Anything doesn't render. Anything that's bold doesn't render. Most italic text doesn't render. It's just not there. We've tried several sites on several computers, and the same thing all over. Slashdot's article titles? Not there. Ebay? Not a chance. Did they test this at all? The font aliasing hurts my eyes. I'm on XP, should I maybe upgrade to Vista? (tongue in cheek here, people)
I wonder why they even bother to make this "beta" public. On the first test of the first page there where show stopping bugs. Test over. Beta scrapped. Why???
Have used it, interface is really nice because it's so small. I have yet to find any skin for Trillian/Kopete/Gaim that is comparable. It also lets you adjust stuff in a better way: say you want to make the font a bit smaller, there is one setting that does that for the entire program. You don't need to alter the skin or whatever. I never really got that to work right on Trillian or Gaim and Kopete is just hellish in that regard.
The downside is that it doesn't always receive ICQ messages from other clients, most notably Trillian. Tried and tested method: send ICQ from Trillian to Miranda and sometimes it just won't get there. Has been like this for years, too. Might not be Miranda's fault but is still very very annoying.
DVDshrink Decent text editor Decent audio player (NOT itunes) All those little programs that you take for granted and forget to install when you're reinstalling windows Virtualisation software Open Office
Pretty much everything on the Mac costs money. Parallels is great, but will set you back. Windows has VMware AND VirtualPC, both free (small f). There is no real audio player with any clout that I could find besides itunes. Office == MS on the mac.
I'm no MS fan (posting this from Ubuntu, no Windows for almost 2 years now) but when people start comparing cost, this can be a major factor.
Then again, if you figure in the cost of all the bullshit with viruses and malware and everything on Windows, I guess you could call it even.
Please prove me wrong! Any suggestions for decent freeware on the Mac are appreciated.
Well, since we're using firefox with adblock enabled, the load times were pretty decent. Then, after the tips + tricks on that page were incorporated into our browsers, the pages loaded so quickly that the one page link became totally moot.
It went from on-topic to off-topic when the FA got read. (I must be new here, etc)
Tagging? Sorting in more ways than alphabetically? Adding notes, relationships/links, sharing bookmarks, grouping, etc. These are off the top of my head, I'll stop here before this post tips over into buzzword land.
The point is not that people want less copyright, the point is that these corporations want MORE. They're shifting the paradigm (pardon my French) from "copyright is a government granted monopoly" to "copyright is ours by default and you're a pirate."
The government grants the copyright monopoly not because it wants these firms to make money; they grant it because they hope that ARTISTS (see what I did there?) will make more of their art when they can make a buck off of what they do, for the purpose of making a rich culture. So, the purpose of copyright is not financial but cultural gain. This comes with the implied benefit that the ARTIST can make money. When the copyright is held by anyone but the artist, there is no more cultural gain to be had.
The default setting for stuff that goes out of your head and into other people's sight/ears/whatever is that it is no longer yours. I tell you my Great Idea, now you can use it. I sing you my song, you can play it as well. That's the default mode. It's very easy to copyright something (just stick on your name, the year and the alt0169 symbol) but it's so hard to get it back into the public domain where it belongs (after a reasonable period of time,) it's ridiculous.
Also, extending copyright past the death of the artist involved. Make more art, Jimi! Make more art, Django! Make more art, Pablo! Make more art, Joan!
Pro free market. Wtf is up with that anyway? These people want a free market to reign, but also to up their bottom line. The best way to do just that is to coerce lawmakers to pass laws that are favourable to these corps. Usually, this means that other businesses can't get into the market as easily, how shall I put it, they're less enabled. Which makes it less of a free market. Paradox?
(Transformers are typically $100+, array of tubes about the same price, so we've $300 in hardware right there. The actual caps and resistors cost next to nothing, unless you go the audiophile/voodoo route.)
Your efficiency has a high penny wise, pound foolish content. Where does this power come from? Where does it go to beyond Hydra? How much is lost there? How much is saved by building a 40M$ power line? Will it really be 40M or will the actual cost be lots higher? Still, I think it's a good idea. Bit lame that it should need the terrism flag to finance it, but what can you do these days?
My point is that I'm sure you people can come up with something better to do with 40M$ than building a fucking power line. Really, I'm sure. I'm quite sure you don't need any suggestions from me, either.
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see why DRM does not fail as hard as we would like. The parent knows about DRM and its implications, is technically savvy enough to post on/., has the money for various consumer devices, agrees (twice) that HDMI is bad because of DRM...
and yet, because of less cable clutter behind the TV, still gets HDMI connectors.
