You must have missed the original question by cobraR478:
How is the average computer illiterate going to download a browser if Microsoft is not allowed to bundle one? Buy a disc?
Of course you don't need a browser to download a file, nor do you need a browser to use HTTP. But if typical computer "users" were competent enough to make use of such knowlegde, then MSIE would not be much of a contender, anyway -- so it's a moot point.
If you RTFA, you'd learn that it's actually each edge that measures about 2 inches. And some of us don't need a calculator to figure out that 2 * 2 * 2 = 2.
...to advertisers. If they can just modify the god helmet to accommodate subjects at a distance of several feet away, then prospective customers will be overwhelmed with feelings of profound euphoria while being introduced to the latest revisions in product design. I'll bet it's significantly more affective than sexually suggestive imagery. And I can't wait!
Maybe finally the RIAA will realize that allofmp3's pricing scheme and business model works and proves that if you price it right and don't use DRM, people will readily pay for music even if it is available for free on P2P.
What's the efficient market price of a commodity with zero scarcity? The willingness to pay for freely copyable files (free as in beer) is an artifact of a bygone era. It is slowly disappearing at approximately the same rate as are brick-and-mortar record stores.
Is there anyway to simple reverse the color scheme (like a photographic negative) on a list of sites so that I can see the site in white on black?
Yes, there is. You can set up Firefox's userContent.css on a per-site basis. See for example my post on using userContent.css to make Google black here.
Of course if you don't want to go through the hassle of writing css for nested tables, you can always just launch xterm -bg black -fg white and fire up lynx/links/w3m.
Mod parent up. Internet applications need their own syntax, protocol, and user agents to be written from the ground up, not to be further imposed on the hypertext markup language and its web browsers. XHTML was a much needed improvement in mere terms of its mandate for well-formed markup (not to mention the doors it opens through its extensibility), but it unfortunately followed HTML's misguided path of mistaking hypertext for interactive software, thereby including such kludges as forms and scripts. HTML and XHTML only need those features because there is no competing alternative.
Yes really. The image may be a FreeDOS screen capture, but when you look at this image, which is their top banner, you'll see the word "Ubuntu" appears twice, and the word "FreeDOS" does not appear at all. They make Ubuntu look like a CLI-oriented system.
At a time when almost everyone is afraid to vote for any established third party, on the misguided logic that it's like tossing a vote to their opponent, I doubt your suggestion will be realized. Nice thought, though, fwiw.
While I whole-heartedly agree that copyrights ought to be non-transferable, your substantiation is false. Corporations make art all the time. Films, for starters, are quite frequently created by corporations. Even if you tend to write Hollywood off as "entertainment" (which remains "art" in the courtroom), there are still quite a few corporations making legitimate art these days. To name a few:
The problem is not that corporations are stealing and marketing their employees' work. Labor is and always has been exploited, by individual artists and multinational corporations alike. If copyrights were to last a mere 14 years again (or less!) then things could return to normal. Companies profiting off of copyright holdings need to realize that it's possible to profit off of the public domain, with a little foresight, creativity, and innovation. But apparently that can be terrifying.
Dell is careful not to convert any Windows users. If you go to dell.com and click on home > desktops, the pages have Microsoft logos but no Tuxes. Moreover, there is no mention of these Linux machines. They are careful to make certain no one buys one by mistake. And if some unsuspecting Windows user ends up on their Linux page, they carefully warn them:
For advanced users and tech enthusiasts, we're happy to offer a new open-source operating system, so you can dive in and truly enjoy a PC experience just the way you want it. and
The main thing to note is that when you choose open source you don't get a Windows® operating system. If you're here by mistake and you are looking for a Dell PC with Windows, please use the following link. and finally
Already an Open Source fan? Choose from the following two options to get started, or keep reading to learn more about our open source offerings.
And just in case newbies are only looking at the pictures, they're sure to use images of machines that are not running X11, just to scare off any would-be Ubuntu wimp.
Linux should not be thought of as a Windows replacement, and Dell is sure to avoid the potential for careless customers to blame Dell for selling them what they accidentally ordered. And I personally am content for Linux to remain an OS "for advanced users and tech enthusiasts." But I know a lot of people in the community have viewed Dell's decision to sell Ubuntu as being one big step toward conquering Microsoft. There will be nothing but disappointment, as and Dell has ensured that Linux looks as frightening as possible to the average Joe.
I understand the littering part, but antisocial behavior...?
The British Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 will inform you that such activity includes "failure to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil", and "if a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that the presence or behaviour of a group of two or more persons in any public place in the relevant locality has resulted, or is likely to result, in any members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed.", but thankfully neither "failure to prominently display one or more approved insignias," nor "failure to convey a positive attitude." We may have to wait for the next draft for the latter two.
