>free sites put up large advertisements >great, let's block those ads! it's my >God-given right to have free Internet >content!
If you don't want to put up something for all to see for free, ask for money before you let people in, like all the pr0n sites do. We have no problem with it. And, if your contents are good enough, we might even pay to enter your site.
However, if you put up stuffs together for all to see with advertisements, we have every right to block them, just as we have the right to switch channels on TV during the commercial periods.
In short: you're asking for it.
>commercial software (especially MacOS X for >some reason) open source it! now now now! >and not so that we can add better >functionality and improve >the product, but so that we can port it to >Linux (ie, steal it).
Nobody forces software authors to open source things. They CHOOSE to do so themselves. And I've never heard "receiving a gift" is equivalent to "stealing".
>secure music/content >rip it! crack it! (but only after it's in >the marketplace). we have a right to free >music and movies!
You don't understand. Some of us (at least myself) don't think we have a right to free music and movies. However, anything that increases the power of corporations to rip off consitutional rights (e.g. fair use) of ours HAVE TO BE CRACKED. It has nothing to do with "free right to free music and movies".
>but i still don't see what's wrong with >putting some advertisements, no matter the >size, on commercial-provided free content. >people: advertising is not inherently evil.
I don't either. They have every right to put whatever they damn please on their web sites.
>if you don't want to see advertising, don't >read sites that have advertising: that's >your choice. there's good reason to get >pissed off about billboard advertising, as >you can't "opt-out," but reading sites with >advertising and purposefully blocking out >that advertising is extremely immoral.
So you're saying they can control how I use my eyes. I must see everything, or nothing. Give me a break. If they don't provide a way to opt-out for me, I'd do it myself. It is NOT IMMORAL. IT IS JUST A WAY I ASSIST MYSELF TO IGNORE THE ADS.
>there are ways to properly fight the misuse >of advertising, including ignoring >advertising-sponsored content.
So you agree I can ignore them. Blocking is just a method I find effective at making myself ignore the ads.
>but blocking that advertising is nothing but >stealing. >(and yes, it is stealing despite the fact >that it's "digital." it's stealing >bandwidth).
Even if it were stealing. Hey, it steals my bandwidth as well. So we're even. If they finds a way to send advertisements my way without stealing even 1 bit of my bandwidth, I'd be happy to read them all;)
They better had observed them for long enough...
on
Uplifting Dolphins
·
· Score: 2
There is a slim possibility that the Dolphins are not only as smart as us - they are actually SMARTER than the researchers. They're just pretending to be dumb, and our smart scientists have been fooled all along.
Of when one dolphin knows it's being studied, it spread the news to the whole dolphin community, making the "fool faking" behavior spread like wildfire.
As a result, we humans as dumber animals than the dolphin will never be able to study its true behavior.
See, I don't know. I tried KDE 2.01 and I went back to GNOME. Why? KDE does not look and feel as good.
The following points are only my observations and may only apply to me.
1. All of its default icons are too big. We need *SPACE* between icons. The GNOME ones look right for me.
2. Icons again. They look like they're created using 16 colours and they look too "hard" with all the hard borders and clear-cut colours. I'd like them with soft edges and a slight soften filter applied all over the icons. They're just easier on my eyes.
3. The menu bar. Those menu buttons are too close together. Compare the menu bars on QT apps with those on Motif and GTK+ apps and you'll know what I mean.
4. There are no real way to disable the maximize-minimize animations, which really suck - no, making them really fast doesn't count.
5. Can I be given a windows manager which is more flexible and scriptable, like Sawmill? I do not like being given a set of fixed functionalities. I sometimes make my own to suit my needs. Does the wm in KDE 2 have a window matching feature? Maybe it's just me but I couldn't find anything like it.
I'll use a desktop with more competent artists. GNOME is currently it.
Hm...if the licensee isn't giving out the source code, would you get the credit too? There got to be a license that force credit / copyright messages in executables.
I wonders if the BSD license does that. Do you see MS giving credit in its BSD programs?
While the BSD license is free enough, it is TOO free for me. I can release code and let you use it for whatever purpose - However, you'd better not claim to be the original creator/author of the code, and better yet, credit me somewhere in what you distribute.
