You do know the Acid2 test is meaningless right? No browser fully supports CSS2, so even out of the best browsers it's still a lucky dip depending on exactly where your weak-points in support are and exactly what the minor issues are. So the Acid2 test is pretty useless if you're a user that wants any realistic information on how good any of the current browsers are. I would have thought it was well known to be useless by now.
Opera and Firefox CSS2 support are pretty much equal, with Opera being miles ahead in print support and Firefox having better support (read less niggles) in other areas more important to screen media. Which pretty much balances out to me. Of course the print support etc. trade off balancing out is only my personal opinion.
Does it lack features? Try Firefox or Konqueror for a while.
Isn't it expandable or flexible enough? No, only M$ has the source.
Is it poorly programmed? I think the above answers this question.
Why are you so f*****g picky?
I'm not. Why are you so fucking stupid?
The most annoying thing about IE is that it's tied to a DRM'd asspain. It will auto install all sorts of malware along with "security" applications from Sony and others. The impossible and stupid goal of these programs is to keep you from making copies. IE is the browser of slaves.
I think he was referring to calling Firefox junk. Because the answers for IE were obvious:
It's a web browser that can't even browse websites without the designer taking the time to break their own code and make sure it (the mangled code) only gets given to IE. The other points are irrelevant until it can actually read html/css and not brain-fart on a million basic things. The entire rendering engine just feels like a giant hack that they mangled until it "looked about right"; The whole thing is like a house of cards, and this is IE7 we're talking about, the version we'll probably be stuck with for a long time to come.
But of course they have their html table implementation working fine and dandy, so all the crap sites too lazy to fix their backends to use html properly, exactly the kind of idiots to create IE-only websites, will probably carry on oblivious to everything except IE7's still-crap PNG support.
As for Firefox being junk: I can forgive all the memory issues people go on about and the strange unresponsiveness and problems saving to fat32 volumes the Ubuntu version seems to have because at the end of the day it can actually do what it is supposed to, It can display a website, and along with Opera it is the best at what it does.
Bullshit. That's the same shit they tried to pull before. They'll raise road tax saying people should use the bus and then they'll double bus fare and public transport prices in general. The solution is obvious, lower public transport prices and people will be more inclined to use it over the car.
How the hell do they justify charging £2 per person for driving down the road; that's probably 700% of the expenses including the driver's salary and vehicle maintenance. The congestion charging etc. should be going towards subsidising the cost of public transport. They trumpeted it like a holy cause and where is all the money going whilst the government is underspending and public transport prices raise whenever no one is looking
ummmm, slashdot is a place with many different people and different opinions where those people are allowed to submit articles. Are you saying that everyone on slashdot should have the same opinion?
My guess is that the problem you percieve is that just because there's more articles against Microsoft than for them there is a bias. Well I submit to you, maybe there's just a lot more going against Microsoft than for them. So of course there will be a higher number of arcticles critical of Microsoft getting through.
Another way to look at it is this. This particular article is probably not news to people who don't particularly dislike Microsoft. So you wouldn't submit an article. But to people who are fairly critical of Microsoft this could probably be thought of as news and (from the submitter and editor's POV) may spark an interesting discussion. If we apply this line of thinking to everything Microsoft does then everything good Microsoft does will get the majority of articles submitted in favour of Microsoft, everything bad has a majority of articles submitted against microsoft, and everything in-between spurs articles critical of Microsoft and none from people like yourself who don't even see it as news. That's more articles submitted against Microsoft right there
Of course we could always just look at the obvious truth that dislike is a better motivational tool and is more likely to cause someone to submit an article. So it may seem like there is a bias when it's just something inherent to the system. So I think it is misleading for you to say "They got slated on Slashdot for it." as if slashdot is one entity with opinions coming from one source, or a traditional news organisation where the articles are from a select group of journalists.
In my opinion those people who always go on about slashdot group think are the ones with a problem with their perception. Unable to accept that criticism will inherently prevail against anything or anyone less than above borderline. Unable to fix their flawed (albeit natural) perception of things as single entities. The fact that there are such heated discussions or discussions at all rules out groupthink. I don't think anyone would be here if there really was this group think as the discussions would not be as interesting. What I do see is common misconceptions and then the better informed who know better correcting the misinformed masses and fuelling productive discussions.
