I agree. The first five percent of Windows know-how would solve three-quarters of Windows n00b mistakes and problems. Let's at least get to that level.
It won't be the first time some convenience is given up for security.
That's a good point. People are apparently willing to go through strip searches just to do a little pleasure travel, but can't be bothered to double-click an installer icon? Really?
I corroborate. I have had exactly that problem with WD drives, and also with Cruzer USB drives. The Cruzers were a pain -- a simple reformat wasn't even enough, I had to really nuke the darn thing. Nowadays I just ignore the WD software, but I still wish it weren't there.
Look, you guys make hard drives, okay? Just sell me a hard drive with nothing on it, okay? Like, wipe that damn drive to all zeros and give it to me and when I plug it in the first time my OS can format it.
Yeah, normally I don't agree with this kind of sentiment, because basically computers can be pretty hard to use. In this case, however, the people must be woefully unprepared for using a computer as a tool if they can't even figure out how to *run a program*. If they can't even scratch their way up to that threshold, then they probably aren't worth employing. Tell them how to do it, if they ask again tell them a second time, and if they ask a third time say you are sorry and let them go.
You are correct. This is why I reject the free-market idealists who claim that the market will solve all these problems. It won't; they are wrong; that notion relies on the untrue assumptions of perfect information, perfect competition, and rational actors. For all these reasons, I prefer legislative solutions to market solutions, because they have a better chance of attaining the desired outcome.
things that are not in limitless supply, like concerts (you can't clone the singer and have him appear everywhere at once)
In the 90s there was a mediocre movie called Strange Days which featured a hypothetical technology which allowed full-sensory experiences to be input directly into a brain (and output as well). So, if you go to a concert, you could record the entire experience in fine detail and play it back for yourself or for other people.
If somebody generates that tech -- which is likely in the next hundred years or so -- then it's hard to imagine how the law could respond. Likewise if we all had Star Trek-style replicators. As for me, I would welcome that new economy, I think it would be different but better.
Although I am sympathetic to the specific example of marijuana, I think more often than not I would rather not "distinguish" between a large, well-organized criminal ring and a small, amateur criminal ring. For almost everything, I think the law should apply in both situations. (For marijuana, I guess I think the same: the law should NOT apply, equally, in both situations.)
Yep, right you are, both of those business models have drawbacks. And yet, both of them are above the threshold of acceptability for me, whereas the ad-supported model is below. (So, micropayments may be annoying, but I imagine them being less annoying, not "just as" annoying.)
But truthfully I currently have the absolute best of situations, where I get to enjoy all the web's content, don't have to look at ads, and don't even have to micro-pay for it. This is the freeloader model, and I am very glad that most people, apparently, don't mind the ads and generate enough revenue to support my freeloading. As a moral issue, however, I'm willing to pay my way, given the opportunity.
I have no problem with you viewing ads, so don't think I'm criticizing you. In a general sense, though, I do pine for a different web business model.
Yes, from context I agree that is a good assumption. His message would have thus been more correct if he'd left out the first sentence.
I was just pointing out how funny it is to phrase it that way.
But to be absolutely clear, I COMPLETELY agree with the sentiment: speed limits are purposely set artificially and needlessly low for the dual purposes of generating revenue and providing police an excuse to make contact with arbitrary members of the public any time they want.
Huh, interesting. I have a fine experience using Firefox on my Mac, but everyone wants something different and each computer is a little different, so my experience doesn't necessarily apply to your situation.
Anyway I hope my tip is useful to somebody.
Re:Extensions and Mobile Safari
on
Safari 5 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Thank you for your sympathy. I probably wouldn't use the word "miserable" but it's close. I am indeed constantly annoyed at the pervasiveness of commercial messages. I do what I can to reduce the intrusion, such as enjoying radio and television programs as recordings (podcasts, DVDs, etc) so that I can skip ads; using adblockers online; discarding the extraneous packaging around many food products; declining to wear clothing with ads on them (such as the Nike swoosh and whatnot); and simply not participating in some activities which are ad-supported. It's limiting in some ways and a relief in other ways; I try to find the best balance for me.
Indeed, the "simple" way to avoid website ads is to avoid websites with ads. But you might be interested to know that with a small amount of additional effort I can also enjoy the websites *and* avoid the ads, by using an ad blocker -- thus getting the best of both worlds as it were. (I'm surprised you don't realize that, since it's exactly the topic at hand.) So, that is obviously better for me than not visiting at all. For most of those sites, I'd gladly pay the fraction of a cent per page that the advertisers pay, but I don't know many sites which offer that level of subscription.
