Major was matey with Bush snr. Not too matey with Clinton. Blair was big mates with Clinton.
I don't understand it myself. We'll support the US in a war and then when it comes to say trade talks, they'll piss on us 5 minutes later. Other countries in Europe get treated as well as us. After the Iraq war, British companies got no favouritism in bidding for contracts.
I see no evidence that the "special relationship" is a good thing. We should view America like any other country.
Wilson seemed to understand this. Wilson basically told LBJ that he'd stand right behind the Americans over Vietnam. Until the moment they asked for troops, when he declined.
I'd like to see copyright extended to 500 years. Then, the descendents of the Brothers Grimm would be able to collect a large fortune in back payments from Disney.
Considering someone from The Shadows is arguing for copyright extension, I'd agree with the "does copyright encourage creativity?". The last significant thing they did was "Apache" in the 1960s.
It also could be argued that this is ripping off the producer...
If a musician sells their copyright to a company, they could argue that it was on the basis that 50 years later, they could use it again, or their favourite charity could use it without payment.
In essence, it's like a change in contract.
Changing the copyright term in effect rips off the seller.
Not unlike computers. Once upon a time, operating systems were very simple, and worked very reliably.
And I don't have a problem with lots of individual computers doing things for non-essential purposes like sat nav. Engine management systems also use them.
But, there's a lot of stuff that is in cars that I don't want because it's gimmicky and unneccessary. Some cars now have automatic lights and wipers. Thanks, but I know when it's dark, and raining. A computer just adds the possibility of no lights, no wipers and a huge repair bill.
The thing is, $5 is more than most people are paying (and I'm really skint - family to support - no new hardware in 2 years). $2 is more than most people are paying.
Mozilla could do with a campaign to get people to donate, and work with sums like $5, perhaps telling people how much has been donated as a totaliser, telling people what it will pay for. Certainly a "pay for your own bandwidth" would be a starter.
I'm also donating money I get from second hand sales on EBay and to friends. So far have a massive 2UKP ($3) but the amount will rise!
Dunno.
But I certainly owe them some money. I'll send $5 by the end of the week. If every/.er with Firefox did so, could we hire them a programmer for a year?
What's his history, because everything I see of him (the internal memo, "developers, developers, developers", this) makes me think that he's not really the best guy to be in the job he's in.
To be frank, he seems a bit of an ass. But maybe that's on the surface and someone can tell me that he's much shrewder than he appears.
If anything, I'd say that most users are far too forgiving. Personally, it took me a while to switch because I just was so used to IE over Mozilla. However, things like the popup blocker, security issues and preventing spoof hyperlinks in the address bar convinced me to switch.
I'm now using IE where I work, and absolutely hate it. I miss the little search engine box I have in Firefox, I miss my popup blocker, download manager, being able to right click a URL (without it being a hyperlink - this is an extension) and go to the page.
I think governments are very much focussed on Joe Sixpack. That's the big difference between modern and old governments.
They really, really don't give a monkey's toss about the rights of a few individuals in special circumstances. Hypothetically, if the UK government saw that having Windows only running on PCs was a way of raising over 100 million UKP (and didn't affect govt. departments), they'd do it. Sure, many thousands of Linux users would protest, but there would be no media campaign (try getting a heartstrings story out of geekdom). Most folks would just say "So?" and the numbers affected would make no difference to voting, whilst 100 million UKP to spend on another pointless govt. project would make good headlines.
I think that we're not there yet, but we've reached a dangerous point with the population where by the time they realise what's happening, it will be too late to change it.
I live in the UK, and I see law after law coming out like Govt snooping laws etc and no-one in the population much gives a toss. It seems that as long as people have their tin of beer and football on TV, then what happens to others just don't matter.
Every time, much like in the USA, the "threat of terrorism" joker is played. And there's not much hope that voting for either of the two main parties are going to change anything.
Still, there will probably be some country about to take advantage when anyone with any get up and go does just that and finds somewhere with more freedom to work and live.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just put the browser on each machine?
I don't understand it myself. We'll support the US in a war and then when it comes to say trade talks, they'll piss on us 5 minutes later. Other countries in Europe get treated as well as us. After the Iraq war, British companies got no favouritism in bidding for contracts.
I see no evidence that the "special relationship" is a good thing. We should view America like any other country.