Sony ga nani ka tsukuru toki ni atotte doko mo kashiko mo kusakute kyuujuu mitai!
(Whenever Sony makes something the whole place always ends up smelling, kind of like shit ^_^ )
Any time one of my clients considers using a competitor's product, it's a challenge. Why is it any different for Microsoft? You may see it as a challenge when you hear about one of your clients using a competitor's product, but you probably don't see the fact that they actually have a choice or that there are alternatives available as a challenge or a problem. You just see it as normal in a healthy market. You may even go and improve your product(s) when you realise there's new competition.
Not that I'm saying that Microsoft employees don't try to improve their software but the people ultimately responsible for making the decisions certainly don't. What really gets to me is that fact that Microsoft Word and many other pieces of their software are actually really decent, but then they seem so intent on undermining that by insisting on indirect competition and questionable actions.
The bit that I really can't stand is the fact that rather than possibly having to work a little harder in the future to maintain their enormous lead they'd rather cripple their own industry (which I assume they got into because they liked it) and treat their customers like sh*t. I guess that problem can partly be attributed to the present system(captalism) and I don't think it's just Microsoft, there are many out there. Although I don't think that excuses it.
Actually I'm pretty sure it would hold water if you can provide proof that people have used/use your internet connection and justify why you take this stance. As long as your reasons for wanting to provide free internet access do not make you sound irresponsible then I can't see a problem with it. Of course, the fact that we have to justify allowing people to use our things when we're not talking about a gun or something similarly deadly is possibly a cause for concern.
Whilst I mostly agree, I do think it may make it easier for Balmer to get his own way. It would be kind of like "a new era", and people may begin to see Microsoft as Steve Balmer's. Right now I still think it's Bill Gate's Microsoft to many.
Well not to troll or anything (I am English myself). But under labour the government has been teetering on the edge of fascism for a while now, and I don't think the public are really noticing as they're too busy working their 9-7 office work.
When I actually try to speak to my parents they're always too busy sitting in front of the TV after a hard day of office work or probably even still doing work. When it does come around to election time and I'm voting and decide to try to have a decent conversation with them about where they think the country is going they just brush it off saying "you don't remember the days of Margaret Thatcher" and are really impossible to talk to.
So it looks like until things become as shocking as the Margaret Thatcher days, enough to disrupt these people's almost automated day in day out routines, I don't think anyone is even going to notice or care. It's sad because I really do love my country and I'm starting to feel like it's not even the same country we grew up in and learnt about in history class. Perhaps it's unreasonable to expect things to live up to my own romanticised recollection but in either case it's really disillusioning, news story after news story, as we learn more about the state of modern democracy.
I'm certainly not saying that the governments of the past were perfect but I'm certain there were some important things that were lost since then (a certain national pride being one of them...imagine asking people to fight for their country nowadays in Britain, they'd just move abroad to somewhere safe) and regardless of if they were intentional or not...these things that provided a balance I'm sure have been forgotten about in these times of peace. Then again it could have been inevitable and the current form of democracy was just a ticking time bomb. In any case there will be a point where people wake up and smell the cesspool (forgive me, it sounded most fitting in my head:P) and I just hope that points gets here sooner rather than later. (Although Blair was bringing it pretty close to that point a few years ago with that war business, people seem to have forgotten)
In retrospect I think Britain is not yet in that bad of a situation but I fear it could get worse. Even with the CCTV cameras I think currently the American governments is a lot more dangerous to its people and probably to the world too. Of course that doesn't make it not bad, especially with the "let's tag the people" idea floating around the government lately but it just makes me think things can get a lot worse before they can get better.
Even if they weren't sold but leased, the fact that they are now abandoning them would count as distributing. Transferring ownership from themselves to their customers/former-customers is pretty much distribution. Now, if they went around and forced all their customers to update their firmware (which they would probably have to do for free to get everyone to agree), then they'd be in the clear. In my opinion, they're quite clearly violating the GPL even if the boxes were originally leased.
I'll spare you the analogies.
