So the secret to pleasing your users is to fuck something truly basic and essential up. Then when you fix that you can foist any piece of shit interface on them and they'll thank you for it.
There are a lot of deaf people, and yet we still have concerts. The existence of monoptic people shouldn't stop the rest of us from enjoying stereoscopy.
A totally criminal scam if I ever heard of one. File sharers were threatened with court, and told if they 'settled out of court', paid up 500 quid, then the case would be dropped against them.
Here in America, we call that "plea bargaining". Hey, freedom ain't free!
Not likely. Any threat against the power structure that runs society can be easily twisted into a threat against society itself. Those in power then use that to get the people to put up with even more oppressive rules.
A lot of the "online tracking" that people seem to get so wound up about is simply allowing advertisers to target interested people with their advertisements more directly.
Yes, it allows the advertisers to lie more effectively so they can bilk you out of more of your money than they could otherwise.
If I spend a lot of time researching and reading about guitars (something I did recently), and I end up seeing lots of ads related to music - lessons, instrument sales, instrument service, sheet music... I really don't see a problem with that.
If you care about your instrument, wouldn't you want to base your decisions on information from unbiased sources? How does it benefit you to inject biased information into that process?
Then don't use HTTP. HTTP is for documents, not apps. It's not that abandoning cookies will break sites, it's those sites that have broken the internet by requiring us to use crappy hacks around intentional limitations of these protocols.
So far, all you have said has amounted to claiming that because Assange is not a perfect man, he cannot be a good man. People are complex, and so is the world. It's entirely possible to be flawed and still be motivated by kindness.
For what it's worth, I've never called Assange a hero, or held him up as any sort of exemplar. All I've said is that his actions are not inconsistent with someone primarily concerned with injustice. That's a very small claim, and one which you haven't seriously challenged with any facts. What exactly has Assange done that can not be construed as primarily intended to help others?
You have some pretty bizarre ideas about altruism too. The way I read you, I can be altruistic all I want by myself. But once I enter politics and try to get those altruistic ideas implemented as policy, all of a sudden I'm acting out of self interest. Bizarre.
And even if I agreed for the sake of argument that what Assange did was completely, 100% out of self-interest, that doesn't make him a bad person. Many people who truly deserve the title "hero" have been motivated by self interest, e.g. Captain Sullenberger.
Yes. This speaks strongly to his altruistic motives. Is he anti-war because he has personally lost family or property to the war? Or is he anti war because war is evil and bad, and the world will be a better place without it? I kind of doubt that it's the former, as I haven't heard of any personal motivations to be against these wars. If it's the latter, that's altruism.
If he's deriving any benefit from his actions at all (which he is, obviously) then it's not altruism.
By that definition, no one is altruistic. Even the most selfless get warm fuzzies from their actions.
Yes, the rich need to give something back to the rest of us. If not we'll take it. And I think they'll like that even less than paying for our social security. It's the rich who wage class warfare on all of us by not paying us what our labor is really worth. They should be gracious enough to realize how fortunate they are, and not take so much that the people are left dying alone and hungry.
That's the point of the article. They get $1 salaries and are compensated in other ways. As a result, they get out of paying Medicare and Social Security taxes. This accountant got in trouble for doing the same thing, why not Jobs?
You don't have to read his mind. You can look at what WikiLeaks leaks, and how it leaks it. You can also read his interviews (such as the one he did with TIME).
I have. I don't see anything inconsistent with an altruistic motive. You are the one making claims about his motives, demonstrate it to me.
Altruism is a selfless concern for others.
Yes, and uncovering evidence of bad deeds that don't affect you, and suffering for it, counts.
He has exposed many bad deeds at great risk to his safety and comfort. That sounds like altruism to me. I can't read minds, so I don't know what his motives really are. But I don't see anything that suggests otherwise. I would do the exact same thing in his position, but for fear of my safety.
Also, based on your other posts you seem to think that Assange having political motivations excludes altruism as a motive. I would argue that altruism requires political motivation.
2) It enables forced obsolescence (kill the registration servers and you can't play the game anymore)
Which gives me a reason not to buy it.
3) It ensures a one-title, one machine policy. Own a lap-top AND a desktop? You can't play the game on both.
