There's no reason to burden non-technical users (and even technical users) with applications that needlessly involve the user in routine maintenance tasks (like updating).
There is as long as things break randomly every fifth update. If they ran tests on my plugins, maybe...
Unfortunately auto updaters, while *awesome* in theory, are far less thrilling in practice. It's rarely an auto-patcher which fixes high-level security fixes, it's usually a blanket update to the next version, in one big ball, like it or not. Rarely with any soft of rollback feature at all either.
Firefox is the most unstable program in common use.
Somehow Firefox interacts with Windows XP with Service Pack 3 in such a way that it crashes Windows.
Well, if Windows can be crashed by a rogue program and as Microsoft points out, nobody uses Firefox, it would appear that Windows itself is actually simultaneously unstable and more common than Firefox.:P
multiple instances of Firefox, so that a crash in one instance does not affect the others. Google's Chrome is designed that way.
Yeah, that is the real solution. Flash *will* continue to crash, Adobe's goal is being ubiquitous not stable, and it's not the only buggy plugin, so Firefox needs to at most lose the one tab that crashed and carry on.
it might even be half that time if people stop ranting it's ridiculous for even suggesting it, but yeah you know how that'll turn out.
Well, my response to:
I am more interested in what it would take to make it work [...]
Is "Why?". So, yeah, I guess I do. "Why it?" at any rate?
Nobody wants to mention a real functional goal that actually needs fixing. Speed is brought up occasionally but they don't have a potential benefit from that, just speed itself. It seems to just be people who want e-voting because it's cool.
It's not that we shouldn't ever go "E", it's just that we should have a real, important to many people, goal that we agree it's likely e-voting will fix before we implement it.
Please understand I have faith in the current system of voting
Why would you say that? I don't, I just don't want to randomly switch to another one without a clear idea of what's supposed to improve and why.
As and aside, why would you say "faith", it's a word used for belief in the absence of proof - best used by and about religious people.
Please try not to be astounded to much... it's bad or your health...;)
Being astounded is bad for you health, well I... ummm - totally saw that one coming. Yup. Whew, dodged that bullet.:P
Seriously, it's that or be so cynical I expect it from everyone.
You promote [...] so it would be far too easy to cheat [...]
This is what I mean. It's worth pointing out, yes, but you do it as if one flaw in anything is its instant undoing without considering other options. Not that I really see the proposal as serious, but as far as it was it'd cause vastly smaller parties before party officials actually let themselves get shot for the actions of people they'd never met.
When you find one little nit and write his argument off you seem like the people you are annoyed about - dismissing evoting out of hand because of one single fault.
I get the idea of scoring points, but if you had worked with that guy by saying "well that'd certainly lead to smaller parties because of the risk a mole could cheat and get you shot" you'd have made your same point and been open to the idea that he might not have missed that, it could be his intent.
I am fairly convinced that in 50 years people will look back at papervoting as combersome and fraud-sensitive
Yeah, we already do. So your goals are reducing fraud and making the vote easier - why, simply to save time or to reach out to traditional non-voters, or...?
I am looking for the possibility of an interesting technical solution
Sure, but to which problem. If there are better ways to accomplish those goals are you still interested, or are you only here for the tech?
Some of the assisted-voting system seem tolerable, they fill out a human-readable form for you and then you verify before it drops into the box (where the standard way it's filled out facilitates easy auto-counting). But that's because it fixes the Florida crappy-ballot problem. And only as far as it does, I've used a lot of lame UIs before - the worst being that the manufacturer swears is the easiest, so I don't have faith that the system would be an improvement. It's simply one possible solution to a need. Another solution would be better paper ballots, but that has its own problems...
How convenient, you'll rant and rail, but JUST before you could read an explanation of what you do that makes you a total twat, you get bored. Nap time!
It must be convenient to have such a nice excuse to ignore reality: "it swore at me and hurt my feelings."
You're the one saying stuff like "I'm sure you'll just try to claim victory...". You're paranoid and obviously a little delusional. This isn't a contest. This is a thread about a guy who didn't like the website. You can't tell "Argh, company X didn't satisfy my needs" from "Apple is bad and their supporters are stupid."
What the fuck is your defect. Why is every Apple thread full of you? If you're so sure he's wrong, why aren't you able to just sit there and let him be wrong?
