Users, though, should be expected to have a minimum degree of intelligence before getting involved with something that requires some basic thinking, such as a computer.
With logic like this, is it any wonder linux is not on more desktops and people stay with what they know (read:MS)?
Secondly, we've known since the beginning of computing, users cannot be expected to be as knowledgeable as the folks that live/breathe computers.
Hell, we teach them for YEARS to " zOMG NOT CLICK ON THAT!!!!11oneoneonetwo", and now that there may be a good reason to "click on that and READ it", we need to untrain the desired effect.
Computers are tools, thankfully not as harmful (in most cases) as stopping the chainsaw blade with your hand, but certainly not anything that should require much beyond click|type.
These people aren't just ignorant, they refuse to try, because they've already convinced themselves that they can't understand $thing.
Maybe, there are some of us who are stuck using MS-Windows for whatever reason, have simply been trained to click OK, and reboot if it acts weird in the interest of saving time and sanity.
I don't mean that as a MS-Bash, but OK|reboot is easier and more efficient than looking for the root cause in many situations. More so in the case of those stupid memory 'read' errors, or in the case of '$APP has encountered a problem and needs to close".
My point is that it could be a trained, deliberate, apathetic response, and not just ignorance.
I've also never had someone treat me badly because of it. Us asshole 'Americans' could learn from their examples.
Were you going there with hopes of obtaining subsidized rent, free food, free services, and free health care while you sat on your couch smoking weed all day? Would you park a 08 Caddy in the driveway and not pay taxes? Would you disobey the existing laws and snub your nose at the rules of the governing systems?
I don't think you'd receive the same treatment in many of those countries if you did what many current immigrants do in the US. If you behaved like the illegal immigrants, you'd probably be shot, at least in several of them, or jailed in others.
I hear Mexican prisons aren't exactly the upper class accommodations you see in the postcards.
he dumbest thing the democrats have done so far in this campaign is focus on Palin
You are not voting for or against McCain in this election, based on his age, multiple bouts of skin cancer, and the unknown... its is VERY likely you are voting for or against Palin. See this.
I thought they just wanted the US to stop helping their religious enemies. They were not after control of the US, they were after control of some useless desert.
I am absolutely amazed that the region in dispute hasn't been turned into a glass parking lot.
Coming so close to the end of this Congressional session, Sanchez's bill is unlikely to see action this year. It currently sits in the House Committee on Homeland Security, where it will likely expire when Congress adjourns.
- I don't believe DHS has any motivation to increase process and push this Act through any time soon. - This Act is in direct conflict with parts of the Patriot Act - It's logical, therefore has no chance.
The telco is saying that the town would not be able to -even- -think- about building a fiber network if it was taxpayers money footing the bill(many of whom may not utilize the service).
Because bonds are being used, and the business model pays for itself with little financial risk to the town, the telco is saying its an unfair business advantage.
Imagine that... a town with the intellect and means to provide a service the people actually want, and are willing to provide it the way the people actually want it.
Today, it seems like the thinking is that the government can get access to anything they want, unless it is specially protected in some way. That is backwards
No, Google did not take over the government but when the government _starts_ dictating what content is available, you might as well live in PRC. Lieberman, under his own agenda or a party (Independent now, eh?) seems to think the internet should be censored based on American ideals, morals, interests, and laws. Odd that, no?
Just wait until content is punishable by death under the ever-loving Patriot Act.
If it bothered him so much to put that information into the hands of morons then he should have immediately walked off the job after handing it over. It's no longer his problem after that.
It was no longer his problem after they fired him, either. The issue is they fired him before obtaining the crucial information they need to maintain/control the network.
1) If I was sitting in jail over this, I'd feel inclined to not say anything either. I might laugh, though. 2) If I was in his position and someone wanted my assistance fixing their error, I'd have all charges dropped, double salary (at least) for the period of time served in jail, a clear statement of work, and a monster truck before I said or did anything.
I agree that the government doesn't do enough at home considering what it spends overseas, but I don't want the government supplying aid to causes I don't agree with.
Now if we had half a chance of convincing the government what we agree with.;)
Just be prepared to remain philosophically consistent by denying any charity offered to you.
Technically, I qualify for many aid programs as a single Father of 4, and refuse freebies, sympathy, or handouts based on the perceived 'need'. My children are stronger because of my convictions.
I have some relatives that evacuated from south Louisiana(an area still above sea level) to Florida thinking Gustav wouldn't reach that far east.
