Use ICQ 2000b (maybe 2000a too, I can't check)? Look again. Start to send a file or url. hellllooooo ads! Isn't it just great? Boy, I'm glad I use licq...
counting the time on the idle thread is valid only if it's a mostly-idle machine. that number will be severely low if the machine is mostly busy (for example, has a distributed.net client, but probably also a heavily used server).
That's not why it was posted under Jon's name. It's because a lot of people filter Jon Katz out, and so don't want to see anything written by Jon Katz. Last time Hemos posted something about this, a huge uproar went up about how they would've preferred it be posted under Katz so their filters would work. Thus they did.
Well, I prefer AIM because the user interface is *so* much better. You don't have to keep clicking on all sorts of crap just to hold a conversation.
Odd, another of my friends made the same comment. Of course, this can go the other way too. I really don't like windows just popping out of midair interrupting me as I work. I realize that aim now has an away window that queue's messages, but it nevertheless takes up screen space. Also, I have no way of responding to just one person (or even pulling their message from the queue) without dropping my away status. It's a bit of a pain. Don't get me wrong, I see a benefit to BOTH interfaces, and would prefer if the clients used a mix between them. Say, if I have no chat window onscreen, it has to be "picked up" from the list to be read (configurable, of course). But if there is already a window, then it goes there. Also, just because I'm away doesn't mean I might not want to send a few messages anyway.
The odd thing is that this has nothing to do with the protocol. ICQ clients could use the AIM interface, but for some reason every client I've seen takes after the horrable crappy original ICQ interface. Anyone know of one that doesn't?
ICQ 2000 does this. <shudder> I realize icq's big and bloated and evil and.... but the feature is there. It's not enabled by default, but it shows up as an extra button on the recieved message box.
Personally, I won't even be using GAIM; I'll be using Jabber since I don't like the idea of *every* message I write being sent not only plaintext, but across AOL's servers - which gives them the legal right to read my message!
Of course, you realize that despite your ssl connection to the jabber server, your message will still be plaintext as far as the server is concerned right? I mean, sure, nobody ELSE will be able to read it by sniffing your connection, but the server still can. (It has to! how else could it route your message?). Talk about false sense of security...
Of course, if you instead mean pgp/gpg encryption, sure that'll work, but you don't need jabber to do it either.
That said, I think jabber rocks and hope to see more people start using it instead of proprietary protocols.
Again, see my point 1) how is this different with the current situation - it is illegal to reproduce copyrighted works without the holder's permission.
Sorry, but the MPAA isn't the copyright holder for DeCSS, Jon Johansen is (and whoever his compatriots are). This is what you are missing. Since the code is under a GPL (?) license, there's nothing illegal about distributing the code. It would be more like if the author of Garfield sued Bill Watterson for writing a comic containing felines (best I could do with your example).
From the Findings of Fact in US v Microsoft, Paragraph 301 [I think that's the right terminology, IANAL]:
By not exercising its right to terminate the "virtual exclusivity" provisions in the agreement with Microsoft, AOL commited itself to abide by those restrictions until
January 1, 2001. [Emphasis mine]
What's really interesting is that if we assume 1 month for each milestone from here on out, Milestone 22 of 22 is out in December. What timing!
If you think that AOL is going to lift up netscape to the status it once held you're nuts. AOL doesn't even use netscape, they use IE.
Ummm...That is now. We're talking about later. Just because AOL uses IE now doesn't mean they can't use Netscape when they ship out AOL 6.0.
The general public won't take the time to download a new browser when they all ready have a browser they know how to use.
You know those AOL 6.0 CDs? I'm sure they have plenty of room for a certain browser.
the next version of nestcape is not even backwards compatible. All the websites that were made in order to use layers in netscape version 4.X will lay down and die on the new version.
Besides the fact that this is incorrect (Mozilla has backwards-compatible parsing iiuc), how is this a problem? Every site that uses the layer tag that will "die" in netscape already dies in IE. Since IE holds 86% of the market already, the few sites that do that and manage to get away with it must not be very important anyway.
So, in short you are saying: Mozilla is doomed because it currently has no market share, compounds the problem by breaking backwards compatibility with a browser few people use anymore (and fewer design for), despite the fact that it is owned by one of the largest ISPs in the world who currently uses another browser? Okkkkkk...
Funny, I don't recall seeing an amendment guaranteeing you a "right to privacy."
