Mozilla Jetpack and the Battle For the Web

snydeq writes "Mozilla Jetpack makes it so easy to filter, modify, and mash up pages that it might end up pitting developers and users against content producers in a battle for the Web, writes Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister. By allowing users to modify the behavior, presentation, and output of Web apps and pages to their liking, Jetpack gives users the ability to 'patch the server, in a sense,' McAllister writes, bringing us one step closer to a more democratic Web. Good news for developers and users; not so good for SaaS providers and media companies that have a vested interest in controlling the function, presentation, and distribution of Web-based content and apps. In other words, as Jetpack produces fruit, expect more producers to call for 'guardrails for the Internet.'"

Comments

That's why I stopped using a browser

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the raw HTML and compose the pages in my imagination, just like the novel readers of the past used to do.

That really sticks it to the man.

Re:That's why I stopped using a browser

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt your brain adheres to XHTML and CSS standards. Your point is now irrelevant.

Re:That's why I stopped using a browser

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't even see the code anymore. All I see is blonde, brunette, redhead...

FIST SPORT

[ringbarer]

Yeah, yeah, more extend-the-browser bullshit. When all people want is a lightweight app that JUST VIEWS FUCKING WEB PAGES.

It's not hard, really, but the Mozilla team are aroused by the thought of repeating the same mistakes Netscape made. But let's throw in some fightin' plugins while we're at it.

Chrome beats them all.

Re:FIST SPORT

[bob.appleyard]

Chrome's getting extensions: http://blog.chromium.org/2009/05/extensions-at-google-io.html

Already available

[SchizoStatic]

Or am I mistaken. I use greasemonkey to already accomplish this.

Re:Already available

[eldavojohn]

Or am I mistaken. I use greasemonkey to already accomplish this.

Yeah, if you read the article, they go on extensively about this:

If you're familiar with the Greasemonkey extension for Firefox, you already have a good idea of how Jetpack works. Like Greasemonkey User Scripts, Jetpack-based add-ins are written primarily in JavaScript, and they manipulate browser windows and their contents using familiar AJAX techniques. You install them directly from the Web, and they don't even require a browser restart to take effect. While developing Greasemonkey User Scripts can be somewhat cumbersome, writing add-ins with Jetpack couldn't be simpler.

Jetpack integrates the popular jQuery JavaScript library, the Firebug debugger, and Mozilla's Bespin browser-based code editor to create a complete, interactive development environment. Although it's still in a raw and experimental stage, the combination is both easy to use and incredibly powerful. For example, one of the Jetpack demos is an ad-blocking script that uses a list of regular expressions to selectively filter unwanted graphics, scripts, and iframes from Web pages. The whole script comprises only about 80 lines of code.

It's a little surprising that Mozilla Labs would choose ad blocking as one of its first demos, however, when that's precisely the sort of application that flies directly in the faces of content providers and other Web-based businesses. While the Web is inarguably a mature computing platform, as a platform for business it's still in its infancy. Media companies are struggling to create viable revenue streams, and so far advertising is one of the few that has shown promise. And yet, with just 80 lines of code, Jetpack promises to take it all away.

Of course, ad-blocking plug-ins for browsers have been around a long time, and many users wouldn't fire up a browser without one. But by announcing Jetpack with a demonstration of how easy it is to build an ad-blocking script, Mozilla Labs is in effect saying that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Mashups, filters, formatters, and tools -- when Jetpack is done, anything will be possible, and it will be easy. That's bound to send a chill up any would-be Web mogul's spine.

The big news everyone seems to be missing is that everyone and their mom will be able to block ads with very little knowledge. That's dangerous to content providers and I've highlighted the part in the above text where the author talks about this. Is Mozilla entering a maelstrom that was normally between adblock/noscript and content providers?

Re:Already available

[Allicorn]

And to a some degree Stylish too, yeah. Like how I use it to kill of the pointless and ugly tagging system here. Yay for Stylish!

Re:Already available

[dblackshell]

this addon (project) is redundant.

It's like the other one in which they want to incorporate command line in Firefox, instead of having it as a addon under the name of Ubiquity.

With Jetpack they want to replace Greasemonkey and also make easier addon development...

I say to you, it's wasted time... Improve Gecko, XulRunner, but not this...

Re:Already available

[Anonymous Coward]

>The whole script comprises only about 80 lines of code.

Holy hell, EIGHTY lines?
That is a LOT.

There is a much simpler user script that pretty much just blocks all third party content (images, embeds, bg sound, iframes, etc)
It could be extended pretty easily to include a simple whitelist and replace blocked content with an image.

Re:Already available

[Chyeld]

While in theory this will make it accessible to everyone, that doesn't convert to a reality of everyone using it.

Linux, believe it or not, is to the point where to use it you can just pop a CD in the computer and turn it on. Yet how many people actual do use Linux and of those, how many would have not done so if LiveCD's weren't around?

This means powerusers will find being powerusers slight less cumbersome, but not that everyone will become a poweruser.

Re:Already available

[N1AK]

The big news everyone seems to be missing is that everyone and their mom will be able to block ads with very little knowledge.

They already can, and more easily if they are using Firefox by installing ad-block plus. I would of thought they could think of better examples than this to show how it can do 'useful' things.

What I find really annoying is the summaries assertion that this is somehow 'web democracy'. Removing adverts and altering how other peoples work is used without their permission is about as similar to democracy as the concept of being able to punch someone in the face for saying something you don't like.

The internet has the capability to be an incredible paradigm change for us all, but it is unlikely that it will be allowed to become this due to regulation that will invariably be placed upon it by our governments and corporations. What is especially sad is that those regulations are being created to stop people doing unimportant but selfish things like ad-blocking and pirating (this is said as someone who doesn't ad-block but does pirate, so please don't think I'm holding myself above my contempt!).

Re:Already available

[AdamThor]

The big news everyone seems to be missing is that everyone and their mom will be able to block ads with very little knowledge.

How much knowledge will actually be required for this? Serious question. Not a web developer over here.

Re:Already available

[causality]

While in theory this will make it accessible to everyone, that doesn't convert to a reality of everyone using it.

Linux, believe it or not, is to the point where to use it you can just pop a CD in the computer and turn it on. Yet how many people actual do use Linux and of those, how many would have not done so if LiveCD's weren't around?

This means powerusers will find being powerusers slight less cumbersome, but not that everyone will become a poweruser.

I'm absolutely fine with the fact that not everyone (most people actually) wants to be a poweruser. I just wish they'd accept responsibility for that decision. The easiest way to explain that, is to say that I don't want to hear their complaints when the only reason why something doesn't work out for them is that they didn't RTFM or when they're mystified and frustrated by a task that would be relatively straightforward if they were willing to do a little reading.

To address some knee-jerk responses, being able to RTFM is not remotely the same thing as being an expert. Since you mention Linux, if the requirement of having to learn a few things about how the system works in order to be able to effectively use it means that Linux will never replace Windows as the dominant desktop platform, I'm fine with that. I'm not one of those folks who thinks that Linux needs to have the goal of replacing Windows; I think the two operating systems are intended for entirely different audiences. Just wanted to get those two things out of the way because those are the two most predictable and therefore unenlightening replies that seem to constantly come up in these discussions.

What I am saying applies to many things, not just computers. The basic principle is simple: if there are reasonable measures someone can take to address the problem they are having, and they refuse to take those measures, then it's hard to take their complaints seriously.

Re:Already available

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice business model you got there, web site, be a shame if something were to happen to it, you know, ad-blockers have a habit of happening in this neighborhood, you know...

Re:Already available

[MobyDisk]

The big news everyone seems to be missing is that everyone and their mom will be able to block ads with very little knowledge.

Huh? They can do that now by using one of the many ad blocking extensions. How does the fact that they can do it by writing 80 lines of code make it any easier on them? Sounds much more difficult to me!

Re:Already available

[causality]

What I find really annoying is the summaries assertion that this is somehow 'web democracy'. Removing adverts and altering how other peoples work is used without their permission is about as similar to democracy as the concept of being able to punch someone in the face for saying something you don't like.

That's a bit dramatic. Removing advertisements and altering how Web pages are displayed is more like the concept of being able to ignore or only selectively listen to someone who says things you don't like. It's more like "yes, you have the right to say whatever you want within certain limits, but you do not have the right to force me to listen to any or all of what you say or to make me interpret it any particular way."

The internet has the capability to be an incredible paradigm change for us all, but it is unlikely that it will be allowed to become this due to regulation that will invariably be placed upon it by our governments and corporations. What is especially sad is that those regulations are being created to stop people doing unimportant but selfish things like ad-blocking and pirating (this is said as someone who doesn't ad-block but does pirate, so please don't think I'm holding myself above my contempt!).

I think the real question is, whose Internet is it? Does it belong to the corporations, the marketers, the governments, and other monied interests? Or does it belong to the people who use and enjoy it?

If it belongs to the monied interests, then they should do as they please and we should have to adapt to what they want, by force of law if necessary. If that means that state police power needs to be used to jeopardize people who are doing something that should not be a crime, just refer to it as "collateral damage" or use some kind of specious "greater good" argument.

Here I refer to the local display of information. I am not referring to redistributing someone else's work, which is another matter entirely. If the Internet belongs to the people, then we should do whatever we want with the content that others have chosen to place on the public network. If commercial interests don't like that, they should be told that their choice is to adapt to it and find a way to profit from it or to go bankrupt.

To put that another way, if you don't like the freedoms associated with a particular medium, such as an end-user's ability to control how information is displayed, your option is to choose not to publish your content on that medium. If you do choose to publish your content on a medium that allows many options for how that content is displayed, it's rather underhanded to cry "foul" when those options are exercised. It's downright despicable to use political clout and the legal system to remove some of the freedoms from a medium that never forced you to publish your content on it. At the risk of being accused of hyperbole, the mentality is exactly the same as those psychopaths who murder a woman screaming "if I can't have her, no one can!" Of course one of those expressions is far, far more extreme and ghastly than another, but the underlying mentality is exactly the same.

Re:Already available

[treeves]

I didn't think using AdBlock required all that much knowledge. So if this is less still, then it's almost none.

Re:Already available

[BlitzTech]

Install Ad Blocker!

Done. No browser restart, no configuring, it just is there. It's much simpler than installing an add-on, plugin, Firefox extension, etc. because it's just a small code snippet that runs in the browser's now-exposed Javascript VM, as opposed to a module that needs to be loaded when the browser fires up.

Re:Already available

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey.... I've got a solution... make all web pages 100% Flash.... or SIlverlight...

There - advertising problem solved... huh? say what? you don't like Flash....

oh... well....
TOO BAD FOR YOU, now punch the monkey and win a prize!!!!!!!!
{sarcasm}

Re:Already available

[Bigjeff5]

Yes and no, for Linux.

As far as desktops go, no, linux isn't there yet. You can pop in a CD and turn it on and have everything working for a lot of systems, but there are still a lot that that doesn't work on. There were a relatively small percentage of machines that had serious issues with Vista, but it was a lot larger than a normal XP install and it blew up in MS's face. Linux distros tend to have smaller, more persistant issues at a much higher percentage than even the Vista issues. Two ongoing examples are wireless support and sound support. It's great if it works, but it can be hell to try to fix it. Normal users often have a hard time figuring out how to connect to a wireless network if it doesn't do it automatically, forget trying to troubleshoot linux wireless problems. Also, UI is critical for normal users. They need to be able to do -everything- in the GUI. Can't do that with Linux yet.

Where normal users use Linux is those times they don't know they are using linux. Like those linux-based wireless routers and such. For desktops, the reason normal users don't use linux is because it is a lot harder than using windows in general. Until that changes significantly, most people will stay away from Linux.

If the new mozilla tool makes the stuff greasemonkey does more seemless and less cumbersome, then people will use it. A lot of non-technical people manage greasemonkey as it is (they don't write the scripts, obviously), and FF addons are used extensively by non-powerusers.

Anything that makes it easier to use broadens the potential user base. If it's easier for powerusers, it's easier for non-powerusers as well.

Re:Already available

[Mr. Slippery]

Removing adverts and altering how other peoples work is used without their permission...

When you put work on the web, you are giving people permission to view it.

Blocking ads is no different than putting a piece of tape over my screen to block images I don't want to see. I have every right to view a work however I please, and to do whatever I want to a copy you give me. (Distributing a derivative work, now, is another matter.)

The internet has the capability to be an incredible paradigm change for us all, but it is unlikely that it will be allowed to become this due to regulation that will invariably be placed upon it by our governments and corporations.

The reason that the internet has this capability is because such regulation cannot be effective. If you and I can get packets to each other, we can encode communications over that channel and share whatever information we want. The most regulation could do is give us a "War on Sharing" as effective as the "War on Drugs" -- reduced civil liberties, occasional high-profile busts, and very little impact on the availability of the contraband.

Re:Already available

[aaandre]

"Removing adverts and altering how other peoples work is used without their permission is about as similar to democracy as the concept of being able to punch someone in the face for saying something you don't like. "

This doesn't ring true to me. Using ad blocking I only alter how *I* see people's work. I see my attention as a valuable, finite resource and most advertising does not respect that resource. Just check out IMDB, opening a popup window almost every time I click a link. So, to stop this abuse, I am taking measures.

I would rather compare this situation to wearing glasses that make advertising messages disappear. The only person on the receiving end of this is me. Nobody gets punched, including my eyeballs.

Look at how polluted our public spaces are with advertising. Reading these messages because I have no other choice (reading is automatic and I have to keep my eyes open when driving) and unconsciously repeating the written messages in my own head, with my own energy, on my own time, without consent, is unacceptable.

Anyone got a hold of a pair of theseshades?

I recommend seeing "The Century of the Self" and Carpenter's "They Live." Eye opening :)

Re:Already available

[civilizedINTENSITY]

I don't understand why you think I should need your permission to increase the size of the font displayed in my browser when I view a web page from your server. Likewise, changing colors or even radically reinventing a better (for me) CSS scheme has nothing to do with any legal rights you might accrue due to having created (or published, or bought) said content.

Can you imagine if textbook publishers tried this? "Highlighting text in this book without the publisher's permission is contrary to our purpose in publishing this work. If the author had wanted that text highlighted, it would be highlighted. Likewise, margin notes require written permission beforehand. If the author had wanted a note in the margin, one would have been printed."

Re:Already available

[civilizedINTENSITY]

I've seen several references to AdBlock. This isn't just using AdBlock, this includes a system for creating whitelists and blacklists. Rather than clicking on one of several choices for your AdBlocking list, you have the ability to use regular expressions and create your own. If you are happy with other people deciding what you (or you children) are not going to see, thats fine. If you want to take responsibility, this tool allows you to do so.

