I can see why hiding such a transaction is illegal. But why is the deal itself illegal in the first place? Why do they need to hide that? Why can't Dell make a deal with Intel to use only Intel chips in exchange for a good price if they want to? Because it's anticompetitive to make deals to lock competition out of the market.
Never been talking with people and wanted to toss a file online quickly for them to download?
Never wanted a medium-term host where you can stick a small file to link to?
I use this as a primary means of passing files around and storing non-critical stuff for time... frequently things I create.
It is the equivalent of the image hosts used to upload small creations or screenshots for use on forums that do not authorise uploads on themselves.
Forget *may* have some use. I and plenty of others use them on a day-to-day basis... not everyone has a server or paid for space at their disposal.
It has nothing to do with illegal files. It's a fast and quick way to move stuff over mediums which don't support/lack reliable file transfer, to send to multiple people, or to store for linking. The concept that all such quick-and-free means of transferring information are automatically used only for illegal stuff sickens me.
I think it's already been said... but I've actually read the list, even before this article was out, and most of it is cleaning and neatening the UI and such, not adding bloaty new features.
UI upgrades aren't essentially bloat. Hell... they can be reworked to be faster than the old, and given the history of Firefox's development, I've every confidence that such will be the case.
The other stuff being done, the new bookmark system (apparently it will allow you to use bookmark storage websites to synchronise), the work on the extension backend, and such, sound like more reworking and improving existing stuff, making it more efficient and more useful, then adding bloat, to me at least.
The messenger is doubtful, I admit, but aside from that, these changes won't suddenly make it bloated, any more than other releases.
As for Firefox already being bloatware by 2.0, while I can see what you are driving at, the only big new bit of bloat actually added recently (that I recall) was the built in spellchecker. Which I personally think was done well, and is, with the web forums (like this) of today, as sensible a feature for a browser as it would be in a word processor. It's made my life a lot easier, although since I edit a wiki regularly, it may be more useful to me than some others. YMMV.
And while one could argue that adding those features was bloat, even if they were useful, in moving from 1 to 2 of Firefox (can't say I was using it earlier), it has INCREASED in speed and stability, while adding the above. I wouldn't say it is losing lean and mean at all. It's faster with LESS bloat, AND more features. Hardly changing into bloatware.
As for your examples... tabbed browsing is pretty much a 'basic needed feature' now, and it doesn't do ActiveX. From what you say you want, you don't want what most people would consider a 'lean' browser, though... you want something cut to the bone. Thus, you're looking at the wrong browser. Try Lynx for all your just-browsing, small footprint, high performance, and, erm... 'security basic' (?) needs. XD.
I dispute your claim that things are 'off-limits for a reason', and would like to ask as to what that reason is, precisely.
Personally... I wonder at why images of things that exist in the real world are at all 'harmful' to young minds, and why those things need to be off limits at all.
Violence horrifies and scares, but no one is saying they should be forced to see it... but if they seek it out there's no reason they shouldn't be able to see how nasty it can be. Images don't permanently scar once you are old enough to seek them out.
Some DO claim that 'images of violence' cause the child to become violent, but I would like to see some hard proof other than the scapegoating of society for its problems before I can accept it as a justification for such extensive censorship.
Pornography and nudity is just a part of the real world... hiding what people look like, and trying to teach children those things should be hidden, is a bad part of society. Some might claim that it might encourage acts between children, but once they're old enough to want to do it, they don't need pictures to encourage it... if anything, actually being aware of stuff would help them be prepared.
Humanity has survived for millenia with children seeing the real world. Personally I don't see why society needs to try to hide it from them now, and can see a lot of damage, and a lot of erosion of rights coming from it.
uhh... what?? Tons of spammers fail these checks. Compromised Windows boxes acting as spam zombies almost always fail these checks, and as have increasingly becoming a major source of spam over the last couple years Firstly... these checks? I am only criticising FQDN checks. Not the other standards checks. Those are fine, I expect.
And true, the botnet mail would hit the FQDN checks. But they would also hit other checks (such as it being a dynamic port range, a number of other blacklists, etc) as well. The amount of spam blocked by the FQDN check ALONE would be much much lower, and be in a poor ratio (relatively) with the amount of genuine mail blocked.