Ninth:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
What you may be unaware of is the fact that there were many people who argued against the Bill of Rights for the very reason you've illustrated: they claimed that it would have the result of effectively restricting what Rights were actually protected because they didn't name them all (After all, in their view, Rights are intrinsic, they can't be granted, they can't be taken away. Everything else is privilege). Amendments 9 and 10 were written to counteract this, but I'm not so sure this was effective. After all, how many cases do you know of that reach the Supreme Court under 9th and 10th amendment claims? They may be there, but they are certainly overlooked by the public.
What I've been wondering is, how can the government monitor say emails sent via hotmail or any other online email services?
ummm...well, I'm typing in this form, see? When I hit submit, the text is sent encoded to the server via tcp/ip. This encoding is merely to ensure nothing in between screws up the data and is quite public and reverseable (for the dolts out there who might actually think this is "encryption"). Obviously, anything in between can nab that data, copy it, profile it, whatever.
Guess how hotmail works? Web forms! That means that every single email you send is quite public as it is sent to the web server. In addition, hotmail sends their email like any other email, so the gov't can scan for the email as it enters the country like any other. Finally, when recieving the email, the message is viewable just like any other web page, so the gov't can read it there too. So the gov't can read it before it's sent (in the hostile country), while it's being sent (either way), and when it is received (in the hostile country). So it's really quite easy.
The ISP has a server set aside as the email server. This email server has a known IP address (or addresses).
Email is sent over SMTP, which is located on port 25 by default (as it's the standard port for SMTP).
Therefore we know both the destination IP and port that ISP email must be sent to. (1, 2)
Layer 3 routers/firewalls are capable of filtering based upon destination IP and port.
Therefore email traffic can indeed be filtered. (3, 4)
Heck, we could just filter on port alone and get private email servers too! So where's the problem? Granted, this wouldn't catch email servers running on a non-default port, but seriously, how common is that?
If HTML's not difficult, then they should have no trouble fixing the errors. A browser doesn't help by rendering incorrect code, it helps by pointing out mistakes. Say the HTML writer makes a mistake that his browser renders properly. So he thinks this is correct and gets in the habit of using this. He writes tons and tons of pages. Then he publishes, and his browser is the only one that works, on every (or nearly every) other browser, whole sections of the site are missing or garbled. Now he has to go through every single page and fix it. I can guarantee you the HTML coder won't be thanking his browser then... (and this can be Netscape just as easily as IE.)
It's fairly easy for software developers because you can write it for a specific operating system, but because the web is viewed through two (somtimes more) browsers, each with their own specific quirks, writing good html pages becomes somewhat of a chore.
Only if you actually expect them to look the same. HTML wasn't and isn't intended to be a publishing format. Markup is just that--it marks content. So, write your content, and mark up accordingly, then worry about looks. CSS is great for that. Although Netscape's support sucks, for most things I mess with, it's good enough (colors, fonts). This way, even if the looks break, it'll have the appropriate default interpretation. My site is a perfect example, but it's down for the summer (I serve it on my own machine at school).
I used to be a Netscape user for several years up until this year, when I switched over to IE. I was amazed at the difference I saw. IE is much more tolerant of mistakes, handles tables a whole lot better (actual size and background images being two of the biggest factors) and has support for the hover style, a feature that can sublty but importantly enhance a page.
I'm of two minds about this. For a properly loaded web page, IE should not be tolerant of mistakes. If you've made mistakes, then fix them, it's not that hard!! The best example of mistakes causing problems in Netscape and not IE is tables. Netscape will not display a table lacking a </table> tag, but IE will. Strictly, Netscape should probably be showing the text inside the markup, but in general, this is right. The <table> tag requires a </table> tag, it's that simple.
On the other hand, I can understand being more lenient if the page was interrupted midway. In this case, I can see closing all open tags so the page renders semi-decently. But I see no excuse for being lazy about your markup just because bugs in the browser let you get away with it. If you comply with the standards, you never have to worry about your page suddenly breaking because everybody upgraded.
I very much agree! When I realized they didn't let allcaps through, that was the first thing I thought of. However, MiXEd CaPs is let through as long as I lowercase enough of the letters. That IMHO could be much much worse.
The thing I find amusing is that until they added this feature, I didn't get any. My immediate thought was "what did they do? give out my email and 'correct' it by adding the bulk mail folder?!" I'm still not sure...
Ok, this is probably the best expressed objection I've heard yet. At least, now I understand where the two camps differ.
