Hi, I think MIRC is cool, but one thing that has always put me off -and put me off IRC in general is the archaic commands that you have to use to download a file. Often In IRC when i request to see a list of files, several files will be avallable for download. Often I feel if only I could click on the file I want to download and automatically ad it to my download list my experience of IRC would be very much imporoved.

Is this possible? Or indeed is it ever likely to happen? Surely double clicking on some form of link (perhaps you would have to come up with an idea of how to make such links work?) should be enough to be able to issue all of the required commands to Mirc in order to add files to my download queue?

Please advise.

Q

And why would you think that a CHAT program should have such an advanced file sharing interface? It's not mP2P it's mIRC.

Hey man calm down, it's just a suggestion. And this is the suggestion section isn't it?

Personally I'm glad its not mP2P, as I don't like/use peer to peer, but suggesting that most people primarily use Mirc as a chat program is possible stretching things a little. There's not much chat going on in a lot of the channels I have visited. So if you want to moralize about what it is all all these people are doing when they visit these 'chat rooms' feel free. I didn't make IRC that way, I'm not responsible for it. So if this is your point, please take it up with the developers of the IRC network and not me. I am like most people a simple user, reporting a simple user experience of using MIRC.

I'm not sure why you think clickable links are such an 'advanced feature', since they have been around for well over 10 years now.

It is just an 'ease of use feature' which after a considerable time of using Mirc I would really like to see implimented.

If this is indeed the wrong place to make these kinds of requests, please forgive me and redirect me to the correct forum section where I can reposr my suggestion.

If making Mirc easier to use isn't a good idea, then I'm sorry.

I won't ask again if I ever have another suggestion.

Q

First off the majority of the "bots" that are serving files are for illegal purposes only. So adding a "clickable" link would just improve easy of piracy and downloaing software illegally.

Secondly for the "clickable" links, if you are referring to soemthing as a webpage uses--I would never like to see that. As it is beginners to IRC click any and all links in a channel. They een copy and run code that when executed is harmful and/or annoying. Not only would peple be able to post malicious links, but also hide the *real* destination to that link. Ex:

Click here to join #channel!

Well, that joins #channel, easy and not too harmfule

Click here to join [link=http://wwww.hackers_r_us.com/kill_this/newbie.pl]#channel[/link]!

Now what? Some user click it and gets into more trouble than just an innocent join of a channel. As for a "clickable download" in DCC, how would mirc even gain the correct command to send one its clicked. Mirc would then have to walk (And store) every event and trigger in channels just so you can download your illegal movies a little biit faster. Sorry, but not in aggreance with that.


As for that, people do go afk. I myself leave mirc on almost 24/7, and dont necciserly post a |away or [a] after myname, and do not spam "Hey, im away" every 2 minutes as some scripts deem it necissary. Also there are mirc scripts (bot) that peopel tend to let idle in a channel. There are many reason why a channel is not "Active".

I think i said my peace. If you have any questions, please hesitate to ask.

So because something is used for an illegal purpose means that that illegal purpose should be supported?


Then maybe you're hanging out in the wrong places. Try kernel.dal.net, they have 18 thousand channels, of which NONE of them are for file sharing.


Well I already have done that, however thats not the issue here.


Yes, this is the correct place to post a suggestion. However, when that suggestion is to advocate a crime, then there is NO correct place to post it.


Saying mIRC should make it easier to commit copyright infringment is like saying gun manufacturers should do everything they can to make it easuer to commit murder. If you suggested something to make CHATTING easier, I would have said it was a great idea. However, you suggested something to make THEFT easier.


A.K.A "I'm picking up my marbles and going home!"
I (and I'm sure everyone else here) has no problems with people making suggestions, we encourage that. However, when those suggestions are made solely for things that will only benefit criminals and lead to a rise in the number of crimes, then you can't expect to be welcomed with open arms.

There's not much chat going on in a lot of the channels I have visited.

You need to look harder then, though you would be right about most channels. The scroll is almost non-existant in many. However the point being made here is that IRC is not a filesharing environment. People just try to use it as one.