Well if you would stop using such loaded terms like evil then I wouldn't say anything. If you mean corporate evil then say it..and even then it's probably a misuse of the word. "DO no Evil" is their company mantra, it really doesn't have any meaning to those who aren't inside the company. It's just an ideal...something they keep in mind when they're make decisions to hopefully help them make better choices. Supposedly.
And why is it any of your business what people do with the domain names they own? It doesn't affect you, there's no malware or anything. So, what exactly is your problem? Because I sense you have an axe to grind.
Hahaha, I could write a better resume when I was 16 years old. Seriously...It might have been lacking content back then but I bet you'd get a better impression of me than that.
The first article/opinion piece was considerably coherent and was mildly informative. But the second one, which I would call a comment, really had nothing valuable in it at all. All it was was a guy misquoting, twisting, and picking at specific parts of the first guy's opinion piece whilst paying no attention to context. I don't know who reads PCmag but 4 word quotes with no context is a blatant disrespect to their readers.
Here's what I think. Google never refused to obey the law, they're adhering to the DMCA just fine from what I can see. If Viacom would tell them where all the uploaded copyrighted content is like the law requires...or for that matter if anyone would alert them to it and point them to the copyright holder then they WOULD take it down.Viacom do not want to, they'd rather sue. This sounds more like Viacom and Youtube disagreed in their talks and Viacom ran off to tell the teacher on Youtube. I think the court's job here is to give them both a slap on the wrist and order them to play nice and work towards a working solution.
Of course, this could bring in to question the legitimacy of Youtube which would be a bad thing for everyone. At worst if there were a bad ruling towards websites, where a lot of users upload content of questionable legality against the will of the site owners who are actively fighting such activities, it would be devastating to all. It would lead administrators of such sites to become so draconian it would be like an indirect censorship of the internet. Which leads me to thinking that Google's current position could be the only position which gives a decent balance between copyright owner's rights and the people's freedom. This is definitely an issue which needs a lot of consideration.
Hopefully the courts who are (well I certainly hope) qualified to interpret and influence law will be able to provide us with a magical balance which serves the people and preserves copyright's original purpose. The sad thing about this though is that I don't dare hope for such a thing. They're such a let-down sometimes that I can only dream of hoping we get something better than the worst scenario.
There's one last thing I'd like to say. A corporation is not a "person" outside the scope of the rights we, through our government, grant them. To equate their social status to that of a real live person (which I feel a lot of people do) outside of a specific court/legal setting is just plain stupid.
So at the end of the day, you're saying "We were on a break. We weren't going to enslave the entire country until we finish invading this other country we liked". Bad Muslims, stopping us before we got a chance. XP
AVG is alright as long as you're not on an x64 version of Windows. On x64 if you install it right away you won't notice...but try turning the on-access scanning off, the amount your system speeds up is amazing. I never thought I'd say it but AVG definitely isn't for me (all of my systems (whether they run Windows or Linux) are x64 and I rarely boot into 32-bit Windows).
You have no idea of what you're talking about. This isn't about Youtube charging people before they'll comply with the law. The law says the media companies have to name everything they want taken down (also if I remember correctly with links to the offending material).
The media companies want Youtube to do their work for them and blanketly take down any and all of their content because they don't want to have to search themselves. The law doesn't legally allow for this kind of copyright enforcement so Youtube are saying "There are lot of problems and work involved in this rediculous demand, so if we do help you we're sure as hell getting something in return" which is a very big favour on Youtube's part since I doubt any deal would be worth much more to Youtube than the traffic the offending material would bring. I think the point here is that Youtube have to show willingness to help so that the media companies don't have any legal leg to complain on whatsoever. As long as Youtube isn't just ignoring the offending material but searching for it at a reasonable speed (reasonable being in comparison with the amount of manpower they can possible be expected to spare), then I can't see any problems a court could find with it.
It's not difficult it's just different. Yes people are usually intimidated by things they don't know (hell all animals are). But it's a moot point. People have to either get over their irrational fear and educate themselves to gain an understanding or accept that they're no smarter (if not dumber) than their pet Fluffy. And if their argument is that they don't have the time to educate themselves of the operating system they are trying to use then we're back to them being dumber than Fluffy.