This very fair concept is in the zlib/pnglib license. I'm fairly comfortable with all the OSS licenses, but with this added they'd be perfect. Anyone's tried combining the licenses and how'd you do it?
>Easy. Slackware has no package management system
>to speak of.
Last I heard, the definition of a "package management system" does not list a dependency system as a mandatory requirement. It is a feature of Slackware.
(I'm a Debian user, but I'm equally comfortable with Slack.)
>What's there has no dependency system, (which
>drove me to Debian). Tools like this are totally
>dependant on underlying package management
>systems, and tgz doesn't cut it.
Would it be better to say, that dependency system is required for the tool to run, and tgz is "not compatible"? Lacking a dependency database does not make it "not cut it".
By the way, is there a dependency system that does not keep track of a database? Instead, how about one that looks for stuffs on your machine in real time? e.g. use 'ldd' to search for installed libraries and 'which' to search for installed executables.
Although I don't know what to do with version numbers, does ELF provide a facility to store (a non-strippable) version numbers directly into the executable? If so it'd be great. Just like the version resources of Windows programs. One of the few features that I like. Another being the concept of the "Program Files" directory.
No. What you see as "wasting" can be vital to someone else. If the person who leaves his audio streams on 24/7 thinks he needs to for some reason, it is not wasting for him. A waste or not, it is totally subjective.
Your supermarket analogy does not fit here. A better analogy can be "If the supermarket...., and they only have 20 left, (but they promised 40 to everyone) and I wanted 40, what should I do?
I logically buy all the 20 left (it does not matter to me whether or not the next person will get none).
And, of course, I can do anything with the oranges I bought, including throwing them all on to the ground outside the supermarket if I see fit.
It might look like a waste to someone working at the supermarket or someone on the street, but, if throwing them all on the ground increases my level of happiness, there is certain utility in it. Therefore it is not a waste to me.
>People who gratuitously waste bandwidth, are >the reason that they have to set draconian >policies.
Companies which gratuitously advertise exaggerated bandwidth they can provide, are the reason that people use the bandwidth to the max.
If an ISP cannot put up with the behavior and only can provide such and such bandwidth, it should not say otherwise (like "Always Online", "High bandwidth, all the time!")on their commercials.
NO, not servers. I can run *clients* that consistently use every last drop of the advertised traffic.
The point is, if you can't provide it, don't advertise it. In some countries misleading advertising is a criminial offense and can get you jailed for quite a while. (I know it is in China. I'd love it if it is true in Canada, can anyone verify?)
Interesting. Now isn't it a good explanation of Sun and MS giving out Solaris and Windows CE source code but not allowing people to modify?
Call me a conspiracist. They want developers look into the OS codes to make their programs use more kernel-specific functionalities and thus decreasing portabilities.
GMC has been putting icons on the desktop. Konquerer also does it. Explorer does it too.
If you think you want a root window that cannot be put files in, use a plain window manager and not a desktop environment. Desktop environments PUT FILES ON YOUR DESKTOP. And I like it. Thanks.
Drag and drop? Hm. As far as I know it has nothing to do with putting files on desktop and having a.gnome-desktop folder for that.
I agree with you on the background picture though;)
I agree, that "compulsion should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances". Well, wasn't the original copyright laws also compulsion?
The society changes. It only makes sense to change the original compulsion to fit the society if the original compulsion is inherently flawed. It's called "correcting a mistake".
No new compulsion should be created. However, it's more than right to correct wrong compulsions.
Reminds me of the old NCSA-turned proxy server "NoShit", and the Windows proxy "Proxomitron" I used to love before I left the MS world.
While features like disabling animated GIF's and disabling particular sites for popup windows, those nasty evil spamming advertisers are always brilliant at innovating new ways to bypass your filter controls.
Then, what are we to do? To respond to every one of their tricks right in the browser? Or should we separate the job and put it in a proxy server for that purpose?
The way I see it, using a proxy is the way to go. If you've tried Proximitron you'll know why. It's infinitely more configurable - user-configurable. Everyone will has the ability to scratch their own advertiser-induced itches.
I dunno - see, I'm using Opera 5.0b6 right now, downloaded 2 days ago or so.
It runs. But the DEB package depends on libqt2.2-gl. I don't have the library installed, but it turns out that everything works for me.
