RE: Vengeance Against Adobe

Faustine wrote: > All free-market principles aside, > if you're just in it for the > paycheck, what's the point? I'd > rather do something I love that's > meaningful to me than just make a > pile. Even better not to have to > choose at all. (Not there yet, so > #1 it is...) Have faith. I think

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

Tim wrote: >Likewise, I know of even some Cypherpunks who have left their >employers for ideological reasons. And if some have _left_ jobs, the >effects are likely greater on the _recruiting_ side (where the costs >of a decision are much less). Absolutely. More than that, I try to never take

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

> I know of people who refuse to buy Intel-based machines "on > principle." Some are Sun users, some are Mac users, some think they > are bypassing Intel by using AMD Athlons. Yes, I'm one. AMD all the way. Anyway, it's cheaper and has better performance. > And the anti-Microsoft efforts are

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

At 10:21 PM + 7/24/01, Dr. Evil wrote: >Photoshop? We have the gimp. Illustrator? We have Kontour. These >products are all as good as or better than the competing Adobe >products, and they're all free. I won't argue about Kontour, since I haven't used it yet, but xpdf still do

Re: WHERE IS DILDO? (was: Vengeance Against Adobe)

On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:15:35 Sandy Sandfort wrote: > >The Dildo AI wrote: > Perhaps instead of offering "Jim Choate" money to take the LSAT, the money should be offered for "Jim Choate" passing a Turing test to be judged by contributors to the fund. Also other prizes could be given for things

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 11:03:59AM -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Adobe's fine on the consumption side -- it's customers, as you say, > are fat and happy. But on the production side, Adobe can't take > very many really serious hits. At best, it onl

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >While it is a consummation devoutly to be wished, I predict that the >"backlash" will be gone in a mere matter of weeks, if not days. Let's >face it: the people most likely to be Adobe *customers* are anything but >hungry. A fat customer is an apa

RE: Vengeance Against Adobe

Anybody know how much grease Adobe has in Russia? ~Aimee

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

At 1:58 AM -0700 7/24/01, Petro wrote: >At 11:47 PM -0500 7/23/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote: >> >>> Adobe will be suffering for a long time to come. >> >>While it is a consummation devoutly to be wished, I predict that the >>"backlash" will be gone in a mere m

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

At 9:56 PM -0700 7/23/01, Eric Cordian wrote: >Tim writes: > >> Adobe's use of police state measures to have a minor critic (by their >> own later admission) yanked out of a conference is not likely to be >> forgotten quickly. I expect this will have consequences when they >> eventually resume

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

At 11:03 AM -0700 7/24/01, Ray Dillinger wrote: >On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >>While it is a consummation devoutly to be wished, I predict that the >>"backlash" will be gone in a mere matter of weeks, if not days. Let's >>face it: the people most likely to be Adobe *customer

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

Ian Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've never used Distiller; is it more than a Postscript-to-PDF > converter? The free ps2pdf is part of ghostscript. It is just a ps to pdf converter, but it generates better PDFs than ps2pdf (that is, smaller, better font handling, etc). -- Riad Wahby [

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

In article , Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >At 9:56 PM -0700 7/23/01, Eric Cordian wrote: >>Tim writes: >> >>> Adobe's use of police state measures to have a minor critic (by their >>> own later admission) yanked out of a conference is not likely to be >>>

RE: Vengeance Against Adobe

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Reese wrote: > At 07:34 PM 7/23/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (aka J.A. Terranson wrote: > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Why do you send to two lists? Why do you care? Fuck off Reese. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments reall

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

Right. The organizing tools available to activists nowadays are substantial. Free software including email-to-web gateways like mhonarc, front ends based on Slash, mailing lists running majordomo or mailman, back ends based on MySQL, launch-and-forget websites running Linux and Slash -- all these

RE: Vengeance Against Adobe

J.A. Terranson wrote: > Do you *honestly* think they > [Federal Baby Incinerators] give > a shit? Are you really *that* > naive? Yeah, guess so. I think the Feebs really don't like to get called on the carpet. Their power and privilege are at stake. Of course they don't want that threatened.

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

Here's a prediction: This case will never come close to generating the same amount of publicity, by at least two orders of magnitude. Folks on the Net have a bad habit of overemphasizing how important these cases are. This is not important to the people in DC who count. It has never been mentio

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

At 11:47 PM -0500 7/23/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote: > >> Adobe will be suffering for a long time to come. > >While it is a consummation devoutly to be wished, I predict that the >"backlash" will be gone in a mere matter of weeks, if not days. Let's >face it: t

RE: Vengeance Against Adobe

Declan McCullagh wrote: > Here's a prediction: This case will > never come close to generating the > same amount of publicity, by at > least two orders of magnitude. > > Folks on the Net have a bad habit > of overemphasizing how important > these cases are. This is not > important to the people i

Re: Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

On 07/23/2001 - 23:55, Tim May wrote: > On Monday, July 23, 2001, at 11:05 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote > > True. And I'll agree with you, this time -- I think the Feds > > will, in the end, drop this case, if the protests continue. > > And I'll bet the Feds drop it because their corporate backer

Re: CDR: Vengeance Against Adobe

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote: > Adobe will be suffering for a long time to come. While it is a consummation devoutly to be wished, I predict that the "backlash" will be gone in a mere matter of weeks, if not days. Let's face it: the people most likely to be Adobe *customers* are anything

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

True. And I'll agree with you, this time -- I think the Feds will, in the end, drop this case, if the protests continue. -Declan On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 10:23:10PM -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > Here's a prediction: This case will > > never come close to generatin

Vengeance Against Adobe

At 11:44 PM -0400 7/23/01, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Another effect will be companies that wish to take advantage of the >criminal sections of the DMCA will be more likely to cover their >tracks when dealing with the Feds. The next Adobe won't be so quick to >admit they contacted the FBI, for insta

Re: CDR: RE: Vengeance Against Adobe

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > I couldn't agree with you more, nevertheless my point still stands that > disincentives do exist and the Federal Baby Incinerators don't need yet > another incrementally damaging error on their rap sheet. Do you *honestly* think they give a shit? Ar

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

On Monday, July 23, 2001, at 11:05 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > True. And I'll agree with you, this time -- I think the Feds > will, in the end, drop this case, if the protests continue. And I'll bet the Feds drop it because their corporate backer, Adobe, has abandoned them. They don't like t

Re: CDR: Vengeance Against Adobe

Tim writes: > Adobe's use of police state measures to have a minor critic (by their > own later admission) yanked out of a conference is not likely to be > forgotten quickly. I expect this will have consequences when they > eventually resume college recruiting. Adobe will likely face sneers >

RE: Vengeance Against Adobe

Declan McCullagh wrote: > But the Feds won't back down as > readily as Adobe, I wager. They > don't have to worry about what > programmers think, they don't > have to worry about what Wall > Street thinks (at least DOJ > doesn't), they don't have to > worry about slipping revenue > in a soft econ