Yes we can lower the learning curve for ex-Windows users, but when the base/starting point of knowledge is Microsoft Windows then all lowering the learning curve does is bring us closer to Windows...and *nix is NOT Windows. The way forward is not to lower the learning curve for people with Windows experience, the way forward is to emphasise, advance, and improve Linux's good points (unique or otherwise) whilst decreasing any flaws in the basic components of the operating system(s) (HAL, xserver, GNOME etc.). This along with better hardware support in certain areas (which may come as a consequence (in part) of improving the aforementioned) I believe is the best path.
I don't know what everyone is so excited about anyways, making up imaginary pressure here and there about "desktop linux". Linux does what it does best perfectly, which is run on servers. Yes Linux is good on the desktop when you know what you're doing. And as long as enough developers are interested it will get better on the desktop, and there's obviously enough developers interested as is evident with the amount of GUI-centered distros. So can people just shut-up or help develop, talking does not speed anything up. The only thing worth mentioning is pushing for hardware support, and you don't get that by talking to yourselves. You get that by writing letters/e-mails and supporting companies who do provide support.
Just my 2 cents. There's still a hell of a lot more development to be done. You can't be telling me you're going to be talking about this non-stop for years. I'll just end up not reading any *nix related articles on slashdot
I would hold off on praising someone for doing something they haven't even done yet. So he promised to give away his fortune when he dies...until he actually dies and it goes to those legitimate charities there's no credit to give. Other than that I agree with you.
Although I wish he would have gotten rid of Steve Ballmer before throwing in the towel, then I could almost give the guy a chance.
I'm assuming you're American? Way to leave the British out! It doesn't work with our accents... Yeah sure, let even the Aussies in on it but not the British.
I seem to remember our good friend Steve Ballmer attempting to extort people through patents fairly recently (the Novell thing). I don't know about you but I count that as abuse.
Wow, you have such a flawed logic. Yes, they can stop you from entering as is their right. But they don't have the right to interfere with your property. What you're suggesting is like saying just because I'm on your property you can forcefully make me remove my coat...you can't. You can ask me to leave if I refuse to remove it when you ask, but that's it.
Fortunately I think this one is something no self-respecting judge would go along with. Although I do think it would be OK the police to have them...as long as every time they use one they have to fill out tons of paperwork including long-ass reports.
Slashdot Mirror
You do know the Acid2 test is meaningless right? No browser fully supports CSS2, so even out of the best browsers it's still a lucky dip depending on exactly where your weak-points in support are and exactly what the minor issues are. So the Acid2 test is pretty useless if you're a user that wants any realistic information on how good any of the current browsers are. I would have thought it was well known to be useless by now.
Opera and Firefox CSS2 support are pretty much equal, with Opera being miles ahead in print support and Firefox having better support (read less niggles) in other areas more important to screen media. Which pretty much balances out to me. Of course the print support etc. trade off balancing out is only my personal opinion.
Isn't it expandable or flexible enough? No, only M$ has the source.
Is it poorly programmed? I think the above answers this question.
Why are you so f*****g picky?
I'm not. Why are you so fucking stupid?
The most annoying thing about IE is that it's tied to a DRM'd asspain. It will auto install all sorts of malware along with "security" applications from Sony and others. The impossible and stupid goal of these programs is to keep you from making copies. IE is the browser of slaves.
I think he was referring to calling Firefox junk. Because the answers for IE were obvious:
It's a web browser that can't even browse websites without the designer taking the time to break their own code and make sure it (the mangled code) only gets given to IE. The other points are irrelevant until it can actually read html/css and not brain-fart on a million basic things. The entire rendering engine just feels like a giant hack that they mangled until it "looked about right"; The whole thing is like a house of cards, and this is IE7 we're talking about, the version we'll probably be stuck with for a long time to come.
But of course they have their html table implementation working fine and dandy, so all the crap sites too lazy to fix their backends to use html properly, exactly the kind of idiots to create IE-only websites, will probably carry on oblivious to everything except IE7's still-crap PNG support.
As for Firefox being junk: I can forgive all the memory issues people go on about and the strange unresponsiveness and problems saving to fat32 volumes the Ubuntu version seems to have because at the end of the day it can actually do what it is supposed to, It can display a website, and along with Opera it is the best at what it does.