However, it keeps slowing down itself over time until I have to exit the browser and run it again. The feature of "saving windows content" is helpful in this regard.
Next time, when we start a Free project aiming to be compatible with someone else's code, why don't we *TALK* to them first?
I'm not saying we should ASK for permission to use name or anything, but just to get an idea how they'd interpret their own agreements.
Say, if the OpenSSH team talked to SSHC and said "Now we have your 1.27 license, and it says we can use the name if it is compatible. Can you verify that?"
If they said "Ok you can use that" then they'd better keep their mouths shut at this time. Too bad it wasn't what happened.
They won't pass the Supreme Court. And, with 20 states currently suing Microsoft do you think they can pull lawmaking their way so easily?
The battle is on mindshare. MS does not intend for lawmakers to change the law or something. All it desires is that the government don't use Free Software itself.
1. It is the biggest customer. 2. It sets an example for a lot of organizations.
It is also a part of the FUD tactic that aims for securing potential mindshare. Keyword: MINDSHARE. Marketshare is nothing. With mindshare you'll get from 0% market to almsot 100% in no time.
With this assumption, what are we to do?
Let's make an equally valid argument demonstrating why Free Software IS the American Way and the MS Way is NOT.
Or, that taxmoney should be better spent - namely, elsewhere than to the pockets of MS.
Slashdot Mirror
>That limit is drawn where your speech (or in
>this case, writings) causes harm to another
>individual.
Ouch. Your writing is hurting my eyes. Can I sue you too?
>however in this particular case, the student
>has crossed the line
Define any `line' that the student has crossed and I'll define a corresponding `line' that he has not crossed.
>This is called slander or libel and is
>punishable by law. Just ask the National
>Inquirer
Slander and Libel only applies when you're trying to portrait your statements as truth. In this case, it is obviously a parody.
Of course, parodies cause harm. In fact, ALL of them hurts. Yet, however hurting they might be, they're ALL protected speech.
>free sites put up large advertisements
;)
>great, let's block those ads! it's my
>God-given right to have free Internet
>content!
If you don't want to put up something for all to see for free, ask for money before you let people in, like all the pr0n sites do. We have no problem with it. And, if your contents are good enough, we might even pay to enter your site.
However, if you put up stuffs together for all to see with advertisements, we have every right to block them, just as we have the right to switch channels on TV during the commercial periods.
In short: you're asking for it.
>commercial software (especially MacOS X for
>some reason) open source it! now now now!
>and not so that we can add better
>functionality and improve
>the product, but so that we can port it to
>Linux (ie, steal it).
Nobody forces software authors to open source things. They CHOOSE to do so themselves. And I've never heard "receiving a gift" is equivalent to "stealing".
>secure music/content
>rip it! crack it! (but only after it's in
>the marketplace). we have a right to free
>music and movies!
You don't understand. Some of us (at least myself) don't think we have a right to free music and movies. However, anything that increases the power of corporations to rip off consitutional rights (e.g. fair use) of ours HAVE TO BE CRACKED. It has nothing to do with "free right to free music and movies".
>but i still don't see what's wrong with
>putting some advertisements, no matter the
>size, on commercial-provided free content.
>people: advertising is not inherently evil.
I don't either. They have every right to put whatever they damn please on their web sites.
>if you don't want to see advertising, don't
>read sites that have advertising: that's
>your choice. there's good reason to get
>pissed off about billboard advertising, as
>you can't "opt-out," but reading sites with
>advertising and purposefully blocking out
>that advertising is extremely immoral.
So you're saying they can control how I use my eyes. I must see everything, or nothing. Give me a break. If they don't provide a way to opt-out for me, I'd do it myself. It is NOT IMMORAL. IT IS JUST A WAY I ASSIST MYSELF TO IGNORE THE ADS.
>there are ways to properly fight the misuse
>of advertising, including ignoring
>advertising-sponsored content.
So you agree I can ignore them. Blocking is just a method I find effective at making myself ignore the ads.
>but blocking that advertising is nothing but >stealing.
>(and yes, it is stealing despite the fact
>that it's "digital." it's stealing
>bandwidth).
Even if it were stealing. Hey, it steals my bandwidth as well. So we're even. If they finds a way to send advertisements my way without stealing even 1 bit of my bandwidth, I'd be happy to read them all
There is a slim possibility that the Dolphins are not only as smart as us - they are actually SMARTER than the researchers. They're just pretending to be dumb, and our smart scientists have been fooled all along.
