Walmart used to be Mom and Pop. And Google was first run on a freaking computer made with legos. And Apple's first computer prototypes were slapped together by a couple of guys in their parents garage. Hmmm, yep, sure was unprofessional of them, boy did they go nowhere fast... wait, what?
It means that my communications are being scanned by a third party, and that I should self-censor accordingly.
Do you have any idea how the internet works, really, do you? Do you know how many "third party" servers your email (and any other internet traffic) goes through to get to the destination? Can you vouch for each and every one of them to be 100% safe and private?
Even if they were copyrighted, you do have provisions for fair use, which Wikipedia uses in many of it's articles. All you need is a good, fair use rational.
Heh, I think most folks are missing the point. Should Wikipedia, a neutral party as far as religion and politics are concerned, change a page because one group decides it's insulting? Free speech is free speech whether or not you like what the speaker is saying. This is, of course, tempered by various laws against slander/libel and hate speech. Does posting an image of Muhammad constitute a "hate crime"?
Of course, it is said that "One who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones". There are many examples of various christian and catholic personalities being mocked and threatened in cartoons, done by muslim (and other religious) newspapers. You'd think that if muslims considered images of Muhammad insulting, that it would be an equal insult to show and mock images of Jesus, Saint Peter, and so forth. It's also considered an insult to burn an effigy of someone, or to burn a country's flag, yet you can see that happening, world round, on a weekly basis.
How is it not ok for us to print a satirical cartoon of Muhammad, but it is ok for people to print a satirical cartoon of Jesus?
More to the point, why is it not ok to post a historical image of Muhammad on a generally neutral encyclopedic website?
The point is that MS has already messed up, their WGA having falsely identifying legitimate customers as pirates in two separate occasions. So the question you quoted is still valid.
So, what is going to happen when M$ screws up and starts blocking products that are 'genuine'?
So why are you criticizing M$. it's their business decision to adopt this model. It's their petard to be hoisted upon if it fails. They obviously think it will work and they know more than you. Sure it may fail in cases too, but if the gains are net positive do they care?
Perhaps the person is a legit customer using Vista, and doesn't want to see their computers become dead boxes? Sure, MS may end up being hoisted by their own petard, but it will be cold comfort to the folks who have to purchase new OSs, or have to revert to previous OSs, and the perhaps added fun fun side quest of cleaning up a potentially nasty botnet issue. And MS will care if millions of their legit customers switch to something else, be it Mac, Linux, or even going back to Windows XP.
Well, I look at it from the point of view that the less plugins you need to use, the better. It should (should being the key word here) mean less buggy code, since it's part of the main program instead of a plugin.
And while Adobe is the dominant player, it got there through a combination of luck, ingenuity and buying up competitors. It did the right marketing at the right time, hence the.pdf's dominance on the web, hence the many postscript and pdf printers, etc. For all it's flaws, Adobe did do wonders for desktop publishing. If you read the general views of the folks posting here in this thread, there isn't a better program than Photoshop for general and specific editing of images. Acrobat is also fairly untouchable. But there are a few things in which some Adobe programs have some competition. Inkscape, for instance, is a worthy competitor for Illustrator. With the right marketing, more development and enough support from the industry, Inkscape could knock the crown off Illustrator's head. You still have contenders in Quark and Paintshop Pro and Corel Draw and others.
The Adobe-Microsoft comparison is fair when you speak of weak competition and their dominance of their respective markets. What I find most disturbing is Adobe's move towards "activation", and rumours of a subscription service. Buy once, and pay for it again and again.
I don't yet hate Adobe, not like the loathing I feel for Microsoft. But, if Adobe continues down the path it's treading...
If you're going to go the text editor route, and everybody should at least once to learn why wysiwyg editors are horrible, I would suggest Editpad Lite. It's free for non-commercial work, it can have open multiple documents via tabs (much like Firefox), and it recognizes most text-based file formats (rich text, html, CSS, javascript, etc.) used for webwork.
which Adobe Acrobat professional 7.0 almost duplicates
Almost duplicates? Acrobat Pro 7.0 can't touch Enfocus' selection tools, text editing, heck, where's the eyedropper tool for handy colour matching?
And Adobe is placing Pitstop's capabilities in Acrobat because, whadayaknow, they're useful and people keep asking for them. Now if Adobe would start putting in Quite Imposing+ capabilties, that would rock.