According to Taco and Hemos, the comments on this site are speech. If this is true, then everything said here is public domain and freely usable. Your argument that this is a private site holds no water. Whether you converse with others outside on public property or in a country club, speech is speech. The only problem here would be in the realm of plagiarism--but I don't feel this is valid either, since a sociologist is free to quote things people say without any attribution at all. In fact, this is considered ethical, as publishing their words with attributions would be a violation of privacy. I sincerely doubt that sociologist ask permission to publish peoples' words--depending on the study, that could be suicide. Furthermore, your comments on ownership don't really work the way you say. If you shout "Fire!" in a theater, you own your words, all right--and you are fully responsible for those words too. Not only that, but there is nothing you can do to stop someone from quoting you, either. Heck, they can use you as an example without a whit of compensation too! (sound familiar?)
According to you (and a great many others, it appears), the comments on this site are written works. In this case, copyright law applies, and the written works have been stolen, stripped of their rightful authorship, and not duly compensated for. Again, whether this is run by a public or private institution is irrelevant. In this case, ownership also happens to determine control, and so republishing it is a violation of all the laws we have for IP.
Depending on which of these you believe is correct, one view or another prevails. Personally, I find the former more sustainable. I agree the things on slashdot are written, however, the things written are *speech*, not *written works*--at least in my view. Since (at the moment) I can't think of a good argument in my favor, you are certainly free to continue believing your view.
(But I really wish people would stop flaming at each other and argue the relevant points intelligently. So far, I haven't really seen a whole lot of that.)
Jon, your theory might sound good, but maybe you should try running it past a real lawyer. You see, Slashdot is a private (not public) site...
Since this is the basis for the rest of your argument, I'll stop you right there. Slashdot is NOT private.
Let me ask you this: did you post from a special slashdot.org network? did you post from behind some firewall slashdot runs, this making it impossible for anyone in the internet at large to post? or at least, did you have to enter some special password to access this site?
What?? Are you saying you didn't?? Pity. According to the court ruling earlier just this year on deep linking, that means Slashdot is quite public.
IOW: Your argument is utter bullshit and perhaps you should consult a lawyer before shooting off your mouth.
In richer societies, people don't work in order to survive,
Not true. To take the U.S again there are many millions of people that barely get enough to eat. This is why there are programs in schools to feed children for free. They're hungry. Their families live very close to the edge ofdisaster and work to survive.
<advocate type="devil's">
And what makes you think the US is a rich society or that joss was suggesting it was one of them? We have our poor [as you mentioned], it often seems as though the free exchange of ideas and all those other things which make our society so great is being trashed, and very often one has to wonder about the state of intelligence in the American public. Are these traits of a rich society? I don't think it is, but maybe you do, I don't know.
At any rate, I read his statement as referring to a hypothetical "rich" society (perhaps culturally rich, or technologically rich, or any number of "rich"s), and in such a society, I can see how people wouldn't need to work to survive.
Slashdot Mirror
Use ICQ 2000b (maybe 2000a too, I can't check)? Look again. Start to send a file or url. hellllooooo ads! Isn't it just great? Boy, I'm glad I use licq...
counting the time on the idle thread is valid only if it's a mostly-idle machine. that number will be severely low if the machine is mostly busy (for example, has a distributed.net client, but probably also a heavily used server).
That's not why it was posted under Jon's name. It's because a lot of people filter Jon Katz out, and so don't want to see anything written by Jon Katz. Last time Hemos posted something about this, a huge uproar went up about how they would've preferred it be posted under Katz so their filters would work. Thus they did.
For more info: man chkconfig
Remember, this is going to me in a vacuum, so these CD-ROMs might survive a whole lot better than you think.
Well, I prefer AIM because the user interface is *so* much better. You don't have to keep clicking on all sorts of crap just to hold a conversation.
Odd, another of my friends made the same comment. Of course, this can go the other way too. I really don't like windows just popping out of midair interrupting me as I work. I realize that aim now has an away window that queue's messages, but it nevertheless takes up screen space. Also, I have no way of responding to just one person (or even pulling their message from the queue) without dropping my away status. It's a bit of a pain. Don't get me wrong, I see a benefit to BOTH interfaces, and would prefer if the clients used a mix between them. Say, if I have no chat window onscreen, it has to be "picked up" from the list to be read (configurable, of course). But if there is already a window, then it goes there. Also, just because I'm away doesn't mean I might not want to send a few messages anyway.
The odd thing is that this has nothing to do with the protocol. ICQ clients could use the AIM interface, but for some reason every client I've seen takes after the horrable crappy original ICQ interface. Anyone know of one that doesn't?
ICQ 2000 does this. <shudder> I realize icq's big and bloated and evil and.... but the feature is there. It's not enabled by default, but it shows up as an extra button on the recieved message box.