Sounds like sour grapes to me. Anyone who is telling you it isnt possible to configure your mail server correctly probably just doesn't understand how to do it. We don't have a mail server, if you read my post. This is no large arrangement. It is sent from the IRC Services on nick registration. Nor does it ever receive mail - it's not a mail server, merely software that sends out emails.
This runs on a shell, basically rented space. When you don't OWN the server you can't "configure it correctly". The fact we don't own it is the main reason it is impossible, IIRC. It is NOT a matter of 'getting our act together'. Small shell-users don't have that option.
And maybe take note of how many other people posted replies to this story suggesting the exact same types of strict checking for compliance with the standards. In general, the statement that requiring standards to be followed blocks spam is true. I am questioning this ONE particular part of that, that while working in most cases, can have false positive issues that can't be always be fixed by changes at one end. In addition I am suggesting that this part of requiring standards compliance is not so effective.
You cited 20% blocked by 'these types of check'. Once again, I repeat that it is ONLY FQDN checks I have an issue with. What percentage by that check alone? And what percentage of those that failed the FQDN check would have passed other checks too? I suspect it would be very low.
If you don't fix your server, expect the rejections to increase as more and more servers start requiring that mail server admins get their acts together. Again, reading my post would suggest it was a shell and not a dedicated server. Thus not under our control, and not a matter of 'getting out act together'. Your comment is very much centric to larger organisations that have dedicated mail servers and admins for them. That is not the case. As for this problem increasing... perhaps. But mainly because FQDN checks are presumed good because they are thrown in with all the less troublesome ones.
These filters may in general be effective but the FQDN check causes false positives that can't be worked around in some cases and especially hit non-businesses that don't have dedicated mail servers. And I doubt the effectiveness of the FQDN check alone nor the impact of dropping it alone on spam blocking.
Non FQDNs on the sender, recipient or hostname... Most spam does not fail FQDN checks. You could consider it "yet another check...", catching some but not all mail, making there be less to check, but it has false positive problems that cause problems in this regard. I am in fact staff on an IRC network while has been forced to require an email check for nickname registration, and we have problems with mail servers rejecting our mail in some cases because of FQDNs problems. Others, like Gmail, accept it and it arrives instantly.
It isn't my area of knowledge but I'm assured that getting a FQDN isn't possible with our shell hosting, and these unnecessary filters creates a LOT of pain for users and staff who then must personally email the person to verify the email.
Is this a good idea if it hits false positive problems, and misses quite a lot anyway? Other checks would catch most spammers failing FQDN, and the number of false positives to spammers blocked who otherwise wouldn't be seems quite high.
Is FQDN supposed to be required for email servers?
I am an athiest, and it isn't really true in my case... I will listen to and participate in a sensible discussion of the evidence for a religion. If there was sufficient evidence to convince me on one, I could be converted. I don't believe that there is no god, I merely currently am not convinced by the evidence before me. I could be wrong, I could be right, I readily admit I cannot tell. I am, admittedly, not particularly happy if someone starts a conversation (or worse, monologue) taking the existance of their god as a given, not as something to be argued for. To be honest, I consider belief, as opposed to looking into the evidence and considering all possibilities (all you can consider, that is) to be deluding yourself that what you want to be true is true, as opposed to what is logically suggested by looking at the evidence is. Note that this is not a bash at believers, they merely have a different point of view to me. I have had a sister delude herself into believing what she saw on TV was true, merely because she wanted it, and have seen what I think (from the evidence I have seen) to be the core of belief. I am open to other opinions, I merely have yet to be convinced.
Excuse me, but I disagree with the entirity of what you just said. I myself am well under 'adult' status, a minor. However, I program. I am currently designing a program to play adventure games made up of text, bitmap, and sound programs. In C++. Using the Windows API. Much of the information I use comes from the internet. I would not be where I am now if I had to wait till my Dad could come watch me everytime I went online, if I lacked an email address, how would I send copies of the program to a few interested friends who want to take a look (clue - the age you are banning email access for also would have the hardest time sorting out a hosting service). Take away my computer... that... that would destroy the hobby I want to turn into a job one day that I have wanted to do for almost half my life. That would be... monstrous. If I could only use my Dad's computer, while he was watching me... I wouldn't have enough time to code. The solution to this problem is obvious. Ban Spam. Instead of building a list of child email addresses, build a list of reported spam, find computers sending spam, and have them disconnected. Find the spammers making the spam, and fine them. Or worse, jail time.
