good novel, you can have immersion without good graphics, or indeed any graphics at all.
The problem is that a surcharge on distribution is the most sensible
way of remunerating the record industry for the services it provides.
Well, it's only sensible if it works. My point is that the model
is rapidly becoming unworkable.
How else are the costs of producing professional music recordings going
to be recovered?
Better to ask, 'how are they going to be recovered at all?'. I mean, consider:
You're not going to stop millions of teenagers from downloading stuff.
You'd have to persuade them that it was a a bad thing and.. well
that's been tried and tried and made not the least impact.
I don't think you can lock down the electronic distribution channels.
I think there are too many potential side-band channels and too many
disruptive technologies waiting in the wings. P2P was unheard of until
Napster was squashed, for instance. And BitTorrent was an academic
curiosity until the media people started poisoning the P2P networks.
I don't think the RIAA lawsuit industry is going to provide enough income
to keep the record execs in the manner to which they are accustomed.
And trying to prosecute every downloading 14 year old on the planet
(even assuming it to be anywhere near cost effective) sounds to me
like a recipe for revolution.
I can surely understand why the media companies want to keep the
surcharge-on-distribution model. But expecting that model to remain viable
in the face of cheap, easy, ubiquitous distribution channels seems like
wishful thinking on their part. Human instinct seems to be to propagate memes.
We pass on jokes and stories, and good ideas. And catchy tunes.
And our on-board firmware seems to put sharing an mp3 in the same
mental category as teaching a friend how to sing a bawdy song.
At the end of the day, The media companies are running against human nature.
That's rarely a winning strategy
So copyright isn't just about recovering the cost of distributing a finished work; it's about recovering the cost of producing and marketing the work. Some of that cost has gone down with technological advances, but a lot of it has not.
That's not really my point. I'm not saying distribution is the only service the media companies provide. What I'm saying is the way they
expect to be remunerated for these services is by placing a surcharge on the costs of distribution. I'm saying that the business model
is fundamentally linked to distribution. And I'm saying that as real world distribution costs approach zero, it's going to get harder and
harder to enforce the state monopoly that is copyright.
I'm not saying that the media company's position is wrong: neither because of falling distribution costs, nor any other reason. What I'm saying is that, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation, I think that a surcharge on distribution
is rapidly becoming unworkable.
And for that reason, I think they're inevitably going to lose this fight.
There's a fine line between fair and unfair use. If I like a film, money should go to the people involved in creating it and bringing it to my screen. If I like music, money should go to the people involved in creating it and bringing it to my speakers.
I think the key factor here isn't so much a question of morality. I think it's a question of viability.
When I think about the state of copyright, I keep comparing it to the spice trades around the 15th Century or so; there are a lot of similarities with the recording industry of, say, forty years ago. Both were extremely lucrative. Both required a significant up front capital investment. And (IIRC) spice trade routes tended to be the subject of state granted monopolies - just like copyright.
So why did the spice route monopolies go away? I'm sure the monopoly holders could make all the same arguments the media cartels do today. They spent a lot of money developing those routes, they could argue. Or that they were the ones that discovered the route, and that entitled them to exclusivity. Or even that if they were not rewarded for their development, who would make the investment to find new trade routes. I think the ethics of the matter were probably about the same then as they are now with the media cartels.
I think what changed was the technology of distribution. It's one thing to enforce a monopoly when to exploit it you need to spend a kings ransom outfitting a trade caravan and then a year or more braving bandits, wild beasts, disease and starvation. It's another entirely when anyone so minded can hop on a plane to Azerbaijan be back inside a week with a suitcase full of saffron.
Similarly, it's easy to enforce a monopoly on the distribution of music when that distribution requires a factory to press vinyl discs, as well as warehousing and transportation networks. But as in the case of the spice traders, technology has moved on.
The bottom line? In a time when media can be distributed for costs approaching zero, I question whether charging for distribution remains a viable way to compensate creators. And if, as I suspect it is not, then I have to question the utility of copyright itself.
Mono is a independent open source project. Microsoft has no real control over this code.
The concern that MS may have one or more submarine patents that apply to the framework. Open source development is a wonderful thing, but the protection it offers against a patent lawsuit is slim to non-existent, depending on the extent to which the aggressor relies on open source software.