I just don't understand what the extension of copyright brings to the people running the companies you speak of. They're mostly middle aged I would think, and apart from stuff that's about to go public from old age (Mickey Mouse) they'll likely die before losing their monopoly. Are they that concerned with their kids? Is it just pure greed? ("Sure I can't ever use or spend this money, not in my lifetime, but more == better!")
> It's quite possible to crash and burn a company and come out on top; some people have practically made careers out of it. A certain son of a certain former first world leader comes to mind...
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (X) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email (X) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation (X) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud (X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, asshole! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Sorry! I didn't want to offend. I'm just sick of people who can't be held accountable for anything, yet take positions that are based on accountability.
> but the directors cannot be held *personally* accountable for all the actions of their employees I agree that there should be a line where personal accountability is concerned. I was just pointing out that the default mode would be that the employer IS accountable. Why shouldn't he be? It's his business after all. Look at it from another side: let's say I tell a software company to make an HR database for me. I deal with the director of this company, he signs the contract, etc. In the course of programming the db, one of the software company's employees takes off with the personal data of my company's employees. Let's say for simplicity's sake that I am not to blame (see what I did there?;) I don't care who the programmer is that took my data. I don't care if it was the janitor. I am going to hold the director accountable, and I am going to hold him personally accountable. That's what a business is: the boss is the guy that takes the fall. He's the guy that takes the gold as well, if all goes OK, so it's really only fair. Now, how he deals with his troubles is not interesting to me. He can sue his employee for all I care.
> Talk to me about "whining" when your locked car gets stolen, used in the commission of a crime, and then you get sued by the victims because of your "involvement" in the crime. No prior cont(r)act between the car thieves and me. If there would be, who knows? Say it's your kid that steals the car. You're accountable! Say it's your employee who steals your car. We'll see you in court! (Meaning: I don't know)
> Killing people is not the primary application for most guns sold. It's not?
> while the majority of BT traffic is likely infringing. That's right. Sadly, or not so sadly, depending on your point of view. The point is that if you go and block bt traffic, or worse yet, criminalise its users, you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Back on topic though, the primary use of this key is indeed illegal, because of the DMCA. The DMCA is a ridiculous law, but it's the law. It does not serve you, it does not serve your country, it serves a select few upper echelon people. Since we're having this conversation, I believe it's clear that this does not include you. Why protect it? Each and every post on here that is even remotely political has people shitting all over freedom and liberty, giving up rights as they go, yet still holding their hand to their hearts and pledging allegiance to the flag. I call hypocrisy.
If you don't like people badmouthing your country, behave like you earn the respect you crave.
That's besides the point. You can use a gun to kill someone in an illegal way, yet guns are legal (or can be, in any case.)
Or are you one of those guys arguing that bittorrent should be illegal as well? Besides any legal issues, what about the political ones? What about social responsibility? What about freedom? (Remember that old hag? Something to do with some song, land of the brave and the free or some such nonsense. Care to share the mp3 on that one?)
Don't turn it around: There are scenarios where the business owner can NOT be held accountable, but the rule is that he can be, because it's his business.
I know for a fact that a business can be held accountable for theft using means provided by the business (think employees taking ladders from your house painting firm and using them to burgle houses at night) under Dutch law. Of course, IANAL etc, but I did study law.
There is way too much weaseling out done by business owners, especially in the upper segment of the market. I include politicians in business owners, by the way, since that is pretty much the same thing these days. You have the perks, you take on the job, it's your choice. It comes with pros, it comes with cons. This is one of them. Your business loses a bunch of personal data because of lax security? It falls to you. Questions need to be asked: why did this one employee have access to so much data? How was it so easily transported to the outside world? Did you do a background check on him? Etc. Don't give me this clean hands crap about how you aren't accountable because it makes you sound like a whiner.
Sony installs rootkits all over the world, their response: "people don't even know what a rootkit is." Did anyone take the fall? No. Did anyone profit? Sure did.
If you stand to profit from your enterprise, you stand to take the fall when something goes wrong. It is part of the deal. If you don't like it, become a dish washer.
How come there is still no support for the Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000, as they call it? It's the best "broken" keyboard out there and one of the most comfortable ones I've ever used. Patches have been submitted multiple times, and seem to be maintained... No love for this hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Anything doesn't render. Anything that's bold doesn't render. Most italic text doesn't render. It's just not there. We've tried several sites on several computers, and the same thing all over. Slashdot's article titles? Not there. Ebay? Not a chance. Did they test this at all? The font aliasing hurts my eyes. I'm on XP, should I maybe upgrade to Vista? (tongue in cheek here, people)
I wonder why they even bother to make this "beta" public. On the first test of the first page there where show stopping bugs. Test over. Beta scrapped. Why???
Best browser in the world, according to Apple!
