It's just a prettier version of TWM, or FVWM, or whatever you were using way back when the internet was born.
And the sad thing is it gets this with 100x the footprint of libraries. I'm assuming that's why gnome's logo is, in fact, a footprint. Because it is huge.
A lot of people go on and on about how Gentoo "teaches" them about Linux due to the install process, but what exactly are you learning? At most, you learn how to partition correctly.
I've been hearing about this gentoo junk for a while, but partitioning is really the "learning" they're talking about? Sheesh, things really do come full circle. Slackware's been doing it that way forever. Customizable and lightning fast.
Gee, and here I though it was THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TIME TO DO TWO DE'S AND SLACKWARE. But leave it to slashdot to turn it into a pissing match.
I mean, he *could* have dropped KDE instead. So if it's one or the other, the pissing contest isn't surprising. Despite what he says about gnome just taking more maintenance.;)
I think he was just saying that Patents should be changed. Which might be a fair enough balance if the PO is going to insist on giving them out free with bubblegum. Either tighten up the system or reduce the level of control a patent gives over the market.
I can't argue with the last half of that. What part of "nonobvious"...
Or instigate random executions of Patent Office staff until they wise the fuck up.
As satisfying as that might be - and it would be quite satisfying - they're understaffed and have a mandate from on high that equates patents granted with technological progress. Can't fault that logic, right? The problem is a lot worse than it seems. And it seems pretty damned bad.
Also, patenet claims SHOULD also include proof that the design wasn't come upon independently and without using any of the claimers work. Patents are supposed to protect against unfair use of one's hard work and effort. If it's their own, it doesn't matter which came first.
You're confusing copyright and patent (don't feel bad, everyone else on this site does too). Patents are mutually exclusive and broad. They could have copyrighted their design, and sony still copyrighted theirs.
However, this might show how low the threshold for patents is these days.
Same old shit
on
The Next Net
·
· Score: -1, Redundant
It is pathetic that even poor people in South Korea have lines for 20 bucks a month at 25 mbps. America the leader in tech? I beg to differ.
You make some intersting points. Except I find one humoursly circular and self feeding.
Use credit so you have a better credit rating so you can use more credit. I find it amazing that 'credit' ratings have become so all important, even if you don't live a lifestyle that needs significant credit, esp in relation to your ongoing expenses.
It is self feeding. I hate that it's so, but realistically, it's necessary. When you go to ever purchase a home or other high ticket item, the difference can save you somewhere between hundreds-tens of thousnads of dollars. If you don't have a lifestyle that needs credit - and you NEVER will - then don't worry. But that describes very few people anymore.
Why are people penalized in this society for NOT tending to live in debt? I don't get it (actually I do, it's more profitable, what I don't get is why people buy into this myth).
There's good debt and bad debt, but in general I agree 100% with the sentiment. I have no bad debt. I pay off my cards every month, and haven't paid interest ever. I just bought a car today with cash. The dealership tried to get me to finance saying I had the best credit he'd ever seen, but I paid cash anyway.
But someday, I'd like to own a home at a very low rate, and that requires a solid credit history. And really, you can build credit by using credit cards responsibly every month. You're never in debt and you get valuable services and convenience for free. How is that not a good deal?
IOW: f*ck keeping up with the jones, when thier 75 and in a nursing home tied to bed because they owed 10years salary to 'the man' and got sick I'll still be getting by on what actually is good enough in most areas and few nice things where it's important to me.
never use a card when cash will get the job done. It might sound "cute", but it's the best way to protect your privacy - not to mention your bank account.
Really? That's true about privacy, and when I get around to laundering this pile of dirty money, that'll be great. But I think you're crazy regarding protecting your bank account (unless you mean from yourself, at which point some self-discipline would help).
You can't contest a purchase with cash. You don't get free product insurance with cash. You don't get a nice charge summary with cash. You don't have to go to an ATM or a bank to get your card, as you do with cash. Using cash doesn't help your credit rating, and should you ever want a better car or develop the desire to move out on your own, cash doesn't help develop a good credit rating.
I understand the card companies get a lot in profit from people, on average, for those services. But I don't pay them a thing, because I pay them off every month, on time. And since the credit card companies make it against the rules to pass on merchant fees (ie, no discount for paying cash), I figure why not take advantage of the situation?
Seriously, why can't the US government learn to keep their noses out of every aspect in our lives?!
You're right, we should have a tax on blank media like Canada does. Oh wait. We're better on Canada on that issue already.
Slashdot only pays attention when the US is worse about something. Never when it's better.