As for Quark, you are correct. The biggest growth area right now is Adobe InDesign vs. Quark. I wouldn't hire any shop that can't take Quark, InDesign, and PDFs. If they're stuck on Quark-only, they are not work dealing with at this point. That's kind of like saying "we only take WorkPerfect files".
As someone who works for a printing company, I know full well the impact of this statement. Most of our high quality colour jobs arrive from the clients as InDesign, Quark or PDF, in that order. Less often, but often enough, are Illustrator and Photoshop documents.
As for being out of PDF/X spec, the clients won't care as long as the finished product meets or exceeds their expectations.
You know, I used my gmail account for my TDCanadaTrust account, and lately I have noticed a huge amount of pump and dump stock spams. I wonder if I switched my email for a unique gmail account, if I'd start getting those spams there. I'd certainly be pissed if that was the case... Though one would hope that the various sister companies of TDCanadaTrust would have separate email/information servers...
There *is* a perk to using a text-only email system. Though, my experience of pine is from the mid-90s, so I don't know if it allows HTML or imaged email nowadays.:P
The more they try to fool the machines...
on
How Image Spam Works
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
... the easier it becomes for a human to pick it out.
Anything that has a garbled or gobblygook subject is going to be spam these days. Anything in plain english, but forming nonsensical sentences is going to be spam. Anything that looks like someone copy'n'pasted from a book on english poetry is going to be spam. Those three rules alone should cut out most of anyone's spam. Then you can delete anything advertising fake rolexes, pump and dump stock schemes and OEM software. And offers of naked pictures and singles websites. That should about do it...
Slashdot Mirror
Gah, nevermind...
Not to mention the EULA is dated May 2008. And it says RC3 specifically... But, this just in: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/firefox-3.1a1pre.en-US.win32.installer.exe
Those are RC3 candidates.
Got the page to load... It still links FF 2.0.
Those are still the release candidates.
You also could just change the extension of the file to .pdf, and it should email just fine.
At least, it did in the past, the last time I tried.
Walmart used to be Mom and Pop. And Google was first run on a freaking computer made with legos. And Apple's first computer prototypes were slapped together by a couple of guys in their parents garage. Hmmm, yep, sure was unprofessional of them, boy did they go nowhere fast... wait, what?
It means that my communications are being scanned by a third party, and that I should self-censor accordingly.
Do you have any idea how the internet works, really, do you? Do you know how many "third party" servers your email (and any other internet traffic) goes through to get to the destination? Can you vouch for each and every one of them to be 100% safe and private?
This coming from anonymous coward? Post with your slashdot username. :P
Their use is always optional, even if their inclusion on the car is not. :)
Right, so when is your mars probe going up then? Since it's not all that complicated and Earth is Mars-like in so many ways.
Hate to say it, but you're not a non-native Martian either. :D
Even if they were copyrighted, you do have provisions for fair use, which Wikipedia uses in many of it's articles. All you need is a good, fair use rational.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck
Yes, Wikipedia allows the use of vulgarity, racist slurs and profanity.
Sorry, agnostic. :) And you lose the internets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
Heh, I think most folks are missing the point. Should Wikipedia, a neutral party as far as religion and politics are concerned, change a page because one group decides it's insulting? Free speech is free speech whether or not you like what the speaker is saying. This is, of course, tempered by various laws against slander/libel and hate speech. Does posting an image of Muhammad constitute a "hate crime"?
Of course, it is said that "One who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones". There are many examples of various christian and catholic personalities being mocked and threatened in cartoons, done by muslim (and other religious) newspapers. You'd think that if muslims considered images of Muhammad insulting, that it would be an equal insult to show and mock images of Jesus, Saint Peter, and so forth. It's also considered an insult to burn an effigy of someone, or to burn a country's flag, yet you can see that happening, world round, on a weekly basis.
How is it not ok for us to print a satirical cartoon of Muhammad, but it is ok for people to print a satirical cartoon of Jesus?
More to the point, why is it not ok to post a historical image of Muhammad on a generally neutral encyclopedic website?