As a last thought in regards your suggestion that websites wouldn't exist without advertising, I am reminded of the saying "...and if my aunt had a mustache, she'd be my uncle". That means, "and if everything were completely different, then everything would be completely different." I proffer that if 90% of web users used ad blockers, then almost all sites would have a micropayment option or some other kind of business model.
He gets enjoyment for the $80. He got nothing but frustration for the $90. Sounds to me like the former is money well spent, and the latter not so much.
If you (or anybody who reads this) uses Firefox, please let me recommend FastestFox, which is an extension with several features. My favorite feature is that for many popular websites, FastestFox will pre-fetch the next-in-line page and append it to the current page as you scroll down. That means when I go to Google and do a search, I see the first page of results; as I then scroll toward the bottom of the page, the next page automagically appends to the bottom and I can scroll directly to that new page, no clicks requried. This also works on places like popular blogs and many news sites.
FastestFox also has a few other neat features. Check it out, if that's the kind of experience you might want.
Re:Extensions and Mobile Safari
on
Safari 5 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Agreed, adblockers are the killer app for the web. Without them, the web is almost -- not quite, but almost -- completely useless. And AdBlock Plus is the gold standard, even though it could stand improvement.
Hmmm. While I commend you on coming to the correct conclusion, your logic in getting there is very poor. Try a little harder next time and I think you can do better.
Do you really think that eighty percent of movies and TV shows are worth watching more than once? I would put that number at under 2%. It is true that I like movies less than the average American, but 80%? You watch four fifths of movies more than once?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. The first five percent of Windows know-how would solve three-quarters of Windows n00b mistakes and problems. Let's at least get to that level.
It won't be the first time some convenience is given up for security.
That's a good point. People are apparently willing to go through strip searches just to do a little pleasure travel, but can't be bothered to double-click an installer icon? Really?
I corroborate. I have had exactly that problem with WD drives, and also with Cruzer USB drives. The Cruzers were a pain -- a simple reformat wasn't even enough, I had to really nuke the darn thing. Nowadays I just ignore the WD software, but I still wish it weren't there.
Look, you guys make hard drives, okay? Just sell me a hard drive with nothing on it, okay? Like, wipe that damn drive to all zeros and give it to me and when I plug it in the first time my OS can format it.
Yeah, normally I don't agree with this kind of sentiment, because basically computers can be pretty hard to use. In this case, however, the people must be woefully unprepared for using a computer as a tool if they can't even figure out how to *run a program*. If they can't even scratch their way up to that threshold, then they probably aren't worth employing. Tell them how to do it, if they ask again tell them a second time, and if they ask a third time say you are sorry and let them go.
How could development have halted "regardless of SPs and patches"? The SPs and patches are exactly the indicated ongoing development.
Still, you are right, it is an ancient OS in computer terms. It was already laughably outdated years and years ago.
You got an unfair flamebait mod. That is +3 Informative.
You are correct. This is why I reject the free-market idealists who claim that the market will solve all these problems. It won't; they are wrong; that notion relies on the untrue assumptions of perfect information, perfect competition, and rational actors. For all these reasons, I prefer legislative solutions to market solutions, because they have a better chance of attaining the desired outcome.
Gah! Sticky keys piss me off. Right on, man.
things that are not in limitless supply, like concerts (you can't clone the singer and have him appear everywhere at once)
In the 90s there was a mediocre movie called Strange Days which featured a hypothetical technology which allowed full-sensory experiences to be input directly into a brain (and output as well). So, if you go to a concert, you could record the entire experience in fine detail and play it back for yourself or for other people.
If somebody generates that tech -- which is likely in the next hundred years or so -- then it's hard to imagine how the law could respond. Likewise if we all had Star Trek-style replicators. As for me, I would welcome that new economy, I think it would be different but better.
I feel the same way.
But I bet we'd feel differently if we were hungry.
Although I am sympathetic to the specific example of marijuana, I think more often than not I would rather not "distinguish" between a large, well-organized criminal ring and a small, amateur criminal ring. For almost everything, I think the law should apply in both situations. (For marijuana, I guess I think the same: the law should NOT apply, equally, in both situations.)