Have used it, interface is really nice because it's so small. I have yet to find any skin for Trillian/Kopete/Gaim that is comparable. It also lets you adjust stuff in a better way: say you want to make the font a bit smaller, there is one setting that does that for the entire program. You don't need to alter the skin or whatever. I never really got that to work right on Trillian or Gaim and Kopete is just hellish in that regard.
The downside is that it doesn't always receive ICQ messages from other clients, most notably Trillian. Tried and tested method: send ICQ from Trillian to Miranda and sometimes it just won't get there. Has been like this for years, too. Might not be Miranda's fault but is still very very annoying.
DVDshrink
Decent text editor
Decent audio player (NOT itunes)
All those little programs that you take for granted and forget to install when you're reinstalling windows
Virtualisation software
Open Office
Pretty much everything on the Mac costs money. Parallels is great, but will set you back. Windows has VMware AND VirtualPC, both free (small f). There is no real audio player with any clout that I could find besides itunes. Office == MS on the mac.
I'm no MS fan (posting this from Ubuntu, no Windows for almost 2 years now) but when people start comparing cost, this can be a major factor.
Then again, if you figure in the cost of all the bullshit with viruses and malware and everything on Windows, I guess you could call it even.
Please prove me wrong! Any suggestions for decent freeware on the Mac are appreciated.
they want their cold war back.
(Or Reagan called, or whatever, think of something, this space for rent)
"[They] not[ed] that 31% of Wii owners surveyed"
not?
What could the actual unredacted quote have been, in context?
Well, since we're using firefox with adblock enabled, the load times were pretty decent. Then, after the tips + tricks on that page were incorporated into our browsers, the pages loaded so quickly that the one page link became totally moot.
It went from on-topic to off-topic when the FA got read. (I must be new here, etc)
Tagging? Sorting in more ways than alphabetically? Adding notes, relationships/links, sharing bookmarks, grouping, etc. These are off the top of my head, I'll stop here before this post tips over into buzzword land.
"free market" vs. "unrestricted corporate activity"
Hmmm, but that doesn't have that nice Freedom ring to it, does it? We all want a little freedom, don't we? Let's give it up for freedom!
The point is not that people want less copyright, the point is that these corporations want MORE. They're shifting the paradigm (pardon my French) from "copyright is a government granted monopoly" to "copyright is ours by default and you're a pirate."
The government grants the copyright monopoly not because it wants these firms to make money; they grant it because they hope that ARTISTS (see what I did there?) will make more of their art when they can make a buck off of what they do, for the purpose of making a rich culture. So, the purpose of copyright is not financial but cultural gain. This comes with the implied benefit that the ARTIST can make money. When the copyright is held by anyone but the artist, there is no more cultural gain to be had.
The default setting for stuff that goes out of your head and into other people's sight/ears/whatever is that it is no longer yours. I tell you my Great Idea, now you can use it. I sing you my song, you can play it as well. That's the default mode. It's very easy to copyright something (just stick on your name, the year and the alt0169 symbol) but it's so hard to get it back into the public domain where it belongs (after a reasonable period of time,) it's ridiculous.
Also, extending copyright past the death of the artist involved. Make more art, Jimi! Make more art, Django! Make more art, Pablo! Make more art, Joan!
Pro free market. Wtf is up with that anyway? These people want a free market to reign, but also to up their bottom line. The best way to do just that is to coerce lawmakers to pass laws that are favourable to these corps. Usually, this means that other businesses can't get into the market as easily, how shall I put it, they're less enabled. Which makes it less of a free market. Paradox?
Obviously, you've never built a tube amp.
(Transformers are typically $100+, array of tubes about the same price, so we've $300 in hardware right there. The actual caps and resistors cost next to nothing, unless you go the audiophile/voodoo route.)
Your efficiency has a high penny wise, pound foolish content. Where does this power come from? Where does it go to beyond Hydra? How much is lost there? How much is saved by building a 40M$ power line? Will it really be 40M or will the actual cost be lots higher? Still, I think it's a good idea. Bit lame that it should need the terrism flag to finance it, but what can you do these days?
My point is that I'm sure you people can come up with something better to do with 40M$ than building a fucking power line. Really, I'm sure. I'm quite sure you don't need any suggestions from me, either.
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see why DRM does not fail as hard as we would like. The parent knows about DRM and its implications, is technically savvy enough to post on /., has the money for various consumer devices, agrees (twice) that HDMI is bad because of DRM...
and yet, because of less cable clutter behind the TV, still gets HDMI connectors.
Any questions?
I just don't understand what the extension of copyright brings to the people running the companies you speak of. They're mostly middle aged I would think, and apart from stuff that's about to go public from old age (Mickey Mouse) they'll likely die before losing their monopoly. Are they that concerned with their kids? Is it just pure greed? ("Sure I can't ever use or spend this money, not in my lifetime, but more == better!")