*IF* Microsoft tried to hijack or close down Mono, it would need to do so through the courts, when was the last time Microsoft won a case like that?
That will be a great comfort to TomTom, I'm sure.
When Sun tried to dictate control over their platform Microsoft simply stopped shipping the JVM on their OS and soon after started shipping the.NET runtime. The Mono crew would simply do the same, by simply forking and become something that is not.NET compliant,
Bit of a pointless exercise, that. The only real draw of Mono over Java is compaibility with MS. Forking Mono would be a hugely stupid move. On top of which, most of the mono developers work for Novell, who are unlikely to worry about MS patent threats. On the contrary, they might well welcome such a development which, properly timed, it could leave them as the only enterprise-credible commercial distro. So that's another concern - the conflict of interest at Novell.
This is simply sensless anti-MS zealotry. Applications written on Mono are no more of a risk than those written on any other platofrm
I disagree. I'm not always Stallman's biggest fan (check my posting history) and I've used Mono professionally for the last four years. But in the case of Debian, I think Stallman's got it right. Not only does Debian not need Mono, but also in adopting the framework, it potentially leaves itself open to attack. Needlessly.
We need to pick a position on copyright law and stick with it.
Yup. And just as soon as the Slashdot Hive Mind Project comes online we may be able to do that. Until such time,
you'd have an easier job herding the proverbial cats. We're not a political party; we don't do positions.
And if we did, you can bet we'd have slashdotters speaking out against it, faster than you can say "first post!"
If we're against copyrights, then we're also against the GPL
Umm... no. Abolishing copyright would abolish the legal mechanism enabling the GPL, it is true.
On the other hand, misuse of copyright is largely evil that the GPL was created to remedy.
Opposing copyright abolition on the grounds that it would destroy the GPL is rather like
opposing the eradication of Malaria on the grounds that malaria vaccines save so many lives.
Still, so long as Malaria exists, malaria vaccines remain a force for
good. Similarly, while copyright remains on the statue books, the GPL likewise remainse
a force for good. YMMV, obviously.
Another way to look at it: The GPL is a lot like buying a slave in order to set him or her free.
Slavery is evil, as I think we'd all agree. On the other hand, given a society in which the law
permits human slavery, it is still possible to find ethical applications for those same laws,
even though the intent of the law runs entirely to the contrary
However, if we're in favor of the GPL, then we must also be in favor of the copyrights governing all the things pirated on P2P networks
Doesn't follow. You could make a good case for "if we expect companies to respect the GPL then we should respect
the copyrights of others and therefore not share or download material without permissions from the rights holders".
It's just that you didn't actually say that. Call me a pedant if you will.
Are you really equating selling Blu-ray discs of Iron Man with linching a man because of the color of his skin ?
No, he's equating an conflict of interest on the part of a judge, with a slightly more
obvious conflict of interest on the part of a different (and hypothetical) judge.
Judicial bias is a Bad Thing in its own right. That remains true regardless of whether the case
in question concerns genocide, or kids stealing apples from their next door neighbour's garden.
The law is supposed to be impartial.
You're absolutely correct, virtually none of these people use Linux because it's way too much of a PITA.
I've never had anyone say to me "I don't Linux because it's a PITA". I've had quite a few say "I don't use Linux because I don't know how it works and I don't have time to learn". I've had even more say "Linux? What's that?"
But I take your point about monitors in the workplace.
The original poster is quite correct that Linux has advanced a great deal, but is absolutely wrong in suggesting that the only reason it hasn't taken over is because of foul play by Microsoft.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that. On the other hand, I think it's pretty clear that Microsoft are doing everything in their power to slow down the rate of Linux adoption. And I think it's likely that Linux would have kept much of its initial market share in the netbook area were it not for Microsoft pressuring OEMs.
Unless of course you know a lot of people who use two monitors on their Asus EE
The only people I know with extra monitors are geeks. Hell, I've offered to set up a dual monitor rig for
non-geeks before and been turned down.
They were afraid they'd get confused with a second monitor.