Of when one dolphin knows it's being studied, it spread the news to the whole dolphin community, making the "fool faking" behavior spread like wildfire.
As a result, we humans as dumber animals than the dolphin will never be able to study its true behavior.
Well, we're just lucky we have media to remember stuffs for us.
Otherwise, we'd be pretty much like the chimps in this aspect...
Wait. Maybe we can teach the chimp reading and writing too.
See, I don't know. I tried KDE 2.01 and I went back to GNOME. Why? KDE does not look and feel as good.
The following points are only my observations and may only apply to me.
1. All of its default icons are too big. We need *SPACE* between icons. The GNOME ones look right for me.
2. Icons again. They look like they're created using 16 colours and they look too "hard" with all the hard borders and clear-cut colours. I'd like them with soft edges and a slight soften filter applied all over the icons. They're just easier on my eyes.
3. The menu bar. Those menu buttons are too close together. Compare the menu bars on QT apps with those on Motif and GTK+ apps and you'll know what I mean.
4. There are no real way to disable the maximize-minimize animations, which really suck - no, making them really fast doesn't count.
5. Can I be given a windows manager which is more flexible and scriptable, like Sawmill? I do not like being given a set of fixed functionalities. I sometimes make my own to suit my needs. Does the wm in KDE 2 have a window matching feature? Maybe it's just me but I couldn't find anything like it.
I'll use a desktop with more competent artists. GNOME is currently it.
But are realistic games necessarily more fun?
Hm...if the licensee isn't giving out the source code, would you get the credit too? There got to be a license that force credit / copyright messages in executables.
I wonders if the BSD license does that. Do you see MS giving credit in its BSD programs?
While the BSD license is free enough, it is TOO free for me. I can release code and let you use it for whatever purpose - However, you'd better not claim to be the original creator/author of the code, and better yet, credit me somewhere in what you distribute.
This very fair concept is in the zlib/pnglib license. I'm fairly comfortable with all the OSS licenses, but with this added they'd be perfect. Anyone's tried combining the licenses and how'd you do it?
>Easy. Slackware has no package management system
>to speak of.
Last I heard, the definition of a "package management system" does not list a dependency system as a mandatory requirement. It is a feature of Slackware.
(I'm a Debian user, but I'm equally comfortable with Slack.)
>What's there has no dependency system, (which
>drove me to Debian). Tools like this are totally
>dependant on underlying package management
>systems, and tgz doesn't cut it.
Would it be better to say, that dependency system is required for the tool to run, and tgz is "not compatible"? Lacking a dependency database does not make it "not cut it".
By the way, is there a dependency system that does not keep track of a database? Instead, how about one that looks for stuffs on your machine in real time? e.g. use 'ldd' to search for installed libraries and 'which' to search for installed executables.
Although I don't know what to do with version numbers, does ELF provide a facility to store (a non-strippable) version numbers directly into the executable? If so it'd be great. Just like the version resources of Windows programs. One of the few features that I like. Another being the concept of the "Program Files" directory.
>>The point is, if you can't provide it, don't
>>advertise it.
>The do not advertise the right to run servers,
>nor to share the bandwidth among unlimited
>computers/households.
I don't have a problem with them not advertising what is true. I DO have a problem with them if they advertise what is false or misleading.
No. What you see as "wasting" can be vital to someone else. If the person who leaves his audio streams on 24/7 thinks he needs to for some reason, it is not wasting for him. A waste or not, it is totally subjective.
Your supermarket analogy does not fit here. A better analogy can be "If the supermarket...., and they only have 20 left, (but they promised 40 to everyone) and I wanted 40, what should I do?
I logically buy all the 20 left (it does not matter to me whether or not the next person will get none).
And, of course, I can do anything with the oranges I bought, including throwing them all on to the ground outside the supermarket if I see fit.
It might look like a waste to someone working at the supermarket or someone on the street, but, if throwing them all on the ground increases my level of happiness, there is certain utility in it. Therefore it is not a waste to me.
>People who gratuitously waste bandwidth, are
>the reason that they have to set draconian
>policies.