While the group of somewhat preachy posters here lays into you; I'll say that I wouldn't mind to see this scripted (and it is possible via hotlinks)

To the rest of you: roughly 60 million amercians [more than who voted for the president] fileshare.
The only reason that violating copyright is such a problem is because business is unable to come up with a workable model for free / extremely cheap products and services.
IF 60 million americans got off their butts; AND their government actually listened to them (something I'm not sure would happen); filesharing copyrighted work would become legal (or at least less illegal)

How many of you have seen filesharing channels that deal exclusively in legal content? Well; no; I haven't either. But this is closing the barn door after the horse has run away - If you said I could not hope to see new features that could have legitimate uses (if we ever find them :P) becasue it made filesharing easier; then I would throw a mini rant. Oh look; I just did. */rant*

Well I think that other fella was a bit over the top calling everybody who downloads files from IRC a 'criminal.' I'll have you know I have never downloaded an illegal file from IRC in my life. So I would be grateful if you would leave me out of your criminal drag net if you don't mind. Just as it is perfectly possible to sit on an IRC server where the majority of people are trading files (and it is happening, you can't say I'm blind, you just have to watch the messages from the bots scrolling past) and not trade any files yourself, then it is also equally possible to download legitamate content via IRC. I'm a Linux nut (so not afraid of the command line in general), so it would be nice to be able to download the odd custom ISO or patch for a particular application (a lot of these things happen in real time and as a result of discussions with other chatters) from an IRC server, without having to go to the tedious process of typing out long boring commands every time I need to download something. In any case this is a setting that could easily be disabled by default and only enabled with dire warnings about the potential risks/concequences of enabling it, much as is the care with other settings in MIRC.

However to be honest, I don't really get the difference. What is the difference between enabling people to download files by passing commands directly to MIRC, or enabling them to download the same files via some kind of clickable link? Surely if you enable either of these features you're assisting by default the so called criminals you speak of? Personally I find the language a bit over the top anyway - in terms of criminals, given some of the people I have met in my job (I work for the UK probation service) who are real criminals, file swappers aren't even on the radar.

Anyway I don't want to argue. That's not what I came here to do. If other peeps want that well, do me a favour and go off and vent your frustration on someone else. It was only a simple suggestion. But given the hostility I have encountered, I can honestly say I don't care anymore if it ever get's implimented or not.

Q

PS if someone want's to keep this up as a fight, or extend it into even more of a flame war, then I'm very sorry, I'm not interested. If this suggestion really annoys you so much, then go kick your dog or something, because I don't personally think it's that big a deal. So flame away, for all I care. I have better things to do with my time.

Lol... Well possibly another reason there isn't many peeps chatting on IRC is because the folks on IRC always seem to be such a bunch of vicious nasty people. If you pop your head up any try to say anything friendly, often as not someone will come along and bite your head off. I guess things aren't much different here.

I suppose that's another reason I don't like IRC so much. It seems to bring out the worst in people. I bet these folks aren't nearly as nasty to each other in real life.

Q

Yet again, you try to turn a post into an "I hate George Bush" post.

And futhermore, if my government listens to me, they'll listen to my numerous letters and emails saying that illegal filesharing SHOULD be banned. You live in Australia, how about you stay the hell out of American politics. I'm tired of you turning posts about NOTHING related to politics into "No one voted for George Bush" When you move to the US, you become a citizen, and you vote for the opposing candidate, then maybe I'll listen to you. Until then, how about you just keep your damn mouth shut. No one wants to hear your political views.

To moderators:
You know, when I made a post a long time ago supporting the war in Iraq, my post was promptly deleted. And that was in the general discussion forum mind you. How come this guy can keep doing his American/Bush bashing and no one except me seems to care? Last I checked, this is an mIRC feature suggestion forum, not a "lets talk about foreign leaders and how people didn't vote for them" forum.

If you are honestly saying you never downloaded an illegal file, then I appologize. However, you are talking about bots here. I've yet to see a "Type !trigger to get home movies of my dog at the beach" bot. So if you actually know of such channels, which just about everyone I've seen post on this thread except you admits they've never seen, why don't you show us and thereby prove us all wrong.

Ok I don't like bush, Ok I live in australia; But c'mon.
Our political leaders aren't mcuh fun to rant against.

The point of the post wasn't a I hate Bush [though there were subversive messages :P]

It was me offering (which I haven't offered so far in the filesharing snafu) my opinion - I swiped that quote about more people fileshare than vote in the US from EFF.org.

I don't believe that filesharing should have an adverse effect on features being added to mirc. End of story.

PS Codemaster; well I'll consider it; but first you have to come over here and listen to our political leaders -and manage to remain awake-. Its harder than it sounds!