I suspect that most people who have the urge to use two monitors on Linux,
by the same token, are not the sort of people who are going to be put off by
the need to edit a config file.
Yes, that is a better way to look at it. Still the sun making the change, since more solar engergy is being retained; but still us causing that change to happen, since we're boosting the CO2 levels.
I never thought of it in terms of thermal equilibrium and black body temperatures before. Seems obvious now
you've pointed it out.
If the Sun died out, it would have such a huge magnitude more effect on Earth than a big magnifying glass
That rather depends on the size of the magnifying glass. There's not a lot of difference between
a lifeless ball of ice and a lifeless cinder. At least not in terms of quality of life.
What everybody fails to mention about Climate, is that 99% of it is caused by the Sun
That's an interesting way of looking at it.
Of course, you should also consider that Earth's biosphere is essentially a planet sized solar collector. Plants trap the sunlight and store it as high energy compounds. Then animals come along ad turn the plants' trapped energy into more concentrated forms, like fats. Even when the organism dies, the stored energy remains. Eventually, if given long enough it turns into fossil fuels. Six hundred million years of dinosaur blubber gave us our oil reserves. Lord knows how many years of dead trees went to make our coal.
We actually have a miniscule affect on climate
Well, that all depends on what we do, doesn't it? I mean, if we built a giant magnifying glass in space so Earth got five times more solar radiation, that would have an effect. If we launched
solar reflectors into orbit so 50% of the sunlight falling on the planet was reflected away, that would have an effect too. Granted, it would be the Sun causing the effect. But it would also be us, yeah?
And to my way of thinking, if we take 600 million years of trapped solar radiation and release most of it over a paltry couple of centuries...
well, I reckon that would have an effect too.
Alright, normally I steer clear of these little fanboi-type fights but was that last bit really necessary?
I thought it was reasonable given the tone of the post to which I responded.
Furthermore, I think its a fair question. This isn't like the endless Mac/Windows/Linux
wars where each side slams the others' systems in order to promote their own. This is someone getting
angry and bitter and resentful about a piece of software that is by his own admission,
mostly very useful.
So I have to wonder what his angle is. The people I see getting all worked up about
NoScript mostly seem to be ad men and profilers. So I got to wondering if that was the case here;
maybe NoScript really is stealing his lunch money, so to speak.
He was abrasive, but he wasn't trolling and he wasn't starting a flame war like your inflammatory comment can be seen as trying to do.
Well, that's a matter of opinion, I guess. I stand by what I wrote.
Back on topic: NoScript is not perfect, but it can help...
One more thing - the "naked" argument works (to the extent that it does) because
people who choose to go naked in public are stepping outside the social norms.
The trouble is
that the people who are "naked" to web bugs are the norm. And
they have a reasonable expectation not to be spied upon.
If you walk around naked, you can't complain when people look at you.
On the other hand, just because someone is naked, that doesn't necessarily
mean that staring at them is acceptable behaviour.
And, to be fair, this isn't just looking. This is more like
taking photographs of the naked, without their knowledge or consent,
and then to sell those photos to third parties.
I think that probably would be cause for complaint in anyone's book.
Well, anyone not involved in the porn industry, anyway.
no script doesn't prevent them from starting, sometimes it does, but not always, it is entirely possible for them to load and have you tracked BEFORE noscript has a chance to stop it.
Which is one reason most the major offenders are disabled in my hosts file.
You noscript people rant and rave about how awesome it is and have absolutely no clue how it works.
What's the matter? Did NoScript steal your lunch money or something?
'Web bugs' are nothing new, you've just been too dumb to notice them in the pst.
Actually, I noticed them in the past and I didn't like them then, either.
Nice to see the bad news reaching a new set of surfers though.
'People' don't CARE if they are tracked
Actually, by your own argument, most people don't know they're being tracked. And in my experience, when they find out, a lot of them freak out. Which is more of less what you're seeing here.
Incidentally, why the quotes around "people"? Do you feel the word was
poorly chosen? Who do you think this issue affects, if not people?
You are quite correct, your privacy is none of his business, so why are you bitching at him for taking advantage of your lack of due diligence and responsibility for your own privacy?