Godspeed and best luck to all in the affected areas.
On a side note I'm going to guess that you have recently read or are a huge fan of Ayn Rand, not that there is anything wrong with that.
No, I'm just a pissed off American. I did, however, appreciate the reference and admittedly am a fan, or at least very interested at first glance. Thank you for the next few hours of reading.
Someone explain to me why I should spend my money on problems outside my house/family that will certainly never benefit me or my family when my government refuses to lead the charge?
Without intending to be a troll -- honestly I'm not. This thread seemed to be on topic enough to throw out an unpopular (seemingly) opinion which agrees with the OP.
- Why do I care about oppression in other parts of the world? Doesn't change the price of milk for my kids. - Why do I need to support other people make life decisions that I do not agree with? Choose to live in a sea level area that can be prone to flooding... get what you deserve or move. - Why do I care if Mother Nature doesn't like trailer parks if I don't live in one? We all have learned that TPs in tornado/hurricane paths are really bad ideas. - Why do I need to support cancer research (pick a flavor), Alzheimer's research, or AIDS research if I will never benefit from that investment? Let's face it, I'm a miserable prick, and probably won't care after I'm gone. - Why should I care if family X migrated (or is illegally in) to the US and hasn't learned the language or gotten a job to support themselves? That plan seems a little light in the 'thinking through' department. - Why should I care about the homeless, the starved, the drug addicts, and the alcoholics? Giving/supporting them only makes me an enabler, and I won't get to claim them as a dependent -- although that's exactly what they become, dependent.
Bottom line is that all of those questions are exactly what charities ask for all day long. It is not my job to provide for the world, and I despise the fact that my government feels it should waste my tax dollars providing for the unprivileged around the globe, and can't manage to take care of business at home first. If the money the US spent around the globe with no hope of ROI were spent in the US, many of the issues mentioned above would certainly be more manageable than they are now.
If all you standardsstandardsstandards people wanted to fix the problem, you'd code to standard, and let MS worry about IEx incompatibilities.
But instead, people actually test IEx, and fix sites for IEx. Hypocritical, if you ask me. MS just increased your workload because you fix the non-standard for them. What incentive will they ever have to change?
I would liken the billboards on the highway to junk mail... it's been accepted for so long that the practice will never die, even though they probably should. I could certainly do without both.
Cue the obligatory: Sign, sign, blocking up the scenery, breaking my mind.
The difference, in my mind, is that I cannot affect junk mail/highway signs... I have no technological solution to junk mail/signs, although those oftentimes share the net effect of not getting my dollars. There is no 'opt-out' of mail/signs. There is legislation in place for the USPS to deliver everything legal that someone paid for to be delivered, unwanted, unsolicited or not.
I -can- affect what I see on the net to a modest degree.
Good questions... let me see if I can clarify my position.
First, the advertising money *you* are spending is not your money. At what point did you start losing money to visit websites? It comes from the advertisers, and only if you visit the website.
The OP inferred that it was unfair for that business model to suffer by blocking all ads, or at least as many as possible. I was not talking about my advertising money, I was talking about the money used to buy the product being advertised. At some point, there has to be a sale. It's my money that starts or supports this process.
As a consumer, I'm more likely to buy a product I'm interested in, and therefore go looking for it as opposed to get annoyed by in my daily surfing.
The business model of shoving ads in my face in the hope that I purchase a product to sustain the process is one I would happily do without. If I wanted information, I'm fairly sure I could find it on my own.
Secondly, would you feel the same way about not caring when "a few hundred thousand websites go dark" if one of them was Slashdot? (be careful with this one)
No. I wouldn't necessarily care. that doesn't mean I wouldn't subscribe, and that doesn't mean I'm going to subscribe now. It means that a subscription model is a more sustainable business model, albeit "not get really rich as fast", than the anonymous blast of click throughs and served ads; especially when pop-ups, and served ads can easily be blocked at many points, and several which I can control; switch, router, ipchains, host file blacklist, blacklist-apps, blocker-apps, browser, browser plugin.
I think advertising is a necessary evil of the internet
I used to say that my landline was a neccesary evil of owning a house... along came telemarketers, silly taxes, silly "fees" and broken laws making a landline ownership definitively an evil. I no longer have a landline -- although there are cons to being limited to cell, for the most part many evils have disappeared.
You shouldn't have to trick your users into clicking them.