Re:Already available

[treeves]

Great, but it sounds like it requires more knowledge (and work) than AdBlock to use, not less. So for the guy's grandma (stereotype of ignorant/lazy/fearful user) it's not the best way to go.

Re:Already available

[Ironica]

I think the real question is, whose Internet is it? Does it belong to the corporations, the marketers, the governments, and other monied interests? Or does it belong to the people who use and enjoy it?

At best, you're creating a false dichotomy here. "The Internet" doesn't belong to anyone. The hardware, data lines, servers, client machines, and content belong to a whole lot of different entities around the world; no one category of them "owns" the Internet. We're all in this together.

Insofar as laws identify who is the "owner" of a particular piece of content, and what that ownership means in terms of their rights, we're all subject to that (unless we're in a different jurisdiction that says we don't have to pay attention). But an awful lot of the internet would be too expensive to maintain without a revenue stream, and that revenue stream has two ends: the producers, and the consumers. Neither one has "ownership" of the internet in any meaningful way; each is a necessary part of the whole.

Re:Already available

[Auxbuss]

What I find really annoying is the summaries assertion that this is somehow 'web democracy'. Removing adverts and altering how other peoples work is used without their permission is about as similar to democracy as the concept of being able to punch someone in the face for saying something you don't like.

The hand-wringing over blocking adds, on the basis that you are altering folks' work, in hypocrisy.

Advertisers routinely licence snippets of audio from songs. They licence from the publishers, who have the "rights", but the complete track was the artist's intention. Thus, the work is being altered.

To say nothing of an entire album. Hands up who has never played an album track without listening to the whole album?

Of course, advertisers do the same with other artwork. Just because it's "out of copyright" doesn't mean using sections of it isn't altering the artist's work.

And you can go on.

We're still at Web 0.1 (beta) and its associated business practices are far behind that.

Marketing droids need to innovate as much, if not more, than the techs. But do the marketing droids know how?

Re:Already available

[VGPowerlord]

It's more like "yes, you have the right to say whatever you want within certain limits, but you do not have the right to force me to listen to any or all of what you say or to make me interpret it any particular way."

Of course, the flipside is also true: Content providers can change their page layout around randomly every day in order to break your customized layout/parser.

If this gets popular, that's most likely what they're going to do, to the detriment of the Internet at large.

I, for one, do not welcome our content-munging overlords.

Re:Already available

[causality]

I think the real question is, whose Internet is it? Does it belong to the corporations, the marketers, the governments, and other monied interests? Or does it belong to the people who use and enjoy it?

At best, you're creating a false dichotomy here. "The Internet" doesn't belong to anyone. The hardware, data lines, servers, client machines, and content belong to a whole lot of different entities around the world; no one category of them "owns" the Internet. We're all in this together.

Insofar as laws identify who is the "owner" of a particular piece of content, and what that ownership means in terms of their rights, we're all subject to that (unless we're in a different jurisdiction that says we don't have to pay attention). But an awful lot of the internet would be too expensive to maintain without a revenue stream, and that revenue stream has two ends: the producers, and the consumers. Neither one has "ownership" of the internet in any meaningful way; each is a necessary part of the whole.

My point was that the people in government and various corporations often forget that they are the servants of the people. When they forget this, they begin to believe that their interests should take precedence over those of the people. Then the people as a whole find themselves in the unenviable position of finding out that their politicians do not represent them, but rather, the corporate backers who get them into office. This comes into play when there is any question about those same politicians creating new regulations and laws for the Internet that favor various monied interests.

When you say "The Internet" doesn't belong to anyone, you are actually supporting my point. Anything that "doesn't belong to anyone" belongs to the people. What you have here are forces that want to treat it as their own personal property, to the point that they would oppose your free choices as to how you want to locally display information. This isn't about information and how it is displayed. This is about a claim of ownership where there should be none and the desire for control that goes along with it. Those same corporations quickly forget that they are nothing without those people who support them and buy their products and services. From time to time they need to be reminded of that fact and that they are our servants. If we fail to remind them of that by refusing to support their bids for control, then the next step is that anyone considers it legitimate that there should be a debate about how much control they should have over what we do with our own equipment.

Re:Already available

[causality]

It's more like "yes, you have the right to say whatever you want within certain limits, but you do not have the right to force me to listen to any or all of what you say or to make me interpret it any particular way."

Of course, the flipside is also true: Content providers can change their page layout around randomly every day in order to break your customized layout/parser.

If this gets popular, that's most likely what they're going to do, to the detriment of the Internet at large.

I, for one, do not welcome our content-munging overlords.

Let them do whatever they want. We don't need them, not anything like the way they need us. If they refuse to understand that and need to find it out the hard way, so be it. The more obnoxious they become and the less they respect what their users want, the more they alienate their target audience. What you describe represents a self-defeating, losing battle for those content producers. I actually hope that some of them try this; it will help get rid of the ones we can most easily do without.

No Web site is indispensable. Not Google, not Slashdot, not any of them. If 90% of all commercial Web sites shut down permanently and went completely out of business, I would be fine with that so long as the remaining 10% appreciated the privilege of having a Web presence that people want to visit (which they would, else they would not be in that remaining 10%). As a matter of fact, I think I'd like that Internet better than the one we have now. When you base your outlook on simple principles, you really don't have to worry so much about ten thousand "what ifs" like the one you bring up.

In extremely general terms, part of the reason why the world is so fucked up right now is because there is a severe shortage of people who are willing to set their foot down and say "this is wrong, I will not stand for it, I will not accept it, no matter how inconvenient that may be or what it might cost." If most people were willing to do that, you wouldn't have these silly power struggles to begin with. No one tries to assert control over you unless they first detect some kind of weakness in you (the hard part is admitting that you were not randomly targeted). Right now, that weakness is our collective addiction to convenience and instant gratification.

Re:Already available

[N1AK]

I don't understand why you think I should need your permission to increase the size of the font displayed in my browser when I view a web page from your server.

Given the nature of HTML, I think comparing text size modification with ad-blocking is little more than a straw man. Content providers really aren't going to care about how their content is displayed, with the exception of presentation that removes elements they believe to be important (advertising, internal site links and product promotion perhaps).

Another thing to consider is that as ad-blocking becomes more widely used it encourages people to present their content in a way that can't be ad-filtered. This means more flash websites, more adverts place over movie content, physical apps rather than web apps (spotify comes to mind) etc which has the downside of limiting our ability to control the presentation of the content in ways the company wouldn't of minded anyway.

Re:Already available

[IpalindromeI]

AdBlock lets you add your own definitions, too, even using regular expressions if you want.

Re:Already available

[quanticle]

Given the nature of HTML, I think comparing text size modification with ad-blocking is little more than a straw man.

Okay, how about if I tear out the ads from my copy of Time or my local paper? If those publishers cannot stop me from blocking (by physically removing) their ads, why should Web publishers be treated any differently?

Re:Already available

[quanticle]

Even if the marketing droids don't know how to innovate, its not up to us to figure it out for them. The Web is alive and well without them (unlike radio, or television, which required marketing to bring programming to the masses).

Re:Already available

[pacinpm]

What I find really annoying is the summaries assertion that this is somehow 'web democracy'. Removing adverts and altering how other peoples work is used without their permission is about as similar to democracy as the concept of being able to punch someone in the face for saying something you don't like.

Do you realize that Web browser can freely ignore lot's of stuff you consider such important? Imagine text based Web browser like Lynx - it can't show images, Java plugins, Flash. Am I "punching anyone in the face" when I am using Lynx? Am I punching in the face anyone when I skip comercial pages in Playboy and stop only to watch tits?

that explains it!

[Red Flayer]

By allowing users to modify the behavior, presentation, and output of Web apps and pages to their liking, Jetpack gives users the ability to 'patch the server, in a sense,' McAllister writes

And so the new slashdot layout is finally explained in full.

I keed, I keed. But seriously...

Revolution

[trifish]

The guy forgot just one important thing: Most people don't use Firefox.

Re:Revolution

[Darkness404]

Sure, but this is open source, chances are it will be implemented soon not only in Firefox but also Safari, Chrome, Konqueror, etc. Only IE will drag its feet in supporting this, but then again most people who use IE usually aren't major web surfers.

Re:Revolution

[harryandthehenderson]

but then again most people who use IE usually aren't major web surfers.

[Citation needed]

Re:Revolution

[trifish]

The browsers you named have even smaller market share than Firefox...

Re:Revolution

[Darkness404]

Ok, assuming that most major web surfers are at least somewhat computer literate and have at least heard of Firefox why wouldn't they switch? Other then web developers needing to have a copy of IE to test code why would anyone use IE when Chrome, Firefox, Safari, etc are all technologically superior and have more plugins?

Re:Revolution

[Darkness404]

Currently, yes but most of them are supported by large companies who promote them heavily, chances are almost every computer has at least one alternate browser other than IE installed, it might not be used, but it would still be installed, so whenever a site says best viewed in Safari, Firefox or Chrome most people would at least have one of those.

Re:Revolution

[harryandthehenderson]

Ok, assuming that most major web surfers are at least somewhat computer literate and have at least heard of Firefox why wouldn't they switch?

Because IE works for them and they don't care to switch? This is the same reason why many computer literate people don't ditch Windows for Linux. If a program or OS works perfectly for your needs there is no reason to switch.

Other then web developers needing to have a copy of IE to test code why would anyone use IE when Chrome, Firefox, Safari, etc are all technologically superior and have more plugins?/quote> Because not everyone cares about those features or needs them? Just because people use a different web browser than you doesn't make them computer illiterate or not a "major web surfer"

Re:Revolution

[harryandthehenderson]

chances are almost every computer has at least one alternate browser other than IE installed, it might not be used, but it would still be installed,

More made-up nonsense.

Re:Revolution

[geekoid]

More accurately, becasue they believe it works for them.
Whether or not it does work for them is not relevant.

BTW this applies for pretty much everything, not just I.E.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Content providers don't care about any browsers other than IE because they don't care about minorities.

Re:Revolution

[RudeIota]

The guy forgot just one important thing: Most people don't use Firefox.

Regardless of whether or not it is not more than half of web surfers, plenty of people use it. In fact, the percentage is so large, 'most' is moot. Most surveys show at least 30% market share.

Also, the number of FF users isn't worth bringing up anyhow - This article in no way says, "Teh Interwebs as we know it are ovur!". TFA simply says that this is a good STEP toward a more democratic web, although the TFS certainly sensationalized it quite a bit.

Numbers really don't matter here. What *does* matter though, is the idea that Jetpack has indirectly brought with it -- more control over web content. This will undoubtedly spread to other browsers in the form of plugins and such, making browser market share irrelevant.

Re:Revolution

[harryandthehenderson]

Exactly. If a person is perfectly satisfied with what they are using they have no incentive to switch.

Re:Revolution

[vtcodger]

***The browsers you named have even smaller market share than Firefox...***

True, but they are part of the pack that is nibbling away at the mindset of incompetent web site designers who think that the fact that their abomination worked once for about five minutes in IE means it is correct and the rest of the world is out of step. Sooner or later I'm going to lose it and go after some clown who suggests that I need to upgrade to a "modern web browser" on a site that fails W3C validation with hundreds of layout errors in its HTML.

I'm using konqueror to view Slashdot BTW. Firefox works fine, but it is klunky. IE is even klunkier. It's not awful. I can use it if I have to. I'd just prefer not to.

Re:Revolution

[just_another_sean]

Hey, just like with Linux if this *Revolution* allows me to do more, be more flexible, generally control how my experience works then it will be a success. As far as I'm concerned the minute an open source app makes the author(s) and even one other person more productive or happy is a success.

Re:Revolution

[SanityInAnarchy]

Most people also don't use ad-blocking.

And most people, when they try Firefox with Adblock installed, never go back.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Because IE works for them and they don't care to switch? This is the same reason why many computer literate people don't ditch Windows for Linux. If a program or OS works perfectly for your needs there is no reason to switch.

Nothing works "perfectly" for anyone. The issues with IE are not immediately obvious to the average user.

Website development is more expensive than it needs to be because web pages have to be coded to selectively ignore standards and work with IE. Not an issue unless you are paying the bill.

Security exploits and malware-loaded sites are just waiting for IE victims. People who experience identity theft and infected computers are generally not aware of IE and Windows as contributing factors. The victims think this is just something that happens when you have a computer. But it happens a lot more to some than to others. Spambot network owners are not in the habit of writing to their victims and explaining how a combination of Windows, IE, and stupid user behavior have turned their high-end PC into the ultimate spamming machine.

I switched to Mac for a number of reasons. One of them was to stop providing free PC tech support to relatives and friends. I told people I was switching and why. I advised them to do the same thing for their next computer. Some people followed my advice, but most did not. The people who switched said, "You were right! This is better!" The people who thought they were "perfectly" served by Windows/IE discovered things were not quite so perfect as before, since problems could no longer be handed off to free tech support. Some of these people are only now beginning to see the light. Others have simply diminished their expectations of computers in general, without giving much thought as to why theirs has suddenly become so dysfunctional.

I don't care if people change their browser or operating system. If asked for an opinion, I provide it. But I no longer sift through the rubble of infected and misconfigured PCs -- not mine or anyone else's. The absolute BEST way to rid the world of MS is to stop providing free help. It's frustrating and only temporarily helping the victim.

If people get a grip on how their choices of OS and browser affect their actual COST and PRODUCTIVITY, things will change. Too many people make bad choices because too many IT people enable them to do so. Let Geek Squad earn a living until the users have had enough.

Re:Revolution

[trifish]

This article in no way says, "Teh Interwebs as we know it are ovur!".

Don't know about TFA as I don't read crap. But TF summary certainly does say that.

Also, w3schools are a skewed demography. A reality check is here:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2

Re:Revolution

[tepples]

Ok, assuming that most major web surfers are at least somewhat computer literate and have at least heard of Firefox why wouldn't they switch?

Because only the Administrators group can install software, and only the IT department is in the Administrators group, and the IT department has standardized on Windows Internet Explorer, which runs the years-old intranet software best.

Re:Revolution

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

And let's not forget the fact that those who do won't be able to add most encrypted pages on the web to their jetpack mashups.

Re:Revolution

[QuoteMstr]

Because only the Administrators group can install software, and only the IT department is in the Administrators group

As a software developer, I'd demand quite a bit extra in salary if I had to deal with that bullshit. (Equivalently, I'd take a salary hit to be able to install and manage my own goddamn software, thank you very much.)