Yeah, because that would be like criticising confidence tricksters
for taking advantage of a person's trusting nature. Or condemning muggers for
taking advantage of people who never studied the martial arts. What sort of word would we live in if we gave people a hard time, just because they don't give a wet slap about anyone other than themselves?
Seriously, I suppose it comes down to what sort of a net people want.
I think the GP is asking a valid question.
You really think Microsoft makes decisions based on Ballmer's moods?
I think that if Ballmer makes a decision, be it based on his moods or otherwise,
he's in a position to have a lot of influence over MS policy. Do you really believe
otherwise?
Are you denying what I said about that page?
I guess I'm having difficulty taking your point. It's an indirect ad intended to work on
a subconscious level. So what?
I really don't see why you're so up in arms about it.
Then wake up because more IP streaming means less power in the hands of traditional broadcasters.
Only if people use the service - and I have difficulty imagining that happening in this particular case, Drinky.
Let's face it, most XBox owners who want Sky probably already get it. I can't see many folks subscribing to this service
just so they can get Sky over their XBox instead of direct from cable or satellite.
And for that matter, we're only talking about streaming Sky, so the only broadcaster I can see it affecting is Sky - and it's their business in the first case.
I can see how, in general, the trend to streamed video on demand is going to shake things up, but I really don't see what either side hopes to achieve with this specific exercise.
Nor do I think Microsoft's "corporate culture" or Ballmer's personality has anything to do with how they might react.
Sure. I mean Ballmer's only the CEO - what sort of say has he got in how they do anything? Sorry,
I think you're clutching at straws here.
The Asus page doesn't contain the word "Linux" and clearly states it is about a pre-loaded Windows machine. Anyone other than a hardcore Linux fanboy would see or infer no subtext.
So you say. I guess that settle that one we need someone with a neutral point of view. I doubt we're going to find one around here though.
Does it seem to you that we're reaching the point of diminishing returns here? Maybe it's time we agreed to differ on this one.
Would anyone at Microsoft consider that they'd been offended or see it as a "slap in the face?" No.
You don't think "anyone" would take it personally? This is the company run by Steve Ballmer, he of the flying chairs.
He's known for taking these things personally. I'm afraid I don't share your optimism about the MS corporate culture.
I don't expect people not to discuss this. I do expect people to have enough maturity to avoid setting themselves up for unnecessary angst and disappointment.
I think your expectations are a bit unrealistic. I mean the linux community runs the gamut from corporate CEOs, through to bright twelve year olds. It's no good expecting them all to comport themselves like pallbearers at a funeral.
You can't "support" software anymore than you can "support" a toaster.
Or a football team for that matter. Oh, wait a sec...
Seriously, you absolutely can support software. You can fund its development, you can fix bugs and submit patches. You can even stand on the sidelines and cheer "Yay, Linux!" People are doing it. You may not approve, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
I just fail to see why people would care if Asus tells people how to put Windows on a Linux pre-load.
I don't think anyone does. I mean Asus have sold XP and Linux versions of the same machine since the start. The XP one is a bit more expensive and comes with a hard disc rather than a SSD drive.
I think what's upsetting folks is the fact that Asus linked to a site that has some one-sided windows advocacy. Which would probably upset people
whether Asus had released a Linux based machine or not. It's almost a tribal thing - some people get annoyed when their sports team gets slagged off, others get belligerent on behalf of their chosen operating system. It's human nature, and you're unlikely to change it, I'm afraid.
The link: The Techgeist piece linked to in the post that started this thread links to the alleged nefarious page. However, it's a page about a machine that is pre-loaded with Windows
It's an Asus Eee machine, and the tag line "it's better with windows". The criticism is indirect, but hardly seems unclear.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting perspective. Of course, one of the most immersive experiences anyone can have is to sit and read a good book for a few hours. And that, in most cases, doesn't involve graphics at all. The imagery and the immersion is all inside the reader's head. In some ways that's always going to be better than anything you see on the screen. I suspect the same thing is true of the roguelikes.
For that matter, it's probably true to an extent of all those old, old games with 8 and 16 bit graphics. I mean, I can remember being just as enthralled playing Doomdark's Revenge on the Spectrum as ever I've been playing Oblivion. It's not as if you take the pictures on the monitor for actual reality: the graphics just provide the outline of a scene: the player's imagination fleshes out the details.
