I completely agree. Sure, this is a serious issue, but people shouldn't be making exaggerated comparisons just to draw attention. It gets to the point that when you do have something really important to say, you can't make it seem big enough because you've wasted your efforts on something less. You trivialize your future issues as well as the original issue you're drawing the analogy with.
OTOH, maybe they're buying the DVD's just to make this point... I mean, DVD's are a great technology, who wouldn't want to watch movies at ultra-high quality? If I buy into it, I should be able to watch it. We have the technology to do what needs done, and it's not fair that someone is artificially and arbitrarily saying, "No." Maybe in a sense this was a fight that needed to be picked.
I see it as the Prisoner's Dilemma, but on a larger scale. Basically, "Screw everybody else, I'm getting what I can, because I can." What hasn't been realized yet is that in the end, everybody gets hurt, too.
In other words, we're all basically greedy and selfish, and sin feels good for a while but has a price.
I find it kind of frightening that people's comprehension of the pre-segregation world is so confused that they can equate violating fundamental rights of movement and association with the right to watch a movie.
I couldn't agree with you more on this point.
No one buys Betamax expecting it was their god given right to have it work in a VHS machine.
This is where I think you are a little off. The issue here is more like me buying a Beta and being unable to transfer it to VHS format so I can play it. Beta players are approved, but Beta->VHS converters are not, even though it allows me to achieve the same end result: watching the movie I paid for! So I only have a VHS player, but cobble together a way to convert my corporate-approved-Beta-distributed-only movie to it. All I'm doing is watching the movie, which I have purchased the right to do.
Sure, the technology could be used to pirate DVD's. Just like "sharp blade" technology could be used to stab someone in the gut. You can't ban a technology just because some bad elements are going to misuse it. If you did, we'd live in a technology-free society.
To me this is a simple question of Fair Use. Fair Use of copyrighted materials allows me to make an archive copy. Happens with software all the time. Fair Use also allows me to do a medium-shift, such as dubbing a CD to cassette to play in my car. That's all this amounts to.
True, it doesn't support JavaScript or CSS. But compared to the other browser dreck we have to work with, just having 100% HTML 4 is quite refreshing. (I use iCab on a regular basis.) I can see my title attributes! I can use LINK tags! There are a bazillion customization options! Cookie/image control! There's a link viewer! All this stuff could have been built in to other browsers long ago, and the poster's point was that all this is the work of one guy.
Not that I don't appreciate your work on Mozilla, roca. But I think Galeon has the right idea...take the Gecko engine and get a browser out the door. That's what we need and we need it right now.
What history books are you reading? Probably ones that were approved by the liberal NEA. To get a true depiction of the effect Christianity has had on the world just read _What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?_ by James Kennedy. Food for thought. The world would be alot uglier without the spread of Christ's teaching. For every atrocity committed by "Christians" there are 1000 acts of lovingkindness.
Who says? I thought the point was to freely share information. History buffs might say the point is to preserve communication channels in time of war, or whatever.
Borders are a reality we deal with every day. Trying to do away with them before that becomes a reality probably won't work.
However, real people use the internet, and we live with the realities of geography and governments. We can't escape it.
Besides, many groups are community-based — they exist because of geographic proximity of the people involved. Using geography makes sense. People understand it. Who understands trademark law?
For starters, not very many of us Americans are familiar with soccer, so the Brazilian team Corinthians has little or no impact on us. But what if it were the Minnesota Vikings wanted to register vikings.com and found it was held by a Scandanavian man who wasn't doing anything with it? Would our viewpoint soften a little?
Nope, not one bit. Who cares about sports anyway? I sure don't. This is just one further example why ICANN needs to get its head out of its butt and fix the TLD problem. Brazil has.br and that's what the team should be using. US citizens should be able to use.com.us,.net.us, etc, but that's not allowed. The gTLD's were intended for US use, plain and simple. (I don't like it, but that's the way it is.)
And if Sallen really wanted to display scriptures on his site, why not register corinthians.org instead? Was he similarly planning on registering.com domain names for the 65 other books of the Bible? Or was it just the Corinthian epistles that held such endearing value for him. (BTW, was that I Corinthians or II Corinthians?!) Sorry, JD: matthew.com, mark.com, luke.com and john.com are already taken.