Bullshit. That's the same shit they tried to pull before. They'll raise road tax saying people should use the bus and then they'll double bus fare and public transport prices in general. The solution is obvious, lower public transport prices and people will be more inclined to use it over the car.
How the hell do they justify charging £2 per person for driving down the road; that's probably 700% of the expenses including the driver's salary and vehicle maintenance. The congestion charging etc. should be going towards subsidising the cost of public transport. They trumpeted it like a holy cause and where is all the money going whilst the government is underspending and public transport prices raise whenever no one is looking
ummmm, slashdot is a place with many different people and different opinions where those people are allowed to submit articles. Are you saying that everyone on slashdot should have the same opinion?
My guess is that the problem you percieve is that just because there's more articles against Microsoft than for them there is a bias. Well I submit to you, maybe there's just a lot more going against Microsoft than for them. So of course there will be a higher number of arcticles critical of Microsoft getting through.
Another way to look at it is this. This particular article is probably not news to people who don't particularly dislike Microsoft. So you wouldn't submit an article. But to people who are fairly critical of Microsoft this could probably be thought of as news and (from the submitter and editor's POV) may spark an interesting discussion. If we apply this line of thinking to everything Microsoft does then everything good Microsoft does will get the majority of articles submitted in favour of Microsoft, everything bad has a majority of articles submitted against microsoft, and everything in-between spurs articles critical of Microsoft and none from people like yourself who don't even see it as news. That's more articles submitted against Microsoft right there
Of course we could always just look at the obvious truth that dislike is a better motivational tool and is more likely to cause someone to submit an article. So it may seem like there is a bias when it's just something inherent to the system. So I think it is misleading for you to say "They got slated on Slashdot for it." as if slashdot is one entity with opinions coming from one source, or a traditional news organisation where the articles are from a select group of journalists.
In my opinion those people who always go on about slashdot group think are the ones with a problem with their perception. Unable to accept that criticism will inherently prevail against anything or anyone less than above borderline. Unable to fix their flawed (albeit natural) perception of things as single entities. The fact that there are such heated discussions or discussions at all rules out groupthink. I don't think anyone would be here if there really was this group think as the discussions would not be as interesting. What I do see is common misconceptions and then the better informed who know better correcting the misinformed masses and fuelling productive discussions.
lol, Poop sniffing fools? hahaha.
I would say:
Sony ga nani ka tsukuru toki ni atotte doko mo kashiko mo kusakute kyuujuu mitai!
(Whenever Sony makes something the whole place always ends up smelling, kind of like shit ^_^ )
Not that I'm saying that Microsoft employees don't try to improve their software but the people ultimately responsible for making the decisions certainly don't. What really gets to me is that fact that Microsoft Word and many other pieces of their software are actually really decent, but then they seem so intent on undermining that by insisting on indirect competition and questionable actions.
The bit that I really can't stand is the fact that rather than possibly having to work a little harder in the future to maintain their enormous lead they'd rather cripple their own industry (which I assume they got into because they liked it) and treat their customers like sh*t. I guess that problem can partly be attributed to the present system(captalism) and I don't think it's just Microsoft, there are many out there. Although I don't think that excuses it.
Actually I'm pretty sure it would hold water if you can provide proof that people have used/use your internet connection and justify why you take this stance. As long as your reasons for wanting to provide free internet access do not make you sound irresponsible then I can't see a problem with it. Of course, the fact that we have to justify allowing people to use our things when we're not talking about a gun or something similarly deadly is possibly a cause for concern.
Whilst I mostly agree, I do think it may make it easier for Balmer to get his own way. It would be kind of like "a new era", and people may begin to see Microsoft as Steve Balmer's. Right now I still think it's Bill Gate's Microsoft to many.
Well not to troll or anything (I am English myself). But under labour the government has been teetering on the edge of fascism for a while now, and I don't think the public are really noticing as they're too busy working their 9-7 office work.
:P) and I just hope that points gets here sooner rather than later. (Although Blair was bringing it pretty close to that point a few years ago with that war business, people seem to have forgotten)
When I actually try to speak to my parents they're always too busy sitting in front of the TV after a hard day of office work or probably even still doing work. When it does come around to election time and I'm voting and decide to try to have a decent conversation with them about where they think the country is going they just brush it off saying "you don't remember the days of Margaret Thatcher" and are really impossible to talk to.