I'm not suggesting immersion isn't important. From a game design viewpoint it's vital. But then, immersion is what it's always been about - ever since the first caveman told the first fireside ghost story. Immersion is a desirable quality in any media experience, but as in the case of a good novel, you can have immersion without good graphics, or indeed any graphics at all.
Well, it's only sensible if it works. My point is that the model is rapidly becoming unworkable.
Better to ask, 'how are they going to be recovered at all?'. I mean, consider:
I can surely understand why the media companies want to keep the surcharge-on-distribution model. But expecting that model to remain viable in the face of cheap, easy, ubiquitous distribution channels seems like wishful thinking on their part. Human instinct seems to be to propagate memes. We pass on jokes and stories, and good ideas. And catchy tunes. And our on-board firmware seems to put sharing an mp3 in the same mental category as teaching a friend how to sing a bawdy song.
At the end of the day, The media companies are running against human nature. That's rarely a winning strategy
That's not really my point. I'm not saying distribution is the only service the media companies provide. What I'm saying is the way they expect to be remunerated for these services is by placing a surcharge on the costs of distribution. I'm saying that the business model is fundamentally linked to distribution. And I'm saying that as real world distribution costs approach zero, it's going to get harder and harder to enforce the state monopoly that is copyright.
I'm not saying that the media company's position is wrong: neither because of falling distribution costs, nor any other reason. What I'm saying is that, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation, I think that a surcharge on distribution is rapidly becoming unworkable.
And for that reason, I think they're inevitably going to lose this fight.
I think the key factor here isn't so much a question of morality. I think it's a question of viability.
When I think about the state of copyright, I keep comparing it to the spice trades around the 15th Century or so; there are a lot of similarities with the recording industry of, say, forty years ago. Both were extremely lucrative. Both required a significant up front capital investment. And (IIRC) spice trade routes tended to be the subject of state granted monopolies - just like copyright.
So why did the spice route monopolies go away? I'm sure the monopoly holders could make all the same arguments the media cartels do today. They spent a lot of money developing those routes, they could argue. Or that they were the ones that discovered the route, and that entitled them to exclusivity. Or even that if they were not rewarded for their development, who would make the investment to find new trade routes. I think the ethics of the matter were probably about the same then as they are now with the media cartels.
I think what changed was the technology of distribution. It's one thing to enforce a monopoly when to exploit it you need to spend a kings ransom outfitting a trade caravan and then a year or more braving bandits, wild beasts, disease and starvation. It's another entirely when anyone so minded can hop on a plane to Azerbaijan be back inside a week with a suitcase full of saffron.
Similarly, it's easy to enforce a monopoly on the distribution of music when that distribution requires a factory to press vinyl discs, as well as warehousing and transportation networks. But as in the case of the spice traders, technology has moved on.
The bottom line? In a time when media can be distributed for costs approaching zero, I question whether charging for distribution remains a viable way to compensate creators. And if, as I suspect it is not, then I have to question the utility of copyright itself.
The concern that MS may have one or more submarine patents that apply to the framework. Open source development is a wonderful thing, but the protection it offers against a patent lawsuit is slim to non-existent, depending on the extent to which the aggressor relies on open source software.
That will be a great comfort to TomTom, I'm sure.
Bit of a pointless exercise, that. The only real draw of Mono over Java is compaibility with MS. Forking Mono would be a hugely stupid move. On top of which, most of the mono developers work for Novell, who are unlikely to worry about MS patent threats. On the contrary, they might well welcome such a development which, properly timed, it could leave them as the only enterprise-credible commercial distro. So that's another concern - the conflict of interest at Novell.
I disagree. I'm not always Stallman's biggest fan (check my posting history) and I've used Mono professionally for the last four years. But in the case of Debian, I think Stallman's got it right. Not only does Debian not need Mono, but also in adopting the framework, it potentially leaves itself open to attack. Needlessly.