Secondly; I feel I can say stuff against US laws and policies which could effect me - god help me should I ever annoy biggish business by developing software to read ebooks. I don't fancy 2 years of my life being wasted.

Thirdly: Wow I'm touched someone read AND remembered something I said. *wipes away a tear*

I have no problem with you commenting on your beliefs on filesharing, but thats not what I was referring to. This is not the first post that you tried to change into an American Bashing post. Thats exactly what you are doing and it is uncalled for. Regardless of how I feel about the leaders of other nations, I don't post that here because thats not what this is for. You seem to ignore that. You think, if you have a thought in your head, everyone should hear it. Well sorry to tell you, thats not the case at all. Your words are offensive to me, and to the millions of Americans who DID vote for George W Bush and who DO support his policies. I don't go around bashing the Australian government and their policies, and I'd expect the same courtesy from you as well.

Oh my, you guys down there actually have leaders? I thought you guys just found some land accross sea's. It's nice to see that some joe blow accross the planet actually sits there and critizes the most powerful man in the world. Do you honestly thin k he got there by being an idiot? I regonize this and I'm not even american! Go bush and go the U.S., at least they got enough balls to do something about terrorism and the way the world is going instead of sitting by and changing names to some garbage like 'oceanica'

How come this guy can keep doing his American/Bush bashing and no one except me seems to care?

The best thing is to not take it so personally. Though my view is that George Bush is an excellent statesman, as is John Howard. Both these leaders have made far more headway than Bill Clinton and Paul Keating ever could have.

Give Clockwerx some leeway here, he's just a teenybopper with an uninformed view on everything. Lets face it, few people his age have any idea about politics as they are usually yet to even vote.

It's spelt Oceania and that is not the name of any country but a region in the south pacific.

What is the difference between enabling people to download files by passing commands directly to MIRC, or enabling them to download the same files via some kind of clickable link?

Because, as demonstrated by Kingtomato, this function (which has been suggested before) can be used for bad things - really bad things. The fact that this forum (and actually most forums) allow this feature doesn't exactly lend me much comfort, though the fact that we have a regular moderator presence makes up for this. On IRC the story is alot different, if you go into a channel where the hosts are bots and not real people and someone posts a "link" to the channel where the keyword is just anything generic, how does the bot realise if this is advertising of a dangerous website or not? At present a bot can detect "http" and ".net" or whatever and ban the luser that posted it. The ban would be an indication to the other people in the room that there is a possibility of the URL leading to a dangerous site.

The idea is convenient and by itself there is nothing wrong with it, but it is very easily taken advantage of by the underground elements of the Internet.

Because the idea would not be supported 'server-side' there would surely also have to be integration with all other chat programmes, an unlikely scenario.

Frist of all what on Earth has any of this got to do with what I said? Secondly it was you who brought up the subject of 'illegal' file sharing, not I. At the end of the day anyway, file sharing is a political issue, whether you like it that way or not. A lot of pressure for other countries to change their laws has come from the US, who in turn have been influenced by big business and big business dolnations to party political funds.

The last I looked anyway, file sharing was still a civil offense and not a criminal offense, so given this and given as I have said the kind of people I meet every day in my job who are real criminals, I think calling peeps who share files 'criminals' is well over the top.

@codemastr; you sound like someone with some kind of vested interest in all this. Normally my experience is folks like you are either developers, or shareholders, or involved with those industries that you evvisage are being affected by this practice. Am I right? Anyway I think we come from opposite ends of the scale. I have no vested interest in this subject, so by and large I'm a lot more ambigous. (Besides as I said I recognise it for its political standpoint - which means overall I don't necessarily feel enclined to agree).

The problem with illegal music downloads for example (which is also something I have never indulged in) is that untill very, very recently, the recording industry of America just hadn't cottoned on to how dramatically the world had chaged with the advent of the net and all of its implications for digital entertainment. Until now they have kicked, screamed spat and resisted every inch of the way, to try to prevent these changes from happening. (While to everyone else in the world (bar possibly a few right wing American zealots) they look positively like a dinosaur that belongs to the prehistoric ages). Rather than resist these changes, the RIAA, the MPAA (or who ever it is in the US who deals with movies) and pretty much everyone else, are going to have to find a way to embrace these changes, or be swept away in the process.