4) Online activation requires a user to be online and transmit data to the publisher. You can use this to collect valuable demographic info (also, since the customer has to be online anyway, you might as well push advertisements down his way to earn even more cash!)
Again, many more reasons not to buy something with DRM.
5) It slowly pushes users to become more accepting of service-based licenses (e.g., subscription gaming) instead of single-sales.
Which also pushes users who do not accept service based licenses away from your product entirely.
6) It reassures investors that the publisher is protecting their property.
While not actually doing anything to protect it. It's just security theater, which is by definition useless.
It's less a way of preventing piracy at this point as it is of maximizing the publisher's income
But it's not a way of maximizing publishers income at all. It's a way of turning imaginary but countable losses (number of illegal copies) into uncountable but real losses (number of copies not sold due to DRM).
Stopping web spam is technically quite possible. We do it by finding the business behind the web site, and doing some automated due diligence. We check business records, SEC filings, BBB ratings, and Dun and Bradstreet to verify business legitimacy
And what if the non-spam result I'm looking for is not a business?
Your reading comprehension is poor. Reread the thread, and try and identify the "rank authoritarianism" to which I referred. It shouldn't be hard. (hint: it's in this thread, not the article or summary)
For someone who claims to think that the US government is undeserving of the benefit of a doubt, you're doing a great job of parroting their position on this subject.
Love is exactly as applicable to humanity as it is to country. Both are abstractions. Personally I don't know what Assange's motives are, but so far his actions are consistent with altruism. Between him and the US government, I'm far more willing to give him the benefit of a doubt.
The average household doesn't have a Nintendo gamebit either. Hasn't stopped anyone from repairing their own SNES. I have no doubt that pentalobular screwdrivers will soon be as easily available as gamebits.
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary. The existence of P2P incentivizes artists to make content worth paying for.
Is that really any more outrageous than the police raiding a home and finding pot? In either case, the greatest threat to the public is the police.
So the secret to pleasing your users is to fuck something truly basic and essential up. Then when you fix that you can foist any piece of shit interface on them and they'll thank you for it.
There are a lot of deaf people, and yet we still have concerts. The existence of monoptic people shouldn't stop the rest of us from enjoying stereoscopy.
Having founders who embraced the principles of the Enlightenment didn't hurt either.
A totally criminal scam if I ever heard of one. File sharers were threatened with court, and told if they 'settled out of court', paid up 500 quid, then the case would be dropped against them.
Here in America, we call that "plea bargaining". Hey, freedom ain't free!
Not likely. Any threat against the power structure that runs society can be easily twisted into a threat against society itself. Those in power then use that to get the people to put up with even more oppressive rules.
A lot of the "online tracking" that people seem to get so wound up about is simply allowing advertisers to target interested people with their advertisements more directly.
Yes, it allows the advertisers to lie more effectively so they can bilk you out of more of your money than they could otherwise.
If I spend a lot of time researching and reading about guitars (something I did recently), and I end up seeing lots of ads related to music - lessons, instrument sales, instrument service, sheet music... I really don't see a problem with that.
If you care about your instrument, wouldn't you want to base your decisions on information from unbiased sources? How does it benefit you to inject biased information into that process?
Then don't use HTTP. HTTP is for documents, not apps. It's not that abandoning cookies will break sites, it's those sites that have broken the internet by requiring us to use crappy hacks around intentional limitations of these protocols.
So far, all you have said has amounted to claiming that because Assange is not a perfect man, he cannot be a good man. People are complex, and so is the world. It's entirely possible to be flawed and still be motivated by kindness.
For what it's worth, I've never called Assange a hero, or held him up as any sort of exemplar. All I've said is that his actions are not inconsistent with someone primarily concerned with injustice. That's a very small claim, and one which you haven't seriously challenged with any facts. What exactly has Assange done that can not be construed as primarily intended to help others?
You have some pretty bizarre ideas about altruism too. The way I read you, I can be altruistic all I want by myself. But once I enter politics and try to get those altruistic ideas implemented as policy, all of a sudden I'm acting out of self interest. Bizarre.