Yup. And just as soon as the Slashdot Hive Mind Project comes online we may be able to do that. Until such time, you'd have an easier job herding the proverbial cats. We're not a political party; we don't do positions. And if we did, you can bet we'd have slashdotters speaking out against it, faster than you can say "first post!"
Umm... no. Abolishing copyright would abolish the legal mechanism enabling the GPL, it is true. On the other hand, misuse of copyright is largely evil that the GPL was created to remedy. Opposing copyright abolition on the grounds that it would destroy the GPL is rather like opposing the eradication of Malaria on the grounds that malaria vaccines save so many lives. Still, so long as Malaria exists, malaria vaccines remain a force for good. Similarly, while copyright remains on the statue books, the GPL likewise remainse a force for good. YMMV, obviously.
Another way to look at it: The GPL is a lot like buying a slave in order to set him or her free. Slavery is evil, as I think we'd all agree. On the other hand, given a society in which the law permits human slavery, it is still possible to find ethical applications for those same laws, even though the intent of the law runs entirely to the contrary
Doesn't follow. You could make a good case for "if we expect companies to respect the GPL then we should respect the copyrights of others and therefore not share or download material without permissions from the rights holders". It's just that you didn't actually say that. Call me a pedant if you will.
No, he's equating an conflict of interest on the part of a judge, with a slightly more obvious conflict of interest on the part of a different (and hypothetical) judge.
Judicial bias is a Bad Thing in its own right. That remains true regardless of whether the case in question concerns genocide, or kids stealing apples from their next door neighbour's garden. The law is supposed to be impartial.
More like a person with heathy limbs of arms wouldn't rely so much on prosthetics.
Just because you strongly support a palliative, that's no reason not to cure the disease.
I've never had anyone say to me "I don't Linux because it's a PITA". I've had quite a few say "I don't use Linux because I don't know how it works and I don't have time to learn". I've had even more say "Linux? What's that?"
But I take your point about monitors in the workplace.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that. On the other hand, I think it's pretty clear that Microsoft are doing everything in their power to slow down the rate of Linux adoption. And I think it's likely that Linux would have kept much of its initial market share in the netbook area were it not for Microsoft pressuring OEMs.
Unless of course you know a lot of people who use two monitors on their Asus EE
The only people I know with extra monitors are geeks. Hell, I've offered to set up a dual monitor rig for non-geeks before and been turned down. They were afraid they'd get confused with a second monitor.
I suspect that most people who have the urge to use two monitors on Linux, by the same token, are not the sort of people who are going to be put off by the need to edit a config file.
Yes, that is a better way to look at it. Still the sun making the change, since more solar engergy is being retained; but still us causing that change to happen, since we're boosting the CO2 levels.
I never thought of it in terms of thermal equilibrium and black body temperatures before. Seems obvious now you've pointed it out.
That rather depends on the size of the magnifying glass. There's not a lot of difference between a lifeless ball of ice and a lifeless cinder. At least not in terms of quality of life.
That's an interesting way of looking at it.
Of course, you should also consider that Earth's biosphere is essentially a planet sized solar collector. Plants trap the sunlight and store it as high energy compounds. Then animals come along ad turn the plants' trapped energy into more concentrated forms, like fats. Even when the organism dies, the stored energy remains. Eventually, if given long enough it turns into fossil fuels. Six hundred million years of dinosaur blubber gave us our oil reserves. Lord knows how many years of dead trees went to make our coal.
Well, that all depends on what we do, doesn't it? I mean, if we built a giant magnifying glass in space so Earth got five times more solar radiation, that would have an effect. If we launched solar reflectors into orbit so 50% of the sunlight falling on the planet was reflected away, that would have an effect too. Granted, it would be the Sun causing the effect. But it would also be us, yeah?
And to my way of thinking, if we take 600 million years of trapped solar radiation and release most of it over a paltry couple of centuries ...
well, I reckon that would have an effect too.
I thought it was reasonable given the tone of the post to which I responded.
Furthermore, I think its a fair question. This isn't like the endless Mac/Windows/Linux wars where each side slams the others' systems in order to promote their own. This is someone getting angry and bitter and resentful about a piece of software that is by his own admission, mostly very useful.
