Phics was referring to the letter "u". When pronouncing "scuba", people use a long "u" as in "unity" (which makes it sound like "skoobah"), rather than the short "u" sound for the actual word, which is "underwater" (which would sound like "skuhbah").
Poor software engineering means that very capable computers are no longer capable of running modern, unnecessarily bloated software. This, in turn, leads to people having to replace computers that are otherwise working well, solely for the reason to keep up with software that requires more and more system resources for no tangible benefit.
In a nutshell -- sloppy, lazy programming leads to more technology waste. That impacts the environment.
I have a unique perspective in this topic. I do web development for a company that does electronics recycling. I have suffered the continued bloat in software in the tools I use (most egregiously, Adobe), and I see the impact of technological waste in the increasing amount of electronics recycling that is occurring.
Ironically, I'm working at home today because my computer at the office kept stalling every time I had Photoshop and Illustrator open at the same time. A few years ago that wasn't a problem.
What also contributes to the problem is that GMail considers "firstname.lastname@gmail.com" equivalent to "firstnamelastname@gmail.com" (without the period between the names). Someone in the USA with the same name as myself has been subscribing to services using the latter no-period format, but I get them in my GMail account using the former with-period format.
All they'll glean from me is that I'm a pornography-obsessed kinky nymphomaniac, because that's the only thing I use my old Yahoo! Mail account for anymore. As far as I'm concern, the account is disposable. I haven't agreed to the new terms of service yet, and the moment it becomes mandatory, I'll abandon the account.
The "correct" answer will always depend on context. For example, does one need to know the macro distance for the sake of marine travel, or the micro distance for the sake of water-to-land exposure.
Yes, any website created with proper HTML in the 1990's will definitely work in modern browsers. Your example about IE actually backfires on you -- that's an example of someone working with proprietary formats versus standards. IE 6 in particular encouraged a lot of proprietary programming that only worked in IE 6, and that created a long and nightmarish legacy for a lot of web application developers and users. In fact, Microsoft themselves had a campaign a few years ago to encourage people to stop using IE 6, which people kept using because their custom web applications required it.
Compared to the analog age of paper, film and tape, the digital age of information storage seems much more delicate and transient. Hard drives are notoriously unreliable. Solid-state storage discharges over time. Optical discs have been plagued by bit-rot. Magnetic archival tape is inconvenient and expensive. Cloud storage is only "permanent" until the company discontinues the service. And, so many of the technologies of the recent decades get abandoned and become unreadable as no one supports them anymore. The only current solution is to keep copying from one format to another, and considering the multi-mega-terabytes of information we're generating these days, that's becoming less and less practical.
What we really, really need some form of non-proprietary and affordable permanent digital storage. It doesn't need to be erasable or rewritable if it's inexpensive. Something that one can save bits in their simplest and purest form possible, and know it won't fade, rot or discharge 1000's of years in the future.
The main reason we don't go to theatres much anymore is that we've created a a better experience at home. Eight-foot wide screen, four recliners, a completely darkened room with no windows, and the ability to control the entire presentation on our schedule. We simply wait until they come out on Blu-Ray.
The few occasions where we go to the theatre are either because (a) we got free or discounted tickets, or (b) the desire to see it sooner. For example we saw "The Man Who Invented Christmas" (to see it during the holiday season) and "The Last Jedi" (to avoid having the surprises spoiled). In both situations, we had to put up with people texting throughout the movies. Fuck people, PUT YOUR DAMN PHONES AWAY!
It isn't just bugs, either. A lot of their recent software efforts seem sloppy and confused. Interfaces that were elegant and useful are now cluttered, ugly and non-intuitive, lacking in some highly desirable functionality, yet messed up with unwanted changes from previous versions. When I switched from Windows to Mac in 2010, I did so solely because of their highly desirable software; not because of their overpriced shiny hardware. But now that benefit is waning, and I know several people beside myself who are considering abandoning the Apple ship. They need to get their act together.
Apple has been making similar changes to their tvOS. Won't go into the details here, but they're effectively trying to dumb-down the interface by stripping out useful features. Not sure what logic is driving these changes. Were people really that overwhelmed by the now-missing ability to "Mark as watched" manually?
