Here's one: don't have a fucking business model. Run a website you are passionate about for no other reason. I get it, you're a sysadmin for a large website that (almost undoubtedly) relies on ad revenue. What I'm proposing could well put you out of a job. I don't want to sound too callous, but I don't give a shit about your employment situation. I want to see the Web deflated to where it was years ago, before everything had to be monetized. This will cost jobs. No question. But the jobs it will cost aren't very meaningful in the first place. You are not entitled to employment.
and you are not entitled to free content.
I want the Web to return to the way it was before the venture capitalists got involved, before stock valuation was a concern for a website. When people put shit out there simply out of passion for what they were doing, not because they thought they could make money off of it. We may be too late to realize this dream, having crossed some event horizon with the sheer amount of money involved, but I'd like to think it's still possible.
Even if one were to make the content only because they were passionate about it, there is the cost of hosting. The 'event horizon' as you put it, may have been the exponential increase in people getting onto the Internet. More traffic = more cost (this is also why cost would a be a factor as a site gets more popular).
There are plenty of sites out there operating on a free-plus-pay-if-you-want-the-good-stuff lot put-son -money-in-the-tip-jar model that survive. They are not game changing "market disruptors", but they manage to hit an equilibrium that allows stasis. They are not monstrous least common denominator websites; they are typically smaller, niche-oriented websites. That's where I hope things head once all this bullshit marketing nonsense implodes under the weight of its own greed. And I don't care if that leaves you unemployed.
Such as what sites? I'm not saying you're lying, I'd just like examples.
Who said that paywalls and (especially) donations were unacceptable? Nobody, that's who, which is why your argument is a strawman.
Aighearach replied to a comment that explicitly said "Then, try offering a paid subscription service" so it was implied that Aighearach had a problem with them.
For the record, my position has always been that paywalls are useful because they let me know a site sucks, or more diplomatically, "that its content and purpose do not match my needs."
Your problem was you didn't understand the ideas I expressed
Correct. I did misunderstand, I'm sorry.
you just responded to the nearest cliche bullshit to what I said, and pretended that is what I meant. It wasn't, and it never would be. You don't need to add in your own extra "implication" that contradicts what I was saying; the words themselves can be literally understood, in which case they will also match my intended meaning. And, I even went into detail. Try reading my comments before deciding what they say. 0% will be the lowest hanging cliche nearby.
Yes I misunderstood, I didn't pretend it's what you meant any more than you pretended the person you were responding to was asking the questions because they wanted to "make money off content, and don't have any content that either has value, or that you care about transmitting to the world."
They just had the same question I had: If having ads is bad, then how to simply cover the costs of hosting which get more expensive as the site gets more popular? It seems that an answer that you have is paywalls, which is fine by me. Though doesn't solve their scenario of other places copy/pasting the content. The user wouldn't read the same article twice, they'd read it on the free with ads (that they block) version that copied it from the paywall site they don't pay for. Granted I'm not sure how wide spread this scenario is given I don't recall anything happening with The New York Times which has been (kinda) subscription for a while.
Who said that paywalls and (especially) donations were unacceptable? Nobody, that's who, which is why your argument is a strawman.
Aighearach replied to a comment that explicitly said "Then, try offering a paid subscription service" so it was implied that Aighearach had a problem with them.
GP was only referring to recouping operating costs
...and don't have any content that either has value
Could you provide a link to GP's content, since you seem so sure it has no value?
...or that you care about transmitting to the world.
GP does, thus asking how to recoup the operating costs
If ads, paywalls and donations are unacceptable, then the only way websites can continue is by the owners paying for it out of pocket. If that's the case, then as a website gets more popular, its costs increase and the only kind of people that would be able to afford to continue to bleed money would be the wealthy. So, good job in saying only the wealthy should be able to have mass communication like every other form of media.
You're not paying for the site, you're paying for how to get there. Do you complain that you can't remove ads for things in brick and mortar stores because you paid money for gas to get there?
What the actual fuck? He didn't create a bomb, he didn't create a hoax bomb
The issue is that the police and school don't know whether to believe him. After all, if it had been meant to be a hoax bomb and he got caught, this is exactly what you'd expect him to claim. So they have the unenviable task of figuring out whether this kid really did just bring a clock as he claims, or if he meant to use it as a hoax and got caught early. And for that matter whether they need to be concerned with copycats intent on causing a ruckus (as juveniles are so want to do).