Now you're just being facetious.
Thirdly, there's this quote from the WIPO arbitrator, Roberto Bianchi:
Apparently, aside from its biblical posting following their acquiring notice of the dispute... Respondents have no made any other use of the domain name.
Now IMO this is a serious charge. If Sallen put up content on the site after being informed of the domain dispute, this is tantamount to deleting evidence after being informed that it's been subpoenad. It remains to be seen whether the above is true or not. In his post, Sallen doesn't dispute the charge.
What are you on, man? There are no rules about how I have to use my domain name. I could register deepfriedfroglegs.org and make it a fan site for Britney Spears if I wanted to.
ICANN really needs to do something, soon. We've all seen this storm coming for at least 3 years now. There needs to be standaridized TLD's with meaning, and they need to be enforced. Domain squatters should be shot (ok, maybe not literally), and companies should not be able to buy their trademark across multiple TLD's. IMO all TLD's should be ccTLD's — no more gTLD's. The current 5 gTLD's and any new ones ICANN creates should become standard 2LD's under the ccTLD's. Then let each country set their own rules on how they can be used. All current domains would then be given 3 months to convert to the new naming convention.
I have ideas for new TLD's (which should be changed to 2LD's under ccTLD's as I just said) ICANN should create, too, but this is getting long enough already.
Yeah, it sucks to have an OS so usable that a certain Redmond software giant couldn't approach it for 11 more years.
Give props where they're due. Sure, lack of memory protection, blah blah, all sucks...but DOS didn't have that either. Yet for some reason the industry stuck with that model rather than the GUI. It's only within the last 5 years that the industry has had a modern "mainstream" OS. Apple isn't so far behind when you think of it that way.
How do taller folks fit into these cars? I'm 6'1" and barely have headroom in the Saturn SL1 my fiancee and I just bought.
Also, Americans need larger/heavier cars for the safety factor. We have big spaces, and lots of fast roads. I've been hitting the freeway for 4 hours virtually every weekend for months now to get ready for my wedding. The semis are doing 68 MPH and everyone else is faster. Do Europeans drive this much? This fast? I know that I want some impact absorption around me if I should get in a wreck.
There's got to be a way to be more economical without trimming weight or engine size. We build better processors all the time. Why not better engines? Have we hit the theoretical limit for ICE efficiency?
I've always thought the gas companies had the auto companies by the neck. That's why we haven't seen cars get any more efficient than about 35 MPG, tops. That's why alternative fuel cars haven't taken off.
I'm sure there are political favors going on, too. There always are.
Americans, I'll be 35 in 2008. Vote for me for President!
HTML 3.2 is to blame. Most of the deprecated tags date from that version. You know who had the biggest say in 3.2? The browser vendors trying to push their crap "innovations" on us.
Once the non-corporate members of W3C took the reins back, HTML came back under control in version 4.
You should be able to use gcc. You will be able to access the unix command line, though the utility for this will not be part of the standard install. Being able to drop Aqua and interact directly with Darwin would be cool (at least to most readers here).
AFAIK, Apple is not making OS X skin-friendly. You may see themes comparable to what currently exist in OS 9. You can bet on a third party coming out with something, though. Kaleidoscope is very popular with Mac users.
Darwin can be compiled for x86 hardware. Apple has never made any claims about OS X being available for x86. Don't make any assumptions any time soon.
There's nothing inherent in the design of the G3/G4 that limits it to use by graphic artists. Anyone that knows anything about chip architecture knows that it's basic design is leaner, cleaner, and meaner than x86 because it doesn't suffer from having legacy support. The Mac UI is designed with an "intuitive and consistent interface to the user" but what does this have to do with the hardware?
I'd vastly prefer to rename a file by doing a right-click "Rename", than a "click and hover for a second" (mac) or a "click... wait... click" (Windows Explorer)
Then click the icon label and move off it immediately...ready to type. Or select the icon and hit return...ready to type. I hardly ever do the "click and hover a second" any more.
If you really want contextual menus, they exist in the MacOS. Get a 2-button mouse and set the 2nd button to do that. The point is, they are completely unnecessary because the Mac UI doesn't need them because of universal menus and accessible universal hotkeys, and experience has shown that newbies are confused by the 2nd button.