Well, you could put a value to it, but it would be more accurate to state, "people pirated $5.5 billion worth of content" rather than, "$5.5 billion in revenue lost," because, as you say, most of those people wouldn't have paid for it. They just seized the opportunity to get it for free.
It isn't even just about convenience. Users don't want to take the time to learn or understand software. Rather than use it as a tool they control, they want the software to do all the thinking for them. They want to push one, maybe two buttons, and have the software figure out what was intended and just do everything automatically. The moment you give them the control they really should have, they complain that "it's scary," "it's too complicated," or "it isn't intuitive."
They won't be blocking encoded strings for PNG's or other "safe" assets, only encoded strings in top-level data URI navigation (e.g. the address bar, browser history, etc.) and some restricted uses of embedded content such as HTML and JavaScript.
This suggestion isn't as far-fetched as it sounds. In this day of modern CSS, there is no reason for big, bloated HTML markup. If a responsible web developer does their job properly, their code and assets should be lean and efficient, and loading an entire page should happen in an instant. The only reason things have become a problem is because amateur developers who know little about efficient, semantic markup just keep throwing more and more frameworks and libraries together to create a website.
Sorry, if having free will means I will be punished for using it, I don't want it. God should have made us only do the "right" things if that's what He wanted.
And the original concept of the Web was specifically not intended to do pixel-perfect rendering of anything
Sadly, so many graphic designers, advertising agencies and customer executives view this as limitation of the web rather than a deliberate decision. They still approach it like a print medium. "When are they going to fix it?", they ask me. Trying to explain how this is supposed to work has been an up-hill battle for me for the entire 17 years I've been in this business. Heck, I still get designers/customers asking me to "fit it all on one screen so there's no scrolling".
Slashdot Mirror
Phics was referring to the letter "u". When pronouncing "scuba", people use a long "u" as in "unity" (which makes it sound like "skoobah"), rather than the short "u" sound for the actual word, which is "underwater" (which would sound like "skuhbah").
Poor software engineering means that very capable computers are no longer capable of running modern, unnecessarily bloated software. This, in turn, leads to people having to replace computers that are otherwise working well, solely for the reason to keep up with software that requires more and more system resources for no tangible benefit. In a nutshell -- sloppy, lazy programming leads to more technology waste. That impacts the environment. I have a unique perspective in this topic. I do web development for a company that does electronics recycling. I have suffered the continued bloat in software in the tools I use (most egregiously, Adobe), and I see the impact of technological waste in the increasing amount of electronics recycling that is occurring. Ironically, I'm working at home today because my computer at the office kept stalling every time I had Photoshop and Illustrator open at the same time. A few years ago that wasn't a problem.
What also contributes to the problem is that GMail considers "firstname.lastname@gmail.com" equivalent to "firstnamelastname@gmail.com" (without the period between the names). Someone in the USA with the same name as myself has been subscribing to services using the latter no-period format, but I get them in my GMail account using the former with-period format.
Seriously, what's with all the idiots on Slashdot using the derogatory term "faggots" ?
All they'll glean from me is that I'm a pornography-obsessed kinky nymphomaniac, because that's the only thing I use my old Yahoo! Mail account for anymore. As far as I'm concern, the account is disposable. I haven't agreed to the new terms of service yet, and the moment it becomes mandatory, I'll abandon the account.
I tends to be news for end-customers who had web applications built by developers who have long since moved on.
The "correct" answer will always depend on context. For example, does one need to know the macro distance for the sake of marine travel, or the micro distance for the sake of water-to-land exposure.
Yes, any website created with proper HTML in the 1990's will definitely work in modern browsers. Your example about IE actually backfires on you -- that's an example of someone working with proprietary formats versus standards. IE 6 in particular encouraged a lot of proprietary programming that only worked in IE 6, and that created a long and nightmarish legacy for a lot of web application developers and users. In fact, Microsoft themselves had a campaign a few years ago to encourage people to stop using IE 6, which people kept using because their custom web applications required it.
Just updated to Chrome 66 myself (MacOS version), and the CNN videos are still auto-playing with sound.