Of course, the answer is clear. You know he's right, the website is lacking, everyone sensible thinks you're an idiot for paying (yearly!) for the right to develop on a niche smartphone, you're losing relevance in the larger field every day you play with your hobby, and it pisses you off. But really, you should just be big enough to let other people have their opinions...
You sure convinced me of your noble goals, asshole.
So you guys want to continue bashing Apple for things they do better than their competitors
No, you retard.
He was commenting on something Apple did, how well someone else did it was not relevant - it's still a place Apple could improve in this guy's eyes.
fine, nothing unexpected.
If you never open your eyes it's not surprising you never seen anything unexpected.
Mind telling us what your highness wants to know about the accelerometer in the iPhone 3GS, but not about the ones in other phones?
You're just stuck on constant asshole mode, aren't you?
How the fuck would I know? Who knows if a Google search would have found it?! That's just the fucking point you conflationist idiot, I don't know, you don't, he doesn't, but THE WEBSITE SIMPLY DIDN'T MEET HIS NEEDS. That is all.
Only fanbois like yourself feel a need to defend a website when you don't even know what the user was trying to learn, by your own admission.
He's a customer, he didn't find what he wanted, he went elsewhere. That's sort of the definition of a website fail. Calling him an idiot... well it makes someone look like one.
So thick I don't fall for your bullshit. Oh, so thick.
You're a pointless little person - your apparent sole purpose is to tell people they have no reason to be curious because YOU can't imagine why they care.
No, seriously, you're a bastard and a retard, as evidenced by your arguing with a user's experience with a website. Maybe you found it easy (I say maybe because you're a blatant liar) but that has nothing to do with the bits he found unintuitive.
That you have to have this pointed out to you - well that's that unimaginative bit.
For the record, the information a purchaser needs changes depending on their needs and goals. As you can't read people's minds, and evidently are a imbecile, you should stop trying to second-guess them.
When all you have to say is "Dunno why you'd care" then shut your pointless mouth. Asshole.
You can call me a cunt, but everyone reading this agrees with me.
The reason you need giant parties is to form governments.
I purposefully didn't say anything to refute this coalition government is impossible nonsense because I didn't want to prejudice you into trying to defend it, but I'm saddened you bring it up because it's absolute bullshit thrown around without any proof or reason.
When you stop conflating bullying people into things with "forming government" perhaps we could continue?
I accept that it does not *have* to be this way - as Churchill said, democracy is the worst possible system - except for all the others that have been tried. Before you pull down this system, let's see your better replacement.
Concrete proof where that's impossible, I've got that right here...
300 MPs from 500 parties
Or, 300 MPs representing 300 districts. See how easy that was?
It's the opinion that it can't be done that's nigh unto the only problem.
Even the lowest level sign-putting-up volunteer can be over-enthusiastic enough to try to fix the system so his side wins.
No, really?! This sort of thing is why I don't take you seriously.
How are you going to draw the line between low-level volunteers, who I am not expected to vouch for, and high level ones I am? I will just classify everybody other than myself as low-level.
You mean, you'll then choose NOT to vouch for them or their actions.
Okay, sounds great. That's the point - when there would be consequences for your words you'd choose not to say them. Less lies (or wishful promises, whatever).
Of course someone you don't vouch for could cheat - that's obvious, but without you defending him we'd be able to deal with it like any other cheater. Problem solved.
It's when parties act to blindly support their members that they're a problem. If your grouping of people didn't try to shield each other from reasonable prosecution we wouldn't have a problem.
What you are constructing is a system of thousands (hundreds of thousands, in my view) of components, with fatal results on first error.
Only for those who want special treatment. Yes, the price is unreasonable, but so is the cost to society of political parties.
Rally around issues, sure. But when you form parties you directly and explicitly vow to misrepresent your constituents and force others to do the same. The only loyalties of a politician can be to the voters they represent.
I hate when people think that both are for the same reason.
Of course. Afghanistan was wild flailing after 9/11 to appear useful and Iraq was a failed frame-up to take out a personal enemy. The reason many people confuse the two is that they were both started by GW Bush around the same time, in the same general area, and under false pretenses. It's an easy mistake, but they are distinct wars.
Back in the 70s and 80s, The leaders of iraq made and tested many weapons of mass destruction, including gases like mustard gas, tabun, botulin toxin and mycotoxin(wikipedia)
Sweet jesus, they tested wikipedia in the 80s?