Re:Revolution

[causality]

I don't care if people change their browser or operating system. If asked for an opinion, I provide it. But I no longer sift through the rubble of infected and misconfigured PCs -- not mine or anyone else's. The absolute BEST way to rid the world of MS is to stop providing free help. It's frustrating and only temporarily helping the victim.

I think you nailed it right there. Doctors aren't generally expected to practice medicine for free. Electricians aren't generally expected to rewire your house for free. Yet computing is one area where the specialist who has devoted time and effort and discipline to learning his craft is often expected to work for free. This is compounded by the fact that most of the things they are expected to help with are not general maintainence but rather, are directly or indirectly caused by user error.

Nothing works "perfectly" for anyone. The issues with IE are not immediately obvious to the average user.

[...]

If people get a grip on how their choices of OS and browser affect their actual COST and PRODUCTIVITY, things will change. Too many people make bad choices because too many IT people enable them to do so. Let Geek Squad earn a living until the users have had enough.

We live in a superficial society. One result of that fact is that people generally fail to recognize anything that isn't immediately smack-you-in-the-face undeniably obvious. This doesn't just apply to computing. Most "crises" you see the talking heads go on about on the news were both foreseeable and preventable; it's just that the early stages aren't so obvious and undeniable as the full-blown crisis. While having contempt for it is the wrong way to handle it, it genuinely IS contemptible, particularly since it isn't generally recognized as a problem that people should be doing something about.

Your solution to it is the best one: leave them to their own devices. Most people are not virtuous enough to want to improve their decision-making when someone else is willing to deal with the fallout from their poor decisions. That is, they aren't virtuous enough to do a thing because it's the right thing to do, but they will change their ways if they have to deal with the problems they cause. Maybe that wouldn't rid the world of MS. Maybe it would cause their "easy to use, effort-free, no thought or consideration needed!" type of marketing to become more realistic, which would be an improvement all by itself.

Re:Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

And the point is?

Re:Revolution

[csartanis]

Sorry, but any computer literate user will have found one of the many frustrations with IE's horrible functionality and looked for a better choice.

I posit that there is no web developer or power user that actually uses IE by personal choice.

Re:Revolution

[LordMyren]

Ok, assuming that most major web surfers are at least somewhat computer literate and have at least heard of Firefox why wouldn't they switch? Other then web developers needing to have a copy of IE to test code why would anyone use IE when Chrome, Firefox, Safari, etc are all technologically superior and have more plugins?

Users need compelling reason to switch. Technological superiority doesnt sell itself, there needs to be a reason to move, a reason to download something else and to relearn a new interface and to shuffle bookmarks and customizations into a new system.

Systems like Extensions and Jetpack exist as precursors to incentives: they themselves offer nothing of value to end users, and only serve as progenitors for incentives to be created.

These incentives are still highly detached: a user isnt saying, I'm switching to Firefox so I can use Vimperator, they're saying, I'm switching to firefox so I can go find and install the Vimperator plugin. And typically its not one particular plugin, its the accrued group of plugins each user build that makes them dedicated to Firefox, there are very few killer features. To answer your question, the immediate value proposition of switching to Firefox is minimal: it and IE are both web browsers, and they generally render most sites with parity.

Jetpack and its father-in-kind Chrome Extensions in particular are trying to close the loop some, and at least increase accessibility of enhancements.

Re:Revolution

[harryandthehenderson]

Sorry, but any computer literate user will have found one of the many frustrations with IE's horrible functionality and looked for a better choice.

So you assert, but many computer literate users have no issues using IE and have for years. Just because you dislike IE, or the way it works, or how it looks doesn't mean that everyone shares your opinion.

I posit that there is no web developer or power user that actually uses IE by personal choice.

Sure if your selection pool is slashdot or people at your LUG, then yes you probably won't.

Re:Revolution

[LordMyren]

The browsers you named have even smaller market share than Firefox...

Yes but they're technologically better i.e. not cobbled together XPCOM & XUL running in a single thread. They also have more cohesive direction and leadership. I'd cite Chrome's Extensions as a perfect example of everything Jetpack ought to have been, for one example of where that direction shows.

Users dont care about the technological background of what they use is irrelevant, but my hope is that as embedded takes off, we'll see the better designed solutions are more adaptable to stranger & more limited environments. This will grow the user base of the margin browsers without users knowing or having choice: pre and iphone are forerunning examples.

Also, better design, such as Chrome Extensions, will hopefully lead to a better ecosystem surrounding the product. Thats really the key. Firefox has a colossal lead in building an ecosystem, as for ten years its been the only one building an ecosystem at all, but developers are finnicky people, and its ultimately them and their preference of technologies that dictates where cool shit gets built. If Chrome or Safari or Opera comes up with a more compelling more empowering developer experience, it can shift the balance of where new edgy innovative shit gets made. Whether or not that cool edgy innovative shit is compelling enough to herd the rest of the cats following is TBD. Its up to the competing browsers to potentiate the space to make that move compelling.

Re:Revolution

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Aza Raskin, Mozilla head of user experience and the one who is spearheading Jetpack, has stated (one link deep from TFA) ""The question we asked ourselves is what [would happen] if any eighth-grader that can write a Web page [could] fundamentally enhance the functionality of the browser"", and TFA states a "goal of allowing anyone who can build a Web site to participate in making the Web a better place to work, communicate and play".

The majority of people don't know HTML, let alone CSS, and then add to that a JavaScript requirement. Now that we have established a population base, of the people who know HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, how many are using Firefox? Who in their right mind would want to do anything complicated in JavaScript without firebug (and its associated FirePHP for PHP AJAX developers), as well as extensions such as Web Developer, DOM Inspector, Live HTTP Headers, etc...

If one defines the new breed of "major web surfers" as Web 2.0 Mashup creators, it should be apparent that this new breed of "major web surfer" would refuse to be crippled by Internet Explorer. Its only if you retain the old skool view of couch potato surfing content consumer that IE market share dominates.

Disclaimer: I hold these truths to be self-evident, but only time will tell.

Re:Revolution

[causality]

Sorry, but any computer literate user will have found one of the many frustrations with IE's horrible functionality and looked for a better choice.

So you assert, but many computer literate users have no issues using IE and have for years. Just because you dislike IE, or the way it works, or how it looks doesn't mean that everyone shares your opinion.

I posit that there is no web developer or power user that actually uses IE by personal choice.

Sure if your selection pool is slashdot or people at your LUG, then yes you probably won't.

There is one exception to what I am about to say. That exception is those folks who, for business reasons, need to use legacy software or programs for which there are few or no non-Windows alternatives, such as CAD programs. Because of those business reasons, I don't consider that to be a completely free choice because factors other than actual preference are forcing the outcome of their decision. Having said that ...

I have never, ever, not once, met a person who was highly skilled with Windows, Linux, and MacOSX who still freely chose to run Windows on his/her own personal computer. I have met people who were skilled with Windows but not very familiar with Linux who decided to stick with what they know, but that too is something other than an informed preference. With all things being completely equal, I have never known a skilled person who is equally comfortable in multiple operating systems and browsers who preferred Windows and IE. I'm sure they are out there somewhere, but I have never seen them. In my personal opinion, Microsoft knows this, which is why they use various vendorlock and embrace-extend tactics, because if they thought their products were inherently superior and could compete in a completely free and open market, they wouldn't use those tactics.

Re:Revolution

[skeeto]

Your solution to it is the best one: leave them to their own devices. Most people are not virtuous enough to want to improve their decision-making when someone else is willing to deal with the fallout from their poor decisions.

One of the most insightful comments I ever read on Slashdot. Thanks!

2010 News Headlines

[Anonymous Coward]

WIPO Calls for Criminalization of Open-source Software.

Mozilla Jetpack Developers Sent to Federal Prison

New US Law Makes Receiving Content from Independent Providers Illegal

Web Surfers Must Use Government-Licensed Web Browsers

Attn: CmdrTaco

[harryandthehenderson]

CmdrTaco, you posted this dupe to early as the last one was only posted 8 days ago. You are supposed to wait at least a month before duping. Thank you.

Sorry Dudes...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Dear "Content Providers",

However much you might dislike this fact, the internet is not actually television, nor can web pages be designed as though it is(put down the flash and back away slowly).

Re:Sorry Dudes...

[XPeter]

Huh? I don't even bother sitting down and turning on the tube to watch my shows live, I watch them on hulu the next day.

Re:Sorry Dudes...

[EdZ]

Dear "Customers"

For too long have you created and shared content amongst yourselves without it passing through our hands first, thus depriving us of our entitled revenue. Luckily we have more lobbying money than you, so this state of affairs will not continue.

Re:Sorry Dudes...

[IANAAC]

Huh? I don't even bother sitting down and turning on the tube to watch my shows live, I watch them on hulu the next day.

So do I. Except I use my 42" television screen. And a remote. Through Boxee.

Re:Sorry Dudes...

[geekoid]

Dear "Content Providers",

Good luck with that.

Signed,
BitTorrent.

Re:Sorry Dudes...

[sjames]

From day one, the actual rendering (or not) of HTML was intended to be user configurable. HTML was intended to be semantic tagging, not some sort of paste-up specification. A P tag specifies a paragraph, but does not specify what the browser does with a paragraph. The default is a reasonably sane rendering, but if the user wants something else, that's their call. All of the stuff like font, etc and CSS are strong suggestions which most browsers happen to accept and follow by default.

'Content Providers' in print media cannot stop me from drawing Hitler mustaches or horns on the ads in magazines I buy and they can't stop me from wearing tinted glasses when I read them.

Television 'Content providers' cannot stop me from hitting mute, modifying my TV to display the picture upside down, or creating funny commercial mash-ups by changing channels right after the voiceover asks a question.

They'd love the right to strap us down and give us the Clockwork Orange treatment, but that's not something they can have.

Re:Sorry Dudes...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

They can't stop you from hitting mute, but they will argue in open court that there exists an implied contract to watch the advertisements. Hence, going to get a beer during a commercial would put you in breach. Certainly not saying I agree with this mindset, but it does exist and its many more standard deviations from the norm than a rational person would expect it could be.

Re:Sorry Dudes...

[sjames]

They would argue that, but they (unlike the *AA) understand that suing their audience would backfire and that their argument would never fly.

Instead, they try to adapt. These days, commercials are often designed so that some semblance of their message gets across even when being fast forwarded on a VHS tape. That's fading away now that people are doing instant skipping on DVRs rather than using VHS.

They still haven't caught on that they get muted less when they don't try to shatter your windows with super hot audio.

Re:Sorry Dudes...

[Lehk228]

they could argue that in court, but they will have a hard time getting their lawyers to do it for them, as they don't want to get fined and disbarred.

Re:Sorry Dudes...

[Anonymous Coward]

"They'd love the right to strap us down and give us the Clockwork Orange treatment, but that's not something they can have."

The goal is not to captivate all of us, but only enough of us for them to make a continuous profit. The minority of objectors, however greatly annoyed they become at the inane tactics to which they are exposed, are inconsequential in the overall scheme.

In other words, there will always exist a sufficient level of gullibility for them to succeed, and the objections of the wise will always remain unheeded.

In yet other words, the users of Jetpack cannot make a difference against those who do not/will not use it.

Re:Sorry Dudes...

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never heard of this thing called "proprietary technology", have you?

Seriously indeed

[weston]

I've *long* had my slashdot layout set to the minimal markup and styling. That's how I like it. I'm not even sure I can find that setting anymore, and it's not respected in my front page views anymore. Though strangely, it sometimes is when I'm viewing and replying to comments...

Re:Seriously indeed

[FudRucker]

let me guess, the only item in your bookmarks is http://slashdot.org/ and the homepage of your browser is set to http://slashdot.org/

Re:Seriously indeed

[visible.frylock]

Option is here, the simple design option.

Lately, if they don't have the css working, it may not be respected on the front page and on user profile pages, but it usually works for me in the comments.

"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[abigsmurf]

So... Tools that make it even easier to strip the content from people who've spent their free time running websites that are expensive, using their bandwidth to do so? How is this democratic? A democracy is about having a say in how a country (the web) is run, not having your say over individuals (websites). It's easy to spin it as "giving the user control back from the big bad corporations" but there are scores of good websites producing quality content that do struggle to even cover costs, let alone make a profit.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Darkness404]

Donations, donations, donations and merchandise, merchandise, merchandise. If your website is good enough and enough people like it ads don't have to be your sole source of income, donations and merchandise have supported many, many sites. The problem is, like all things in the free market if your content is crap no one wants to donate and your site dies.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Richard_at_work]

Yeah, cos the answer to everything is linked sales and charity. Now, not only do you have to produce your title product (the website content), but you also have to produce a *second* product to sell to actually make money, and/or rely on the undying generosity of others. Thats going to work well....

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[geekoid]

So?
The internet is designed to allow the user to control how they view content. That is what it does. Don't come whining becasue some people chose to work in that medium.

It's like that guy that buys a house near an airport and then complains the planes are loud. Maybe you should ahve chosen a different medium.

Just becasue some one writes a book, doesn't man I can rearrange the words in the copy I bought, and just becasue you create a website doesn't mean I can change how I want to view it,

It's like complaining becasue someone can change the tint on their TV and ruin the artistic vision of the director.
It is democratic becasue it gives the power to the people. More specifically, it's a Direct Democracy where the people make the decisions. In this case, the decision how they wish to view something.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo. Fucking. Hoo.

Content producers need to get over the idea that they have the right to control what users view or how they view it.

Visually impaired users that have text pages read to them won't likely be exposed to ads.

Users that are aurally-impaired won't hear their annoying flash ads with some person talking about how they can save on a mortgage.

The web was not created as some vehicle for guaranteed commercial enterprise.

If their broken business model depends on shoving undesirable content down the throats of web users to sustain themselves, they deserve to go out of business.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[RetroGeek]

I am not responsible for adhering to someone else's idea of a business model.

IOW, just because someone has an idea of a layout/content they want to flog on the Internet, it does not follow that I agree with that idea. If they were to provide layout/content with which I agree, then I would not want to modify it.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[geekoid]

If you have a following, it works awesome. Sadly it gets poo-pooed by people that can't cope with the fact that they really aren't that good.

Believe me, if PvpOnline can get a large following, then artistic skill doesn't have to be much past mediocre

Second products are usually the original product plastered onto something else.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Darkness404]

There are many sites on the web that produce things like T-shirts, etc that all you need to do is put a logo or image on them and then people order them, they produce them and ship them. Not sure how much profit you get, but it would still be a good way to get money. Donations work for any site that has dedicated readers, sure you aren't going to be the next millionaire, but it should offset the hosting costs.