However, I will say that Apple should have a BTO option to get a multi-button mouse if you want. I might get one that way, but my wife probably wouldn't. Of course, with OS X I'll probably be able to set her account to understand both buttons the same way.
Exactly. Mac users have been "hacking" their systems for years. All you need to do is drop a Control Panel or Extension on the System Folder and you've done it. Even novice users do this. I was a novice Mac user in the early 90's in university, and we traded inits/cdevs/CPs/extensions all the time. When AppleScript came along, it became easier for the beginning programmer to add functionality himself, without compiling.
Dropping an extension file into a folder is sure alot easier than writing a script or editting a registry, which is what Linux and Windows often require you to do. In my experience, more novice Mac users alter their systems than their Windows-using counterparts. Of course, Linux users are presumed to have a little more technical savvy.
Funny thing is, the machine that replaced it (Beige G3/300) is still in daily use as a MacOS box. I would not have been able to continue running Windows on the P233 box and get acceptable performance (it's now running Linux as the house server).
I've noticed that, too. Generally people using a Mac get alot more longevity out of the hardware before they upgrade. You'll still find SE/30's doing printserving, or webserving small sites.
I have a beige MacOS G3/300 at home, too, and have to use a Windows P2/233 at work. *sigh*
Cool! I've never seen a.int before. For orgs like the ESA, that's a great use of it. True multinational entities should use.int. Anything else should be under a country.
Even those who don't think there should be national boundaries on the 'net have to agree that we need some kind of hierarchy in order to expand the available namespace. Whether that means approving the proposed 7 new TLDs or what, something needs to be done. The.commercial area in particular needs better categorization. Treating.net as a subset of it, and creating other more-specific subsets, is another possibility.
Canada handled things fairly well, IMO. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it broke things down by provicinial 2LDs, and you registered whatever you wanted under that. Do you mind elaborating on how this is changing?
I don't know if this system would work well for other countries though, the US for example. Canada only has 10 provinces (and 2 territories), the US has 50 states. Even Americans don't know US geography that well, and no one is going to care where a business is based (at least to that level of detail) to get to the web site.
I still think a country TLD and a purpose 2LD, with TLDs and 2LDs standardized, would be the best.
You have to assume that commercial interests will eventually get their grubby mitts on anything that looks even remotely interesting, because it could prove profitable. To not do this means setting yourself up for a fall. A cooperative system may have worked well in theory, and even when the 'net was predominantly researchers, but those guys should have anticipated the commercialization effect.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely agree. Sure, this is a serious issue, but people shouldn't be making exaggerated comparisons just to draw attention. It gets to the point that when you do have something really important to say, you can't make it seem big enough because you've wasted your efforts on something less. You trivialize your future issues as well as the original issue you're drawing the analogy with.
OTOH, maybe they're buying the DVD's just to make this point... I mean, DVD's are a great technology, who wouldn't want to watch movies at ultra-high quality? If I buy into it, I should be able to watch it. We have the technology to do what needs done, and it's not fair that someone is artificially and arbitrarily saying, "No." Maybe in a sense this was a fight that needed to be picked.
I see it as the Prisoner's Dilemma, but on a larger scale. Basically, "Screw everybody else, I'm getting what I can, because I can." What hasn't been realized yet is that in the end, everybody gets hurt, too.
In other words, we're all basically greedy and selfish, and sin feels good for a while but has a price.
I couldn't agree with you more on this point.
This is where I think you are a little off. The issue here is more like me buying a Beta and being unable to transfer it to VHS format so I can play it. Beta players are approved, but Beta->VHS converters are not, even though it allows me to achieve the same end result: watching the movie I paid for! So I only have a VHS player, but cobble together a way to convert my corporate-approved-Beta-distributed-only movie to it. All I'm doing is watching the movie, which I have purchased the right to do.
Sure, the technology could be used to pirate DVD's. Just like "sharp blade" technology could be used to stab someone in the gut. You can't ban a technology just because some bad elements are going to misuse it. If you did, we'd live in a technology-free society.