And like, four or five decades after WW2 they were experimenting with the same toxic weapons we have. Wow, scary shit.
We knew Saddam was killing the Kurds (and others) by the tens of thousands and never cared, regardless of the weapon he used. Then suddenly and conveniently we did. Hmmm.
most of the people that live there still support osama bin laden.
I doubt that seriously, do you think they care more about politics than we do?
But if they did, wouldn't it make sense? From their perspective GW Bush flies in the marines and kidnaps half their family, who they next hear about in the context of Guantanamo Bay gulag. Osama's the one standing up to Bush so yeah, who would they support?
After all, they don't have Fox news telling them the truth!
The problem decision makers are faced with that i don't think your fully grasping is that they are under immense pressure to do something when faced with a threat like 9/11.
Wah. We elect them to deal with pressure, doing useful things, not going to war against innocent nations under false pretenses and bullying our international allies, etc.
I'd put money on none of them having a better solution then troops
How much money? Who's to say better? Define that a bit and I'll take it.
Troops where, for instance. Troops are a good thing in many cases, but you need to invade the right country for them to do any good.
Counterfeiting a work of art and passing it off as an original is merely
... funny?
It would be a small shame if a museum bought it and we had a mistaken impression about some historical detail because of it, but it would be hilarious if a collector bought it for a fortune and displayed it for status. Like the emperor's new art.
And everyone else not only could make do with a poster, but have to because of scarcity anyways.
Some level of copyright might be appropriate [...]
Don't go too far there... Why would granting a monopoly for anything ever be appropriate?
For too long copyright defenders have phrased the terms of the debate and demanded that you justify removing copyright so that they aren't asked to prove its benefits. It (free stuffs for creators), like free ponies for everyone, is a great idea, for wisherism, but totally divorced from reality.
I think we should scrap it unless its supporters can show us proof it helps - it's a regulatory and enforcement nightmare, another eternal war. Sure there'd be a blip, especially for some people, but with 1% of the banking bailout we could provide them all with welfare for years.
We stayed at a friend's and watched their movies on DVD. Ugh. Such a hassle to go through the menus, watch all the forced crap (at least 20s on almost all DVDs, into a few minutes for some movies). At least half the time when we stopped it'd fail to restart and we'd have to watch the forced stuff again.
It was horrible. Like having to use a VCR and rewind or something.
I'll *never* buy a movie until it's at least no harder to use than one I download. And they're so big. A 3.5" HD is about the size of 2 DVDs in cases, and the weight of about 40, it can hold 1800 movies in reasonable quality. Not a hard choice.
hollywood is looking at its first ever possible 5 billion dollar summer this year, its first ever. and thats what matters
How is inflation relevant?
It's a fucking joke. All movies these days are the highest grossing movies ever, in unadjusted dollars. It merely means they're going to add an extra zero soon.
Bah, there is no respect outside of the streetcorner thugs.
No, they demand respect, like cops, which is an oxymoron.
Respect is what you have for people who don't demand you respect them.
We are training schoolchildren to take whatever is offered without any thought of payment.
No, they take what is available, not what is offered. If they only took what was offered the studios would be happy.
And we aren't training them, they're doing what they do for the same reason I do, they choose to. I wasn't conditioned against my will, neither were they.
Personally, I think the end is coming like a freight train.
The end of the free ride (tax-payer funded of course) that monopoly grants like patents and copyrights gave to a few select industries? Oh yes, please.
Until we have a good answer for this there is no possibility of revenue from digital goods.
Doom and gloom unless we lock ourselves into this little box so that you can bill us properly. Oh yeah. Because doing all that for Iron Man 2 is so important.
You know that copyright isn't a god-given right, right? It's just something we came up with that helped some things at one time. When it stops being beneficial to society at large (those schoolchildren you treat like mindless cattle, and everyone else) we should get rid of it.
Maybe we could expect them to come up with the ways to stop like you did, instead of just dumping their incapability on everyone else.
I can't count the number of people I've run into who say "I forgot" defensively. Yes, I *know* you forgot, I'm pointing it out to you! Do something so that you do not keep forgetting!
But anyways, though I'm unlikely to ever meet you, thanks for picking quieter pens. For doing something instead of talking about what you couldn't do.