Don't hold me back. I'm ready to go onto the net and develop my program. I don't need the government to be holding my hand all the way. I find this sort of idea horrible, from the people who are part of the government that worships the word 'Freedom'. Pity they forget the meaning.
(I would also like to thank the UK government, where I live, for not being a part of any of these recent laws. Because if they do, I'm moving as soon as I am able, to a place more free.)
I don't agree with many of these comments, myself. I am sitting at a laptop with 20GB hard disk space, and working happily. The problem is that people aren't organised with their data. I have all my files for permanent storage under one directory - Archives. Within there are subfolders for Software (Installers), Music, Pictures, Games, Drivers, Guides, Patches, and such. It all fits on a DVD for being backed up. Now, if my music was less midi files and more mp3 files and more extensive, I can see it taking more space, but the typical music collection would surely be unlikely to hit 10GB, so a 30GB for someone with a more typical collection would be better than a 20GB for me. Another major part is uninstalling/deleting stuff when you're finished with it, and deleting built up junk in temporary folders and such. Otherwise, you are just going to fill it with junk you don't need over time, and any hard disk will end up full with that, eventually. It's just a matter of time. With those tricks, I've been multi-booting a recent version of Linux, with a GUI, and not one specially designed to be small, playing games (modern, multi-GB of HD space ones), browsing the internet, and so forth. Basically, I treat my hard disk as a place of limited volume, am careful with my use, and such, as opposed to filling it with junk and never uninstalling. A 30GB flash drive, if it goes down to a reasonable cost for a good speed one, would only be a good thing.
(This does not apply to those with extensive music libraries, who do video editting, or otherwise have need to fill their hard disks with stuff they actually use. I can understand that such uses would require significantly more space than this drive offers. I can see a day in fact, when for typical usage people have flash drives, and other drives are used for mass storage. Given flash drives are relatively mobile, the idea of carrying yours with you and plugging it into computers in internet cafes and hotel rooms as well as your own is an interesting possibility)
Who said anything about a race? I wouldn't like any browser to become unavailable, the more choices the better. I also wouldn't like them to be the same, that'd be pointless (although I would like them all to support the same standards). In that sense, I wouldn't like anything to 'win the race' and put all the other browsers behind, and I also wouldn't want any to stop developing. I would like all browsers to work to similar standards so web sites are more compatible, but I would rather have many different browsers than one standard one. Oh, and to be absolutely clear, those 'short scorns' are just my experience. Which is best for me might not be best for you. Use Opera, use FF, use any other, the only thing I would recommend is try a good few to find out which suits you best, and be ready to try a newer verson of a competitor once it comes out. Personally, FF is good for me, but I have Opera as well and use it whenever I feel like it, as it is also a great browser. I currently dislike IE a lot, but I will try 7 when it becomes available.
Oh, and silightly contrary to my 'bring on the browser wars' comment, while I welcome competion between browsers, I think the fans of each should focus less on arguing which is best and turn their attention toward all of them vs IE. IE needs to lose it's massive market share, not essencially all of it, but enough so IE only sites do become extinct. You know, maybe this money could go on getting a few vendors to ship alternative browsers with the computers, perhaps not as the default browser if they don't want to confuse the sort of user who thinks IE is the internet, but available as an icon on the desktop if they just click it.
I don't see why we have to choose browsers at all, really. I use both FF and Opera (IE as well for a couple of sites that need it, but I don't like using it) and have no problem with it like that. FF is my preferred browser, due to its easy to install extensions (I have weather forcasts in the menubar, Adblock, etc, it's heavily customised), installable search engines, and UI, but I can use Opera as well, for the voice commands.