Companies which gratuitously advertise exaggerated bandwidth they can provide, are the reason that people use the bandwidth to the max.
If an ISP cannot put up with the behavior and only can provide such and such bandwidth, it should not say otherwise (like "Always Online", "High bandwidth, all the time!")on their commercials.
Is there any law concerning fradulent advertising in UK?
NO, not servers. I can run *clients* that consistently use every last drop of the advertised traffic.
The point is, if you can't provide it, don't advertise it. In some countries misleading advertising is a criminial offense and can get you jailed for quite a while. (I know it is in China. I'd love it if it is true in Canada, can anyone verify?)
2600 Central Office To Close...better forget this MPAA thing before it owns more than 50% of my head...
Interesting. Now isn't it a good explanation of Sun and MS giving out Solaris and Windows CE source code but not allowing people to modify?
Call me a conspiracist. They want developers look into the OS codes to make their programs use more kernel-specific functionalities and thus decreasing portabilities.
>It's pretty bad when the most believible show on
>your network is the Simpsons.
No...NOT Simpsons....It's SURVIVOR!!!! It R0x0rZ!!!
Well, Simpsons comes as a close second for the most believable show tho.
Last I know, you can disable AA fonts in all Windows versions, just like you can do in Linux.
GMC has been putting icons on the desktop. Konquerer also does it. Explorer does it too.
.gnome-desktop folder for that.
;)
If you think you want a root window that cannot be put files in, use a plain window manager and not a desktop environment. Desktop environments PUT FILES ON YOUR DESKTOP. And I like it. Thanks.
Drag and drop? Hm. As far as I know it has nothing to do with putting files on desktop and having a
I agree with you on the background picture though
Hm...the word "grassroot" reminds me of "institude of competitive technologies".
I agree, that "compulsion should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances". Well, wasn't the original copyright laws also compulsion?
The society changes. It only makes sense to change the original compulsion to fit the society if the original compulsion is inherently flawed. It's called "correcting a mistake".
No new compulsion should be created. However, it's more than right to correct wrong compulsions.
Reminds me of the old NCSA-turned proxy server "NoShit", and the Windows proxy "Proxomitron" I used to love before I left the MS world.
While features like disabling animated GIF's and disabling particular sites for popup windows, those nasty evil spamming advertisers are always brilliant at innovating new ways to bypass your filter controls.
Then, what are we to do? To respond to every one of their tricks right in the browser? Or should we separate the job and put it in a proxy server for that purpose?
The way I see it, using a proxy is the way to go. If you've tried Proximitron you'll know why. It's infinitely more configurable - user-configurable. Everyone will has the ability to scratch their own advertiser-induced itches.
Prozilla anyone?
I dunno - see, I'm using Opera 5.0b6 right now, downloaded 2 days ago or so.
It runs. But the DEB package depends on libqt2.2-gl. I don't have the library installed, but it turns out that everything works for me.
However, it keeps slowing down itself over time until I have to exit the browser and run it again. The feature of "saving windows content" is helpful in this regard.
Well I guess, I'll just run the static version.
What have we learned from this story?
Next time, when we start a Free project aiming to be compatible with someone else's code, why don't we *TALK* to them first?
I'm not saying we should ASK for permission to use name or anything, but just to get an idea how they'd interpret their own agreements.
Say, if the OpenSSH team talked to SSHC and said "Now we have your 1.27 license, and it says we can use the name if it is compatible. Can you verify that?"
If they said "Ok you can use that" then they'd better keep their mouths shut at this time. Too bad it wasn't what happened.
They won't pass the Supreme Court. And, with 20 states currently suing Microsoft do you think they can pull lawmaking their way so easily?
The battle is on mindshare. MS does not intend for lawmakers to change the law or something. All it desires is that the government don't use Free Software itself.
1. It is the biggest customer.
2. It sets an example for a lot of organizations.
It is also a part of the FUD tactic that aims for securing potential mindshare. Keyword: MINDSHARE. Marketshare is nothing. With mindshare you'll get from 0% market to almsot 100% in no time.
With this assumption, what are we to do?
Let's make an equally valid argument demonstrating why Free Software IS the American Way and the MS Way is NOT.
Or, that taxmoney should be better spent - namely, elsewhere than to the pockets of MS.
Let their own FUD tactic bury themselves.