And even if I agreed for the sake of argument that what Assange did was completely, 100% out of self-interest, that doesn't make him a bad person. Many people who truly deserve the title "hero" have been motivated by self interest, e.g. Captain Sullenberger.
Totally off topic. Have you checked out the 1541U-II? Great expansion device for the Commodore 64, with open source firmware written in VHDL.
Assange is unabashedly anti-war
Yes. This speaks strongly to his altruistic motives. Is he anti-war because he has personally lost family or property to the war? Or is he anti war because war is evil and bad, and the world will be a better place without it? I kind of doubt that it's the former, as I haven't heard of any personal motivations to be against these wars. If it's the latter, that's altruism.
If he's deriving any benefit from his actions at all (which he is, obviously) then it's not altruism.
By that definition, no one is altruistic. Even the most selfless get warm fuzzies from their actions.
As long as we're wishing, I want a pony!
Easy. You don't go.
Capitalism is class warfare. I want to end class warfare.
Yes, the rich need to give something back to the rest of us. If not we'll take it. And I think they'll like that even less than paying for our social security. It's the rich who wage class warfare on all of us by not paying us what our labor is really worth. They should be gracious enough to realize how fortunate they are, and not take so much that the people are left dying alone and hungry.
That's the point of the article. They get $1 salaries and are compensated in other ways. As a result, they get out of paying Medicare and Social Security taxes. This accountant got in trouble for doing the same thing, why not Jobs?
You don't have to read his mind. You can look at what WikiLeaks leaks, and how it leaks it. You can also read his interviews (such as the one he did with TIME).
I have. I don't see anything inconsistent with an altruistic motive. You are the one making claims about his motives, demonstrate it to me.
Altruism is a selfless concern for others.
Yes, and uncovering evidence of bad deeds that don't affect you, and suffering for it, counts.
He has exposed many bad deeds at great risk to his safety and comfort. That sounds like altruism to me. I can't read minds, so I don't know what his motives really are. But I don't see anything that suggests otherwise. I would do the exact same thing in his position, but for fear of my safety.
Also, based on your other posts you seem to think that Assange having political motivations excludes altruism as a motive. I would argue that altruism requires political motivation.
1) It kills second-hand sales.
It also kills first hand sales.
2) It enables forced obsolescence (kill the registration servers and you can't play the game anymore)
Which gives me a reason not to buy it.
3) It ensures a one-title, one machine policy. Own a lap-top AND a desktop? You can't play the game on both.
4) Online activation requires a user to be online and transmit data to the publisher. You can use this to collect valuable demographic info (also, since the customer has to be online anyway, you might as well push advertisements down his way to earn even more cash!)
Again, many more reasons not to buy something with DRM.
5) It slowly pushes users to become more accepting of service-based licenses (e.g., subscription gaming) instead of single-sales.
Which also pushes users who do not accept service based licenses away from your product entirely.
6) It reassures investors that the publisher is protecting their property.
While not actually doing anything to protect it. It's just security theater, which is by definition useless.
It's less a way of preventing piracy at this point as it is of maximizing the publisher's income
But it's not a way of maximizing publishers income at all. It's a way of turning imaginary but countable losses (number of illegal copies) into uncountable but real losses (number of copies not sold due to DRM).
Stopping web spam is technically quite possible. We do it by finding the business behind the web site, and doing some automated due diligence. We check business records, SEC filings, BBB ratings, and Dun and Bradstreet to verify business legitimacy
And what if the non-spam result I'm looking for is not a business?
Your reading comprehension is poor. Reread the thread, and try and identify the "rank authoritarianism" to which I referred. It shouldn't be hard. (hint: it's in this thread, not the article or summary)
For someone who claims to think that the US government is undeserving of the benefit of a doubt, you're doing a great job of parroting their position on this subject.
Love is exactly as applicable to humanity as it is to country. Both are abstractions. Personally I don't know what Assange's motives are, but so far his actions are consistent with altruism. Between him and the US government, I'm far more willing to give him the benefit of a doubt.
The average household doesn't have a Nintendo gamebit either. Hasn't stopped anyone from repairing their own SNES. I have no doubt that pentalobular screwdrivers will soon be as easily available as gamebits.