For those who go on about Opera being first, I don't care what was first and what wasn't, I care about what's good now. And using both, I can say, for myself, that FF with extensions does all but the voice support as well as Opera for me, Deer Park having the same speed on the back button as Opera (one of the biggest changes). With FF Firetuned, 1.0.7 runs as fast as Opera (I have compared them side by side rendering pages). And FF's Tab Mix Plus gives it the better tab support, I think. Also, I like the way pages are rendered by Gecko over Presto.
But there are things I can see Opera being used for, including slower systems, OSes where FF isn't implemented so well, and any sites which don't work in FF (yet to find any that will run in Opera better than FF). And the voice control is just fun to use. I say bring on the browser wars, competion drives quality up and, as part as that quality, encourages closer adherence to standards. I may be an FF fanboy, but I still want variety and alternatives.
Flash makes great games, movies, and such possible online with minimal file size.
The pdf format makes manuals and such viewable across many platforms and isn't bad either, the viewer does stink horribly but I use Foxit PDF Reader (which is free) instead.
Flash is used for ads, but so are jpgs and gifs and such, and it is vunerable to the same kind of ad-blocking software as them. Flash files are in fact incredibly small and fast for the content.
This could create interactive, cross-platform guides, tutorials, etc that are very small. By combining the best code from each company, all of their programs could be improved significantly. And it does create another major competitor to Microsoft, and we need them. Competition drives prices down and increases the quality of products.
So I say bring on the merger! And a final point - Macromedia is not responsible for the proliferation of flash ads. That rests solely with the websites who put those ads up.
Slashdot Mirror
These *may* have some legit uses?
Never been talking with people and wanted to toss a file online quickly for them to download?
Never wanted a medium-term host where you can stick a small file to link to?
I use this as a primary means of passing files around and storing non-critical stuff for time... frequently things I create.
It is the equivalent of the image hosts used to upload small creations or screenshots for use on forums that do not authorise uploads on themselves.
Forget *may* have some use. I and plenty of others use them on a day-to-day basis... not everyone has a server or paid for space at their disposal.
It has nothing to do with illegal files. It's a fast and quick way to move stuff over mediums which don't support/lack reliable file transfer, to send to multiple people, or to store for linking. The concept that all such quick-and-free means of transferring information are automatically used only for illegal stuff sickens me.
I think it's already been said... but I've actually read the list, even before this article was out, and most of it is cleaning and neatening the UI and such, not adding bloaty new features.
UI upgrades aren't essentially bloat. Hell... they can be reworked to be faster than the old, and given the history of Firefox's development, I've every confidence that such will be the case.
The other stuff being done, the new bookmark system (apparently it will allow you to use bookmark storage websites to synchronise), the work on the extension backend, and such, sound like more reworking and improving existing stuff, making it more efficient and more useful, then adding bloat, to me at least.
The messenger is doubtful, I admit, but aside from that, these changes won't suddenly make it bloated, any more than other releases.
As for Firefox already being bloatware by 2.0, while I can see what you are driving at, the only big new bit of bloat actually added recently (that I recall) was the built in spellchecker. Which I personally think was done well, and is, with the web forums (like this) of today, as sensible a feature for a browser as it would be in a word processor. It's made my life a lot easier, although since I edit a wiki regularly, it may be more useful to me than some others. YMMV.
And while one could argue that adding those features was bloat, even if they were useful, in moving from 1 to 2 of Firefox (can't say I was using it earlier), it has INCREASED in speed and stability, while adding the above. I wouldn't say it is losing lean and mean at all. It's faster with LESS bloat, AND more features. Hardly changing into bloatware.
As for your examples... tabbed browsing is pretty much a 'basic needed feature' now, and it doesn't do ActiveX. From what you say you want, you don't want what most people would consider a 'lean' browser, though... you want something cut to the bone. Thus, you're looking at the wrong browser. Try Lynx for all your just-browsing, small footprint, high performance, and, erm... 'security basic' (?) needs. XD.