You may not like that idea, you may indeed feel a great deal of resistance to it, but as the amount of avaiable bandwidth to ordianary users increases (in the next 10 years the average line speed for DSL customers is expected to rise to 20MBS+) the demand for digital entertainment is only going to increase, not deminish. You are in effect fighting a loosing battle.

There is also a resistance among the generral public to the exorbatant prices that are being charged by many companies for their products. A good example for instance is the few c's it costs to produce an average music CD, and the typically thousands of percent in increase of price made before it is sold on to the general public. Ordinary people it seems are not so much the mugs that many people in big business have mistaken them to be.

I do not want to turn this into a political argument - beyond its already somewhat political nature (it was after all as I said just a simple suggestion) however I have noticed a desire among many right wing Americans to want to try their best to silience any dissent against their govenment, by being rude and telling people they have no right to comment. Well unfortunately (from their perspective perhaps) the majoity of us still live in a free world so it's pretty much up to us if we want to say whatever the hell we want. You can't/won't ever silence dissent no matter how much as you might want to, whether it comes from your home shores or not.

Anyway like I said whether you want to argue if its a good thing or not is irrelevant (if you're trying to argue from a moral standpoint that is) since effectively there is no difference between passing commands directly to MIRC, or just clicking a link in an MIRC window (so long as those links could be made to produce exactly the same commands). Foras long as it is already possible to download illegal content via MIRC, that particular agument is void.

So ok the technical objection is that it might cause n00bs to click on links they shouldn't, but there is also a setting in MIRC that says 'autoget file and minimise' (or words to that effect). Enabling this feature promts all kinds of dire warnings about the potential risks and concequences of doing so. An option for clickable links could carry similar dire warnings and disclaimers about the potential concequences of enabling this feature (providing it was even technically possible to do this - which isn't even clear yet. Indeed it would be quite funny if we we're actually arguing over nothing), so pretty much it should be up to the user and their own dumb fault if they screw something up.

Anyway as I said, although you appear to have missed it, I have no need for the vast majority of this so called illegal content, as a linux user all my software needs are met for free, I prefer to own music CDs (although I uttely resent the extortionate prices that the recording industry charges for them) and if I want a movie, I'd rather just go to my local video store and rent one (I'm not a big movie buff, so I would never buy). The bottom line is I just wouldn't have the patience to sit for endless hours downloding a low quality movie anyway, as by the time I got it, I would probably have lost interest in it.

There is of course lots of free content on Linux channels, and it would be nice to find a way to make accessing this much easier. (Yes I know there is a debate among the American right at the moment that say Linux is Anti-American because it's free. But I personally find such arguments hilarours, as to me they are just another example of how much the American right is out of touch with the realities of the world).

Well anyway, I'm sure I've said enough here to keep people fighting for quite some time. But bare in mind if you do, that no one's opinion on this is likely to change. So all in all it's a pretty pointless pursuit.

Whether this feature ever get's implimented or not (politics and vested interests aside) is I guess up to the developers. I've said my piece - and I don't see any point in arguing about it. Its a feature I would like to see. Others would not. What else is there to say?

Q

No, you misquote me, I never said filesharing was illegal, come to think of it, I didn't mention the word "illegal" at any time in this thread apart from right now. What I did say is that IRC is not intended to be a filesharing environment - in context this means that filesharing should be limited to the personal exchange of freeware files such as some MP3's, WAV's, JPG's, etc which is what the DCC protocol was developed for.

A lot of pressure for other countries to change their laws has come from the US...

This is hardly anything more than urban myth, given that the US has laws no stronger than those of any other country regarding copyright. What they do have is laws equal/equivalent to other countries, that being if you breach copyright, you can be fined or go to prison for it or even be sued by the copyright owner if they feel it necessary or justifyable. Just to set this in concrete, the US and other developed countries have signed to treaties which enforce minimum standards which apply to the said copyright laws in each country that is a signatory to the treaties.

in the next 10 years the average line speed for DSL customers is expected to rise to 20MBS+

*Watchdog chokes on his curry pie.

20Mbs down a twisted pair copper line? If it's possible it will certainly be unaffordable, at least in this part of the world.

I do not want to turn this into a political argument

Yet you decided to make it one by bagging right-wing elements of the US government. What has capitalism got to do with any laws or the enforcement thereof of copyright? If socialism becomes more widespread it would only lead to further restrictions and further censorship of the right to free speech, 'free speech',in my view being a flawed expression outlining what many believe to be where you can say anything you like at any time without reprisals.