Compared to the analog age of paper, film and tape, the digital age of information storage seems much more delicate and transient. Hard drives are notoriously unreliable. Solid-state storage discharges over time. Optical discs have been plagued by bit-rot. Magnetic archival tape is inconvenient and expensive. Cloud storage is only "permanent" until the company discontinues the service. And, so many of the technologies of the recent decades get abandoned and become unreadable as no one supports them anymore. The only current solution is to keep copying from one format to another, and considering the multi-mega-terabytes of information we're generating these days, that's becoming less and less practical.
What we really, really need some form of non-proprietary and affordable permanent digital storage. It doesn't need to be erasable or rewritable if it's inexpensive. Something that one can save bits in their simplest and purest form possible, and know it won't fade, rot or discharge 1000's of years in the future.
The main reason we don't go to theatres much anymore is that we've created a a better experience at home. Eight-foot wide screen, four recliners, a completely darkened room with no windows, and the ability to control the entire presentation on our schedule. We simply wait until they come out on Blu-Ray. The few occasions where we go to the theatre are either because (a) we got free or discounted tickets, or (b) the desire to see it sooner. For example we saw "The Man Who Invented Christmas" (to see it during the holiday season) and "The Last Jedi" (to avoid having the surprises spoiled). In both situations, we had to put up with people texting throughout the movies. Fuck people, PUT YOUR DAMN PHONES AWAY!
Well, how specific do you want me to be? The worst offenders are iTunes, Numbers, Music (on iOS) and the latest tvOS.
It isn't just bugs, either. A lot of their recent software efforts seem sloppy and confused. Interfaces that were elegant and useful are now cluttered, ugly and non-intuitive, lacking in some highly desirable functionality, yet messed up with unwanted changes from previous versions. When I switched from Windows to Mac in 2010, I did so solely because of their highly desirable software; not because of their overpriced shiny hardware. But now that benefit is waning, and I know several people beside myself who are considering abandoning the Apple ship. They need to get their act together.
Apple has been making similar changes to their tvOS. Won't go into the details here, but they're effectively trying to dumb-down the interface by stripping out useful features. Not sure what logic is driving these changes. Were people really that overwhelmed by the now-missing ability to "Mark as watched" manually?
And so much of that crap plastered on top of the video, not just interjected into breaks.
Well, you could put a value to it, but it would be more accurate to state, "people pirated $5.5 billion worth of content" rather than, "$5.5 billion in revenue lost," because, as you say, most of those people wouldn't have paid for it. They just seized the opportunity to get it for free.
It isn't even just about convenience. Users don't want to take the time to learn or understand software. Rather than use it as a tool they control, they want the software to do all the thinking for them. They want to push one, maybe two buttons, and have the software figure out what was intended and just do everything automatically. The moment you give them the control they really should have, they complain that "it's scary," "it's too complicated," or "it isn't intuitive."
They won't be blocking encoded strings for PNG's or other "safe" assets, only encoded strings in top-level data URI navigation (e.g. the address bar, browser history, etc.) and some restricted uses of embedded content such as HTML and JavaScript.
This suggestion isn't as far-fetched as it sounds. In this day of modern CSS, there is no reason for big, bloated HTML markup. If a responsible web developer does their job properly, their code and assets should be lean and efficient, and loading an entire page should happen in an instant. The only reason things have become a problem is because amateur developers who know little about efficient, semantic markup just keep throwing more and more frameworks and libraries together to create a website.
The login page at: https://www.healthcare.gov/mar... includes at least 8 third-party scripts, any of which could potentially harvest your username and password: https://stats.g.doubleclick.ne... https://www.googletagmanager.c... https://cdn.mxpnl.com/libs/mix... https://static.chartbeat.com/j... https://connect.facebook.net/e... https://platform.twitter.com/o... https://c1.rfihub.net/js/bcP.j... https://www.googleadservices.c...
Sorry, if having free will means I will be punished for using it, I don't want it. God should have made us only do the "right" things if that's what He wanted.
And the original concept of the Web was specifically not intended to do pixel-perfect rendering of anything
Sadly, so many graphic designers, advertising agencies and customer executives view this as limitation of the web rather than a deliberate decision. They still approach it like a print medium. "When are they going to fix it?", they ask me. Trying to explain how this is supposed to work has been an up-hill battle for me for the entire 17 years I've been in this business. Heck, I still get designers/customers asking me to "fit it all on one screen so there's no scrolling".