Wilson seemed to understand this. Wilson basically told LBJ that he'd stand right behind the Americans over Vietnam. Until the moment they asked for troops, when he declined.
Start paying the scummy politicians to do our bidding. Horrible and disgusting, but it would achieve the objective.
Could someone in Japan therefore start filetrading the song on Kazaa? As long as, that is, they were downloaded by someone in Japan, of course.
Blair doesn't care about anything except keeping the masses happy. You think he checks out what's on /. after he talks to the editor of The Sun?
Blair's not interested in small interest groups, unless there's a "human interest" element to it.
If a political donor will give him a million to make copyright last a trillion years, you think he won't take it?
Considering someone from The Shadows is arguing for copyright extension, I'd agree with the "does copyright encourage creativity?". The last significant thing they did was "Apache" in the 1960s.
If a musician sells their copyright to a company, they could argue that it was on the basis that 50 years later, they could use it again, or their favourite charity could use it without payment.
In essence, it's like a change in contract.
Changing the copyright term in effect rips off the seller.
It's just that I think and have done from early on, that Schumacher is something a bit special. And he's consistently outperformed his team mates.
There's also an odd thing at the moment, that the young drivers are coming up. I think Kimi could be world champ in a couple of years.
And I don't have a problem with lots of individual computers doing things for non-essential purposes like sat nav. Engine management systems also use them.
But, there's a lot of stuff that is in cars that I don't want because it's gimmicky and unneccessary. Some cars now have automatic lights and wipers. Thanks, but I know when it's dark, and raining. A computer just adds the possibility of no lights, no wipers and a huge repair bill.
That's also largely because of Michael Schumacher. Sure, Ferrari have a brilliant car, but Barrichello isn't doing as good.
Mozilla could do with a campaign to get people to donate, and work with sums like $5, perhaps telling people how much has been donated as a totaliser, telling people what it will pay for. Certainly a "pay for your own bandwidth" would be a starter.
I'm also donating money I get from second hand sales on EBay and to friends. So far have a massive 2UKP ($3) but the amount will rise!
Dunno. But I certainly owe them some money. I'll send $5 by the end of the week. If every /.er with Firefox did so, could we hire them a programmer for a year?
I might also let some people in the mainstream press know about this too.
To be frank, he seems a bit of an ass. But maybe that's on the surface and someone can tell me that he's much shrewder than he appears.
A similar fault has been reported with IE today. Let's see where Microsoft are by next Friday.
I've just returned from France where in the daytime you get something like 3 hours coverage every day.
The camera work is really excellent. Whoever produces it has a real eye for the beauty of the french countryside.
"Titan AE is Star Wars" Entertainment Weekly.
Actually... "Titan A.E. is Star Wars pulped and mashed into a flavourless kiddie corn".
this which affects IE.
Except the Mozilla one is Fixed, and the IE one has been public since 8th June.
The XUL stuff is really powerful, and making new toolbars etc is an exciting area IMO.
The one that didn't work, well, let's just say they won't be getting my business until it does (and tell them too!).
A brilliant and simple extension. Find a URL that isn't hyperlinked, highlight it, right click and go there. Lovely.
I've just started a new piece of work, and the company have IE installed, and it's horrible.
I'm now using IE where I work, and absolutely hate it. I miss the little search engine box I have in Firefox, I miss my popup blocker, download manager, being able to right click a URL (without it being a hyperlink - this is an extension) and go to the page.
They really, really don't give a monkey's toss about the rights of a few individuals in special circumstances. Hypothetically, if the UK government saw that having Windows only running on PCs was a way of raising over 100 million UKP (and didn't affect govt. departments), they'd do it. Sure, many thousands of Linux users would protest, but there would be no media campaign (try getting a heartstrings story out of geekdom). Most folks would just say "So?" and the numbers affected would make no difference to voting, whilst 100 million UKP to spend on another pointless govt. project would make good headlines.
I live in the UK, and I see law after law coming out like Govt snooping laws etc and no-one in the population much gives a toss. It seems that as long as people have their tin of beer and football on TV, then what happens to others just don't matter.
Every time, much like in the USA, the "threat of terrorism" joker is played. And there's not much hope that voting for either of the two main parties are going to change anything.
Still, there will probably be some country about to take advantage when anyone with any get up and go does just that and finds somewhere with more freedom to work and live.