> It's quite possible to crash and burn a company and come out on top; some people have practically made careers out of it.
A certain son of a certain former first world leader comes to mind...
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (X) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
(X) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, asshole! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Sorry! I didn't want to offend. I'm just sick of people who can't be held accountable for anything, yet take positions that are based on accountability.
;)
> but the directors cannot be held *personally* accountable for all the actions of their employees
I agree that there should be a line where personal accountability is concerned. I was just pointing out that the default mode would be that the employer IS accountable. Why shouldn't he be? It's his business after all. Look at it from another side: let's say I tell a software company to make an HR database for me. I deal with the director of this company, he signs the contract, etc. In the course of programming the db, one of the software company's employees takes off with the personal data of my company's employees. Let's say for simplicity's sake that I am not to blame (see what I did there?
I don't care who the programmer is that took my data. I don't care if it was the janitor. I am going to hold the director accountable, and I am going to hold him personally accountable. That's what a business is: the boss is the guy that takes the fall. He's the guy that takes the gold as well, if all goes OK, so it's really only fair. Now, how he deals with his troubles is not interesting to me. He can sue his employee for all I care.
> Talk to me about "whining" when your locked car gets stolen, used in the commission of a crime, and then you get sued by the victims because of your "involvement" in the crime.
No prior cont(r)act between the car thieves and me. If there would be, who knows? Say it's your kid that steals the car. You're accountable! Say it's your employee who steals your car. We'll see you in court! (Meaning: I don't know)
> Killing people is not the primary application for most guns sold.
It's not?
> while the majority of BT traffic is likely infringing.
That's right. Sadly, or not so sadly, depending on your point of view. The point is that if you go and block bt traffic, or worse yet, criminalise its users, you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Back on topic though, the primary use of this key is indeed illegal, because of the DMCA. The DMCA is a ridiculous law, but it's the law. It does not serve you, it does not serve your country, it serves a select few upper echelon people. Since we're having this conversation, I believe it's clear that this does not include you. Why protect it? Each and every post on here that is even remotely political has people shitting all over freedom and liberty, giving up rights as they go, yet still holding their hand to their hearts and pledging allegiance to the flag. I call hypocrisy.
If you don't like people badmouthing your country, behave like you earn the respect you crave.
That's besides the point. You can use a gun to kill someone in an illegal way, yet guns are legal (or can be, in any case.)
Or are you one of those guys arguing that bittorrent should be illegal as well? Besides any legal issues, what about the political ones? What about social responsibility? What about freedom? (Remember that old hag? Something to do with some song, land of the brave and the free or some such nonsense. Care to share the mp3 on that one?)
Don't forget to walk the line.
Don't turn it around: There are scenarios where the business owner can NOT be held accountable, but the rule is that he can be, because it's his business.
I know for a fact that a business can be held accountable for theft using means provided by the business (think employees taking ladders from your house painting firm and using them to burgle houses at night) under Dutch law. Of course, IANAL etc, but I did study law.
There is way too much weaseling out done by business owners, especially in the upper segment of the market. I include politicians in business owners, by the way, since that is pretty much the same thing these days. You have the perks, you take on the job, it's your choice. It comes with pros, it comes with cons. This is one of them. Your business loses a bunch of personal data because of lax security? It falls to you. Questions need to be asked: why did this one employee have access to so much data? How was it so easily transported to the outside world? Did you do a background check on him? Etc. Don't give me this clean hands crap about how you aren't accountable because it makes you sound like a whiner.
Sony installs rootkits all over the world, their response: "people don't even know what a rootkit is." Did anyone take the fall? No. Did anyone profit? Sure did.
If you stand to profit from your enterprise, you stand to take the fall when something goes wrong. It is part of the deal. If you don't like it, become a dish washer.
How come there is still no support for the Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000, as they call it? It's the best "broken" keyboard out there and one of the most comfortable ones I've ever used. Patches have been submitted multiple times, and seem to be maintained... No love for this hardware.
g onomic_Keyboard_4000r gonomic_Keyboard_4000
First couple of Google hits:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/3/80
and
http://lwn.net/Articles/194015/
or
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Microsoft_Natural_Er
or
http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/Microsoft_Natural_E
And no, I don't want to recompile my kernel.
To hurt tech companies or to protect European consumers?
(Retort with: Or European companies?)
There you have it. Apple, the cake, and eating it, etc.
Anyway, I hope that DRM will fall through as horribly as this will. Fucking hypocrites.
Gotta love those screenshots!
Did you try "compact folders?" It's in the "File" menu.
"Qwernty"