To me this is a simple question of Fair Use. Fair Use of copyrighted materials allows me to make an archive copy. Happens with software all the time. Fair Use also allows me to do a medium-shift, such as dubbing a CD to cassette to play in my car. That's all this amounts to.
True, it doesn't support JavaScript or CSS. But compared to the other browser dreck we have to work with, just having 100% HTML 4 is quite refreshing. (I use iCab on a regular basis.) I can see my title attributes! I can use LINK tags! There are a bazillion customization options! Cookie/image control! There's a link viewer! All this stuff could have been built in to other browsers long ago, and the poster's point was that all this is the work of one guy.
Not that I don't appreciate your work on Mozilla, roca. But I think Galeon has the right idea...take the Gecko engine and get a browser out the door. That's what we need and we need it right now.
What history books are you reading? Probably ones that were approved by the liberal NEA. To get a true depiction of the effect Christianity has had on the world just read _What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?_ by James Kennedy. Food for thought. The world would be alot uglier without the spread of Christ's teaching. For every atrocity committed by "Christians" there are 1000 acts of lovingkindness.
Who says? I thought the point was to freely share information. History buffs might say the point is to preserve communication channels in time of war, or whatever.
Borders are a reality we deal with every day. Trying to do away with them before that becomes a reality probably won't work.
However, real people use the internet, and we live with the realities of geography and governments. We can't escape it.
Besides, many groups are community-based — they exist because of geographic proximity of the people involved. Using geography makes sense. People understand it. Who understands trademark law?
Nope, not one bit. Who cares about sports anyway? I sure don't. This is just one further example why ICANN needs to get its head out of its butt and fix the TLD problem. Brazil has .br and that's what the team should be using. US citizens should be able to use .com.us, .net.us, etc, but that's not allowed. The gTLD's were intended for US use, plain and simple. (I don't like it, but that's the way it is.)
Now you're just being facetious.
What are you on, man? There are no rules about how I have to use my domain name. I could register deepfriedfroglegs.org and make it a fan site for Britney Spears if I wanted to.
ICANN really needs to do something, soon. We've all seen this storm coming for at least 3 years now. There needs to be standaridized TLD's with meaning, and they need to be enforced. Domain squatters should be shot (ok, maybe not literally), and companies should not be able to buy their trademark across multiple TLD's. IMO all TLD's should be ccTLD's — no more gTLD's. The current 5 gTLD's and any new ones ICANN creates should become standard 2LD's under the ccTLD's. Then let each country set their own rules on how they can be used. All current domains would then be given 3 months to convert to the new naming convention.
I have ideas for new TLD's (which should be changed to 2LD's under ccTLD's as I just said) ICANN should create, too, but this is getting long enough already.
Yeah, it sucks to have an OS so usable that a certain Redmond software giant couldn't approach it for 11 more years.
Give props where they're due. Sure, lack of memory protection, blah blah, all sucks...but DOS didn't have that either. Yet for some reason the industry stuck with that model rather than the GUI. It's only within the last 5 years that the industry has had a modern "mainstream" OS. Apple isn't so far behind when you think of it that way.
How do taller folks fit into these cars? I'm 6'1" and barely have headroom in the Saturn SL1 my fiancee and I just bought.
Also, Americans need larger/heavier cars for the safety factor. We have big spaces, and lots of fast roads. I've been hitting the freeway for 4 hours virtually every weekend for months now to get ready for my wedding. The semis are doing 68 MPH and everyone else is faster. Do Europeans drive this much? This fast? I know that I want some impact absorption around me if I should get in a wreck.
There's got to be a way to be more economical without trimming weight or engine size. We build better processors all the time. Why not better engines? Have we hit the theoretical limit for ICE efficiency?
Heck, yeah! I would [convert my car], too.
I've always thought the gas companies had the auto companies by the neck. That's why we haven't seen cars get any more efficient than about 35 MPG, tops. That's why alternative fuel cars haven't taken off.
I'm sure there are political favors going on, too. There always are.
Americans, I'll be 35 in 2008. Vote for me for President!
HTML 3.2 is to blame. Most of the deprecated tags date from that version. You know who had the biggest say in 3.2? The browser vendors trying to push their crap "innovations" on us.
Once the non-corporate members of W3C took the reins back, HTML came back under control in version 4.