So it looks like until things become as shocking as the Margaret Thatcher days, enough to disrupt these people's almost automated day in day out routines, I don't think anyone is even going to notice or care. It's sad because I really do love my country and I'm starting to feel like it's not even the same country we grew up in and learnt about in history class. Perhaps it's unreasonable to expect things to live up to my own romanticised recollection but in either case it's really disillusioning, news story after news story, as we learn more about the state of modern democracy.
I'm certainly not saying that the governments of the past were perfect but I'm certain there were some important things that were lost since then (a certain national pride being one of them...imagine asking people to fight for their country nowadays in Britain, they'd just move abroad to somewhere safe) and regardless of if they were intentional or not...these things that provided a balance I'm sure have been forgotten about in these times of peace. Then again it could have been inevitable and the current form of democracy was just a ticking time bomb. In any case there will be a point where people wake up and smell the cesspool (forgive me, it sounded most fitting in my head
In retrospect I think Britain is not yet in that bad of a situation but I fear it could get worse. Even with the CCTV cameras I think currently the American governments is a lot more dangerous to its people and probably to the world too. Of course that doesn't make it not bad, especially with the "let's tag the people" idea floating around the government lately but it just makes me think things can get a lot worse before they can get better.
Even if they weren't sold but leased, the fact that they are now abandoning them would count as distributing. Transferring ownership from themselves to their customers/former-customers is pretty much distribution. Now, if they went around and forced all their customers to update their firmware (which they would probably have to do for free to get everyone to agree), then they'd be in the clear. In my opinion, they're quite clearly violating the GPL even if the boxes were originally leased. I'll spare you the analogies.
We don't use the euro in the UK.
Well if you would stop using such loaded terms like evil then I wouldn't say anything. If you mean corporate evil then say it..and even then it's probably a misuse of the word. "DO no Evil" is their company mantra, it really doesn't have any meaning to those who aren't inside the company. It's just an ideal...something they keep in mind when they're make decisions to hopefully help them make better choices. Supposedly. And why is it any of your business what people do with the domain names they own? It doesn't affect you, there's no malware or anything. So, what exactly is your problem? Because I sense you have an axe to grind.
If domain parking is evil in your book then you really need to get out or read a newspaper.
No, they don't. The law clearly states that Google is in the right.
Hahaha, I could write a better resume when I was 16 years old. Seriously...It might have been lacking content back then but I bet you'd get a better impression of me than that.
Couldn't the RIAA just promise the lawyer financial support in case of a problem?
The first article/opinion piece was considerably coherent and was mildly informative. But the second one, which I would call a comment, really had nothing valuable in it at all. All it was was a guy misquoting, twisting, and picking at specific parts of the first guy's opinion piece whilst paying no attention to context. I don't know who reads PCmag but 4 word quotes with no context is a blatant disrespect to their readers.
Here's what I think. Google never refused to obey the law, they're adhering to the DMCA just fine from what I can see. If Viacom would tell them where all the uploaded copyrighted content is like the law requires...or for that matter if anyone would alert them to it and point them to the copyright holder then they WOULD take it down.Viacom do not want to, they'd rather sue. This sounds more like Viacom and Youtube disagreed in their talks and Viacom ran off to tell the teacher on Youtube. I think the court's job here is to give them both a slap on the wrist and order them to play nice and work towards a working solution.
Of course, this could bring in to question the legitimacy of Youtube which would be a bad thing for everyone. At worst if there were a bad ruling towards websites, where a lot of users upload content of questionable legality against the will of the site owners who are actively fighting such activities, it would be devastating to all. It would lead administrators of such sites to become so draconian it would be like an indirect censorship of the internet. Which leads me to thinking that Google's current position could be the only position which gives a decent balance between copyright owner's rights and the people's freedom. This is definitely an issue which needs a lot of consideration.
Hopefully the courts who are (well I certainly hope) qualified to interpret and influence law will be able to provide us with a magical balance which serves the people and preserves copyright's original purpose. The sad thing about this though is that I don't dare hope for such a thing. They're such a let-down sometimes that I can only dream of hoping we get something better than the worst scenario.