I agree. In addition; In a free (as in speech, not as in beer) internet, I should be able to decide for myself what content I want to see, and not what some marketing fool thinks I need to.
If it becomes common technology (i.e. browser option as opposed to plugin, 3rd party blacklist, etc...) to the non-technical, or oblivious internet users, then these sites will evolve, or die. Thats not even Darwinism, thats just common sense.
I can't predict the future, so I don't know if what evolves is worse or better than what we have now.
Not just the new IE8 blocking, but all forms of ad blocking? Seems unfair to destroy the business models of so many websites.
As a consumer, I should not be forced to support $business_model, nor should I be concerned if it breaks or gets broken. It is my money, and *I* will decide how I spend it. If sites are worthwhile and reasonable, I'd consider paying for it. If it is not, Sorry Charlie.
I wonder if there is any legal recourse for sites like Digg or companies like Google who are hurt by this sort of thing.
So when the collective communities bitch about the RIAA and its failing business model it's OK to shoot them into space (directly into the Sun even!), but when it's more than clear that people don't want to see unsolicited ads or be tracked for marketing we should reverse course and allow that Bad Idea(tm) to continue because some sites can't/won't thrive?
I will not lose any sleep whatsoever if a few hundred thousand websites go dark as a result of easy, simple and effective ad-blocking. I do not think IE8 "InPrivate" is geared towards 100% ad-blocking (it's surely not), but there are already ways to block really high percentages of unwanted screen-spam. This new feature could provoke the non-technical to WANT to block ads and tracking, once they figure out they really CAN.
Especially Google, as I highly doubt this whole thing is an "accident".
Good observation. I saw this as the Extinguish prong of predictable MS behavior as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Users, though, should be expected to have a minimum degree of intelligence before getting involved with something that requires some basic thinking, such as a computer.
With logic like this, is it any wonder linux is not on more desktops and people stay with what they know (read:MS)?
Secondly, we've known since the beginning of computing, users cannot be expected to be as knowledgeable as the folks that live/breathe computers.
Hell, we teach them for YEARS to " zOMG NOT CLICK ON THAT!!!!11oneoneonetwo", and now that there may be a good reason to "click on that and READ it", we need to untrain the desired effect.
Computers are tools, thankfully not as harmful (in most cases) as stopping the chainsaw blade with your hand, but certainly not anything that should require much beyond click|type.
These people aren't just ignorant, they refuse to try, because they've already convinced themselves that they can't understand $thing.
Maybe, there are some of us who are stuck using MS-Windows for whatever reason, have simply been trained to click OK, and reboot if it acts weird in the interest of saving time and sanity.
I don't mean that as a MS-Bash, but OK|reboot is easier and more efficient than looking for the root cause in many situations. More so in the case of those stupid memory 'read' errors, or in the case of '$APP has encountered a problem and needs to close".
My point is that it could be a trained, deliberate, apathetic response, and not just ignorance.
everybody wins (except for people who want the Olympics to be about something other than corruption and greed, but that's already a lost cause).
Don't forget the sex.
I've also never had someone treat me badly because of it. Us asshole 'Americans' could learn from their examples.
Were you going there with hopes of obtaining subsidized rent, free food, free services, and free health care while you sat on your couch smoking weed all day? Would you park a 08 Caddy in the driveway and not pay taxes? Would you disobey the existing laws and snub your nose at the rules of the governing systems?
I don't think you'd receive the same treatment in many of those countries if you did what many current immigrants do in the US. If you behaved like the illegal immigrants, you'd probably be shot, at least in several of them, or jailed in others.
I hear Mexican prisons aren't exactly the upper class accommodations you see in the postcards.
he dumbest thing the democrats have done so far in this campaign is focus on Palin
You are not voting for or against McCain in this election, based on his age, multiple bouts of skin cancer, and the unknown... its is VERY likely you are voting for or against Palin. See this.
Also note, 3rd in line is Nancy Pelosi. -shudder-
I meant logical in that the original law won't ever go away and providing some accountability, and rules was sensible.
I'm with you though... no bet.
That their power exists only so long as we grant it to them.
Which one of the two party choices do you think for a minute believes that horseshit?
Then the terrorists won't hate you anymore.
I thought they just wanted the US to stop helping their religious enemies. They were not after control of the US, they were after control of some useless desert.
I am absolutely amazed that the region in dispute hasn't been turned into a glass parking lot.
From 1ofTFA:
Coming so close to the end of this Congressional session, Sanchez's bill is unlikely to see action this year. It currently sits in the House Committee on Homeland Security, where it will likely expire when Congress adjourns.