You're typed that as you were making a bomb yourself! Don't bother telling me what you were "really" doing at the time, as I know you'd claim you weren't making a bomb because you were caught!
IE12 in only that it's what Microsoft is working on after (deprecating) IE11. It's a different fork, that's why Windows 10 can have both IE11 (for shitty legacy sites) and Edge (for everything else) installed.
The only way to avoid an end game where consumers just stop visiting sites dependant on views is to change how the sites get their funding. Well, that or take complete control over what people can and can't do with the hardware and software they purchase which is just a different, faster and more painful end to the internet we've come to love.
So you'd be completely fine with an option of an ad-free paywall, like Netflix?
No. Is a 14 year old human sexually mature? Hell yes.
Being able to generate a sperm and eggs does not make one sexually mature. It makes one sexually capable. There's a very big difference. You got that right in every other one of your examples but for some reason you missed the point in this one.
Although I do give you one very clear point: A child has a biological definition as someone who hasn't met puberty. So while they may be legally considered children, morally we can argue till the cows come up, and biologically they are most definitely no longer children at 14.
Um excuse me, of course I can resolve that kind of resolution, because my sight is so much better than the ~average~ human. *Mashes phone against eye socket* See??
There's a lot of content out there that's flash only.
If flash goes away, all that will be gone - unless someone ports it to HTML5. Things like gnash will still be around, but in my experience flash alternatives rarely work very well.
Anecdote time: there used to be a comic, a long, long time ago, about the computer industry. I can't even remember the name of it. The premise was the Y2K hit and all microprocessors stopped working. The main characters were all computer industry people (except one or two generic characters) who rebuilt the computing world on abacuses.
The author of the comic used Shockwave (not Shockwave Flash) for many of her animations, which hasn't been updated in over a decade and never ran on Linux. It disappeared into obscurity, and few people today remember it at all, but at one time it was important to the free software movement.
If flash dies, we'll lose a lot of history. A lot of websites will cease to work, and their older content will just disappear. I'd rather not see that happen.
If the author was so into the free software movement, why did she make her comic rely on a proprietary plugin?
earth, air (or wind), water and fire... fair enough. But "positive" and "negative" as elements? What about wood and metal instead to round out the six...
Gamestop usually doesn't buy back PC games anyway due to activation codes and/or the ability for the person to keep a copy of said game onto their harddrive. This would explain the whopping selection of 2 gamesin their pre-owned PC section.
Interoperability means everybody will start developing extensions solely for Chrome, since it's less work to make one build for every browser. So what's the point of Firefox after that happens?
Pretty sure interoperability means the extensions made won't be solely for Chrome
If they keep compatibility, people would bitch about 'bloat'.
If they never changed the API in the first place, people would bitch extensions were hard to write for.
When you have anything, especially software, with as many users as Firefox it is impossible to do (or not do) something that won't anger a non-zero number of users.
Windows? lol it's bad because Microsoft. Everything M$ does is bad because they are evil! What? No, I haven't tried it, I only use ~true~ operating systems.
http://blog.grapii.com/wp-cont...
Now I know why people ask if my Mac desktop is gnome fucking shell.
sure They didn't copy this from Mac OS X or any other desktop, because GNOME is a big giant group of smart people who can come up with their own ideas.
http://www.merriam-webster.com... Upgrade (noun) an occurrence in which one thing is replaced by something better, newer, more valuable, etc.
So even if Windows 10 was nothing more than "hello world", it is still, by definition, an upgrade.
and before you get all "hurr it's M$ it's never improved/better AMIRITE?" That doesn't matter, the definition means it can be one or more of those separated by commas
Slashdot Mirror
Here's one: don't have a fucking business model. Run a website you are passionate about for no other reason. I get it, you're a sysadmin for a large website that (almost undoubtedly) relies on ad revenue. What I'm proposing could well put you out of a job. I don't want to sound too callous, but I don't give a shit about your employment situation. I want to see the Web deflated to where it was years ago, before everything had to be monetized. This will cost jobs. No question. But the jobs it will cost aren't very meaningful in the first place. You are not entitled to employment.
and you are not entitled to free content.
