I think it's rather ridiculous that even if copyright lasted only a year people would still pirate it within that small timeframe due to their selfish nature.
OK cool, I made a thing and have $1,023 to spend on a total of 10 years of copyright protection. So I guess people totally wouldn't pirate it that for a decade, right?
I think it is hilarious that they are so naive that they think rates dropped.
They fuck the industry up, people find a way around it, they fuck it up more, people route around that.
They will NEVER win.
True, it is impossible to win against a group of self-entitled individuals who feel they deserve everything for free.
There's your problem. By and large, many web developers _don't_ test their pages. At all. Of the remainder, many just assume full screen 1920x1080. The office where I work (for now), the senior developers have banned scrollbars. Because reasons. And their attitude is basically "the users are going to get whatever we feel like giving them."
Web Developer here. In my experience* it's because Wed Designers favor aesthetics over usability. They ~carefully crafted~ their pretty page and shudder at the very idea of someone changing it. See also: Disabling zoom on mobile.
Oh boy, new version of $software came out! Better run to/. and comment on how it's terrible to the point of equating it to killing puppies! I will also speak volumes of what it is doing wrong, because of course my preference is therefore the preference of everyone. Yet with all this knowledge of what people truley want I won't ever make a better version of $software myself.
So you want websites to double their development costs and keep two parallel sites up to day? That will work for about a month, and they the bosses will say "Just make one site that works (badly) on everything."
No, they make one well done responsive site, with the same codebase.
I can't tell you how often I have to tell my browser on my tablet to give me the real desktop site... because most mobile sites are complete shit.
Links don't work, you don't have the same information, the layout is terrible, and you can't find anything.
In my experience and opinion, most mobile websites are written by morons, to satisfy a checkbox defined by marketing, and are generally pretty much useless.
Which sounds like a badly done site, not because it's mobile. I'm all for feature parity.
Since most phones run at the same resolution as a desktop... WTF is the purpose of a badly written mobile site?
While my ~5" phone has the same 1080p resolution as the ~23" monitor I'm typing this on, having it exactly on my phone like that would make copy too small and buttons incredibly difficult to press. Yes you could zoom in/out the desktop site, but that's not a good experience either. You're right to question the purpose to a badly written mobile site.
Go ahead and find a default of anything that 100% of users will like. Chances are people have different opinions, often diametrically opposed from one another. No matter what you do, there will be a non-zero percent of people unhappy. These people will then be a vocal minority, because it's in human nature to be vocal about something negative than something positive, and it will seem like the default doesn't work for anyone at all.
Isn't that like saying: "they're not becoming warmer, they're becoming less cold and are slowly heading towards tepid."? As in, more X is the same as less Y, not that I'm saying ocean temperatures are changing.
If it's anything like software music and books, you won't be able to "buy" it, you will rent it or pay a usage license.
Car companies are not dumb, they'll soon see that having a regular income from captive users is much better than selling good products that last decades and can be sold used to someone else.
And self driving cars will give them the opportunity to make this switch.
That's software, digital goods. Is there anything out there right now that is physical that people only rent with no option to buy?
And I imagine the first really magnificent high-speed umpty-hojillion-fatality incident involving one of these coordinated car trains putting a quick stop to the practice, assuming anyone is stupid enough to try it in the real world to begin with.
and the moment we had a magnificent high-speed fatality car accident it stopped the practice of human drivers....
and the moment we had a magnificent high-speed fatality train accident it stopped the practice of trains....
and the moment we had a magnificent high-speed fatality airplane accident it stopped the practice of airplanes....
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's rather ridiculous that even if copyright lasted only a year people would still pirate it within that small timeframe due to their selfish nature.
OK cool, I made a thing and have $1,023 to spend on a total of 10 years of copyright protection. So I guess people totally wouldn't pirate it that for a decade, right?
The point is that a copyright holder doesn't deserve the life+70 or whatever the ever expanding length of copyright is for a work.
How long should it be?
I think it is hilarious that they are so naive that they think rates dropped. They fuck the industry up, people find a way around it, they fuck it up more, people route around that. They will NEVER win.
True, it is impossible to win against a group of self-entitled individuals who feel they deserve everything for free.
Yes, cite NYC, which has had subways for over a century yet still has traffic due to the massive amount of cars...
So you plan to lay down rails in front of every building and with trains that run any time of day regardless of how many on board?