...as a linux user all my software needs are met for free, I prefer to own music CDs.

Am I missing something here or does one's OS of choice govern one's desire to trade files?

So ok the technical objection is that it might cause n00bs to click on links they shouldn't, but there is also a setting in MIRC that says 'autoget file and minimise' (or words to that effect).

Yes, there is infact a function like the one you describe but that doesn't alter the fact that the suggested one is just as bad, if not worse for the same reasons. As I mentioned before, what you want has been mentioned a number of times and has been replied to the same way each time. I don't dispute that it would be handy, I am only disputing the fact that those with a low level of integrity would abuse the situation and it would be completely impossible to manage from a channel owners perspective. As I mentioned before, someone can be excluded for quoting clickable URLs in a room but they cannot be excluded for just quoting a keyword which is a link under your proposal because the keyword could be any legitimate English word. People shouldn't be subject to black holes just because they are new to the 'Net, rather there should be every reason to make sure they know the dangers and are protected from them.

Well as I said, we continue to disagree on almost just about everything. I stand by everything I said, as I'm sure you stand by everything you said.

As for users being subjected to a 'black hole', given the methedology I proposed in not enabling a feature like this by default - and providing dire warnings to those who do - in such a circumstance it is the users themselves who must subject themselves to this black hole - and not MIRC. In any case, I was hopeful that the extent of this feature could be somehow limited, so that the user wouldn't just be tempted to click on any old file that spun by as they used their MIRC client. I'm not sure how that could be achieved, indeed I'm not sure if any of this can be achieved at all. As I said, it was only intended as a suggestion - not as some people here seem to have classed it, as an act of political subversion.

To be honest though, in my view I see no difference beteen a clickable link in MIRC and a clickable links on the Web. The web, as far as I can see with its billions upon billions of clickable links, represents exactly the same kind of black hole that you appear to think the same feature in MIRC would be. The only difference is that because of search engines like Google, you tend to get a short description of the contents of the link too. Fair enough, what about clickable links with meta data? Lol... I'm sure that idea will be just as popular with you as the last one was.

It's a personal preference I guess. I doubt I'm personally stupid enough to get caught out by clicking some erroneous link. (Maybe it could be listed as an expert feature, like 'only enable this feature if you are certain you know what you are doing and understand the risks' etc...)



It does in my case mate, it at least sure helps to take a lot of that temptation away. No need anymore for overpriced Windows software that most average users could never afford - no need therefore to trade for it either.

As for mentioning politics, as I said I never brought it up, but what I object to is people who try to stifle dissent, wherever it might come from (even if it doesn't come from your shores). American's aren't the only ones in this world (despite recent impressions) who are entitled to an opinion.

You may think free speech is over rated, but for as long as there is life left in my body, it is a principal I am prepared to fight for - should I ever be required to. You are in any case unlikely to be unable to silence it, no matter how distasteful you may find it to be.

Anyway, I don't want to argue about this indefinately - and I do so wish you guys would get out of flame mode for once. If you do maybe we can all try to get along a little better? If not how exactly do you want this to end? Do you think you will 'win' by sounding cleverer than anyone else? If so give it your best shot. It all seems very petty to me.

Q

No need anymore for overpriced Windows software that most average users could never afford

I suppose the owners of 90% of the computers in the world use pirated operating systems then.

As for your last comment, "winning" and losing is irrelevant here. You stated you wanted a feature, I explained why it's not desirable in great detail. If that's flaming then I am guilty as sin. People have been asking for this for longer than the 2 1/2 years or so that I have been a member of this forum and myself and other users have given the same answer that you have got each and every single time.

To be honest though, in my view I see no difference beteen a clickable link in MIRC and a clickable links on the Web.

There's no difference at all, aside from the fact that the entire web supports hidden links and all of IRC does not. The fact that there's no difference doesn't make the implementation of something desirable. There's quite enough unmanagable lame behaviour on IRC without having another gadget to support it, in this case the possibility of unsolicited advertising and the spread of virii and trojans. The fact that this is possible on a website is all the more reason why mIRC and IRC in general should not support it.

American's aren't the only ones in this world (despite recent impressions) who are entitled to an opinion.

Well, we agree on something, and considering I am not American I have every reason to.