And really if the hosting costs are too high for you, either use P2P to distribute any high bandwidth files (MP3s, etc) or switch to a free site such as Blogspot or Myspace if its a personal site or blog. Really there aren't any sites that cost tons of money to run for free that don't have a dedicated fanbase unless its crap content. If you have an example please, tell me.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[harryandthehenderson]

You seem to have built up this notion that you deserve to get any money or something just because you "produced" something. If what you made was worth something people would be willing to give you money through donations or buying goods from you. If you are only able to make money purely by adword page hits then you probably suck at what you're doing.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[rob1980]

Tell that to every successful webcomic out there right now.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Richard_at_work]

You seem to have built up this notion that you deserve to get free access to any content that you wish, simply because you wish to. Yes, content producers certainly have the right to try and profit from their creation.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Abcd1234]

So... Tools that make it even easier to strip the content from people who've spent their free time running websites that are expensive, using their bandwidth to do so? How is this democratic? A democracy is about having a say in how a country (the web) is run, not having your say over individuals (websites).

So PVRs that skip commercials are undemocratic because the viewer is altering the content before they view it?

Interesting...

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Richard_at_work]

You do realise that a particular business model is not suitable in all situations, right? This is why there is a huge diversity in businesses out there...

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[harryandthehenderson]

You seem to have built up this notion that you deserve to get free access to any content that you wish, simply because you wish to.

No, I haven't said anything of the sort. I don't believe anyone deserves to get free access to content if the owner doesn't want to.

Yes, content producers certainly have the right to try and profit from their creation.

Sure they have to the right to try to profit from their works but too many of them feel that they are entitled to success and then blame piracy, etc for when they make little or no money rather than maybe looking to see if what they produced was even worth something.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Anonymous Coward]

"content" is just information. information wants to be free. i do "deserve" to get any content that i wish simply because i wish it, because any alternative to that is unnatural. you cannot sing a song and then tell me i don't have the "right" to hear it. that's ludicrous. you can't stop the air from vibrating, you can't stop the vibrations from reaching my ears, and you can't stop the message from reaching my brain. all content is free, and if you don't like it, stop making content. no one will notice, no one will care.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Tsujiku]

Then perhaps they shouldn't try to pawn their creation through a medium which isn't designed to give them total control over their product.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[drinkypoo]

A democracy is about having a say in how a country (the web) is run, not having your say over individuals (websites).

The web server provides you with numerous tools to control how the user receives your content. How they view it after that is not up to you, and never has been.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[SanityInAnarchy]

If your ads are annoying enough that people are willing to write code to block them, your business model sucks. Give me tasteful ads, or I'll remove them.

The real question is, would you rather have me view your page without ads, or not view your page at all?

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Anonymous Coward]

So put your content behind a paywall; if you provide really good content (for example thoroughly researched dossiers in international politics) and the abstracts are free (need to have some hook) and it's easy to pay for single one or a bunch, or a longer subscription you can make a living.

The problem with ads is that unless you manage your ads in-house (or you just don't care about your users') there will be some really obnoxius ones (pop-up, pop-under, DHTML popups, whatnot) ones, which is exactly the reason people run noscript, abp et co (also, flash banners and animated banners in general are really annoying).

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, yes we do seem to keep coming up with this battle. Those who want things for free and those who want to make a living doing what interests them. Use to be with physical goods there was a one to one relationship between the customers satisfaction and the creators lively hood. Now we have an apathetic public that despite protests to the contrary, evidence shows a disconnect between those who spend long hours and years of education engaging in the art of creation and those who want to be gratified NOW. Bolstered by cheap technology that makes it easy to not only break the one to one, but tilt it overwhelmingly in favor of an entity that's consumer in the voracious appetite sense. In the face of those who see you as a free buffet the alternatives are few.* Stop putting anything on the table, or adopting the "walled garden" approach were one's monthly fee discourages the "food I'm paying for wants to be free" mentality.

*Of course those who see themselves as "patrons" can do the honorable thing and become cooks themselves. It would be interesting to see what happens when the role's are reversed. Bon apatite.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[cdrguru]

Piracy is the art of taking something that was worth something and making it worth nothing. Once it is free, the cost is zero and the value for many people is also zero.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Attila Dimedici]

So? The internet is designed to allow the user to control how they view content. That is what it does. Don't come whining becasue some people chose to work in that medium.

It's like that guy that buys a house near an airport and then complains the planes are loud.

Unfortunately, it is starting to look like the people who bought houses next to a farm and then got the government to stop the farmer from spreading manure on the field (that the farmer owned) next to their houses because they didn't like the smell (this actually happened).

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[cayenne8]

"You seem to have built up this notion that you deserve to get free access to any content that you wish..."

Well, that's pretty much the intent of the web, considering how it and the protocols were developed.

Money and commercialism were secondary thoughts, they came along and tried to jump on afterwards. So, it isn't any surprise that it is an uphill battle for the paid content stuff. The WWW was never designed to be commercial. Money for content is a relatively new thing to be introduced to the medium.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[drinkypoo]

content producers certainly have the right to try and profit from their creation.

Sure... and users have the right to attempt to get media on their terms.

If copyright law doesn't serve the will of the people, what good is it?

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like that guy that buys a house near an airport and then complains the planes are loud.

Very offtopic, but it's actually the people who have their houses a little further away from the airport that complain about the planes. I live literally over the road from London Heathrow. I can't hear the planes at all from my house.

At work, 8 miles away, if the wind is right the planes are loud enough to drown out a conversation.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Thaelon]

It's actually more like UI mods for games.

You can either attempt to fight it (an arms race you'll lose) or embrace it and get users to do hard stuff for you for free.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Anonymous Coward]

there are scores of good websites producing quality content that do struggle to even cover costs, let alone make a profit.

Those websites don't have any inherent right to cover costs or make a profit.

No matter how insightful your blog is, if you connect it to the internet you give everyone the right to read it without giving you anything in return.

I'm sick of people thinking they deserve to blog full-time and expect the rest of us to provide them of income. Get a job, sheesh.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[kungfugleek]

It's like that guy that buys a house near an airport and then complains the planes are loud.

I see it as more like the guy that buys a house near an airport, then insulates his house against the noise, then finds the airport's lawyers at his front door demanding that he remove the noise insulation and listen to airplanes whether he wants to or not, due to the "privilege" of living so close to the airport.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[harryandthehenderson]

Piracy is the art of taking something that was worth something and making it worth nothing.

But if no one wanted your product to begin with it was already worthless. Just because these content "producers" think they are entitled to vast sums of money over any little thing they shit out doesn't mean that what they made was anything of value.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[shutdown -p now]

You have a right to put as many ads on your website as you desire, and introduce technological measures that would make filtering out ads harder. This is called "freedom".

I have a right to avoid looking at your ads by any means at my disposal, including automated ad blockers. This is also called "freedom".

Let's respect each others' freedoms, shall we?

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to check out the fundamental idea of how a markup language works. That's what the "ML" in HTML stands for. You know that, right?

Someone serving content on the internet via standard markup never had the ability to enforce how anyone chooses to view or render their content. Sure, as a developer we strive to make websites look nice and be useful with the most common markup viewers (browsers) but nothing prevents a user from using something different, even something as raw as wget, to see our content.

Again, content providers on the internet never had a right to enforce a standard consumption of their content. If you choose to send it to someone, it's out of your hands at that moment.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[abigsmurf]

And content advisors are under no obligation to supply you content at their financial cost.

Maybe you look forward to a future of websites written entirely by amateurs that provide only articles written by a select few still profitable businesses with little to no real investigative journalism but I don't.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's democratic as in "vote with your jetpack".

You go ahead and patronize whatever advertisers your favourite site has, if you want, and I'll buy whatever the fuck I need and in the mean time block all the ads I can.

Or maybe we should force feed users with ads ala Clockwork Orange.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[abigsmurf]

They're not entitled to success, They're entitled to compensation for services provided.

If I fix a boiler, I want to be paid to do it. If I write a book, and people read it, I would like for that book to have been bought, if I create a webpage, I want people to pay for it by viewing the ads.

The snide 'oh those greedy fatcats feel they deserve to make millions' type comment is belittling the fact that people do need money to get by in life. It's not greed to ask for people to pay for a service. If millions of people are enjoying someone you made you're entitled to get something out of that if you want to.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[abigsmurf]

If no one wanted it, it wouldn't be pirated at all. Piracy happens 95% of the time because people don't want to pay for something. They then come up with excuses that let them feel justified (DRM, oh it's rubbish I hated spending 30 hours completing it, etc.) . For the vast majority of these cases there is zero stopping someone from getting a pirated/cracked version of something, then buying the product anyway to support the producers.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[LordMyren]

People have already voted with their feet & said that they have the right to access the content you send us in whatever form we want. If your business model revolves around force feeding us bullshit we dont want to see, you've been outvoted. It sucks that it hurts small indie sites, but its more important that we have 2.0 Voltaire: "I may not agree with how you view your content, but I will defend to the death your right to view as you choose." And that, brother, is liberty.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[LordMyren]

You seem to have built up this notion that you deserve to get free access to any content that you wish, simply because you wish to.

I'm sympathetic, but thats stretching it friend. Dont push your luck.

Sure, I agree content producers have the right to try and get payed. But VCR's have given us the legal power to view content under our own terms for ages. You cant turn that off and say, content producers, you have the right to produce content that can be viewed only under your own terms. You cant say "you can only view this standing on your head" and expect people to, like cattle to your call, all dutifully turn and stand on their heads for you. If content producers want payment, they need to find a way to get payed that doesnt involve dictating how users view the media, in part because users wont consume burdensome content, and in part because you cant build a system strong enough to enforce usage rights. Users dont expect free content, but they have ready access to colossal amounts of it, and they'd prefer consuming poor media on their terms above good media on someone elses terms. Its up the content producers to figure out how to monetize good content, but you're incorrectly assuming that the content producer gets to dictate the entire experience and gets to package content, just as TV packed ads bypassed by VCR.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[harryandthehenderson]

You know, I really don't know why you posted this in reply to my post because I never said anywhere in my post that people should get the services of other's for free. In fact I explicitly state the opposite:

I don't believe anyone deserves to get free access to content if the owner doesn't want to.

The snide 'oh those greedy fatcats feel they deserve to make millions' type comment is belittling the fact that people do need money to get by in life.

It's not greed to ask for people to pay for a service.

Again you seem to be arguing against someone else's post and not mine because I never claimed this.

If millions of people are enjoying someone you made you're entitled to get something out of that if you want to.

Well sure you do. But the fact is that many people who produce content that ends up not selling well will end up blaming everyone but themselves for their failures which is my point. I don't know where in my post I ever said I supported piracy or being forced to give away things for free which you seem to be attacking me as if I said.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[LordMyren]

Worth nothing PERHAPS, but does this transformation make it now without value?

Moralizing aside, I disagree about worth nothing: there are plenty of album sales that happen only because of music discovered via piracy. Plenty of artists are jumping on the bandwagon and finding that it takes making valueable art free (without worth) to make good money... Trent Reznor, TMBG, and every band under the sun with a MySpace page.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[civilizedINTENSITY]

No one is saying I should have the right to deface your website. Rather, what you serve is up to you. However, once I receive that content and I am displaying it locally, I have the right to tweak the suggestions your server are supplying my browser. Furthermore, I have the right to distribute my tweaks, since they don't effect what your server transmits (just what a friend's browser does with what you transmit after its recieved and being displayed locally).

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[civilizedINTENSITY]

If the business model doesn't work, work another business model. Don't try to create artificial scarcity through legislation to promote a business model that neither 1) works on its own, nor 2) promotes the "Progress of Science and useful Arts". Thats called stealing. The process involved to steal this way is a form of corruption. Don't.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"You seem to have built up this notion that you deserve to get free access to any content that I display publicly." There, fixed that for you. Unfortunately for you, once that is fixed, your point is lost.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[civilizedINTENSITY]

So if we could create perfect copies of the paintings such as the Mona Lisa, and sculptures such as David, the net worth of the world would be diminished by placing these perfect copies in publicly accessible places? How does radically increasing the beauty of our civilization result in degrading its worth? This only works if you posit that "worth" means the free market price the original would go for at auction, and refuse to take into account the net effect of having great master's art in parks throughout the world.

I think what you meant to say was, "Piracy is the art of taking something that was worth something due to scarcity, and making it worth nothing due to lack of any intrinsic natural scarcity. Once it is free, the cost is zero and the value for many resellers in the supply chain is also zero.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[civilizedINTENSITY]

I like your analogy. I see the farmer as those who originally created the web. Business moved in, and now they want to farmer to stop spreading manure so that they can make money displaying the view to tourists. "We don't need you to grow more food, we had enough to eat today already. We'd rather spend the rest of the day making money."

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Darkness404]

Then tell me of one single website that went under because of funding that A) Had a donation page B) Wasn't poorly managed or C) Had content that most people deemed worthless. You really can't find one, bandwidth these days is unbelievably cheap, domain names can be gotten for cheap, and hosting isn't that expensive either. If you keep running out of bandwidth you are obviously popular so then you can sell merchandise or ask for donations. I don't know of any website that really shut down because of a lack of funding.

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sympathetic, but thats stretching it friend. Dont push your luck.

Ooooh, wow tough-guy, you sound so big and scary don't you! Maybe you picked up that badass attitude of yours by living in some overpopulated/densely-populated shithole like most American cities. You know, your sympathy is so important to us, we'd really be pushing our luck and indeed our very fortune by asking you to go beyond your sympathies. You're so important and self-important like that, you big tough-guy you!

Re:"one step closer to a more democratic Web"

[Eil]

So... Tools that make it even easier to strip the content from people who've spent their free time running websites that are expensive, using their bandwidth to do so? How is this democratic? A democracy is about having a say in how a country (the web) is run, not having your say over individuals (websites). It's easy to spin it as "giving the user control back from the big bad corporations" but there are scores of good websites producing quality content that do struggle to even cover costs, let alone make a profit.

Even though you clearly wouldn't agree, I believe that I have the right to filter, block, store, mangle, encrypt, decrypt, decompile, disassemble, sort, munge, rearrange, repurpose, or otherwise process any traffic that flows onto my network regardless of whether or not such traffic has advertisements on it or not.

Just because you buy a web hosting account and put up a site does not mean you are automatically entitled by law or moral code to make some tiny amount of money every time someone visits it. If you want your little corner of the Internet to be a toll booth, then make it a paysite or figure out a real business model instead. It is simply not my job to make sure that somebody out there in the world gets revenue every time I pull up a web page in my browser.