Yep, right you are, both of those business models have drawbacks. And yet, both of them are above the threshold of acceptability for me, whereas the ad-supported model is below. (So, micropayments may be annoying, but I imagine them being less annoying, not "just as" annoying.)
But truthfully I currently have the absolute best of situations, where I get to enjoy all the web's content, don't have to look at ads, and don't even have to micro-pay for it. This is the freeloader model, and I am very glad that most people, apparently, don't mind the ads and generate enough revenue to support my freeloading. As a moral issue, however, I'm willing to pay my way, given the opportunity.
I have no problem with you viewing ads, so don't think I'm criticizing you. In a general sense, though, I do pine for a different web business model.
I'm surprised they didn't ask for "eleventy bagillion".
Yes, from context I agree that is a good assumption. His message would have thus been more correct if he'd left out the first sentence.
I was just pointing out how funny it is to phrase it that way.
But to be absolutely clear, I COMPLETELY agree with the sentiment: speed limits are purposely set artificially and needlessly low for the dual purposes of generating revenue and providing police an excuse to make contact with arbitrary members of the public any time they want.
Huh, interesting. I have a fine experience using Firefox on my Mac, but everyone wants something different and each computer is a little different, so my experience doesn't necessarily apply to your situation.
Anyway I hope my tip is useful to somebody.
Thank you for your sympathy. I probably wouldn't use the word "miserable" but it's close. I am indeed constantly annoyed at the pervasiveness of commercial messages. I do what I can to reduce the intrusion, such as enjoying radio and television programs as recordings (podcasts, DVDs, etc) so that I can skip ads; using adblockers online; discarding the extraneous packaging around many food products; declining to wear clothing with ads on them (such as the Nike swoosh and whatnot); and simply not participating in some activities which are ad-supported. It's limiting in some ways and a relief in other ways; I try to find the best balance for me.
Indeed, the "simple" way to avoid website ads is to avoid websites with ads. But you might be interested to know that with a small amount of additional effort I can also enjoy the websites *and* avoid the ads, by using an ad blocker -- thus getting the best of both worlds as it were. (I'm surprised you don't realize that, since it's exactly the topic at hand.) So, that is obviously better for me than not visiting at all. For most of those sites, I'd gladly pay the fraction of a cent per page that the advertisers pay, but I don't know many sites which offer that level of subscription.
As a last thought in regards your suggestion that websites wouldn't exist without advertising, I am reminded of the saying "...and if my aunt had a mustache, she'd be my uncle". That means, "and if everything were completely different, then everything would be completely different." I proffer that if 90% of web users used ad blockers, then almost all sites would have a micropayment option or some other kind of business model.
Anyway, I appreciate your sincere words. Be well.
No thanks. I prefer to post obliviously, because the conversation was part of what I wanted.
He gets enjoyment for the $80. He got nothing but frustration for the $90. Sounds to me like the former is money well spent, and the latter not so much.
Well, IF this were a constitutional issue, then yes that would be more important than hundreds of lives.
But this isn't a constitutional issue, this is merely an issue of extremely bad and unpopular policy.
And I don't know about you, but I complain about plenty of rules which I bother to follow, but wish I didn't have to.
speeding is not a crime. is a manufactured crime
You actually typed this, which is hilarious.
If you (or anybody who reads this) uses Firefox, please let me recommend FastestFox, which is an extension with several features. My favorite feature is that for many popular websites, FastestFox will pre-fetch the next-in-line page and append it to the current page as you scroll down. That means when I go to Google and do a search, I see the first page of results; as I then scroll toward the bottom of the page, the next page automagically appends to the bottom and I can scroll directly to that new page, no clicks requried. This also works on places like popular blogs and many news sites.
FastestFox also has a few other neat features. Check it out, if that's the kind of experience you might want.
Agreed, adblockers are the killer app for the web. Without them, the web is almost -- not quite, but almost -- completely useless. And AdBlock Plus is the gold standard, even though it could stand improvement.
Hmmm. While I commend you on coming to the correct conclusion, your logic in getting there is very poor. Try a little harder next time and I think you can do better.
Do you really think that eighty percent of movies and TV shows are worth watching more than once? I would put that number at under 2%. It is true that I like movies less than the average American, but 80%? You watch four fifths of movies more than once?
Redirecting that kind of money into the phantom sales scenario needed to back up these numbers literally flies in the face of economic reason.
Not literally.
Otherwise, great post.