There is a difference between saying, "I think George Bush's economic plan will fail because of REASON 1, and REASON 2" and saying, basically, "George Bush is an illegitimate president who was never really elected". If he would have said the former, I might have disagreed with him, however I would not have gotten angry about it. But he did not say the former, he said the latter, which is not based on fact, and it stated only to start an argument. Dissent is good, thats how changes come about. Dissent is how the civil rights and racial equality movements began. However there is a difference between dissent and out right insults made only to provoke arguments.

Again, as I said we can only take our respective positions on this. Personally I think its perfectly possible to learn what is and is not sensible behaviour when I see a link, just as I have done on the Web over these last 10 years.



If you don't mind me asking, what has that got to do with the price of beans? That guy practically accused me of being a criminal, just because I said clickable links might be a good idea. All I did was correct his erroneous assumption. As you have highlighted, that's a bit like calling everyone who uses the internet a criminal. It is at the very least, way over the top.

In any case there is a lot of Windows software that is beyond the price range of many users - and whether you agree or not, I still think most of it is over priced.

Ultimately as I said these kinds of debates solve nothing, it is clear what your position is - and I am unlikely to change mine either. If users want to commit suicide by jumping into a 'black hole' ( quite overdramatic language in my view) without being fully aware of the concequences of what their doing, that should be completely up to them.

With regard to 'flaming', this thread certainly has a very acrid flaming tone to it, whether this was the intention or not, that is what has happend. You would have to be quite brain dead not to feel the hostility I have experienced here.

It is not impossible that this subject could have been discussed on a much calmer, much more logical basis, rather than bringing God, morality, America, the Gulf war, the DCMA and Lord knows what else into the equation.

If I knew such a simple suggestion, and one that would have very little impact on me anyway (since I am currently a very infrequent user of IRC) would cause so much open hostility I would never have made it.

Just calm down guys. It probably won't ever get implimented anyway, so I don't have a clue what you're all shouting about. It's just an idea. Maybe someone might see it and like it. In a free world that's totally up to them.

Q

Yeah but... that's not the point. People can still say what they want, whether you like it or not. The guy isn't psychic, so how is he supposed to know what you would like to hear, or indeed even care for that matter?

You can't shut people up, just because you think you can shout louder.

Sorry about that, but there really isn't an awful lot you can or should be allowed able to do about it. Dictatorship sure aint for me...

Q

Dissent just means that one disagrees with what someone else has done or said. It doesn't mean to flame and it's got nothing to do with freedom of speech or a lack there-of. My original post consisted of 100% constructive criticism and nothing else, so in a sense, that is a motion of dissent against the suggestion.

By the way, your last post should have been aimed at codemastr so I claim to have been misrepresented.

General Reply to all:

-Everyone is free to make a suggestion, however to expect that only replies supporting it will be made wouldnt make much sense. A feature suggestion may be made with one intent from the poster, but general views on other issues surrounding that suggestion and other effects it could have do have merit. To say a feature could lead to blahblah by someone isnt a personal insult to whoever posted it. Just because someone doesnt like a reply, or points out bad aspects of it, there's no need to take it personally and take your rubber duckie and go home.

-Personally i try to give everyone a good bit of leeway in their posts. When i see someone tossing in a political slur, i shake my head wondering why they think that has any remote support to their arguement. I toss it into the same bin that the "i love windows, i hate *nix" "anyone who uses blahblah is silly, use blahblah" "why do you use slang" into. Everyone has opinions, some just dont realize there is a time and place to air them. Now, if someone started a thread "Why i hate <insert politician/country name here> i would delete it as being inappropriate for this forum. Do i like that some ppl use every remote excuse to climb up on their soapbox about a politician/country/etc diatribe? No, and i find it annoying and a waste of time. Tells me a lot about the poster's intent and how much credence to give their replies tho.

-i dont care about what country ignores or approves of filesharing music/movies/software, or the multitude of reasons why any given person thinks its just peachy. Illegal file sharing is not supported or encouraged on this forum. End of discussion.

-Yes, ppl can get into just as much trouble clicking on urls on their browser or email as on IRC. But if by popping up msgs informing them of the risks or warning them in channels or here, or limiting some features, we can stop a few, its worth it and will hopefully make them carry the warnings over to their email and browser wanderings. To think why bother cause they can get into trouble using other things isnt much of a helping attitude.

-When ppl cant stay on focus and the thread winds down into bickering, flames, or irrelevant arguements without any redeeming value, that thread will be closed. If anyone wants to consider that censorship, too bad.