Also, I'm assuming that by your statement that you're also in favor of lower taxes, nonexistant consumer protection, eradicating public education, and doing away with social programs, right?
I am not certain what their damage argument is exactly, however, if google is found to be freeloading AFPs services there is a stron argument that AFP is entitled to the cost of those services. This could easily be millions of dollars.
Hard to see as how they have been. Unless we're talking about the google cache, they just provide links. That's not likely to equate to theft of services, since google is just pointing people to AFP's own free service.
2) I would say googles headlines are covered by fair use, but not the snippet of article they include. This is because in journalism it is standard practice to cram as much information as possible into thefirst few lines, which is what google reproduces. Hence, for many people google reproduces the only part of the article worth reading.
Fair use has generally covered snippets. I've never seen anything that excepted news due to how they write. Also, most (if not all, I can't remember) of the searches I see are headlines only.
I think the laws are substantially different in France, where linking to things has been seen as a violation of trademark, copyright, etc. It's not in the US to my knowledge. This suit is being filed in the US, and I think that will make the difference.
AFP make their money by selling their stories to other media organizations. If they allow their news to be disseminated without the appropriate fee being paid (as Google News is doing), they will be cutting off their main source of revenue.
Google only provides links, not content. So Google is providing free advertising. And if AFP is giving away content for free on their own site, to anyone, it's really hard to see how they're being harmed.
They sell wire services. Google news is not a substitute. If it were, their own home page would kill their business, and presumably it isn't.
They don't offer free pop access?? That is news to me especially considering I have two yahoo addresses and access both of them with pop for free.
Are you using a scraper applet like YoSucker! or something like that? Otherwise, how do you get your yahoo mail through pop?
Note that I'm referring to using POP from a standalone client (eg, thunderbird) to get Yahoo! mail. I'm not talking about using Yahoo to access popmail from another account, which it does for free.
They still list POP as one of their upgrade benefits on the $19.99/yr plan.
Actually I believe it was bigger around 2000 at least. It was around 6 megs or something, then downgraded to less. Everyone that had 6 remained on 6. Then they upgraded everyone later on when google came around.
You're right, I forgot that - as a longtime Yahoo!!!!! user, I wasn't affected. But it definitely shows that Y's business model was a reduction in free benefits to force people over to their for-pay services - at least until google came along.
I think gmail currently allows free pop access - if that continues, it'll be interesting to see if yahoo re-enables free pop access, something they used to offer but now charge for.
Why not believe them. The way people use web mail, certainly my usage has changed over the years. Do you seriously expect Yahoo to stick with what worked for most people in 1997?
Well, it's funny that they had that same quota from 1997 from then until last year when gmail's beta started growing, at which point they made it 250MB. Then they upped it to a gig - exactly what google offers - within a week of gmail's expansion to the general populace.
If you believe in that many coincidences, you must have been on the OJ jury, would explain a lot.
I think this is the same thing really. Banning what people do in the privacy of their own homes. It's wrong.
Ah, but here no one's banning anything. The ISP only has to filter - or provide filtering technology - to customers who request it. To continue your analogy, it would be like Houston publishing a directory of "adult entertainment" establishments and requiring the yellow pages to distribute it to you. It doesn't prevent consenting adults from engaging in the behavior, and shifts the blame completely to the parents since they had the opportunity to stop the kiddies from getting into the naughty stuff.
The only gripe is that, if filtering client software was enough to do the trick, why the ISPs had to get involved in this unfunded mandate at all. But as kneejerk "save the children" laws go, this is the least onerous I've seen yet.
"Is the US public that far behind in broadband connections?"
Yup.
By the factor of 4 or 5 to account for the population difference? That might be tough.
Also, I think your reasons for adoption in the US are dead wrong. DSL is down to $30/month, which is only $7 more than AOL I think. The problem is mostly last mile with DSL. Not sure what issues lie with cable.
As for seeing the need, all it takes is for someone to try it once at a friend's house. No more waiting for the modem to connect, DC's, and general slowness (which is relative to creeping webpage bloat...grrr...).
Yes, thankfully they are going to wireless. Thank the lords of Kobol, they will doubtless put great effort into security even though they never paid more than lip service while wired. For example, ask your neighbor how many minutes he had a wireless connection before he changed the default ssid and admin password. Probably less than 2. Probably also set it up to use MAC address lists...These things are as hardened as you can make the "average" access-point" and I doubt that 5% of the access points have had this done. (I know that the above does not make it secure, but it would keep out a good chunk of trouble)
Don't get me wrong, they won't be *secure* - but an insecure WAP isn't half as bad as a completely insecure box with a real IP address. At least from a spam standpoint. To 0wnz0r my wireless router (assuming I hadn't set the password, which I have), you'd have to get close and browse the old 192.168.0.1. A spammer at home can try hacking that IP...in fact, if there are any spammers listening, I recommend you try it.