So I have to wonder what his angle is. The people I see getting all worked up about NoScript mostly seem to be ad men and profilers. So I got to wondering if that was the case here; maybe NoScript really is stealing his lunch money, so to speak.
Well, that's a matter of opinion, I guess. I stand by what I wrote.
Entirely agree with the rest of your post.
One more thing - the "naked" argument works (to the extent that it does) because people who choose to go naked in public are stepping outside the social norms.
The trouble is that the people who are "naked" to web bugs are the norm. And they have a reasonable expectation not to be spied upon.
On the other hand, just because someone is naked, that doesn't necessarily mean that staring at them is acceptable behaviour.
And, to be fair, this isn't just looking. This is more like taking photographs of the naked, without their knowledge or consent, and then to sell those photos to third parties.
I think that probably would be cause for complaint in anyone's book. Well, anyone not involved in the porn industry, anyway.
Which is one reason most the major offenders are disabled in my hosts file.
What's the matter? Did NoScript steal your lunch money or something?
Actually, I noticed them in the past and I didn't like them then, either. Nice to see the bad news reaching a new set of surfers though.
Actually, by your own argument, most people don't know they're being tracked. And in my experience, when they find out, a lot of them freak out. Which is more of less what you're seeing here.
Incidentally, why the quotes around "people"? Do you feel the word was poorly chosen? Who do you think this issue affects, if not people?
Yeah, because that would be like criticising confidence tricksters for taking advantage of a person's trusting nature. Or condemning muggers for taking advantage of people who never studied the martial arts. What sort of word would we live in if we gave people a hard time, just because they don't give a wet slap about anyone other than themselves?
Seriously, I suppose it comes down to what sort of a net people want. I think the GP is asking a valid question.
Luckily for me, I've no more love for Sky than I have for Microsoft :)
mmm... I rather suspect they're going to be disappointed in this instance.
I think that if Ballmer makes a decision, be it based on his moods or otherwise, he's in a position to have a lot of influence over MS policy. Do you really believe otherwise?
I guess I'm having difficulty taking your point. It's an indirect ad intended to work on a subconscious level. So what?
I really don't see why you're so up in arms about it.
Only if people use the service - and I have difficulty imagining that happening in this particular case, Drinky.
Let's face it, most XBox owners who want Sky probably already get it. I can't see many folks subscribing to this service just so they can get Sky over their XBox instead of direct from cable or satellite.
And for that matter, we're only talking about streaming Sky, so the only broadcaster I can see it affecting is Sky - and it's their business in the first case.
I can see how, in general, the trend to streamed video on demand is going to shake things up, but I really don't see what either side hopes to achieve with this specific exercise.
Sure. I mean Ballmer's only the CEO - what sort of say has he got in how they do anything? Sorry, I think you're clutching at straws here.
So you say. I guess that settle that one we need someone with a neutral point of view. I doubt we're going to find one around here though.
Does it seem to you that we're reaching the point of diminishing returns here? Maybe it's time we agreed to differ on this one.
You don't think "anyone" would take it personally? This is the company run by Steve Ballmer, he of the flying chairs. He's known for taking these things personally. I'm afraid I don't share your optimism about the MS corporate culture.
I think your expectations are a bit unrealistic. I mean the linux community runs the gamut from corporate CEOs, through to bright twelve year olds. It's no good expecting them all to comport themselves like pallbearers at a funeral.
Or a football team for that matter. Oh, wait a sec...
Seriously, you absolutely can support software. You can fund its development, you can fix bugs and submit patches. You can even stand on the sidelines and cheer "Yay, Linux!" People are doing it. You may not approve, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
I don't think anyone does. I mean Asus have sold XP and Linux versions of the same machine since the start. The XP one is a bit more expensive and comes with a hard disc rather than a SSD drive.
I think what's upsetting folks is the fact that Asus linked to a site that has some one-sided windows advocacy. Which would probably upset people whether Asus had released a Linux based machine or not. It's almost a tribal thing - some people get annoyed when their sports team gets slagged off, others get belligerent on behalf of their chosen operating system. It's human nature, and you're unlikely to change it, I'm afraid.
It's an Asus Eee machine, and the tag line "it's better with windows". The criticism is indirect, but hardly seems unclear.