Information wants to be free

[bzzfzz]

And I'm not going to let powerful third parties control how my computer works and what I can see and do.

More power to Jetpack.

I Don't Think It's a Dupe

[eldavojohn]

CmdrTaco, you posted this dupe to early as the last one was only posted 8 days ago. You are supposed to wait at least a month before duping. Thank you.

Today's article is more centered on the battle that the author believes is about to transpire between content providers and users. If you're having trouble finding these parts:

Content producers, on the other hand, might not be so thrilled.

He goes on to cite the New York Times effort to provide an open API to their stories as well as Michael Lynton, Sony CEO Troll and wraps up with Obama's often referenced cybersecurity czar (god, I hate typing that):

So far, calls for action such as Lynton's have mostly fallen on deaf ears. But with President Obama due to announce a "cybersecurity czar" this week, there is every indication that the U.S. government is ready to become more directly involved in the workings of the Internet and the Web. According to the White House, the new position will have "broad authority" over the nation's computer networks, both public and private. If that authority includes protecting the economic interests of American Web-based businesses, we could be heading for a helluva scuffle.

I wouldn't call it a dupe as this gives us something new to talk about from a blog.

power to the people

[Scrameustache]

So... Tools that make it even easier to strip the content from people who've spent their free time running websites that are expensive, using their bandwidth to do so? How is this democratic?

Don't make websites that suck and the People won't have to jetpack the suck out of it.

Re:power to the people

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll still get other sites stealing content, or wrapping their own frame around your page (see digg).

Re:power to the people

[Improv]

We will still, of course, strip out the adverts, because adverts suck.

Re:power to the people

[Quantumstate]

I use adblock plus but I have my own filter list put in there. The reason for this is because I don't want to block all of the ads. I have a website with adverts which help pay for the running costs. My site uses text adverts exclusively because I don't want my readers to be annoyed or overly inconvenienced by them.

The adverts that I block are the flash adverts and the animated gif adverts as well as any pop under things or other annoyances. I block these because for a start they are annoying to look at and flash etc. But mainly because my computer is not new, my broadband is average so they slow my web browser down. I used to have cases where my cpu would hit 100% and scrolling would crawl, just because of the adverts. Before I installed adblock I would tend to just close the tab but flash seems to leak memory a bit and I would also be interested in the articles (maybe I shouldn't read the articles without the ads but morally I am not that strict). Now I can happily browse the web and I do sometimes click on text ads if they interest me and I happened to notice them.

Re:power to the people

[QuoteMstr]

Now I can happily browse the web and I do sometimes click on text ads if they interest me and I happened to notice them.

Exactly! That's what people mean when they say that ad-blocking is democratic. They mean it literally: ad-blocking allows the public to participate in determining the proper balance between advertising and content. That's democracy in its most literal sense.

Re:power to the people

[Anonymous Coward]

So we blow out the adverts that suck, and in the end we are left with atmospheric pressure?

Jetpack?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I said "This is 2009, where the fuck is my jetpack?", that's not what I meant.

Crappiest. Name. Ever.

Pining for the good old days

[spun]

I miss the days when just about everyone using the web was a developer, user, and content producer all in one. I think we all saw the commercial 'content producer' jackals circling and licking their lips, but we thought we had the power to fend them off, that the web would never be fully commercialized like every other media. How wrong we were.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[Anonymous Coward]

I miss the days when the most common message over the internet and email was, "when are you going to be in, so I can call you."

Re:Pining for the good old days

[Captain Splendid]

Pissant. I miss the days before we had a telephone. Fucking thing always annoyed me.

Now get off my lawn.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[EnglishTim]

Pff. I don't pine for those days. You couldn't do half the cool shit you can do with the web now back then, and lots of those things would never have happened without commercial interests getting involved.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[Bigjeff5]

Captain Splended (673276) to spun (1352):

Now get off my lawn.

Never thought I'd see the day.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[Ragzouken]

Are we reading the same thread? He was responding to an anonymous coward.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[MindStalker]

Except for a bit of expansion in DHTML and Flash, you could do everything then that you could do now. The only differences is bandwidth and processing power. The real dynamic changes have been the underlying programming languages and the use of backed databases. You could do it all in perl back then, just no one really thought to.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[ground.zero.612]

50% = downloading porn 50% = posting useless comments on a public forum Yeah, I'd have to disagree and say you could do everything back then that you can today!

Re:Pining for the good old days

[ShieldW0lf]

There is practically nothing new you can do today that you couldn't do before. The main differences are:

a) The old ways of doing things were more vulnerable to abuse, which never prevented you from using them properly. Think IFRAMES and popups.

b) The common desktop PC is capable of handling complex Javascript where before it would be too slow to be useable on low end machines.

c) The average person has a high speed connection where before they didn't, so all the things that used to be LAN only are now useful across the Internet.

That is pretty much it. All the "progress" was about making the browser less capable than it used to be in the name of security. Whose security is being safeguarded is subject to debate.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[multisync]

He probably browses at 1 and didn't see the AC's post.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[Lord Bitman]

why would anyone use perl now? Has the perl6 revolution come without anyone noticing?

Re:Pining for the good old days

[wealthychef]

This reminds me of a conversation with a friend about C++. He told me, and it was true, "I don't use C++, you can do it all in straight C." I just couldn't make him see that the fact that it's EASIER to do with all that "sugar" is a real benefit, resulting in things getting done in reality that wouldn't get done if they weren't so easy. Not everyone wants to use a hand saw to cut their wood.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[Lord Bitman]

I'd still like to know why frames are considered bad. Take your average web page, which is most likely to be a blog or a video of two girls dressed as robots shoving bananas into each-other's ears (while naked [not in conflict with the previous parts of this sentence, I assure you]). In both cases, the layout, most of navigation, etc, does not change from page to page. People build huge and complex templating systems, entire frameworks, around the idea of making those things be added automatically on the back-end. A lot of that could be saved if:

were valid. I think frames had the right idea, and shouldn't have been outcast without anything taking its place.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[RobotRunAmok]

By "content producer jackals" do you mean, like, actual writers, artists, and design professionals? Yeah, it's a real shame they found the web. I really, really miss the blink tags and those spinning yellow-and-black "under construction" graphics.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[ShieldW0lf]

This reminds me of a conversation with a friend about C++. He told me, and it was true, "I don't use C++, you can do it all in straight C." I just couldn't make him see that the fact that it's EASIER to do with all that "sugar" is a real benefit, resulting in things getting done in reality that wouldn't get done if they weren't so easy. Not everyone wants to use a hand saw to cut their wood.

Yes, but in this case, there really isn't much that makes it easier. The sugar you're thinking of comes from libraries, not from significant improvements in the underlying technology. For example, if your fancy AJAX libraries are any good, they degrade to IFRAMES transparently... mute evidence that they could have existed several generations ago. And they did, they just weren't used outside of a LAN, and they weren't shared around as much.

Every time I hear about Web 2.0 and how revolutionary it is, I think back to how proud I was creating my first powerful Web 2.0 style app that ran across a corporate LAN, only to find that the secretary couldn't use it because her P133 choked validating a long form and the road warriors couldn't use them because they were on a modem, so I had to gut it all out and move it to the server.

It really is nothing but a pack of buzzwords and marketing.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[Saint Stephen]

You wouldn't say that if you saw C done properly.

C++ objects are just a set of methods with a hidden "this*" parameter passed to each one. All the multiple virtual inheritance are just different ways of finding an offset to this*. Nothing stopping you from doing that in C - except you can be a lot more flexible, and just use your own logic to pass this* or that* without all that silly inheritance.

You just have to learn how to write real code, that's all :-)

Re:Pining for the good old days

[Rob Kaper]

Frame content doesn't bookmark nor spider very well, resulting in undesired situations. Users end up with bookmarks to entrance content instead of the desired content, or end up without navigation menus when search engines sent them directly to the frame content which didn't include the outerlying frames.

DHTML pages solve this by adding information about inner content into the anchor part of the URL, so every page loads entirely upon first entrance and Javascript takes care of the inner content. Nowadays you could probably make this work for frames as well, but back then it either wasn't possible or nobody thought about it because Javascript wasn't used as much.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[spun]

No, I mean the asshole executives who consider art and culture to be a product to be 'monetized.' Actual writers, artists, and design professionals were using the web way before anyone figured out how to 'monetize' their work.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[MindStalker]

Perl 6 never really got finished. There is the Rakado version which is close...
http://rakudo.org/status
Eh...
I see perl most often in either legacy site or for system administrator tools (as a replacement for Bash scripts).

Re:Pining for the good old days

[Anonymous Coward]

I miss the days when people posted replies that were relevant to the comment of the original poster.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[sandman_eh]

True.

Except that doesn't account for having a method (destructor) which will be called when your variable goes out of scope.

Then you have generic's on top of that.

And in c++0x, auto, lambda and rvalue refs. There a whole lot more to c++ than objects.

[Note: I program in both. & python & perl &......]

Re:Pining for the good old days

[QuoteMstr]

generic's

If you torture the English language like that, I'd hate to see what you do to your poor code. Sloppy writing is a very good predictor of sloppy coding.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[spud603]

Sloppy writing is a very good predictor of sloppy coding.

[citation needed]

Re:Pining for the good old days

[Anonymous Coward]

It correlates well with sloppy thinking, in my experience. That, in turn, usually means a bad coder.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[ultrabot]

You wouldn't say that if you saw C done properly.

If you are thinking of GObject, I fail to be convinced. GObject makes you want to *avoid* OOP as much as possible, since it serves as an obfuscation layer - luckily a lot of glib doesn't force you to use it.

C++ compilers cost exactly as much as C compilers these days ($0), so I wouldn't mind if it was relegated to the role where it belongs (which is not full application development).

Re:Pining for the good old days

[Ironica]

Except for a bit of expansion in DHTML and Flash, you could do everything then that you could do now. The only differences is bandwidth and processing power.

I don't think the issue is what kind of functionality you can potentially implement, but what kinds of functionality *are* implemented and available. Back then, I couldn't order pizza or make a restaurant reservation on the web. I couldn't find out the value of my car or house, or how my salary compares to others in my field. Et cetera, ad infinitum. No discipline is an island; back when it was just geeks on the Internet, geeks still had to interact with the rest of the world on a regular basis. Now we can do that without leaving the Internet. And for that, I'm grateful. ;-)

Re:Pining for the good old days

[Bigjeff5]

I've only ever seen a handfull of websites use frames well.

Most of them suck, badly.

I that has as much to do with their falling from favor as anything. It's usually cleaner and more useful to use CSS and a common layout across many pages, rather than use just as many pages and surround everything with frames. Plus, that way, all your content gets crawled properly, users can bookmark individual pages without having to find your homepage should they wish to browse more of your content, etc.

Too many people wanted the shiny new web technology, and it just lost all credibility as a useful tool when their implimentations turned out horribly.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[Bigjeff5]

I hate to break it to you, but actual writers, artists, and design professionals also expect and did expect their work to be monetized.

How else do you expect them to make money?

There is nothing wrong with it, but you are right that when marketing teams start getting involved, things start to get both a lot better in terms of quality, and a lot worse in terms of subject matter and motive behind the content itself.

There's a difference between earning a decent living and trying to hit the marketing jackpot to become the "next big thing". Both of them require "monetizing" art and culture, but one we consider acceptable and the other not so much.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[AliasMarlowe]

average web page, which is most likely to be a blog or a video of two girls dressed as robots shoving bananas into each-other's ears (while naked

Can you give us a link to an average web page like this?
Or several.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[ShieldW0lf]

The desire to "monetize" their creations led to a world full of banal crap that doesn't hold anyone's attention.

Now, work that was never paid for, that's the good stuff. Lord of the Rings, for example. He wrote it for the entertainment of his children, and it's considered one of the finest stories ever told. Stole from other peoples stories too. Beowulf, Norse mythology, Celtic mythology, etc.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[FlyingBishop]

No, the issue is Moore's law. I'm sitting here on a four year old 2.8ghz Celeron with a Gig of ram, and Slashdot slows my comptuer to a crawl. Between that, rhythmbox, and some DHTML in another tab I need to do something about, I actually can see the lag as I type this.

Commercial programmers couldn't have made 8 years ago's hardware run at 1000 times the speed.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[causality]

He probably browses at 1 and didn't see the AC's post.

You mean the post to which he directly responded? You know that doesn't add up, right?

Re:Pining for the good old days

[multisync]

You mean the post to which he directly responded? You know that doesn't add up, right?

Um ... wrong.

spun (1352) on 09:29 AM -- Thursday May 28 2009 (#28125123) wrote:

I miss the days when just about everyone using the web was a developer, user, and content producer all in one.

Anonymous Coward on 09:34 AM -- Thursday May 28 2009 (#28125223)replied:

I miss the days when the most common message over the internet and email was, "when are you going to be in, so I can call you."

Captain Splendid (673276) on 09:41 AM -- Thursday May 28 2009 (#28125311) replied:

Pissant. I miss the days before we had a telephone ... Now get off my lawn.

Bigjeff5 (1143585)on 10:00 AM -- Thursday May 28 2009 (#28125575) replied:

Captain Splended (673276) to spun (1352):

Now get off my lawn.

Never thought I'd see the day.

He incorrectly believed that Captain Splendid (673276) was replying to spun (1352) when he made the "get off my lawn" crack.

Ragzouken (943900) on 10:03 AM -- Thursday May 28 2009 (#28125629) replied:

Are we reading the same thread? He was responding to an anonymous coward.

Ragzouken (943900) was pointing out to Bigjeff5 (1143585) that Captain Splendid (673276) was in fact replying to Anonymous Coward, not spun (1352).

multisync (218450) on 10:24 AM -- Thursday May 28 2009 (#28125997) replied:

He probably browses at 1 and didn't see the AC's post.

I suggested to Ragzouken (943900) that Bigjeff5 (1143585) may not have seen the Anonymous Coward's post due to reading at +1, which means AC posts are hidden by default. That would explain the part where he said "never thought I'd see the day."

Lemme guess: you're reading at +1, right?

Re:Pining for the good old days

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 52 and I can't remember those days. Have I missed them?

I also hope the irony of your own comment in this context is not lost on you.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have a crappy browser/OS/connection/whatever. My work PC is running WinXP+IE6 (compulsory) and load/renders slashdot almost instantly. It has 512Mb RAM and a single core 2.8Ghz processor.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[skarphace]

I see perl most often in either legacy site...

*cough* slashdot *cough*

Re:Pining for the good old days

[mgabrys_sf]

So, is this still "troll tuesday" (whatever the fuck that means to your little nerd brain) or are you still trying to get the last word in like a person who hasn't seen a woman naked?