The point is that MS has already messed up, their WGA having falsely identifying legitimate customers as pirates in two separate occasions. So the question you quoted is still valid. So, what is going to happen when M$ screws up and starts blocking products that are 'genuine'? So why are you criticizing M$. it's their business decision to adopt this model. It's their petard to be hoisted upon if it fails. They obviously think it will work and they know more than you. Sure it may fail in cases too, but if the gains are net positive do they care? Perhaps the person is a legit customer using Vista, and doesn't want to see their computers become dead boxes? Sure, MS may end up being hoisted by their own petard, but it will be cold comfort to the folks who have to purchase new OSs, or have to revert to previous OSs, and the perhaps added fun fun side quest of cleaning up a potentially nasty botnet issue. And MS will care if millions of their legit customers switch to something else, be it Mac, Linux, or even going back to Windows XP.
Giving away free money?
:P
Sorta like how Google gives away free searches?
Well, I look at it from the point of view that the less plugins you need to use, the better. It should (should being the key word here) mean less buggy code, since it's part of the main program instead of a plugin.
.pdf's dominance on the web, hence the many postscript and pdf printers, etc. For all it's flaws, Adobe did do wonders for desktop publishing. If you read the general views of the folks posting here in this thread, there isn't a better program than Photoshop for general and specific editing of images. Acrobat is also fairly untouchable. But there are a few things in which some Adobe programs have some competition. Inkscape, for instance, is a worthy competitor for Illustrator. With the right marketing, more development and enough support from the industry, Inkscape could knock the crown off Illustrator's head. You still have contenders in Quark and Paintshop Pro and Corel Draw and others.
And while Adobe is the dominant player, it got there through a combination of luck, ingenuity and buying up competitors. It did the right marketing at the right time, hence the
The Adobe-Microsoft comparison is fair when you speak of weak competition and their dominance of their respective markets. What I find most disturbing is Adobe's move towards "activation", and rumours of a subscription service. Buy once, and pay for it again and again.
I don't yet hate Adobe, not like the loathing I feel for Microsoft. But, if Adobe continues down the path it's treading...
If you're going to go the text editor route, and everybody should at least once to learn why wysiwyg editors are horrible, I would suggest Editpad Lite. It's free for non-commercial work, it can have open multiple documents via tabs (much like Firefox), and it recognizes most text-based file formats (rich text, html, CSS, javascript, etc.) used for webwork.
which Adobe Acrobat professional 7.0 almost duplicates
Almost duplicates? Acrobat Pro 7.0 can't touch Enfocus' selection tools, text editing, heck, where's the eyedropper tool for handy colour matching?
And Adobe is placing Pitstop's capabilities in Acrobat because, whadayaknow, they're useful and people keep asking for them. Now if Adobe would start putting in Quite Imposing+ capabilties, that would rock.
As for Quark, you are correct. The biggest growth area right now is Adobe InDesign vs. Quark. I wouldn't hire any shop that can't take Quark, InDesign, and PDFs. If they're stuck on Quark-only, they are not work dealing with at this point. That's kind of like saying "we only take WorkPerfect files". As someone who works for a printing company, I know full well the impact of this statement. Most of our high quality colour jobs arrive from the clients as InDesign, Quark or PDF, in that order. Less often, but often enough, are Illustrator and Photoshop documents. As for being out of PDF/X spec, the clients won't care as long as the finished product meets or exceeds their expectations.
You know, I used my gmail account for my TDCanadaTrust account, and lately I have noticed a huge amount of pump and dump stock spams. I wonder if I switched my email for a unique gmail account, if I'd start getting those spams there. I'd certainly be pissed if that was the case... Though one would hope that the various sister companies of TDCanadaTrust would have separate email/information servers...
There *is* a perk to using a text-only email system. Though, my experience of pine is from the mid-90s, so I don't know if it allows HTML or imaged email nowadays. :P
... the easier it becomes for a human to pick it out. Anything that has a garbled or gobblygook subject is going to be spam these days. Anything in plain english, but forming nonsensical sentences is going to be spam. Anything that looks like someone copy'n'pasted from a book on english poetry is going to be spam. Those three rules alone should cut out most of anyone's spam. Then you can delete anything advertising fake rolexes, pump and dump stock schemes and OEM software. And offers of naked pictures and singles websites. That should about do it...
The CD is just one example, not the be all end all of what copyright is about. It's about fair use of anything you buy, not just the iPod.