I want the Web to return to the way it was before the venture capitalists got involved, before stock valuation was a concern for a website. When people put shit out there simply out of passion for what they were doing, not because they thought they could make money off of it. We may be too late to realize this dream, having crossed some event horizon with the sheer amount of money involved, but I'd like to think it's still possible.
Even if one were to make the content only because they were passionate about it, there is the cost of hosting. The 'event horizon' as you put it, may have been the exponential increase in people getting onto the Internet. More traffic = more cost (this is also why cost would a be a factor as a site gets more popular).
There are plenty of sites out there operating on a free-plus-pay-if-you-want-the-good-stuff lot put-son -money-in-the-tip-jar model that survive. They are not game changing "market disruptors", but they manage to hit an equilibrium that allows stasis. They are not monstrous least common denominator websites; they are typically smaller, niche-oriented websites. That's where I hope things head once all this bullshit marketing nonsense implodes under the weight of its own greed. And I don't care if that leaves you unemployed.
Such as what sites? I'm not saying you're lying, I'd just like examples.
That's an issue with the software updating at a rapid pace, not the hardware
Who said that paywalls and (especially) donations were unacceptable? Nobody, that's who, which is why your argument is a strawman.
Aighearach replied to a comment that explicitly said "Then, try offering a paid subscription service" so it was implied that Aighearach had a problem with them.
For the record, my position has always been that paywalls are useful because they let me know a site sucks, or more diplomatically, "that its content and purpose do not match my needs."
Your problem was you didn't understand the ideas I expressed
Correct. I did misunderstand, I'm sorry.
you just responded to the nearest cliche bullshit to what I said, and pretended that is what I meant. It wasn't, and it never would be. You don't need to add in your own extra "implication" that contradicts what I was saying; the words themselves can be literally understood, in which case they will also match my intended meaning. And, I even went into detail. Try reading my comments before deciding what they say. 0% will be the lowest hanging cliche nearby.
Yes I misunderstood, I didn't pretend it's what you meant any more than you pretended the person you were responding to was asking the questions because they wanted to "make money off content, and don't have any content that either has value, or that you care about transmitting to the world."
They just had the same question I had: If having ads is bad, then how to simply cover the costs of hosting which get more expensive as the site gets more popular? It seems that an answer that you have is paywalls, which is fine by me.
Though doesn't solve their scenario of other places copy/pasting the content. The user wouldn't read the same article twice, they'd read it on the free with ads (that they block) version that copied it from the paywall site they don't pay for. Granted I'm not sure how wide spread this scenario is given I don't recall anything happening with The New York Times which has been (kinda) subscription for a while.
So basically we're in agreement.
Who said that paywalls and (especially) donations were unacceptable? Nobody, that's who, which is why your argument is a strawman.
Aighearach replied to a comment that explicitly said "Then, try offering a paid subscription service" so it was implied that Aighearach had a problem with them.
Yeah, you want to make money off content
GP was only referring to recouping operating costs
...and don't have any content that either has value
Could you provide a link to GP's content, since you seem so sure it has no value?
...or that you care about transmitting to the world.
GP does, thus asking how to recoup the operating costs
If ads, paywalls and donations are unacceptable, then the only way websites can continue is by the owners paying for it out of pocket. If that's the case, then as a website gets more popular, its costs increase and the only kind of people that would be able to afford to continue to bleed money would be the wealthy. So, good job in saying only the wealthy should be able to have mass communication like every other form of media.
You're not paying for the site, you're paying for how to get there.
Do you complain that you can't remove ads for things in brick and mortar stores because you paid money for gas to get there?
The issue is that the police and school don't know whether to believe him. After all, if it had been meant to be a hoax bomb and he got caught, this is exactly what you'd expect him to claim. So they have the unenviable task of figuring out whether this kid really did just bring a clock as he claims, or if he meant to use it as a hoax and got caught early. And for that matter whether they need to be concerned with copycats intent on causing a ruckus (as juveniles are so want to do).
You're typed that as you were making a bomb yourself! Don't bother telling me what you were "really" doing at the time, as I know you'd claim you weren't making a bomb because you were caught!