- I don't believe DHS has any motivation to increase process and push this Act through any time soon.
- This Act is in direct conflict with parts of the Patriot Act
- It's logical, therefore has no chance.
Better yet.... what happens if there is a game called Global Thermonuclear war on that equipment?
Revenue bonds.
The telco is saying that the town would not be able to -even- -think- about building a fiber network if it was taxpayers money footing the bill(many of whom may not utilize the service).
Because bonds are being used, and the business model pays for itself with little financial risk to the town, the telco is saying its an unfair business advantage.
Imagine that... a town with the intellect and means to provide a service the people actually want, and are willing to provide it the way the people actually want it.
suddenoutbreakofcommonsense
I hope the town wins. Hard, and fast.
I guess we won't know until someone doesn't. My guess is that we'd have new legislature. If you can't sue, legislate.
Today, it seems like the thinking is that the government can get access to anything they want, unless it is specially protected in some way. That is backwards
Correction.
The Patriot Act is not spelled b-a-c-k-w-a-r-d-s.
No, Google did not take over the government but when the government _starts_ dictating what content is available, you might as well live in PRC. Lieberman, under his own agenda or a party (Independent now, eh?) seems to think the internet should be censored based on American ideals, morals, interests, and laws. Odd that, no?
Just wait until content is punishable by death under the ever-loving Patriot Act.
When do they start burning books?
If it bothered him so much to put that information into the hands of morons then he should have immediately walked off the job after handing it over. It's no longer his problem after that.
It was no longer his problem after they fired him, either. The issue is they fired him before obtaining the crucial information they need to maintain/control the network.
1) If I was sitting in jail over this, I'd feel inclined to not say anything either. I might laugh, though.
2) If I was in his position and someone wanted my assistance fixing their error, I'd have all charges dropped, double salary (at least) for the period of time served in jail, a clear statement of work, and a monster truck before I said or did anything.
Just my .01.
I agree that the government doesn't do enough at home considering what it spends overseas, but I don't want the government supplying aid to causes I don't agree with.
Now if we had half a chance of convincing the government what we agree with. ;)
Just be prepared to remain philosophically consistent by denying any charity offered to you.
Technically, I qualify for many aid programs as a single Father of 4, and refuse freebies, sympathy, or handouts based on the perceived 'need'. My children are stronger because of my convictions.
I have some relatives that evacuated from south Louisiana(an area still above sea level) to Florida thinking Gustav wouldn't reach that far east.
Godspeed and best luck to all in the affected areas.
On a side note I'm going to guess that you have recently read or are a huge fan of Ayn Rand, not that there is anything wrong with that.
No, I'm just a pissed off American. I did, however, appreciate the reference and admittedly am a fan, or at least very interested at first glance. Thank you for the next few hours of reading.
Someone explain to me why I should spend my money on problems outside my house/family that will certainly never benefit me or my family when my government refuses to lead the charge?
Without intending to be a troll -- honestly I'm not. This thread seemed to be on topic enough to throw out an unpopular (seemingly) opinion which agrees with the OP.
- Why do I care about oppression in other parts of the world? Doesn't change the price of milk for my kids.
- Why do I need to support other people make life decisions that I do not agree with? Choose to live in a sea level area that can be prone to flooding... get what you deserve or move.
- Why do I care if Mother Nature doesn't like trailer parks if I don't live in one? We all have learned that TPs in tornado/hurricane paths are really bad ideas.
- Why do I need to support cancer research (pick a flavor), Alzheimer's research, or AIDS research if I will never benefit from that investment? Let's face it, I'm a miserable prick, and probably won't care after I'm gone.
- Why should I care if family X migrated (or is illegally in) to the US and hasn't learned the language or gotten a job to support themselves? That plan seems a little light in the 'thinking through' department.
- Why should I care about the homeless, the starved, the drug addicts, and the alcoholics? Giving/supporting them only makes me an enabler, and I won't get to claim them as a dependent -- although that's exactly what they become, dependent.
Bottom line is that all of those questions are exactly what charities ask for all day long. It is not my job to provide for the world, and I despise the fact that my government feels it should waste my tax dollars providing for the unprivileged around the globe, and can't manage to take care of business at home first. If the money the US spent around the globe with no hope of ROI were spent in the US, many of the issues mentioned above would certainly be more manageable than they are now.
from the pet-peeve-of-mine dept...