Don't blame W3C. Blame Netscape and Micros~1.
It's no use. People have been calling the female X-character by the wrong name on X-Men boards for years. They never get it.
You should be able to use gcc. You will be able to access the unix command line, though the utility for this will not be part of the standard install. Being able to drop Aqua and interact directly with Darwin would be cool (at least to most readers here).
AFAIK, Apple is not making OS X skin-friendly. You may see themes comparable to what currently exist in OS 9. You can bet on a third party coming out with something, though. Kaleidoscope is very popular with Mac users.
Darwin can be compiled for x86 hardware. Apple has never made any claims about OS X being available for x86. Don't make any assumptions any time soon.
The Geek Code allows for all kinds of geeks.
There's nothing inherent in the design of the G3/G4 that limits it to use by graphic artists. Anyone that knows anything about chip architecture knows that it's basic design is leaner, cleaner, and meaner than x86 because it doesn't suffer from having legacy support. The Mac UI is designed with an "intuitive and consistent interface to the user" but what does this have to do with the hardware?
Then click the icon label and move off it immediately...ready to type. Or select the icon and hit return...ready to type. I hardly ever do the "click and hover a second" any more.
If you really want contextual menus, they exist in the MacOS. Get a 2-button mouse and set the 2nd button to do that. The point is, they are completely unnecessary because the Mac UI doesn't need them because of universal menus and accessible universal hotkeys, and experience has shown that newbies are confused by the 2nd button.
However, I will say that Apple should have a BTO option to get a multi-button mouse if you want. I might get one that way, but my wife probably wouldn't. Of course, with OS X I'll probably be able to set her account to understand both buttons the same way.
Exactly. Mac users have been "hacking" their systems for years. All you need to do is drop a Control Panel or Extension on the System Folder and you've done it. Even novice users do this. I was a novice Mac user in the early 90's in university, and we traded inits/cdevs/CPs/extensions all the time. When AppleScript came along, it became easier for the beginning programmer to add functionality himself, without compiling.
Dropping an extension file into a folder is sure alot easier than writing a script or editting a registry, which is what Linux and Windows often require you to do. In my experience, more novice Mac users alter their systems than their Windows-using counterparts. Of course, Linux users are presumed to have a little more technical savvy.
Perhaps you mean the SelectSmart poll?
If you're curious, I matched Ralph Nader at 18%. The closest was Howard Phillips at 95%.
If the recent Slashdot story is correct, you don't actually own your domain name. NSI does, and they lease it to you for $35 a year.
The whole registrar system needs redone just as badly as the DNS does (which I've said before, more than once). What a friggin' mess!
OK, that does it. Will someone please post a list of all the unpublished and (mostly) unknown /. areas??? I feel like I'm missing out.
I've noticed that, too. Generally people using a Mac get alot more longevity out of the hardware before they upgrade. You'll still find SE/30's doing printserving, or webserving small sites.
I have a beige MacOS G3/300 at home, too, and have to use a Windows P2/233 at work. *sigh*
Cool! I've never seen a .int before. For orgs like the ESA, that's a great use of it. True multinational entities should use .int. Anything else should be under a country.
Even those who don't think there should be national boundaries on the 'net have to agree that we need some kind of hierarchy in order to expand the available namespace. Whether that means approving the proposed 7 new TLDs or what, something needs to be done. The .commercial area in particular needs better categorization. Treating .net as a subset of it, and creating other more-specific subsets, is another possibility.
Canada handled things fairly well, IMO. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it broke things down by provicinial 2LDs, and you registered whatever you wanted under that. Do you mind elaborating on how this is changing?
I don't know if this system would work well for other countries though, the US for example. Canada only has 10 provinces (and 2 territories), the US has 50 states. Even Americans don't know US geography that well, and no one is going to care where a business is based (at least to that level of detail) to get to the web site.
I still think a country TLD and a purpose 2LD, with TLDs and 2LDs standardized, would be the best.
You have to assume that commercial interests will eventually get their grubby mitts on anything that looks even remotely interesting, because it could prove profitable. To not do this means setting yourself up for a fall. A cooperative system may have worked well in theory, and even when the 'net was predominantly researchers, but those guys should have anticipated the commercialization effect.