There's one last thing I'd like to say. A corporation is not a "person" outside the scope of the rights we, through our government, grant them. To equate their social status to that of a real live person (which I feel a lot of people do) outside of a specific court/legal setting is just plain stupid.
So at the end of the day, you're saying "We were on a break. We weren't going to enslave the entire country until we finish invading this other country we liked". Bad Muslims, stopping us before we got a chance. XP
AVG is alright as long as you're not on an x64 version of Windows. On x64 if you install it right away you won't notice...but try turning the on-access scanning off, the amount your system speeds up is amazing. I never thought I'd say it but AVG definitely isn't for me (all of my systems (whether they run Windows or Linux) are x64 and I rarely boot into 32-bit Windows).
You have no idea of what you're talking about. This isn't about Youtube charging people before they'll comply with the law. The law says the media companies have to name everything they want taken down (also if I remember correctly with links to the offending material).
The media companies want Youtube to do their work for them and blanketly take down any and all of their content because they don't want to have to search themselves.
The law doesn't legally allow for this kind of copyright enforcement so Youtube are saying
"There are lot of problems and work involved in this rediculous demand, so if we do help you we're sure as hell getting something in return"
which is a very big favour on Youtube's part since I doubt any deal would be worth much more to Youtube than the traffic the offending material would bring.
I think the point here is that Youtube have to show willingness to help so that the media companies don't have any legal leg to complain on whatsoever.
As long as Youtube isn't just ignoring the offending material but searching for it at a reasonable speed (reasonable being in comparison with the amount of manpower they can possible be expected to spare), then I can't see any problems a court could find with it.
It's not difficult it's just different. Yes people are usually intimidated by things they don't know (hell all animals are). But it's a moot point. People have to either get over their irrational fear and educate themselves to gain an understanding or accept that they're no smarter (if not dumber) than their pet Fluffy. And if their argument is that they don't have the time to educate themselves of the operating system they are trying to use then we're back to them being dumber than Fluffy.
Yes we can lower the learning curve for ex-Windows users, but when the base/starting point of knowledge is Microsoft Windows then all lowering the learning curve does is bring us closer to Windows...and *nix is NOT Windows. The way forward is not to lower the learning curve for people with Windows experience, the way forward is to emphasise, advance, and improve Linux's good points (unique or otherwise) whilst decreasing any flaws in the basic components of the operating system(s) (HAL, xserver, GNOME etc.). This along with better hardware support in certain areas (which may come as a consequence (in part) of improving the aforementioned) I believe is the best path.
I don't know what everyone is so excited about anyways, making up imaginary pressure here and there about "desktop linux". Linux does what it does best perfectly, which is run on servers. Yes Linux is good on the desktop when you know what you're doing. And as long as enough developers are interested it will get better on the desktop, and there's obviously enough developers interested as is evident with the amount of GUI-centered distros. So can people just shut-up or help develop, talking does not speed anything up. The only thing worth mentioning is pushing for hardware support, and you don't get that by talking to yourselves. You get that by writing letters/e-mails and supporting companies who do provide support. Just my 2 cents. There's still a hell of a lot more development to be done. You can't be telling me you're going to be talking about this non-stop for years. I'll just end up not reading any *nix related articles on slashdot
I would hold off on praising someone for doing something they haven't even done yet. So he promised to give away his fortune when he dies...until he actually dies and it goes to those legitimate charities there's no credit to give. Other than that I agree with you.
Although I wish he would have gotten rid of Steve Ballmer before throwing in the towel, then I could almost give the guy a chance.
I'm assuming you're American? Way to leave the British out! It doesn't work with our accents...
Yeah sure, let even the Aussies in on it but not the British.
I seem to remember our good friend Steve Ballmer attempting to extort people through patents fairly recently (the Novell thing). I don't know about you but I count that as abuse.
Wow, you have such a flawed logic. Yes, they can stop you from entering as is their right. But they don't have the right to interfere with your property. What you're suggesting is like saying just because I'm on your property you can forcefully make me remove my coat...you can't. You can ask me to leave if I refuse to remove it when you ask, but that's it.
Fortunately I think this one is something no self-respecting judge would go along with. Although I do think it would be OK the police to have them...as long as every time they use one they have to fill out tons of paperwork including long-ass reports.