If all you standardsstandardsstandards people wanted to fix the problem, you'd code to standard, and let MS worry about IEx incompatibilities.
But instead, people actually test IEx, and fix sites for IEx. Hypocritical, if you ask me. MS just increased your workload because you fix the non-standard for them. What incentive will they ever have to change?
This post is compliant.
;)
I would liken the billboards on the highway to junk mail... it's been accepted for so long that the practice will never die, even though they probably should. I could certainly do without both.
Cue the obligatory: Sign, sign, blocking up the scenery, breaking my mind.
The difference, in my mind, is that I cannot affect junk mail/highway signs... I have no technological solution to junk mail/signs, although those oftentimes share the net effect of not getting my dollars. There is no 'opt-out' of mail/signs. There is legislation in place for the USPS to deliver everything legal that someone paid for to be delivered, unwanted, unsolicited or not.
I -can- affect what I see on the net to a modest degree.
Good questions... let me see if I can clarify my position.
First, the advertising money *you* are spending is not your money. At what point did you start losing money to visit websites? It comes from the advertisers, and only if you visit the website.
The OP inferred that it was unfair for that business model to suffer by blocking all ads, or at least as many as possible. I was not talking about my advertising money, I was talking about the money used to buy the product being advertised. At some point, there has to be a sale. It's my money that starts or supports this process.
As a consumer, I'm more likely to buy a product I'm interested in, and therefore go looking for it as opposed to get annoyed by in my daily surfing.
The business model of shoving ads in my face in the hope that I purchase a product to sustain the process is one I would happily do without. If I wanted information, I'm fairly sure I could find it on my own.
Secondly, would you feel the same way about not caring when "a few hundred thousand websites go dark" if one of them was Slashdot?
(be careful with this one)
No. I wouldn't necessarily care. that doesn't mean I wouldn't subscribe, and that doesn't mean I'm going to subscribe now. It means that a subscription model is a more sustainable business model, albeit "not get really rich as fast", than the anonymous blast of click throughs and served ads; especially when pop-ups, and served ads can easily be blocked at many points, and several which I can control; switch, router, ipchains, host file blacklist, blacklist-apps, blocker-apps, browser, browser plugin.
I think advertising is a necessary evil of the internet
I used to say that my landline was a neccesary evil of owning a house... along came telemarketers, silly taxes, silly "fees" and broken laws making a landline ownership definitively an evil. I no longer have a landline -- although there are cons to being limited to cell, for the most part many evils have disappeared.
You shouldn't have to trick your users into clicking them.
I agree. In addition; In a free (as in speech, not as in beer) internet, I should be able to decide for myself what content I want to see, and not what some marketing fool thinks I need to.
If it becomes common technology (i.e. browser option as opposed to plugin, 3rd party blacklist, etc...) to the non-technical, or oblivious internet users, then these sites will evolve, or die. Thats not even Darwinism, thats just common sense.
I can't predict the future, so I don't know if what evolves is worse or better than what we have now.
Not just the new IE8 blocking, but all forms of ad blocking? Seems unfair to destroy the business models of so many websites.
As a consumer, I should not be forced to support $business_model, nor should I be concerned if it breaks or gets broken. It is my money, and *I* will decide how I spend it. If sites are worthwhile and reasonable, I'd consider paying for it. If it is not, Sorry Charlie.
I wonder if there is any legal recourse for sites like Digg or companies like Google who are hurt by this sort of thing.
So when the collective communities bitch about the RIAA and its failing business model it's OK to shoot them into space (directly into the Sun even!), but when it's more than clear that people don't want to see unsolicited ads or be tracked for marketing we should reverse course and allow that Bad Idea(tm) to continue because some sites can't/won't thrive?
I will not lose any sleep whatsoever if a few hundred thousand websites go dark as a result of easy, simple and effective ad-blocking. I do not think IE8 "InPrivate" is geared towards 100% ad-blocking (it's surely not), but there are already ways to block really high percentages of unwanted screen-spam. This new feature could provoke the non-technical to WANT to block ads and tracking, once they figure out they really CAN.
Especially Google, as I highly doubt this whole thing is an "accident".
Good observation. I saw this as the Extinguish prong of predictable MS behavior as well.
Wired sucks. Ars has it as well.
Iran says it has no intention to use the technology for launching nuclear warheads."
Yeah, suuuuuuuure you won't.
+1 Agree. 42% sounds like bullshit.