HTH
Of course, you realize that despite your ssl connection to the jabber server, your message will still be plaintext as far as the server is concerned right? I mean, sure, nobody ELSE will be able to read it by sniffing your connection, but the server still can. (It has to! how else could it route your message?). Talk about false sense of security...
Of course, if you instead mean pgp/gpg encryption, sure that'll work, but you don't need jabber to do it either.
That said, I think jabber rocks and hope to see more people start using it instead of proprietary protocols.
Sorry, but the MPAA isn't the copyright holder for DeCSS, Jon Johansen is (and whoever his compatriots are). This is what you are missing. Since the code is under a GPL (?) license, there's nothing illegal about distributing the code. It would be more like if the author of Garfield sued Bill Watterson for writing a comic containing felines (best I could do with your example).
What's really interesting is that if we assume 1 month for each milestone from here on out, Milestone 22 of 22 is out in December. What timing!
Ummm...That is now. We're talking about later. Just because AOL uses IE now doesn't mean they can't use Netscape when they ship out AOL 6.0.
You know those AOL 6.0 CDs? I'm sure they have plenty of room for a certain browser.
Besides the fact that this is incorrect (Mozilla has backwards-compatible parsing iiuc), how is this a problem? Every site that uses the layer tag that will "die" in netscape already dies in IE. Since IE holds 86% of the market already, the few sites that do that and manage to get away with it must not be very important anyway.
So, in short you are saying: Mozilla is doomed because it currently has no market share, compounds the problem by breaking backwards compatibility with a browser few people use anymore (and fewer design for), despite the fact that it is owned by one of the largest ISPs in the world who currently uses another browser? Okkkkkk...
We can't let take them our right to privacy too.
Funny, I don't recall seeing an amendment guaranteeing you a "right to privacy."
Ninth:
What you may be unaware of is the fact that there were many people who argued against the Bill of Rights for the very reason you've illustrated: they claimed that it would have the result of effectively restricting what Rights were actually protected because they didn't name them all (After all, in their view, Rights are intrinsic, they can't be granted, they can't be taken away. Everything else is privilege). Amendments 9 and 10 were written to counteract this, but I'm not so sure this was effective. After all, how many cases do you know of that reach the Supreme Court under 9th and 10th amendment claims? They may be there, but they are certainly overlooked by the public.
But otherwise, you're basically right--they are all GPL so anybody who thinks they can do better are free to do so.
Well, other than the thing, this already exists. Just use and it will become http://example.com/.
I'm curious, how was it different? I've played HL TFC, but not QWTF. I understand the HL maps are lighter, but surely that's not the entirety of it?
ummm...well, I'm typing in this form, see? When I hit submit, the text is sent encoded to the server via tcp/ip. This encoding is merely to ensure nothing in between screws up the data and is quite public and reverseable (for the dolts out there who might actually think this is "encryption"). Obviously, anything in between can nab that data, copy it, profile it, whatever.
Guess how hotmail works? Web forms! That means that every single email you send is quite public as it is sent to the web server. In addition, hotmail sends their email like any other email, so the gov't can scan for the email as it enters the country like any other. Finally, when recieving the email, the message is viewable just like any other web page, so the gov't can read it there too. So the gov't can read it before it's sent (in the hostile country), while it's being sent (either way), and when it is received (in the hostile country). So it's really quite easy.
- The ISP has a server set aside as the email server. This email server has a known IP address (or addresses).
- Email is sent over SMTP, which is located on port 25 by default (as it's the standard port for SMTP).
- Therefore we know both the destination IP and port that ISP email must be sent to. (1, 2)
- Layer 3 routers/firewalls are capable of filtering based upon destination IP and port.
- Therefore email traffic can indeed be filtered. (3, 4)
Heck, we could just filter on port alone and get private email servers too! So where's the problem? Granted, this wouldn't catch email servers running on a non-default port, but seriously, how common is that?If HTML's not difficult, then they should have no trouble fixing the errors. A browser doesn't help by rendering incorrect code, it helps by pointing out mistakes. Say the HTML writer makes a mistake that his browser renders properly. So he thinks this is correct and gets in the habit of using this. He writes tons and tons of pages. Then he publishes, and his browser is the only one that works, on every (or nearly every) other browser, whole sections of the site are missing or garbled. Now he has to go through every single page and fix it. I can guarantee you the HTML coder won't be thanking his browser then... (and this can be Netscape just as easily as IE.)
It's fairly easy for software developers because you can write it for a specific operating system, but because the web is viewed through two (somtimes more) browsers, each with their own specific quirks, writing good html pages becomes somewhat of a chore.