I'm guessing the latter of the two - but please - prove me right.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[mgabrys_sf]

So, is this still "troll tuesday" (whatever the fuck that means to your tiny nerd brain) or are you still trying to get the last word in like a person who hasn't seen a woman naked?

I'm guessing the latter of the two - but please - prove me right.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[mgabrys_sf]

So, is this still "troll tuesday" (whatever the fuck that means to your little
  nerd brain) or are you still trying to get the last word in like a person who hasn't seen a woman naked?

I'm guessing the latter of the two - but please - prove me right.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[spun]

Oh my god, I broke its little brain.

Look, I have a life, okay, so if I don't get back to you, it's probably because I'm doing something much less boring. I'm not your mommy, I'm not your psychologist, and I'm not your friend, so don't expect me to converse with you.

I've had plenty of Internet stalkers before you, and I'll have more when you are gone. I love to piss off angry weirdos who have no life, and while I am thrilled to know that I owned you so completely that you just can't let it go, you bore me. The sweet, sweet nectar of your frothing, impotent rage has lost its allure.

Just think of me doing two chicks at once while you're whacking it alone tonight. Or, I don't know, go out and start dating. As I said before, only pathetic losers think getting laid is impossible.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[mgabrys_sf]

So, is this still "troll tuesday" (whatever the fuck that means to your little
    nerd brain) or are you still trying to get the last word in like a person who hasn't seen a woman naked?

I'm guessing the latter of the two - but please - prove me right.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[hkmwbz]

Except for a bit of xpansion in DHTML and Flash, you could do everything then that you could do now.

You mean, "except for just about everything, you could do everything then that you could do now"?

Re:Pining for the good old days

[MindStalker]

No, static text could do most everything you do now it just wouldn't be as pretty of fast.

Re:Pining for the good old days

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? BOO HOO. The internet is responsible for so much, and we would never have gotten there if not for commercial investment. Honestly I wish people like you would just go back to your fucking basements and play WOW on linux rather than littler slashdot with this crap.

Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[rel4x]

It's not democratic. It's another way for people who want something for nothing to remove ads. I was onboard for trying to make information free. Well, now a large part of the information is and I'm not about to hurt the companies who embraced the "alternative business models" I supported. I like their services, and would like them to be able to pay for the server. Keep in mind if people can't pay via their advertising, they'll likely start charging again. Major step backwards.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[radtea]

Keep in mind if people can't pay via their advertising, they'll likely start charging again.

Which will drive people to free sites.

Once upon a time it was possible to make a living by being the only literate person in town, reading and writing letters for people and the like. Universal literacy killed that business model.

The Web was never designed nor intended as a tool for commercial enterprises--it was intended to allow academics to share information, and however far it evolves under commercial pressure, there is not much that can be done about that fundamental aspect of its architecture. To try to use the Web, which was designed for free and open information sharing, as a tool for restricted information sales is probably going to fail.

The past decade has seen a number of successful businesses based on Web revenue models. There is no promise from anyone that those models will continue to be viable. That's what markets are like, and while it may be a pity that certain things are not available to users because there is no viable way to pay for it, we're still all better off for having the Web than not.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[JesseMcDonald]

If you really wanted to support someone it would be far more effective to cut out the middlemen and just send them a check.

Pay-via-advertising is unreliable at best, annoyingly disruptive to readers, and has a tendency to alienate those who would otherwise support you. It only exists due to the lack of an economical micro-payment system. Direct-charge with automatic negotiation would be far superior, but the overhead of handling many small payments is just too high--for now. The incredible degree of regulatory interference regarding anything to do with finances is a big part of the problem; everyone who comes close to implementing a viable electronic cash-equivalent gets charged with "money laundering", or some other such catch-all offense--never mind that ordinary cash can be used the same way.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[TheModelEskimo]

Yeah, allowing people to manipulate what they see on their computer screen is a major blow to democracy. We shouldn't innovate or give them new tools if it threatens a profit model that is so easily broken. Protect the profit model so we can stay where we're at. I AM FINE WHERE I AM AT RIGHT NOW thank you. ~

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[geekoid]

"It's another way for people who want something for nothing to remove ads"

Giving people a way to do that is democratic.

Step 1: "..start charging again. "
Step 2: Dry up and go away
Step 3: No profit.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[Anonymous Coward]

"-it was intended to allow academics to share information"

Well, yeah, that's because the academics weren't paying for it themselves.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[Shoe Puppet]

It's another way for people who want something for nothing to remove ads.

I doubt there will be more people killing ads via Jetpack than there are people killing ads via tools and addons like Adblock Plus. Unless doing it with Jetpack is easier, which I doubt is even possible.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[MozeeToby]

Am I the only one that finds it interesting how short the lifetime is for Internet business models? Traditional business models can be successful for dozens if not hundreds of years. Web based models seem to only remain viable for around a decade at best, then competition crops up with a new idea or some independent developer ruins the model (Ad-block anyone?).

It seems to me that if your business is going to survive on the web, you'd better be spending time and effort every single day looking for new revenue streams and business models.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[Trojan35]

The paid-for news/media is already stupid enough. I can't wait until all the semi-talented writers start charging, and 99% of america gets their news and election info from a right-wing or left-wing blog site... or worse.

Seriously, I think the easy availability of respected newspapers such as the NYTimes has helped improved American's awareness of political issues. Whatever my problems with the NYTimes biases are, they're 100x better than the local news.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[Spatial]

It's not like everyone on the planet is going to do it. Look at Slashdot, a geek-fest where nearly all of the users are at least aware of ad blocking tools. Yet the site continues to exist.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or start trying to detect adblock and start sending it's users obscene places.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[cdrguru]

Better yet, it is a way to rebrand web sites. Your content with my brand. Now, if only I can get other people's browsers to view it that way it means I own the Internet.

If as part of the ISP "connection package" Cox can deliver this it means that Cox owns all the web content there is and can use it however they see fit. I'll bet Cox thinks this is a wonderful idea. And Time-Warner, and Comcast. And anyone else in the big-ISP business.

How come so much stuff gets figured out for the Internet without ever considering how it might be exploited? Either by hackers or for commercial gain.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[cdrguru]

Universal literacy killed that business model.

I think we're about to fix that.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[The Cisco Kid]

The solution is not to get news from one site only. news.google.com is your friend. For any given 'newsworthy' topic, there will be dozens of links to stories on different sites. Oh, and most of them wont have a paywall to view.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[2short]

It has jack to do with democracy, one way or the other.
It is a way for people to have their browser perform in ways they like.
If you put information up where anyone who wants to can access it with their own software, and your business model depends on their software acting how you want, and not how they want, you have a poor business model.
If you think software should stop doing what users want it to in order to support a particular business model, I respectfully disagree. If you think there is any chance in the world it will happen, I not so respectfully question your intelligence. There are many browsers supporting many plugins. If people want a piece of simple functionality, one of them will provide it.
If people want content, a way to pay for it will be found. That way will not depend on rolling back existing technological progress.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[PetriBORG]

Thats why in the book Diamond Age when someone(s) invented a highly encrypted non-traceable way for people to do transactions governments collapsed because they couldn't tax people anymore. Its merely a background point in the book, I almost wish he wrote a book on just that topic I think it would be great. Its one of Neal Stephenson's best books imo.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[ljw1004]

God I hate advertising. I hate the American attitude that advertising is acceptable (indeed inevitable) in all areas of life. Billboards everywhere, sportscasters interrupting their coverage to promote products, ads read by the presenters on NPR, advertising of prescription medication...

These things don't happen anywhere else. It's only in America that you've been persuaded by the advertisers that their hold on your psyche and paycheck is normal.

The figures I have are from 2000, when the total amount spent on advertising worked out to about $5000 per inhabitant of the US per year.

What a stupid tax for us all to be paying! It doesn't go to anything we particularly want. It lines the pocketbooks of advertising agencies and irritates us when we're trying to browse the web or watch television or listen to the radio or see the countryside from our cars.

As a way of funding anything, it's hugely inefficient. I bet it's even more inefficient than taxes.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[ljw1004]

That only works if you think that the truth is somehow the "average" of two untrue sources. You might also believe that a country run by Mussolini (extreme right wing) and Stalin (extreme left wing) would be, pleasant peaceful and free.

I think that by averaging out two biased sources, all you end up with is the perception that everything is biased and the truth is unreachable. Would be better to find a less biased source in the first place.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[Quantumstate]

I would challenge you to find a business model which is not for some little niche market which has stayed unchanged for 100 years.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[MozeeToby]

Mail order catalogs. Started way, way back in the late 1700s and the business model still works today. Hell, Sears sent out their first catalog more than 100 years ago and still does so today. The products are different of course (from farm equipment to everyday department store items) but the basic concept of buying items in bulk, selling via catalog, and delivering directly to the home (while avoiding local sales tax) is still very much sound.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[QuoteMstr]

It is an excellent book, but I don't find the tax collapse scenario realistic. We already have a "non-traceable way for people to do transactions": it's called cash. Governments managed to collect taxes well before traceable transactions became the default.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[JakartaDean]

What a stupid tax for us all to be paying! It doesn't go to anything we particularly want. It lines the pocketbooks of advertising agencies and irritates us when we're trying to browse the web or watch television or listen to the radio or see the countryside from our cars.

I can't believe you thought for even a moment before posting that. How much, exactly, do you think there would be to browse on the web, watch on television or listen to on the radio without advertising? A couple of government web sites and live broadcast of legislative debates, plus millions of mindless blogs. That you're irritated by ads suggests you enjoy the programs and web sites they fund. That's right, the advertisers pay for.

I find them irritating too, and don't watch much TV as a result. While I don't enjoy watching ads, I'm at least dimly aware of the business model which currently supports the media you mention.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[Have Brain Will Rent]

I believe I have the right to decide what images enter my eye and what don't. If I buy a magazine I feel perfectly entitled to not look at the ads. Some magazines I feel perfectly entitled not to look at anything but the pictures. :D If the magazine is free I don't feel that negates these rights. I don't wee why the web should be any different.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[JesseMcDonald]

It may be "interesting" but it's hardly surprising. It took thousands of years (at least) to develop business models suitable for capital-intensive essential industries like agriculture and manufacturing, producing, marketing and selling products with a relatively high value to consumers. There are pitfalls to be found here as well, and no doubt many of the early models didn't work out, but those which have survived are time-tested and proven. Business models for luxury goods have a much higher turnover rate, though even there the capital needed for manufacturing offers a constricted path--a "toll booth", as it were--through which consumers must pass to acquire goods. Competition remains limited. Given the inherent scarcity of material goods, this is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, although tools like RepRap and Fab@Home may reduce the capital requirements somewhat.

These "web-based models", on the other hand, are all luxury goods. Furthermore, they are all built on the obsolete principle that the distribution of ideas and information can be controlled in the presence of widespread, instant, cheap publication. That has never been true over the long term, although before the printing press one could at least count on passive distribution to be slow enough that one could make some profit out of helping it along. Now that instantaneous communication is nearly ubiquitous, and becoming more so all the time, that is no longer true. There is no genuine profit to be had from distributing electronic copies at this point outside bulk communication services. All that remains is handouts from governments in the form of exclusivity deals brokered at the involuntary expense of one's fellow citizens.

The Internet is less than fifty years old at this point, and those employing web-based business models are trying something which has never worked anywhere else--making a market out of something essentially superabundant, with near-zero marginal costs. The only reason it's working at all is that the sellers have managed to get governments on board with their scheme to manufacture artificial scarcity through force. When people's patience with that finally runs out, hopefully sooner rather than later, they'll be forced to go back to the tried-and-true pre-Internet model of selling labor directly via patronage, live performance, and other traditional means.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[sootman]

Once upon a time it was possible to make a living by being the only literate person in town, reading and writing letters for people and the like. Universal literacy killed that business model.

The Web was never designed nor intended as a tool for commercial enterprises--it was intended to allow academics to share information, and however far it evolves under commercial pressure, there is not much that can be done about that fundamental aspect of its architecture. To try to use the Web, which was designed for free and open information sharing, as a tool for restricted information sales is probably going to fail.

Thanks for one of the best, most concise explanations every posted to Slashdot. That has been printed and is now up on my cube wall.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[PetriBORG]

While I can understand what you mean, it seemed to me that this transaction-cloud or whatever, could be used to hold your money like a bank (presumably in an anonymous way) so that you could get to your money w/o the government being able to track it... After all that is really how the IRS knows about your money - because banks are required to report on you, and so are your employers.

I do agree with you though in its unlikeliness.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[csartanis]

Thank you! I hate advertising too but everyone I know looks at me funny when I complain about it.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[Auxbuss]

It's not democratic. It's another way for people who want something for nothing to remove ads. I was onboard for trying to make information free. Well, now a large part of the information is and I'm not about to hurt the companies who embraced the "alternative business models" I supported. I like their services, and would like them to be able to pay for the server. Keep in mind if people can't pay via their advertising, they'll likely start charging again. Major step backwards.

Big, big assumption.

What is actually means is that a new model will emerge. If we're going to stretch the meaning of democracy in this thread, then I'm going to stretch evolution,

But that's what we have here: variation; struggle for existence; natural selection; origin of species.

Of course, the dogmatic, conservative business droids remain wedded to their belief in "intelligent design".

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[neomunk]

You're assuming an "average", but that is an incorrect assumption. The way I view news is via multiple sources, a "weighting function" (I trust some sources more than others, due to past accuracy rates), and google (to find out more about the relevant subjects that I don't already know). I certainly don't count how many sources are saying one thing and how many are saying another, then letting the winner define reality; equally silly is the notion that the truth is someone in the "center" of the news opinion columns.

Multiple sources add to the information available (unless they are all just AP copies) for me, as an intelligent being, to contemplate. Even if the information is noise I'm able to add to my knowledge of the subject at hand and/or my future weighting of sources.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[Eil]

Am I the only one that finds it interesting how short the lifetime is for Internet business models? Traditional business models can be successful for dozens if not hundreds of years.

Traditional business models are extremely lucky to be around for dozens of years. I'm only aware of one that has survived for hundreds of years. (Think: oldest profession.)

Web based models seem to only remain viable for around a decade at best, then competition crops up with a new idea or some independent developer ruins the model (Ad-block anyone?).

Um, ad blocking came to the web at around the same time that ads did. People have always found ways to block them. Sure, until recently it hasn't been as easy as it is now, but isn't that was technology is for: Constantly making it easier to eliminate or manage the annoyances in life?