Put it this way - a spammer now could run an effectively infinite network of spambots. But how many could he run if he actually had to get close enough, in physical proximity, to use an open wireless node? If he's industrious and lives in a dense city, maybe a few tens or maybe a hundred in a day? And that's such a pain in the ass you couldn't do that every day.
Realistically, if everybody went to wireless, a spammer would be limited to a few bots nearby. It would also help track him down (again, the physical proximity thing). And it makes it almost guaranteed that he'll be physically be in the jurisdiction in which he commits the crime.
Basically they should be made compulsary for all broadband connections. It is the plethora of cheap USB ADSL modems that are being offered free with connections that it causing the problem.
And thankfully more people are going to wireless, which obviously necessitates a harware router, which should (for the most part) solve the problem. Hopefully.
Slashdot Mirror
And the sad thing is it gets this with 100x the footprint of libraries. I'm assuming that's why gnome's logo is, in fact, a footprint. Because it is huge.
I've been hearing about this gentoo junk for a while, but partitioning is really the "learning" they're talking about? Sheesh, things really do come full circle. Slackware's been doing it that way forever. Customizable and lightning fast.
I mean, he *could* have dropped KDE instead. So if it's one or the other, the pissing contest isn't surprising. Despite what he says about gnome just taking more maintenance. ;)
I can't argue with the last half of that. What part of "nonobvious"...
Or instigate random executions of Patent Office staff until they wise the fuck up.
As satisfying as that might be - and it would be quite satisfying - they're understaffed and have a mandate from on high that equates patents granted with technological progress. Can't fault that logic, right? The problem is a lot worse than it seems. And it seems pretty damned bad.
You're confusing copyright and patent (don't feel bad, everyone else on this site does too). Patents are mutually exclusive and broad. They could have copyrighted their design, and sony still copyrighted theirs.
However, this might show how low the threshold for patents is these days.
Population density.
I, for one, welcome...ah fuck it.
It is self feeding. I hate that it's so, but realistically, it's necessary. When you go to ever purchase a home or other high ticket item, the difference can save you somewhere between hundreds-tens of thousnads of dollars. If you don't have a lifestyle that needs credit - and you NEVER will - then don't worry. But that describes very few people anymore.
Why are people penalized in this society for NOT tending to live in debt? I don't get it (actually I do, it's more profitable, what I don't get is why people buy into this myth).
There's good debt and bad debt, but in general I agree 100% with the sentiment. I have no bad debt. I pay off my cards every month, and haven't paid interest ever. I just bought a car today with cash. The dealership tried to get me to finance saying I had the best credit he'd ever seen, but I paid cash anyway.
But someday, I'd like to own a home at a very low rate, and that requires a solid credit history. And really, you can build credit by using credit cards responsibly every month. You're never in debt and you get valuable services and convenience for free. How is that not a good deal?
IOW: f*ck keeping up with the jones, when thier 75 and in a nursing home tied to bed because they owed 10years salary to 'the man' and got sick I'll still be getting by on what actually is good enough in most areas and few nice things where it's important to me.
Amen. ;)
Really? That's true about privacy, and when I get around to laundering this pile of dirty money, that'll be great. But I think you're crazy regarding protecting your bank account (unless you mean from yourself, at which point some self-discipline would help).
You can't contest a purchase with cash. You don't get free product insurance with cash. You don't get a nice charge summary with cash. You don't have to go to an ATM or a bank to get your card, as you do with cash. Using cash doesn't help your credit rating, and should you ever want a better car or develop the desire to move out on your own, cash doesn't help develop a good credit rating.
I understand the card companies get a lot in profit from people, on average, for those services. But I don't pay them a thing, because I pay them off every month, on time. And since the credit card companies make it against the rules to pass on merchant fees (ie, no discount for paying cash), I figure why not take advantage of the situation?
So it's statically-assigned dynamic?
Well weren't YOU the lucky one! And there I was chugging....along....on...my....2400....baud.
You're right, we should have a tax on blank media like Canada does. Oh wait. We're better on Canada on that issue already.
Slashdot only pays attention when the US is worse about something. Never when it's better.