Only if you actually expect them to look the same. HTML wasn't and isn't intended to be a publishing format. Markup is just that--it marks content. So, write your content, and mark up accordingly, then worry about looks. CSS is great for that. Although Netscape's support sucks, for most things I mess with, it's good enough (colors, fonts). This way, even if the looks break, it'll have the appropriate default interpretation. My site is a perfect example, but it's down for the summer (I serve it on my own machine at school).
I used to be a Netscape user for several years up until this year, when I switched over to IE. I was amazed at the difference I saw. IE is much more tolerant of mistakes, handles tables a whole lot better (actual size and background images being two of the biggest factors) and has support for the hover style, a feature that can sublty but importantly enhance a page.
I'm of two minds about this. For a properly loaded web page, IE should not be tolerant of mistakes. If you've made mistakes, then fix them, it's not that hard!! The best example of mistakes causing problems in Netscape and not IE is tables. Netscape will not display a table lacking a </table> tag, but IE will. Strictly, Netscape should probably be showing the text inside the markup, but in general, this is right. The <table> tag requires a </table> tag, it's that simple.
On the other hand, I can understand being more lenient if the page was interrupted midway. In this case, I can see closing all open tags so the page renders semi-decently. But I see no excuse for being lazy about your markup just because bugs in the browser let you get away with it. If you comply with the standards, you never have to worry about your page suddenly breaking because everybody upgraded.
(sorry, you hit one of my bigger peeves)
No. See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/06/08/17322 07&cid=176.
I very much agree! When I realized they didn't let allcaps through, that was the first thing I thought of. However, MiXEd CaPs is let through as long as I lowercase enough of the letters. That IMHO could be much much worse.
The thing I find amusing is that until they added this feature, I didn't get any. My immediate thought was "what did they do? give out my email and 'correct' it by adding the bulk mail folder?!" I'm still not sure...
According to Taco and Hemos, the comments on this site are speech. If this is true, then everything said here is public domain and freely usable. Your argument that this is a private site holds no water. Whether you converse with others outside on public property or in a country club, speech is speech. The only problem here would be in the realm of plagiarism--but I don't feel this is valid either, since a sociologist is free to quote things people say without any attribution at all. In fact, this is considered ethical, as publishing their words with attributions would be a violation of privacy. I sincerely doubt that sociologist ask permission to publish peoples' words--depending on the study, that could be suicide. Furthermore, your comments on ownership don't really work the way you say. If you shout "Fire!" in a theater, you own your words, all right--and you are fully responsible for those words too. Not only that, but there is nothing you can do to stop someone from quoting you, either. Heck, they can use you as an example without a whit of compensation too! (sound familiar?)
According to you (and a great many others, it appears), the comments on this site are written works. In this case, copyright law applies, and the written works have been stolen, stripped of their rightful authorship, and not duly compensated for. Again, whether this is run by a public or private institution is irrelevant. In this case, ownership also happens to determine control, and so republishing it is a violation of all the laws we have for IP.
Depending on which of these you believe is correct, one view or another prevails. Personally, I find the former more sustainable. I agree the things on slashdot are written, however, the things written are *speech*, not *written works*--at least in my view. Since (at the moment) I can't think of a good argument in my favor, you are certainly free to continue believing your view.
(But I really wish people would stop flaming at each other and argue the relevant points intelligently. So far, I haven't really seen a whole lot of that.)
Since this is the basis for the rest of your argument, I'll stop you right there. Slashdot is NOT private.
Let me ask you this: did you post from a special slashdot.org network? did you post from behind some firewall slashdot runs, this making it impossible for anyone in the internet at large to post? or at least, did you have to enter some special password to access this site?
What?? Are you saying you didn't?? Pity. According to the court ruling earlier just this year on deep linking, that means Slashdot is quite public.
IOW: Your argument is utter bullshit and perhaps you should consult a lawyer before shooting off your mouth.
I hope that makes sense...
In richer societies, people don't work in order to survive,
Not true. To take the U.S again there are many millions of people that barely get enough to eat. This is why there are programs in schools to feed children for free. They're hungry. Their families live very close to the edge ofdisaster and work to survive.
<advocate type="devil's">
And what makes you think the US is a rich society or that joss was suggesting it was one of them? We have our poor [as you mentioned], it often seems as though the free exchange of ideas and all those other things which make our society so great is being trashed, and very often one has to wonder about the state of intelligence in the American public. Are these traits of a rich society? I don't think it is, but maybe you do, I don't know.
At any rate, I read his statement as referring to a hypothetical "rich" society (perhaps culturally rich, or technologically rich, or any number of "rich"s), and in such a society, I can see how people wouldn't need to work to survive.
</advocate>