I mean, if you're going to stand there and claim that blocking ads is wrong because it deprives site owners of deserved revenue, then you pretty much have to make the same claim for bulk email advertisers too. After all, those email lists and servers take serious cash to purchase. Anyone who filters, blocks, or rejects spam is depriving the spammer of his deserved income as well.

I really don't understand the whole "ad blocking is evil and immoral" mindset anyway. I mean, if I install ad blocking software on all of my computers (and trust me, I do) that right there says, "hey, I'm not interested in your advertisements and I was never going to buy whatever crap the ads are hawking or punch your damn monkey anyway." I feel I'm doing the web a favor by blocking ads because it means that I'm conserving Internet bandwidth by not consuming traffic for a service that I'm not using. The advertisers should pay me for not wasting their bandwidth.

It seems to me that if your business is going to survive on the web, you'd better be spending time and effort every single day looking for new revenue streams and business models.

It seems to me that you don't understand what it means to be in business. It has always been the case that you have to spend time and effort every single day looking for new revenue streams and new business models. There is no business model that stays profitable without continually adjusting to political, societal, and market changes. Nowhere has that ever been more true than on the web. Just because you can slap together a site on the intertubes doesn't mean your entitled to easy money. There is no easy money in this world, nor should there ever be.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[Eil]

I think it all comes down to rights. Magazines have a right to print ads in their pages if they want. But I have a right to rip out those pages. NPR has a right to advertise their sponsors, but I have a right to turn it off and listen to a podcast instead. And websites have a right to put as many ads as they like on their layout, but I have the right to block them in my browser.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[martin-boundary]

Try going to a library one day. You might learn something.

Advertising is a parasite on information sources and deserves as much respect as the common cold virus.

Re:Yeah, Sorry Guys.

[trawg]

Which will drive people to free sites.

We moved 80 terabytes of data last month to users all over the world (gaming files, demos, patches, MMO clients, etc).

We rely on ad revenue to be able to do this. We're one of the ONLY sites that lets people download for free, in a 2 click process, with no waiting, and what I think are modest ads.

There's not a lot of 'free' sites that can support this kind of operation. Most of them (fileplanet, shack, etc) all charge, because it's expensive.

I'd rather keep running our site so users can get this stuff for free, and all they have to pay is copping the occasional add in the face every so often.

I feel the same when I read slashdot - I actually got the slashdot option to hide their ads. I don't WANT to hide their ads. I want to keep using slashdot for free, and I'm happy to absorb ads for it.

As always I'll get modded down to shit for posting something that's not as rabidly anti-ad as everyone else that feels like they have the right to just do whatever the fuck they feel like because it's the Internet, but whatever.

Ads keep a lot of websites free. Good sites like this one.

Re:that explains it! - Why Slashdot is so slow

[Animats]

And so the new slashdot layout is finally explained in full.

Yes. There's so much crap running on Slashdot's pages now that Firefox sometimes reports that a script is running too long. Pages load slowly because the five or so different ad servers all need time to respond. The page code has "document.write()" calls which load more Javascript, forcing operations which ought to be in parallel to wait for the previous step to complete. I just had a Slashdot page load wait 9 seconds for "bs.serving-sys.com". That's a 9 second delay for a useless site that's trying to load a "tracking cookie". A Jetpack add-on to block all that stuff will be a huge win.

Ad Injections

[moon3]

The critical question here is whether JetPack also plugs or replaces ads in the steered websites.

Once you take the route of deliberately modifying content, this is just next logical step. I hope that is not the case.

2 not-necessarily mutually exclusive perspectives

[asemisldkfj]

As a web developer/designer, things like this irk me. When I design a website it is standards-compliant and looks how I intend it to, for what I think are good reasons. Empowering users to further mess with my presentation of my website is bothersome.

As a web user, things like this make me glad. I will be glad if I am given more control of the presentation of poorly-designed websites, because I really don't have any sympathy for someone who designs a site that hinders me from obtaining the information that the site is supposed to be giving me.

Tools like this are not inherently good or bad. People may use them to the detriment of their experience on the web (if they somehow degrade a site's visual appeal or function [not that the two things go hand-in-hand]), or people may use them to make their experiences on the web more efficient, productive, and enjoyable. I say more power to tools like this, because people should be able to have a say about how content is presented on their computers. And perhaps once poor web design dies (as if this will ever happen), the web developer/designer views the web in a different way, or the browser changes the way it presents websites, tools like this will either go out of fashion or become more integral to our idea of what the web is.

Re:that explains it! - Why Slashdot is so slow

[radtea]

I just had a Slashdot page load wait 9 seconds for "bs.serving-sys.com".

NoScript (FireFox extension: http://noscript.net/)

I don't run AdBlock, just NoScript, and the only reason I know that /. has ads now is that people not running NoScript talk about it.

failure to read what the average webuser wants

[circletimessquare]

i remember reading about a startup in the dotcom days that allows users to annotate webpages in ways that can be shared. complete failure

why? no one wants to exert the extra effort. what's the benefit? the summary makes it sound like some sort of revolutionary anticorporate antimind control movement. guess what: most users not only want to do nothing, they want to make sure they are seeing exactly what everyone else sees

its a basic human desire for commonality of culture: sharing anything on the web is all about being part of contributing to a group, and consuming what is the same for everyone else. this is a basic human social drive. that if they had content that was "special" and only visible to them in a certain way, even if in just cosmetic appearance, you are driving a wedge between the user and that sense of shared commonality. what is the whole point of the internet? what is the driving force behind its popularity and adoption?

this project flies directly in the face of that basic human social impulse and drive

ps: this observation of mine applies most especially to subcultures: small splinter groups that are outside the mainstream and proudly so. their desire to see the same thing the rest of the subculture sees is accelerated due to the fact that it takes more effort to be part of a subculture than be part of the mainstream, they need to "work harder" to remain synchronized in bona fides with the rest of the members of their subculture. suggest to them that they aren't seeing quite what everyone else sees in that subculture and it will disturb to them, that they aren't fully part of the group yet

Re:failure to read what the average webuser wants

[geekoid]

Interesting, but wrong.

Re:failure to read what the average webuser wants

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

this observation of mine applies most especially to subcultures: small splinter groups that are outside the mainstream and proudly so. their desire to see the same thing the rest of the subculture sees is accelerated due to the fact that it takes more effort to be part of a subculture than be part of the mainstream,

And you think that installing an additional set of subculture-specific page transforming filters won't take effort? That subculture members won't pride themselves on their ability to tweak the way those filters work for that subculture and that the other members of that subculture won't reward them with attention and accolades for helping to further delineate their subculture from the mainstream?

Re:failure to read what the average webuser wants

[Sloppy]

i remember reading about a startup in the dotcom days that allows users to annotate webpages in ways that can be shared. complete failure

Sounds like you're talking about Third Voice, which IMHO was one of the most brilliant ideas for improving the web, since .. uh .. the invention of the web. (I have to say "idea" because I never got to try out their actual implementation, so I don't know if it sucked or not. But some day I hope to take a shot at implementing my own take on something vaguely like that.)

most users not only want to do nothing, they want to make sure they are seeing exactly what everyone else sees

What "most users" think they want is important if you're trying to create a commercial product, but it's not relevant if you're trying to solve other problems. And I think that while people do seem happy with their horses and buggies, they only need to see an automobile in action once, before some start to wonder, "Hey, can I have one of those?"

its a basic human desire for commonality of culture: sharing anything on the web is all about being part of contributing to a group, and consuming what is the same for everyone else. this is a basic human social drive. that if they had content that was "special" and only visible to them in a certain way, even if in just cosmetic appearance, you are driving a wedge between the user and that sense of shared commonality.

Wow. Well, here's what I think: If changing the presentation of the content takes away all commonality, then there never was any content.

I am probably using a slightly different size browser window to read slashdot than you are. Maybe even a different browser. But here we are, talking on slashdot. Something survives transformation.

Re:failure to read what the average webuser wants

[Anonymous Coward]

i remember reading about a startup in the dotcom days that allows users to annotate webpages in ways that can be shared. complete failure

"What a ridiculous idea," he thought, and posted as a reply in the comments section.

Re:failure to read what the average webuser wants

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of crap.

The sheeple may take comfort in same-ness.

The entrepreneurial spirited ones and geeky ones, could care less what the sheeple want.

I like the "Burger King" form of the web where I can "have it my way"

Re:failure to read what the average webuser wants

[sjames]

I suspect there were a few problems with the website annotation (whose name escapes me as well). First, the threats to sue if they allowed derogatory annotations. Second, in order to pull them up, you necessarily had to tell people you have no reason to trust where you're surfing. Browser support for scripting was very spotty, so the only way to make it work well would be for them to fetch the page, munge it and send it to the client, very bandwidth intensive and performance limiting to say the least.

Finally, too many 13 year olds who still thought publishing a 4 letter word for all to see was funny. That's just a subset of the problem that there's no room to publish the comments of every id10t who happens to visit a website and few would have anything all that interesting to say.

Perhaps if it had decent performance and didn't depend on telling strangers about your surfing habits, AND you could see only the comments from your circle of friends, then it might have worked exactly because it would have let you see what your peers in the subculture see and it would have been different from what the outsiders saw. Of course, to be cool, it would have had to NOT have a bunch of marketers telling you how cool you should think it is while salivating over the marketing data.

Re:failure to read what the average webuser wants

[myrikhan]

what is the whole point of the internet? what is the driving force behind its popularity and adoption?

pornography? I imagine one of the first uses of jetpack will be to put up random pictures in the background web page.

Awesome More Scenarios to Test For

[WebmasterNeal]

With users getting all sorts of funky output of our websites, now we get to test for the infinite +1 scenarios they can dream up.

Dear Internet

[FudRucker]

it is my computer, and i am going to control the content that is viewed, sincerely the nerdyUser

Arms Race

[Anonymous Coward]

They will start serving up ads off their own sites rather than third party sites to defeat your ad blocker. They will come in plain HTML and JPGs and be indistinguishable from normal content. They will revise code so that you can't get the content without getting the ads too.

They will keep fighting you and your attempts to block their revenue stream, because they have to. And they will fight you on your own turf, with clever code, not legislation.

And they will win. Because they have to.

Re:Arms Race

[eedwardsjr]

Proxomitron I win.

Re:Arms Race

[ifrag]

In theory that might work, however a more fool-proof method is already available.

I think it's more likely content providers will just start packing their entire site into flash. Stream everything through a flash viewer. There are already a few sites that are like this, although many still offer a "flash free" version as well. Enough content goes this route and the options are going to be : 1) disable flash and drastically limit viewable sites or 2) enable flash and deal with it.

Filtering a raw byte-stream for add content will be almost impossible.

I remember that too...

[argent]

i remember reading about a startup in the dotcom days that allows users to annotate webpages in ways that can be shared. complete failure

why?

Because it was really badly implemented. It required an unreliable plugin, didn't stay up to date, and had a lousy user interface. Oh, and it had a really weird name that had nothing to do with the product (something like 'don't trust in TV').

There were a couple of better versions, college projects, that worked a lot better, without the need for browser plugins, and providing a uniform experience for their users... but the product you're referring to got the mindspace... because it was all dotcom-ish and this was in the dotcom boom of the late '90s.

Mole-hill

[HiggsBison]

The big news everyone seems to be missing is that everyone and their mom will be able to block ads with very little knowledge. That's dangerous to content providers and I've highlighted the part in the above text where the author talks about this. Is Mozilla entering a maelstrom that was normally between adblock/noscript and content providers?

It is the abusive advertisers, the ones who push Flash, the ones with excessive blinking, the scammers, and the control freaks who will suffer. For the most part, I don't block ads. And I generally avoid the sites with abusive advertising anyway. They generally have weak content to begin with.

Re:that explains it! - Why Slashdot is so slow

[Anonymous Coward]

even better, positive karma and meaningful contributions will allow you to disable ad on /.

Don't like open standards?

[MikeUW]

Then don't use them. Seriously, if producers don't like people utilizing open standards to integrate and mashup products delivered using HTML/XML/JavaScript/etc., then don't use those standards. Junk all your wares into a DRM-laden flash applet, sit back and relax - and leave the rest of us to range freely on the other side of the guard rails.

barrier to entry

[circletimessquare]

with a webpage, you know you see what everyone else sees. well, you can make scripts to modify pages for certain users, but this is done when you are purposefully attempting to exclude someone, not draw them further into a subculture. and even if such a membership track existed within a subculture (special tweaks per user), it creates feelings of classism and paranoia, which alienates and destroys: fred sees something i don't see, he is more "special" than me (even if what fred sees is random unimportant fluff, its the feeling and the impression of no tbeing in the know that is important)

remember: all subcultures, all cultures, are based on commonality of experience. if you break that commonality of experience, you kill that culture/ subculture

"That subculture members won't pride themselves on their ability to tweak the way those filters work for that subculture and that the other members of that subculture won't reward them with attention and accolades for helping to further delineate their subculture from the mainstream?"

subculture is the changing of WHAT is communicated, not HOW it is communicated. you might go into a goth emo chatroom and not know what the hell the lingo is all about, but you will still know its a chatroom and how to use it

there is no such thing as a subculture based on changes in mode of communication. well, there is: ham radio, or spy agencies. but these subcultures' whole purpose is that very change in mode of communication, its a foundational identity. changes in mode of communication is not normal to subcultures based on non-communication based identities. haute couture, WoW, falconry: they will all use the same bulletin board software

and even if they did use some bizarre form of communication, if they became a "secret" society, they are killing themselves: you need a low barrier of entry in subcultures or the subcultures fade away and die. churn is a part of any group

Re:barrier to entry

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

with a webpage, you know you see what everyone else sees. well, you can make scripts to modify pages for certain users, but this is done when you are purposefully attempting to exclude someone, not draw them further into a subculture.

Right. That's why there are whole communities for stylish and greasemonkey script sharing, its all about excluding people.

Re:barrier to entry

[Sloppy]

I pretty much disagree with you (see other post) about how destructive changing a web page might be to a culture, but aside from that.. dude, you're getting hung up on cultures. There's so much more to the web than that. There's a lot of raw functionality out there.

When you go to a web page that shows a weather forecast, you're not sharing a culture. You'll have to go outside for that. When you go to the example.com store to buy a widget, if your client changes example.com to look differently than what everyone else sees, likewise, you lost nothing because that wasn't a culture either. The culture you experience there, is precisely the kind of thing that Third Voice added: sticky notes from other users saying, "example.com ripped me off" and "example.com is awesome." There's your culture, and the web page is pretty peripheral to that.

Ad blocking is stealing

[patro]

"It's another way for people who want something for nothing to remove ads"

And they say they don't like flashing ads and stuff, that's why they remove it with adblocker.