Lol, possibly it was - and possibly you're making the assumption everything I say is aimed at you. It probably isn't.

As for dissent, dissent comes in many forms - and disagreement between individuals is one of these. Others will actively go out and protest to voice their dissent, while others may even go as far as breaking what they view as unjust laws in order to express their views. I guess so long as we can all agree that dissent is a good thing - and you shouln't try to prevent it (each to their own etc.) then I think maybe we can make some progress here.

Well anyway, its all getting way too out of hand if you ask me. From talking about being able to click on a simple link, to discussing civil rights, it all seems a bit extreme.

So what now? Anyone got anything esle to add? Do you still want to argue? Or do you want to do the sensible thing and finally leave it alone?

I'd rather get back to my nice quet life rather than have to argue in detail with people I've never met before and don't altogether find particularly pleasant about the morality of the web and all of its (percieved) inherrant ills.

I wonder if in 20 years we will still be having these arguments, or if people will have finally accepted by then that the web is a reality?

We shall see I guess.

Q

Dissent has nothing to do with breaking laws, breaking laws is called disobedience.

Mmm... well that's kind of an example of what I said. Don't you think there's anything at all negative in the tone of what you just said? My 'rubber duckie' as you put it is still very much in the water. And if people still want to agrue, I'm not in any hurry to leave. People implying I have criminal intentions in making a suggesion, or going on about morality, or their love of their President, or their loathing of him, or the Gulf war, or whether or not Evis faked his own death etc. are not all that helpful. Constructive cristicism is best when it's technical, and while there has been some of that, there has also been a lot of moralising and apparently contadicting statements too.

I can take the technical stuff, even though I think it could easily be listed as an advanced feature with all the appropriate warnings etc, but when people start making me out to be a hardend criminal for making the suggestion, that's where I daw the line.

We can agree to disgree on the technical stuff. But all this moral BS has nothing to do with me. So please leave me out of it.

Criminals (if that is what you like to call file traders) will find all sorts of ways to induge their interests. If you imagine that hyperlinking will one way or another help or disuade them, you are undoubtedly and very sadly mistaken. For legitamate users however, it would still be a nice feature - although certainly not one that warrants this much debate.

If it doesn't ever really get implimented, I doubt I will ever really care. It was just a suggestion. No one says you have to like it.

Q

Ahhh for Christ's sake: NO-ONE CALLED YOU A CRIM, get that into your head. Go back and read Parabrat's response to all this. If you can't understand that then there's seriously no hope.

Well that's a patently nonsensical statement. So people who indulge in 'civil disobenence' are not practicing dissent? During the 80's in the UK, we had an unjust tax called the Poll Tax, many refused to pay it - and thereby broke the law. On one occasion many thousands of people marched to London and engaged in what can only be desribed as a 'popular uprising' (others called it a riot). Less than a month later the law imposing the tax was revoked.

This was just one example of many I can think of where breaking the law as a means of popular dissent, proved to ultimately be effective. You of course (if you live in America) will recall your own instances of this. Indeed if breaking the law as a means of poplular disent hadn't taken place at many points throughout your history, America would be a very different and far more unpleasant place than it is today.

From my own experience of my time on this earth, breaking the law may be the only effective means of dissent that some people have. You can say its wrong all you want, but ultimately it is everyone who benefits from the risks these people take on our behalf.

Q

Well that is the impression I got. But then I'm exagerating just as much as you folks are exagerating about how an idea like this would serve only to facilitate criminals. Annoying isn't it?

I understoood the post well enough. At least it was mostly reasonable. But all the same I don't think asking folks to calm down and take a breath is all that bad an idea.

So you think the idea stinks? Well what the hey. Who cares?

Q

Dissent means exactly what I said it meant, look up the term in the dictionary and it will say something like this. Dissent is an official function at any meeting or parliamentary sitting whereby those who make up a quorum can move against the decision made by a chairman or speaker respectively. Such acts are normally done peacefully and can make up part of the debate conducted at the time. As such, you can move dissent without breaking any laws and without seeking to insult people or accuse them of any wrong-doing. The issues relating to the British Poll Tax is entirely different. People showed dissent, sure, but that has nothing to do with the actual acts of tax evasion (a crime) or inciting riots (another crime).

Again we must agree to differ - although I'm afraid from my perspective this is turning into nothing much more than a pissing contest.