In Soviet Russia, Linux-running, chair throwing, Beowulf clusters of shark overlords with laserbeams on their heads welcome you, you insensitive clods! Mod parent down! This does not even deserve +1 Funny; it is nothing but -1 Off Topic.
Sure Windows is a security nightmare, but the real problem is that just about everyone is content to use the same system as everyone else. Diversity is required for culture-wide strength. As much as the internet's proclivity for niche marketing has encouraged everyone to explore their individuality, most of us remain oddly content to behave nearly identical to everyone else. In a hypothetical world where 285 most-used operating systems compete on a wide variety of creatively different architectures, the issue of security of any one of those systems would be greatly diminished, and, as an added bonus, walking in to an average computer store would actually be exciting.
Jay Singala noted a story which points out And that story is where?
Ponce de León still searching...
on
Longevity Gene Found
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Our current life expectancy is already putting such a burden on our social security system. When will people realize that quality of life != quantity of life? How is our great-grandkids' generation supposed to support millions of supercentenarians?
Here's why it's not fraud: Millions of Americans will buy the "chocolate," unwrap it, bite into it, not realize that it's cow poop, devour it, and then buy more on their next trip to the supermarket. If they are repeat customers then they clearly don't feel defrauded. If they were to think it's fraud they they'd vote with their dollars. But the industry is willing to bet that they'll love the cow poop, er, chocolate. You are free to claim that it's a fraud, but in the words of Wittgenstein, "the meaning is in the use." And, I repeat, it is not the government's responsibility to regulate language.
If demand for this crud was really that high, it would sell regardless of what it's called, wouldn't it ?
If that was true, do you really think the industry would be lobbying to loosen the rules? If the name is not chocolate then it is perceived as a different product, with consequentially fewer buyers. Language has meaning, measurable in dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you don't need a browser to download a file, nor do you need a browser to use HTTP. But if typical computer "users" were competent enough to make use of such knowlegde, then MSIE would not be much of a contender, anyway -- so it's a moot point.
If you RTFA, you'd learn that it's actually each edge that measures about 2 inches. And some of us don't need a calculator to figure out that 2 * 2 * 2 = 2.
...to advertisers. If they can just modify the god helmet to accommodate subjects at a distance of several feet away, then prospective customers will be overwhelmed with feelings of profound euphoria while being introduced to the latest revisions in product design. I'll bet it's significantly more affective than sexually suggestive imagery. And I can't wait!
Give slackware booting to runlevel 3, gnu screen, gnu coreutils, vim, lynx/links/w3m/elinks, lftp, rtorrent, and moosic a try. There are many others of course.
What's the efficient market price of a commodity with zero scarcity? The willingness to pay for freely copyable files (free as in beer) is an artifact of a bygone era. It is slowly disappearing at approximately the same rate as are brick-and-mortar record stores.
What person is morally fit to legislate the destiny of others?
Yes, there is. You can set up Firefox's userContent.css on a per-site basis. See for example my post on using userContent.css to make Google black here.
Of course if you don't want to go through the hassle of writing css for nested tables, you can always just launch xterm -bg black -fg white and fire up lynx/links/w3m.
Who needs Blackle when there's userContent.css? Google's been white-on-black on my machines for years. Same with /. It's just easier on the eyes.
.t { .p, a { .w, a.w:link, q:visited, q.link, q:active, .q {g );
@-moz-document url-prefix(http://google.com), url-prefix(http://www.google.com) {
body,
background: black !important;
}
body {
color: white !important;
}
body, td, div,
font-family: fixed-width !important;
}
a:link,
color: #3366cc !important;
}
a:visited,
span.a,
span.a:link {
color: #888 !important;
}
div, td {
color: white !important;
}
table.histTable td {
color: black !important;
}
div#navbar div,
table,
td,
div
{
background: black !important;
}
input[title=Search] {
background: black !important;
border: 1px solid #888 !important;
padding: 0 3px !important;
}
input[title='Google Search'] {
background: black !important;
border: 1px solid #888 !important;
padding: 0 3px !important;
margin-bottom: 20px !important;
}
img[src='/intl/en_ALL/images/logo.gif'] {
padding-top: 110px;
height: 0px !important;
overflow: hidden !important;
background: url(http://*************/google-black-276x110.jp
}
a#logo span {
background-image: url(http://*************/google-black-150x78.jpg) !important;
}
img[src='/images/google_sm.gif'] {
background-image: url(http://*************/google-black-150x78.jpg) !important;
padding-top: 78px;
height: 0px !important;
overflow: hidden !important;
}
div#gbarl {
display: none !important;
}
}
FOSS != OSS
See the Wikipedia article on Alternative terms for free software and RMS's Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source".