I dispute your claim that things are 'off-limits for a reason', and would like to ask as to what that reason is, precisely. Personally... I wonder at why images of things that exist in the real world are at all 'harmful' to young minds, and why those things need to be off limits at all. Violence horrifies and scares, but no one is saying they should be forced to see it... but if they seek it out there's no reason they shouldn't be able to see how nasty it can be. Images don't permanently scar once you are old enough to seek them out. Some DO claim that 'images of violence' cause the child to become violent, but I would like to see some hard proof other than the scapegoating of society for its problems before I can accept it as a justification for such extensive censorship. Pornography and nudity is just a part of the real world... hiding what people look like, and trying to teach children those things should be hidden, is a bad part of society. Some might claim that it might encourage acts between children, but once they're old enough to want to do it, they don't need pictures to encourage it... if anything, actually being aware of stuff would help them be prepared. Humanity has survived for millenia with children seeing the real world. Personally I don't see why society needs to try to hide it from them now, and can see a lot of damage, and a lot of erosion of rights coming from it.
It isn't my area of knowledge but I'm assured that getting a FQDN isn't possible with our shell hosting, and these unnecessary filters creates a LOT of pain for users and staff who then must personally email the person to verify the email.
Is this a good idea if it hits false positive problems, and misses quite a lot anyway? Other checks would catch most spammers failing FQDN, and the number of false positives to spammers blocked who otherwise wouldn't be seems quite high.
Is FQDN supposed to be required for email servers?
I am an athiest, and it isn't really true in my case... I will listen to and participate in a sensible discussion of the evidence for a religion. If there was sufficient evidence to convince me on one, I could be converted. I don't believe that there is no god, I merely currently am not convinced by the evidence before me. I could be wrong, I could be right, I readily admit I cannot tell. I am, admittedly, not particularly happy if someone starts a conversation (or worse, monologue) taking the existance of their god as a given, not as something to be argued for. To be honest, I consider belief, as opposed to looking into the evidence and considering all possibilities (all you can consider, that is) to be deluding yourself that what you want to be true is true, as opposed to what is logically suggested by looking at the evidence is. Note that this is not a bash at believers, they merely have a different point of view to me. I have had a sister delude herself into believing what she saw on TV was true, merely because she wanted it, and have seen what I think (from the evidence I have seen) to be the core of belief. I am open to other opinions, I merely have yet to be convinced.
Excuse me, but I disagree with the entirity of what you just said. I myself am well under 'adult' status, a minor. However, I program. I am currently designing a program to play adventure games made up of text, bitmap, and sound programs. In C++. Using the Windows API. Much of the information I use comes from the internet. I would not be where I am now if I had to wait till my Dad could come watch me everytime I went online, if I lacked an email address, how would I send copies of the program to a few interested friends who want to take a look (clue - the age you are banning email access for also would have the hardest time sorting out a hosting service). Take away my computer... that... that would destroy the hobby I want to turn into a job one day that I have wanted to do for almost half my life. That would be... monstrous. If I could only use my Dad's computer, while he was watching me... I wouldn't have enough time to code. The solution to this problem is obvious. Ban Spam. Instead of building a list of child email addresses, build a list of reported spam, find computers sending spam, and have them disconnected. Find the spammers making the spam, and fine them. Or worse, jail time. Don't hold me back. I'm ready to go onto the net and develop my program. I don't need the government to be holding my hand all the way. I find this sort of idea horrible, from the people who are part of the government that worships the word 'Freedom'. Pity they forget the meaning. (I would also like to thank the UK government, where I live, for not being a part of any of these recent laws. Because if they do, I'm moving as soon as I am able, to a place more free.)
I don't agree with many of these comments, myself. I am sitting at a laptop with 20GB hard disk space, and working happily. The problem is that people aren't organised with their data. I have all my files for permanent storage under one directory - Archives. Within there are subfolders for Software (Installers), Music, Pictures, Games, Drivers, Guides, Patches, and such. It all fits on a DVD for being backed up. Now, if my music was less midi files and more mp3 files and more extensive, I can see it taking more space, but the typical music collection would surely be unlikely to hit 10GB, so a 30GB for someone with a more typical collection would be better than a 20GB for me. Another major part is uninstalling/deleting stuff when you're finished with it, and deleting built up junk in temporary folders and such. Otherwise, you are just going to fill it with junk you don't need over time, and any hard disk will end up full with that, eventually. It's just a matter of time. With those tricks, I've been multi-booting a recent version of Linux, with a GUI, and not one specially designed to be small, playing games (modern, multi-GB of HD space ones), browsing the internet, and so forth. Basically, I treat my hard disk as a place of limited volume, am careful with my use, and such, as opposed to filling it with junk and never uninstalling. A 30GB flash drive, if it goes down to a reasonable cost for a good speed one, would only be a good thing.