That's stealing. If you don't like the ads on a site then don't visit the site. If enough people do this then companies will change their ad model when they realize it drives away visitors.

So people shouldn't rationalize their stealing by saying it's their right to remove ads and view others' content without them.

The ethical way is to stop going there, not stealing.

Re:Ad blocking is stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

Imposing your display preferences on a website is not stealing. Show me just ONE case of a person who was convicted of theft for blocking ads. Just ONE please.

Some websites have sold so much of their space for advertising, there almost no chance of anyone paying attention to the ads. And some of the ads are so intrusive, they do little more than poison my opinion of the companies who sponsor them.

Show me a website whose users routinely block their ads and I'll show you a website with a poor advertising strategy.

Re:Ad blocking is stealing

[rel4x]

Thank you! Plus there's still fledgling services(like Hulu) which rely on contracts that require advertising, and cannot be easily replaced. These are services that I personally want to see succeed so other places follow their model. I can't believe people are really arrogant enough to think it's ok to deny even the smallest benefit to someone giving them something for free, even if it costs them nothing. It's a slap in the face.

Re:Ad blocking is stealing

[petgiraffe]

Right.
Just like not watching TV commercials.
Going to the bathroom is stealing.

Re:Ad blocking is stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

And you can point out the legal requirement to view a web page as the creator intended?

Tivo for the web

[twoDigitIq]

Why is no one complaining about their DVRs allowing them to skip over annoying television advertisements? I guess the majority of the slashdot audience doesn't have a stake in TV advertising revenue so they are perfectly fine with that handy little piece of tech.

Re:Tivo for the web

[rel4x]

Either that or it's not the topic of the article.

Re:Tivo for the web

[twoDigitIq]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

I guess

[cdrguru]

It would seem that if I want to reformat, rebrand and (obviously) republish content found on the web, I should be able to do so, right?

I guess a further step is putting out a plug-in for any user's browser that automatically reformats and rebrands content found on the web as mine. That way no matter if they go to my site or CNN, they are always seeing content as if I published it, right?

Now, if I can make this happen to users automatically once they visit my pages once, all the better.

Maybe it is just a matter of putting a little box on each and every page the user visits that says "Hank says..." with a link. Or, "Hank's view on this is ..."

Far fetched? Wouldn't Google, CNN or Sony really, really like to be able to do this? Well, so would I.

Re:I guess

[Baby Duck]

Nice try at FUD-making. We see right through you.

Re:I guess

[Lehk228]

wat?

Greasemonkey

[Idiomatick]

Sounds just like greasemonkey. Maybe greasemonkey + platypus? Mozilla ripping off its own addons now? :P I've been using modified internet for a year or so now. Its neat to be able to set the internet to match your theme... or remove annoying buttons you never use. (Examples...I have no sidebar in /. and when i click my name it redirects to my comments to check for replies rather than the annoying feed.)

free market, not democracy

[SafeMode]

I'm not sure why people bring up democracy when the comparison is nonsense. It's not the people making a new law. It's an example of a free market, that's all.

People want to pay nothing, but they want stuff. Producers have the stuff, and they want something for it. Compromise ensues. The world doesn't collapse, it simple re-structures. If what they have is actually in demand, they will find a way for their consumers to pay for it. Otherwise, too bad.

This type of economy is best, because it benefits both the consumer and the producer equally. The problem is, no producer wants this type of economy, as it's no where near as profitable and secure as any that put the balance on their side (just about all of them that allow businesses to exist).

As a member of the "people", there is justified worry about leaving the ad-revenue powered internet behind for something new. New is always scary. The devil you know is much safer feeling than the one you dont. I think everyone realizes this all doesn't run on hopes and dreams, and they haven't really thought of what kind of evil crap those evil companies they are stopping ads from are going to think of if ads aren't working anymore. The train has started already though, and it's not going to stop so it'll be interesting to see what schemes those are in the near future.

what was it called?

[circletimessquare]

keen.com i think?

one of the most overblown piece of shit dotcom era ideas, ever

Re:what was it called?

[argent]

I don't recognize that name, so maybe there were a couple of fucked up variants. Sometimes an idea doesn't take off because the guy who implements it first stuffs it up so badly that it takes years before someone goes back and tries again. Real years, not Internet Years, because you have to wait until actual humans manage to forget about it.

So it's probably time to try again now...

Re:2 not-necessarily mutually exclusive perspectiv

[drinkypoo]

The same exact arguments apply to NoScript. What? A user can stop my content from being displayed as I like on page load? Guess I might have to write to the standards a little bit, if I want money from curmudgeons.

Re:that explains it! - Why Slashdot is so slow

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't understand is how did noscript blocke this slashdot story in real time?

But I guess you'll never read this comment...

Ha. Ha.

[QuoteMstr]

almost impossible.

Ha ha. Ahahaha. HA HA HAHAHA HAHAHAH AAHAHA HA HA!

You can't be serious.

There's nothing magical about Flash. Free flash players already exist, and with sufficient demand, they'll mature even faster, and it's no harder in principle to block ads in a free flash player than in a free web browser.

There is no way to limit what the user can do with content you send him. Though that's a content-provider's dream, it ain't happening unless the entire PC software stack is locked down, and I don't see that happening.

Re:that explains it! - Why Slashdot is so slow

[sjames]

While I am not all that optimistic that the ad people are capable of learning, I use adblopck to 'punish' bad behavior. Dancing and flashing ads get blocked. Slow ad servers that hold up the page load for too long get blocked. Scam ads and other junk that insult the reader's intelligence get blocked. The rest may stay. Want your ad to be seen by me? Make it tasteful and non-obnoxious.

If enough people do that, they'll have to learn or become irrelevant.

Prior art, sorta: Proxomitron

[macraig]

People have been using the HTTP filtering proxy Proxomitron for many years to rewrite the Web to their liking, including both removing AND adding content, like floting personal menus and all sorts of things. It might have started out with the primary goal of removing ads, but it evolved to be able to virtually rewrite entire pages according to the user's wishes. I doubt that it's as user-friendly as JetPack will be, but then that's in part because Proxomitron's suthor Scott Lemmon died some years ago and further improvements never happened.

i was thinking of keen.com (name?)

[circletimessquare]

but yeah third voice is a losing idea too

"If changing the presentation of the content takes away all commonality, then there never was any content."

third voice changes what is actually communicated. it fractures the substance of the message. presentation also to some extent changes the message, but not nearly to the same degree. if i change the font size to 18 pt from 9 pt on the headline, i am changing the message, but not nearly enough as adding a little sidebar that says "this article is a lie"... that only some subchannel of users can see

"I think that while people do seem happy with their horses and buggies, they only need to see an automobile in action once, before some start to wonder, "Hey, can I have one of those?""

the automobile was a definite improvement over the horse and buggy. who is to say this is allegorical to third voice? lots of technological "improvements" have come and gone. for every automobile there is also rocket cars, hovercraft, steam engine cars, etc. in other words: lots of promising ideas don't pan out in the end

The effects of ad-blocking

[QuoteMstr]

All ad-blocking does is give users the power to fight back against overzealous advertisers. It's not a given that ad-blocking software will be used to block all ads.

Look: you can add advertising to a given space until the incremental revenue from more advertising exceeds the consequent loss in eyeballs. Let's call that point P. Even without ad-blocking, there's a mechanism to prevent the web from becoming all advertising.

The problem is that P is obnoxious for most people, and it doesn't lead to an enjoyable experience. P is at Nash equilibrium, but it's not optimal from a utilitarian viewpoint (because many people are unhappy). In other words, the total benefit to society is less than it could be even though each of the players is playing as well as he can.

Now introduce ad-blocking to the mix. Users can now simply delete ads they find obnoxious. They will not go through the trouble of deleting ads that do not bother them however, and a new equilibrium point P1 is reached. Since people are happy with the ads at the P1 level, and because advertisers still see some revenue, I'd wager that P1 has a higher utilitarian value than P. (i.e., ad-blockers make the web a better place when you consider society as a whole.)

Re:The effects of ad-blocking

[rel4x]

If it's overzealous don't use the site.

Re:The effects of ad-blocking

[QuoteMstr]

Did you read my post you ridiculous, authority-kowtowing simpleton?

Re:The effects of ad-blocking

[causality]

If it's overzealous don't use the site.

I don't think you appreciate the mentality with which you're dealing.

If people dealt with it that way, then indeed you would not hear about "advertisers vs. ad-blocking capability." Instead, you would hear about content providers demanding ways to force people to view their Web sites. Those ways could be as benign as bargining with companies like Dell and Compaq to make their pages the default browser homepage, or they could be much, much more intrusive. Either way, if it is handled the way that you suggest, you would find that you are most definitely not dealing with people who would stop and accept the users' decision.

Telemarketers before the advent of the "Do Not Call" list are a better illustration. Various devices were created to thwart telemarketers or otherwise to selectively block them. Did the telemarketers say "well I guess we're not wanted by those people, maybe we should concentrate our efforts towards people who are more receptive to our business model"? No, they didn't. Instead, they came up with various ways to get around those devices and blocking techniques. You should hear some of the rationalizations behind this. The one I heard the most, was that they believed people installing telemarketer-blocking devices were mostly composed of unassertive folks who had a hard time saying "no" to a pushy salesperson, so that once they got through the blocking device they felt they were more likely to make a sale than usual. Of course, I am not even beginning to get into the fact that my private home is not a place of business and that anyone who doesn't want to accept that is acting like an intruder and deserves (within reason and within the bounds of the law, of course) to be treated like one.

My point is, you are not dealing with people who respect you or would honor your choices. Advertisers have a generally bad name on the Internet and elsewhere and they have soundly earned it. Your solution and those like it should be reserved for entities that can be reasoned with. Since that is not what you are dealing with, the attitude of "if you put it on the public network, I will take any measures I feel like taking with my own equipment in order to view it any way I damned well please" is entirely appropriate and I refuse to apologize for it.

Re:that explains it! - Why Slashdot is so slow

[antdude]

Use Adblock Plus and set /. account back to classic layout. You can customize it. I hated the new layout! So slow and bloated.

true

[circletimessquare]

i was thinking more along the lines of comments about... slashdot comments

ok, you sold me ;-)

it could take off

yes yes please god yes

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Web was never designed nor intended as a tool for commercial enterprises--it was intended to allow academics to share information, and however far it evolves under commercial pressure, there is not much that can be done about that fundamental aspect of its architecture. To try to use the Web, which was designed for free and open information sharing, as a tool for restricted information sales is probably going to fail."

Oh my God mod parent up.

small clue

[circletimessquare]

if you want success, try to empathize with what the masses want. if you look down on and ridicule and sneer at the masses, you will never experience broad success, because you will never understand what is most popular

not that this is something you may want, you may choose to only be relevant to a small obscure arrogant elite

but don't think for a moment that the judgments you make matter to anyone else, or even have any validity other than creating a false sense of superiority. and your feeling of superiority is truly false, and you are truly no better than the masses, and are in fact are somewhat inferior to them, for your haughty sense of superiority based on nothing more than your insecurities and need to feed your ego

populists always beat elitists

Re:small clue

[radtea]

but don't think for a moment that the judgments you make matter to anyone else, or even have any validity other than creating a false sense of superiority. and your feeling of superiority is truly false, and you are truly no better than the masses, and are in fact are somewhat inferior to them, for your haughty sense of superiority based on nothing more than your insecurities and need to feed your ego

populists always beat elitists

And you should see what people who use standard capitalization and punctuation can do! :-P

Revolution=Chrome

[LordMyren]

The guy forgot just one important thing: Most people don't use Firefox.

Jetpack is just a weekend knock off of the much better done Chrome Extensions, true story. Compare their couple month old API v. Jetpack's API and its blatantly obvious where Jetpack came from.

I'm hoping Safari and Opera adopt the Chrome Extensions model.

Re:that explains it! - Why Slashdot is so slow

[Anonymous Coward]

./ has ads!?!

Re:that explains it! - Why Slashdot is so slow

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yes. There's so much crap running on Slashdot's pages now that Firefox sometimes reports that a script is running too long.

There's already a fix for this. I use NoScript to turn off all of /.'s JavaScript, then use GreaseMonkey to inject my own script into the page. My script strips all of the /. CSS and some of the HTML elements (*cough* tags *cough*), then injects a CSS of my own that restyles the page the way I like it.

I also use AdBlock to strip the non-flash ads from the pages.

This wasn't trivial to set up, I admit, but it wasn't more than few hours of effort either. And the result is that I actually want to read /. again, since I like the way the page looks. Oh yeah, it also loads very, very fast.

Re:that explains it! - Why Slashdot is so slow

[radtea]

even better, positive karma and meaningful contributions will allow you to disable ad on /.

Yeah, I noticed that checkbox thingy on my user page a while back, and thought... oh yeah, some people see ads here!

I bet almost everyone who gets that "extra" is already using FF and AdBlock and/or NoScript, so the marketing droids have created an incentive which is just about perfectly calibrated to give nothing at all to the people it is supposed to reward.

There's probably some kind of lesson there about making money on the Web, or the failure of suits to understand the medium, but I'm damned if I know what it is.

Arms Race with ALL the bots, not just us

[Sloppy]

Let's say you use Flash to make it so that my user-agent can't separate the wheat from the chaff. You want to deliver raw pixels, rather than text, to my eyes, so that my visual cortex (known for being buggy and subject to subtle manipulation ;-) has to see both the ads and the content and figure out what's what.

Here's your problem: if my user-agent can't make sense of it, then neither can the spiders. Your website has no referrals from Google. Your website has no meaning as a website, because it's not one; it's just a pointer to an applet. Personally, I think it's fine to be in the software business, but don't pretend it has something to do with the web.

it's the user interface and libraries

[speedtux]

Sounds just like greasemonkey. Maybe greasemonkey + platypus?

The differences are in the user interface and the JS libraries that come with it. Those are huge differences from a practical point of view. So, it doesn't really matter whether it is similar to GM in some high level sense.

My backpack's got jets.

[AP31R0N]

Well, I'm Boba the Fett.

Re:that explains it! - Why Slashdot is so slow

[skeeto]

You just have to hope that NoScript doesn't turn into malware again.

Let it go, Monty

[Anonymous Coward]

We've talked about your anger issues. You are only making yourself look worse at this point.

Re:that explains it! - Why Slashdot is so slow

[badkarmadayaccount]

I think it's more like a symbolic reward, something to feel good about. Like karma. You don't get any money for good karma, maybe some more mod points, but it's sorta psychological. Sometimes I just stare at my userpage with the checkbox, feeling sorta proud.