Mod parent up. Internet applications need their own syntax, protocol, and user agents to be written from the ground up, not to be further imposed on the hypertext markup language and its web browsers. XHTML was a much needed improvement in mere terms of its mandate for well-formed markup (not to mention the doors it opens through its extensibility), but it unfortunately followed HTML's misguided path of mistaking hypertext for interactive software, thereby including such kludges as forms and scripts. HTML and XHTML only need those features because there is no competing alternative.
This thing will be a brain-scraper for targeted marketing. Even if they promised 600 WPM, I still wouldn't put one on.
Yes really. The image may be a FreeDOS screen capture, but when you look at this image, which is their top banner, you'll see the word "Ubuntu" appears twice, and the word "FreeDOS" does not appear at all. They make Ubuntu look like a CLI-oriented system.
At a time when almost everyone is afraid to vote for any established third party, on the misguided logic that it's like tossing a vote to their opponent, I doubt your suggestion will be realized. Nice thought, though, fwiw.
While I whole-heartedly agree that copyrights ought to be non-transferable, your substantiation is false. Corporations make art all the time. Films, for starters, are quite frequently created by corporations. Even if you tend to write Hollywood off as "entertainment" (which remains "art" in the courtroom), there are still quite a few corporations making legitimate art these days. To name a few:
The problem is not that corporations are stealing and marketing their employees' work. Labor is and always has been exploited, by individual artists and multinational corporations alike. If copyrights were to last a mere 14 years again (or less!) then things could return to normal. Companies profiting off of copyright holdings need to realize that it's possible to profit off of the public domain, with a little foresight, creativity, and innovation. But apparently that can be terrifying.
And just in case newbies are only looking at the pictures, they're sure to use images of machines that are not running X11, just to scare off any would-be Ubuntu wimp.
Linux should not be thought of as a Windows replacement, and Dell is sure to avoid the potential for careless customers to blame Dell for selling them what they accidentally ordered. And I personally am content for Linux to remain an OS "for advanced users and tech enthusiasts." But I know a lot of people in the community have viewed Dell's decision to sell Ubuntu as being one big step toward conquering Microsoft. There will be nothing but disappointment, as and Dell has ensured that Linux looks as frightening as possible to the average Joe.
The British Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 will inform you that such activity includes "failure to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil", and "if a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that the presence or behaviour of a group of two or more persons in any public place in the relevant locality has resulted, or is likely to result, in any members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed.", but thankfully neither "failure to prominently display one or more approved insignias," nor "failure to convey a positive attitude." We may have to wait for the next draft for the latter two.
"That sure is a nice operating system you've got there. Sure would be a shame if something bad happened to it."
Nope. As they state in their just-released faq:
Why isn't there any Linux software?
Because first we want to let 95% of people to work with the keyboard.
Oh yeah? Well I wasn't gonna buy one anyway! I'm perfectly happy with my Model-M.
1998 was the year for that, IIRC. And good riddance.
Will 2008 be the year of going for walks and reading books? Not probably.
Sure Windows is a security nightmare, but the real problem is that just about everyone is content to use the same system as everyone else. Diversity is required for culture-wide strength. As much as the internet's proclivity for niche marketing has encouraged everyone to explore their individuality, most of us remain oddly content to behave nearly identical to everyone else. In a hypothetical world where 285 most-used operating systems compete on a wide variety of creatively different architectures, the issue of security of any one of those systems would be greatly diminished, and, as an added bonus, walking in to an average computer store would actually be exciting.
Our current life expectancy is already putting such a burden on our social security system. When will people realize that quality of life != quantity of life? How is our great-grandkids' generation supposed to support millions of supercentenarians?
Here's why it's not fraud: Millions of Americans will buy the "chocolate," unwrap it, bite into it, not realize that it's cow poop, devour it, and then buy more on their next trip to the supermarket. If they are repeat customers then they clearly don't feel defrauded. If they were to think it's fraud they they'd vote with their dollars. But the industry is willing to bet that they'll love the cow poop, er, chocolate. You are free to claim that it's a fraud, but in the words of Wittgenstein, "the meaning is in the use." And, I repeat, it is not the government's responsibility to regulate language.
If that was true, do you really think the industry would be lobbying to loosen the rules? If the name is not chocolate then it is perceived as a different product, with consequentially fewer buyers. Language has meaning, measurable in dollars.