(This does not apply to those with extensive music libraries, who do video editting, or otherwise have need to fill their hard disks with stuff they actually use. I can understand that such uses would require significantly more space than this drive offers. I can see a day in fact, when for typical usage people have flash drives, and other drives are used for mass storage. Given flash drives are relatively mobile, the idea of carrying yours with you and plugging it into computers in internet cafes and hotel rooms as well as your own is an interesting possibility)
Who said anything about a race? I wouldn't like any browser to become unavailable, the more choices the better. I also wouldn't like them to be the same, that'd be pointless (although I would like them all to support the same standards). In that sense, I wouldn't like anything to 'win the race' and put all the other browsers behind, and I also wouldn't want any to stop developing. I would like all browsers to work to similar standards so web sites are more compatible, but I would rather have many different browsers than one standard one. Oh, and to be absolutely clear, those 'short scorns' are just my experience. Which is best for me might not be best for you. Use Opera, use FF, use any other, the only thing I would recommend is try a good few to find out which suits you best, and be ready to try a newer verson of a competitor once it comes out. Personally, FF is good for me, but I have Opera as well and use it whenever I feel like it, as it is also a great browser. I currently dislike IE a lot, but I will try 7 when it becomes available.
Oh, and silightly contrary to my 'bring on the browser wars' comment, while I welcome competion between browsers, I think the fans of each should focus less on arguing which is best and turn their attention toward all of them vs IE. IE needs to lose it's massive market share, not essencially all of it, but enough so IE only sites do become extinct. You know, maybe this money could go on getting a few vendors to ship alternative browsers with the computers, perhaps not as the default browser if they don't want to confuse the sort of user who thinks IE is the internet, but available as an icon on the desktop if they just click it.
I don't see why we have to choose browsers at all, really. I use both FF and Opera (IE as well for a couple of sites that need it, but I don't like using it) and have no problem with it like that. FF is my preferred browser, due to its easy to install extensions (I have weather forcasts in the menubar, Adblock, etc, it's heavily customised), installable search engines, and UI, but I can use Opera as well, for the voice commands.
For those who go on about Opera being first, I don't care what was first and what wasn't, I care about what's good now. And using both, I can say, for myself, that FF with extensions does all but the voice support as well as Opera for me, Deer Park having the same speed on the back button as Opera (one of the biggest changes). With FF Firetuned, 1.0.7 runs as fast as Opera (I have compared them side by side rendering pages). And FF's Tab Mix Plus gives it the better tab support, I think. Also, I like the way pages are rendered by Gecko over Presto.
But there are things I can see Opera being used for, including slower systems, OSes where FF isn't implemented so well, and any sites which don't work in FF (yet to find any that will run in Opera better than FF). And the voice control is just fun to use. I say bring on the browser wars, competion drives quality up and, as part as that quality, encourages closer adherence to standards. I may be an FF fanboy, but I still want variety and alternatives.
People bash flash and pdf files too much.
Flash makes great games, movies, and such possible online with minimal file size.
The pdf format makes manuals and such viewable across many platforms and isn't bad either, the viewer does stink horribly but I use Foxit PDF Reader (which is free) instead.
Flash is used for ads, but so are jpgs and gifs and such, and it is vunerable to the same kind of ad-blocking software as them. Flash files are in fact incredibly small and fast for the content.
This could create interactive, cross-platform guides, tutorials, etc that are very small. By combining the best code from each company, all of their programs could be improved significantly. And it does create another major competitor to Microsoft, and we need them. Competition drives prices down and increases the quality of products.
So I say bring on the merger! And a final point - Macromedia is not responsible for the proliferation of flash ads. That rests solely with the websites who put those ads up.