The only part of the Microsoft game I don't care for is trying to ship old wine in new bottles
So you'd get longer aged wine for cheaper since it's marketed as younger? Sounds good to me!
"testing their pages"
There's your problem. By and large, many web developers _don't_ test their pages. At all. Of the remainder, many just assume full screen 1920x1080. The office where I work (for now), the senior developers have banned scrollbars. Because reasons. And their attitude is basically "the users are going to get whatever we feel like giving them."
Web Developer here. In my experience* it's because Wed Designers favor aesthetics over usability. They ~carefully crafted~ their pretty page and shudder at the very idea of someone changing it. See also: Disabling zoom on mobile.
* anecdotal, YMMV, etc.
Oh boy, new version of $software came out! Better run to /. and comment on how it's terrible to the point of equating it to killing puppies! I will also speak volumes of what it is doing wrong, because of course my preference is therefore the preference of everyone. Yet with all this knowledge of what people truley want I won't ever make a better version of $software myself.
So the best sign of variation is when it is the same?
I already do for my own small site and plans are underway to do that where I work. Thanks for the encouragement!
So you want websites to double their development costs and keep two parallel sites up to day? That will work for about a month, and they the bosses will say "Just make one site that works (badly) on everything."
No, they make one well done responsive site, with the same codebase.
I can't tell you how often I have to tell my browser on my tablet to give me the real desktop site ... because most mobile sites are complete shit.
Links don't work, you don't have the same information, the layout is terrible, and you can't find anything.
In my experience and opinion, most mobile websites are written by morons, to satisfy a checkbox defined by marketing, and are generally pretty much useless.
Which sounds like a badly done site, not because it's mobile. I'm all for feature parity.
Since most phones run at the same resolution as a desktop ... WTF is the purpose of a badly written mobile site?
While my ~5" phone has the same 1080p resolution as the ~23" monitor I'm typing this on, having it exactly on my phone like that would make copy too small and buttons incredibly difficult to press. Yes you could zoom in/out the desktop site, but that's not a good experience either. You're right to question the purpose to a badly written mobile site.
...I think website authors & designers are ignoring what users want or need and instead make something that keeps them involved.
Or they are doing what their users want or need and it turns out people with your wants or needs are the minority.
Go ahead and find a default of anything that 100% of users will like. Chances are people have different opinions, often diametrically opposed from one another. No matter what you do, there will be a non-zero percent of people unhappy. These people will then be a vocal minority, because it's in human nature to be vocal about something negative than something positive, and it will seem like the default doesn't work for anyone at all.
Given the comments here and the article about Google Maps, both should be filed under the everything-new-is-bad dept.
Well what is the 25 year old son supposed to do?
Isn't that like saying: "they're not becoming warmer, they're becoming less cold and are slowly heading towards tepid."? As in, more X is the same as less Y, not that I'm saying ocean temperatures are changing.
The left hand side of the Start Menu with the ' hierarchical menu of apps' works the same in the latest build of Windows 10 as it does in Windows 7.
If it's anything like software music and books, you won't be able to "buy" it, you will rent it or pay a usage license.
Car companies are not dumb, they'll soon see that having a regular income from captive users is much better than selling good products that last decades and can be sold used to someone else.
And self driving cars will give them the opportunity to make this switch.
That's software, digital goods. Is there anything out there right now that is physical that people only rent with no option to buy?
And I imagine the first really magnificent high-speed umpty-hojillion-fatality incident involving one of these coordinated car trains putting a quick stop to the practice, assuming anyone is stupid enough to try it in the real world to begin with.
and the moment we had a magnificent high-speed fatality car accident it stopped the practice of human drivers....
and the moment we had a magnificent high-speed fatality train accident it stopped the practice of trains....
and the moment we had a magnificent high-speed fatality airplane accident it stopped the practice of airplanes....
Also, the new BBC News design looks truly awful on Firefox+NoScript on desktop. Not an improvement, BBC.
Seems to work surprisingly well for no JavaScript.
Yeah, right "do this or you can't sell machines with our stuff".
[citation needed]
According to the image in the Ars Technica article that started the whole conversation:
Win10 Desktop: It's OEM option whether to allow end user to turn off Secure Boot
(emphasis mine)
If you buy hardware that you can't disable SsecureBoot on, it's the because the OEM chose to not because Microsoft forced them.
They aren't forcing OEMs to do it, Microsoft is giving OEMs the choice and software should be about choice, shouldn't it?