Does this answer the "Details, you do not have them?"
No, in case you're confused, it does not. This isn't a contest of Apple vs Nokia for best website. One overly detailed piece of info is no better either, the poster was merely telling Apple that their website sucked because it didn't answer his questions.
Two things. First, there's a lot of distance between "light sensor" and "Part #..". Would you mock your mother this way by pointing out that she could google the specs listed in the FCC disclosure to tell if the phone would work on her network. This guy was merely merely looking for more than "Accelerometer" and didn't find help easily on Apple's website?
Second, what kind of fucking retard are you that you have to answer a "Bob did X" with "Yeah, but Dave did too". You and people like you are the reason we can't have sane politics.
ACs don't bother. You're filtered. I don't even know you're there.
Then you're an idiot.
I've seen some of the best posts here in over ten years made by non-logged in users.
Thanks for telling me that you're less likely to be clued in on the whole thread, having missed at least half the other posts. It means I can skip what you have to say with less chance of missing something relevant than skipping an AC's post. You've proven yourself to be kneejerk, they've only not chosen a snappy nickname.
It's easy to fix the (privacy related) problem with facebook. Remove Facebook the company.
You're right that the fundamental problems of information security won't change so why have a useless middleman picking and choosing who can see that info when you can have an open system where at least beneficial apps can have the access too. In the current (type of) system you're guaranteed to have corruption because the people who can pay the most for exclusive access are those with the most harmful intentions.
Hopefully not. The thought that after a long day of being as annoying as you can, you still have to "go home" (so to speak, I bet you're in your basement fortress right now) and use windows is enjoyable.
The courts couldn't assign such a fitting punishment to a troll.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no reason to burden non-technical users (and even technical users) with applications that needlessly involve the user in routine maintenance tasks (like updating).
There is as long as things break randomly every fifth update. If they ran tests on my plugins, maybe...
Unfortunately auto updaters, while *awesome* in theory, are far less thrilling in practice. It's rarely an auto-patcher which fixes high-level security fixes, it's usually a blanket update to the next version, in one big ball, like it or not. Rarely with any soft of rollback feature at all either.
Firefox is the most unstable program in common use.
Somehow Firefox interacts with Windows XP with Service Pack 3 in such a way that it crashes Windows.
Well, if Windows can be crashed by a rogue program and as Microsoft points out, nobody uses Firefox, it would appear that Windows itself is actually simultaneously unstable and more common than Firefox. :P
multiple instances of Firefox, so that a crash in one instance does not affect the others. Google's Chrome is designed that way.
Yeah, that is the real solution. Flash *will* continue to crash, Adobe's goal is being ubiquitous not stable, and it's not the only buggy plugin, so Firefox needs to at most lose the one tab that crashed and carry on.
it might even be half that time if people stop ranting it's ridiculous for even suggesting it, but yeah you know how that'll turn out.
Well, my response to:
I am more interested in what it would take to make it work [...]
Is "Why?". So, yeah, I guess I do. "Why it?" at any rate?
Nobody wants to mention a real functional goal that actually needs fixing. Speed is brought up occasionally but they don't have a potential benefit from that, just speed itself. It seems to just be people who want e-voting because it's cool.
It's not that we shouldn't ever go "E", it's just that we should have a real, important to many people, goal that we agree it's likely e-voting will fix before we implement it.
Please understand I have faith in the current system of voting
Why would you say that? I don't, I just don't want to randomly switch to another one without a clear idea of what's supposed to improve and why.
As and aside, why would you say "faith", it's a word used for belief in the absence of proof - best used by and about religious people.
Please try not to be astounded to much... it's bad or your health... ;)
Being astounded is bad for you health, well I ... ummm - totally saw that one coming. Yup. Whew, dodged that bullet. :P
Seriously, it's that or be so cynical I expect it from everyone.
You promote [...] so it would be far too easy to cheat [...]
This is what I mean. It's worth pointing out, yes, but you do it as if one flaw in anything is its instant undoing without considering other options. Not that I really see the proposal as serious, but as far as it was it'd cause vastly smaller parties before party officials actually let themselves get shot for the actions of people they'd never met.
When you find one little nit and write his argument off you seem like the people you are annoyed about - dismissing evoting out of hand because of one single fault.