Also, I'm assuming that by your statement that you're also in favor of lower taxes, nonexistant consumer protection, eradicating public education, and doing away with social programs, right?
Good God, man, you forgot the most obvious one of all - Apple is based on BSD now! It's mascot carries a pitchfork and sports horns!
Hard to see as how they have been. Unless we're talking about the google cache, they just provide links. That's not likely to equate to theft of services, since google is just pointing people to AFP's own free service.
2) I would say googles headlines are covered by fair use, but not the snippet of article they include. This is because in journalism it is standard practice to cram as much information as possible into thefirst few lines, which is what google reproduces. Hence, for many people google reproduces the only part of the article worth reading.
Fair use has generally covered snippets. I've never seen anything that excepted news due to how they write. Also, most (if not all, I can't remember) of the searches I see are headlines only.
I think the laws are substantially different in France, where linking to things has been seen as a violation of trademark, copyright, etc. It's not in the US to my knowledge. This suit is being filed in the US, and I think that will make the difference.
That certainly negates the damage argument. It's also quite likely that google's use of *headlines* is covered under fair use.
Google only provides links, not content. So Google is providing free advertising. And if AFP is giving away content for free on their own site, to anyone, it's really hard to see how they're being harmed.
They sell wire services. Google news is not a substitute. If it were, their own home page would kill their business, and presumably it isn't.
Are you using a scraper applet like YoSucker! or something like that? Otherwise, how do you get your yahoo mail through pop?
Note that I'm referring to using POP from a standalone client (eg, thunderbird) to get Yahoo! mail. I'm not talking about using Yahoo to access popmail from another account, which it does for free.
They still list POP as one of their upgrade benefits on the $19.99/yr plan.
I thought that was for paying customers only. I'm a non-paying Yahoo! deadbeat, and I had a measly 6MB until google came along and then I got 250.
You're right, I forgot that - as a longtime Yahoo!!!!! user, I wasn't affected. But it definitely shows that Y's business model was a reduction in free benefits to force people over to their for-pay services - at least until google came along.
I think gmail currently allows free pop access - if that continues, it'll be interesting to see if yahoo re-enables free pop access, something they used to offer but now charge for.
Well, it's funny that they had that same quota from 1997 from then until last year when gmail's beta started growing, at which point they made it 250MB. Then they upped it to a gig - exactly what google offers - within a week of gmail's expansion to the general populace.
If you believe in that many coincidences, you must have been on the OJ jury, would explain a lot.
Ah, but here no one's banning anything. The ISP only has to filter - or provide filtering technology - to customers who request it. To continue your analogy, it would be like Houston publishing a directory of "adult entertainment" establishments and requiring the yellow pages to distribute it to you. It doesn't prevent consenting adults from engaging in the behavior, and shifts the blame completely to the parents since they had the opportunity to stop the kiddies from getting into the naughty stuff.
The only gripe is that, if filtering client software was enough to do the trick, why the ISPs had to get involved in this unfunded mandate at all. But as kneejerk "save the children" laws go, this is the least onerous I've seen yet.
Yup.
By the factor of 4 or 5 to account for the population difference? That might be tough.
Also, I think your reasons for adoption in the US are dead wrong. DSL is down to $30/month, which is only $7 more than AOL I think. The problem is mostly last mile with DSL. Not sure what issues lie with cable.
As for seeing the need, all it takes is for someone to try it once at a friend's house. No more waiting for the modem to connect, DC's, and general slowness (which is relative to creeping webpage bloat...grrr...).
Don't get me wrong, they won't be *secure* - but an insecure WAP isn't half as bad as a completely insecure box with a real IP address. At least from a spam standpoint. To 0wnz0r my wireless router (assuming I hadn't set the password, which I have), you'd have to get close and browse the old 192.168.0.1. A spammer at home can try hacking that IP...in fact, if there are any spammers listening, I recommend you try it.
Put it this way - a spammer now could run an effectively infinite network of spambots. But how many could he run if he actually had to get close enough, in physical proximity, to use an open wireless node? If he's industrious and lives in a dense city, maybe a few tens or maybe a hundred in a day? And that's such a pain in the ass you couldn't do that every day.
Realistically, if everybody went to wireless, a spammer would be limited to a few bots nearby. It would also help track him down (again, the physical proximity thing). And it makes it almost guaranteed that he'll be physically be in the jurisdiction in which he commits the crime.
And thankfully more people are going to wireless, which obviously necessitates a harware router, which should (for the most part) solve the problem. Hopefully.
I'd like to learn more about this. What's your phone number, I'd like to call you to talk further.