IE12 in only that it's what Microsoft is working on after (deprecating) IE11.
It's a different fork, that's why Windows 10 can have both IE11 (for shitty legacy sites) and Edge (for everything else) installed.
Microsoft has IP in linux as well, still they have no native support for ext4.
...and if they did support it, people would complain that it was a case of EEE.
The only way to avoid an end game where consumers just stop visiting sites dependant on views is to change how the sites get their funding. Well, that or take complete control over what people can and can't do with the hardware and software they purchase which is just a different, faster and more painful end to the internet we've come to love.
So you'd be completely fine with an option of an ad-free paywall, like Netflix?
My computer, my rules. Don't like it, buy me a computer, pay my electricity bill and internet bill. I'm totally down with that.
If you don't like the terms, then don't visit the site. That will greatly help with your electricity and internet bills.
People want to be paid for their work? Pfff. I deserve it for free because I'm a self-entitled millennial!
No. Is a 14 year old human sexually mature? Hell yes.
Being able to generate a sperm and eggs does not make one sexually mature. It makes one sexually capable. There's a very big difference. You got that right in every other one of your examples but for some reason you missed the point in this one.
Although I do give you one very clear point: A child has a biological definition as someone who hasn't met puberty. So while they may be legally considered children, morally we can argue till the cows come up, and biologically they are most definitely no longer children at 14.
What does?
Um excuse me, of course I can resolve that kind of resolution, because my sight is so much better than the ~average~ human. *Mashes phone against eye socket* See??
There's a lot of content out there that's flash only.
If flash goes away, all that will be gone - unless someone ports it to HTML5. Things like gnash will still be around, but in my experience flash alternatives rarely work very well.
Anecdote time: there used to be a comic, a long, long time ago, about the computer industry. I can't even remember the name of it. The premise was the Y2K hit and all microprocessors stopped working. The main characters were all computer industry people (except one or two generic characters) who rebuilt the computing world on abacuses.
The author of the comic used Shockwave (not Shockwave Flash) for many of her animations, which hasn't been updated in over a decade and never ran on Linux. It disappeared into obscurity, and few people today remember it at all, but at one time it was important to the free software movement.
If flash dies, we'll lose a lot of history. A lot of websites will cease to work, and their older content will just disappear. I'd rather not see that happen.
If the author was so into the free software movement, why did she make her comic rely on a proprietary plugin?
earth, air (or wind), water and fire... fair enough. But "positive" and "negative" as elements? What about wood and metal instead to round out the six...
Dr. Wily, is that you?
Gamestop usually doesn't buy back PC games anyway due to activation codes and/or the ability for the person to keep a copy of said game onto their harddrive. This would explain the whopping selection of 2 games in their pre-owned PC section.
You've never said any of these words?
"Gesundheit"
"Voilà"
"Tacos"
Kelvin 506
Interoperability means everybody will start developing extensions solely for Chrome, since it's less work to make one build for every browser. So what's the point of Firefox after that happens?
Pretty sure interoperability means the extensions made won't be solely for Chrome
If they keep compatibility, people would bitch about 'bloat'.
If they never changed the API in the first place, people would bitch extensions were hard to write for.
When you have anything, especially software, with as many users as Firefox it is impossible to do (or not do) something that won't anger a non-zero number of users.
A community build of Iceweasel is based off of Firefox 1?
Windows? lol it's bad because Microsoft.
Everything M$ does is bad because they are evil!
What? No, I haven't tried it, I only use ~true~ operating systems.
http://blog.grapii.com/wp-cont...
Now I know why people ask if my Mac desktop is gnome fucking shell.
sure They didn't copy this from Mac OS X or any other desktop, because GNOME is a big giant group of smart people who can come up with their own ideas.
http://dictionary.reference.co...
Upgrade (noun)
a new version, improved model, etc.:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Upgrade (noun)
an occurrence in which one thing is replaced by something better, newer, more valuable, etc.
So even if Windows 10 was nothing more than "hello world", it is still, by definition, an upgrade.
and before you get all "hurr it's M$ it's never improved/better AMIRITE?" That doesn't matter, the definition means it can be one or more of those separated by commas