A lot of 'laws' were broken in the civil rights movement in America in the 60's. If you want to call those acts of civil disobediance crimes too, well technically you might be right, but thank god for those 'criminals' and the risks they were prepared to take.

Similarly you mention the British Poll Tax. Well crime or not, a mass movement of civil disobediance - and a virtual public up rising - overturned what was undoubtedly an unjust tax. Did people break the law by refusing to pay the tax and by going to jail for it? Certainly. Was the end result worthwhile, despite whatever the law of the day might have been? Yes, unarguably is was. Indeed throughout the world people are 'breaking the law' in order to struggle for their basic human rights and freedoms. It is somewhat of a cliche to point out to you that not all laws currently on the statute books are inherantly just. Sometimes in a stuggle for genuine justice, breaking the law may be the only option.

If I were you I would read your history books. History is litterd with people who 'broke the law' - and as a result eventually chaged the world for the better for everyone.

It is not always wise in this respect to side solely with the legislators. They do not always win.

Q

And what has your argument over whether a law is worth breaking or not got to do with the meaning of dissent? Aside from straying wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off the issue of why your suggestion cannot be implemented you can't even stay on track with your own digression which was started by you just to make you look right.

Returning to the thrust of this thread, you are taking constructive criticism too personally, as Parabrat has indicated. There are several security related reasons why this function has never been included in the two years (or longer) that people have been asking for it.

In giving those reasons, no-one has called you a criminal, no-one has accused you of breaking any laws and no-one has seen to insult or flame your suggestion. Anyone who has disagreed with your idea has explained why in explicit detail.

Dude there have been a lot of negative things said here too. In that last post you at least came as close as anyone ever has to just giving a straight out technical answer. (Although I'm sure I can live without the explicit detail. Just the bottom line is good enough for me).

As for digression; cripes it wasn't me who started all this BS. I don't know what half the people here were ranting on about. God, politics, the DCMA, the possiblity of the existance of life on other planets - I mean none of that had any relevance to the suggestion I made.

Ayway, if you can't figure out the relationship between dissent and how effective dissent may sometimes require you to break the law, I won't try to explain it to you. Maybe if you think about it a little you might eventually work it out.

But as you said, that is all pretty much irrelevant. You don't like the idea. Fair enough, I don't really care. There isn't much point carrying on this 'debate' from what I can see anyway (even though you picked it up again, some time after I had just about forgotten it). This whole thing genuinely isn't very important to me. In this last year I think I may have used MIRC about 4 times - and on each occasion for no more than an hour or so. I'm not a big fan of IRC, nor am I a big fan of a lot of the people I have met there. They are not on the whole the friendliest group of people you could ever hope to encounter. It was just a suggestion. One that might encourage me to use IRC more. But overall it's not something I'm desperate to see. Now if you want to keep arguning about it feel free. But I don't think it will achieve anything.

It's your call.

Anyway later... (Then again, hopefully never...)

Q

You don't like the idea.

It's not a matter of whether I like it or not. No-one would care much about that. It is an inappropriate function to add to mIRC, that is my only belief at this time.

Yeah dude I think you said that 50 times and in 50 different ways already. Its just getting boring now.

Q

And it's still not sinking in? Don't blame me for that or for the fact that you seem to enjoy inventing new meanings for words, or for the fact that you keep posting every time you say you won't any longer or for the fact that you seem to think that the rest of the world holds a grudge against you.

Aww shut up will ya, this really is getting boring now. Sure I took in what was said. But in care I haven't made it explicitly clear to you I don't care.

Nor am I 'reinventing the meaning of words', its just that your brain seems too inflexible to accept anything more than the rigid definitions you read in dictionaries. Dissent means many things to many people, try telling them their perspective isn't valid either. Personally I'm glad people break unjust laws, because its people like me and like you who benefit from it.

Anyway as I've said before what has this got to do with anything? It looks to me you just want to keep fighting over nothing. Faird enough. But I suggest you go take it out on someone who actually gives a damn, because I don't.

I liked you better (though barely) when you were speaking about your purely technical objections. It would have been nice if we could have stuck with that all along.

Q

No-one is asking you to reply every time someone posts here. Still, since you can't show some leadership and stop then I will, this is my last post here in this thread - fullstop. I bet you a fiver that you reply at least once more. Please email me to get the address to post the winners cheque to. :tongue:

Like I said a pissing contest...

I'm all out of piss though sorry. You win, your cheque is in the mail.

Q