I get the idea of scoring points, but if you had worked with that guy by saying "well that'd certainly lead to smaller parties because of the risk a mole could cheat and get you shot" you'd have made your same point and been open to the idea that he might not have missed that, it could be his intent.
I am fairly convinced that in 50 years people will look back at papervoting as combersome and fraud-sensitive
Yeah, we already do. So your goals are reducing fraud and making the vote easier - why, simply to save time or to reach out to traditional non-voters, or ...?
I am looking for the possibility of an interesting technical solution
Sure, but to which problem. If there are better ways to accomplish those goals are you still interested, or are you only here for the tech?
Some of the assisted-voting system seem tolerable, they fill out a human-readable form for you and then you verify before it drops into the box (where the standard way it's filled out facilitates easy auto-counting). But that's because it fixes the Florida crappy-ballot problem. And only as far as it does, I've used a lot of lame UIs before - the worst being that the manufacturer swears is the easiest, so I don't have faith that the system would be an improvement. It's simply one possible solution to a need. Another solution would be better paper ballots, but that has its own problems...
How convenient, you'll rant and rail, but JUST before you could read an explanation of what you do that makes you a total twat, you get bored. Nap time!
It must be convenient to have such a nice excuse to ignore reality: "it swore at me and hurt my feelings."
You're the one saying stuff like "I'm sure you'll just try to claim victory ...". You're paranoid and obviously a little delusional. This isn't a contest. This is a thread about a guy who didn't like the website. You can't tell "Argh, company X didn't satisfy my needs" from "Apple is bad and their supporters are stupid."
What the fuck is your defect. Why is every Apple thread full of you? If you're so sure he's wrong, why aren't you able to just sit there and let him be wrong?
Of course, the answer is clear. You know he's right, the website is lacking, everyone sensible thinks you're an idiot for paying (yearly!) for the right to develop on a niche smartphone, you're losing relevance in the larger field every day you play with your hobby, and it pisses you off. But really, you should just be big enough to let other people have their opinions...
You sure convinced me of your noble goals, asshole.
Noble goals? You need glasses, or ... other help.
You're quite the sight alright.
How was that beer? Did those totally real friends of yours come and hang out with you and do totally real-friend kind of things? Cool.
Yea, because it's easier to label
Yeah, apparently it is:
[...] nice liberal touch [...]
Thus proving that you don't even read your own drivel.
Well, I'm going to go get a beer now
Yeah, that's a good idea. You're too reasonable and clear headed, why don't you get drunk.
Or how about this, "here's to throwing intellectual honesty out the window".
I think this is pretty accurate. Amazingly so, you might say.
I take it this means you agree that I'm right.
So you guys want to continue bashing Apple for things they do better than their competitors
No, you retard.
He was commenting on something Apple did, how well someone else did it was not relevant - it's still a place Apple could improve in this guy's eyes.
fine, nothing unexpected.
If you never open your eyes it's not surprising you never seen anything unexpected.
Mind telling us what your highness wants to know about the accelerometer in the iPhone 3GS, but not about the ones in other phones?
You're just stuck on constant asshole mode, aren't you?
How the fuck would I know? Who knows if a Google search would have found it?! That's just the fucking point you conflationist idiot, I don't know, you don't, he doesn't, but THE WEBSITE SIMPLY DIDN'T MEET HIS NEEDS. That is all.
Only fanbois like yourself feel a need to defend a website when you don't even know what the user was trying to learn, by your own admission.
He's a customer, he didn't find what he wanted, he went elsewhere. That's sort of the definition of a website fail. Calling him an idiot ... well it makes someone look like one.
Many people are afraid of options. Not just as a figure of speech, but if you put them in front of three exclusive options they'll start to panic.
And they want to force you to believe you have their limitations.
So thick I don't fall for your bullshit. Oh, so thick.
You're a pointless little person - your apparent sole purpose is to tell people they have no reason to be curious because YOU can't imagine why they care.
No, seriously, you're a bastard and a retard, as evidenced by your arguing with a user's experience with a website. Maybe you found it easy (I say maybe because you're a blatant liar) but that has nothing to do with the bits he found unintuitive.
That you have to have this pointed out to you - well that's that unimaginative bit.
For the record, the information a purchaser needs changes depending on their needs and goals. As you can't read people's minds, and evidently are a imbecile, you should stop trying to second-guess them.
When all you have to say is "Dunno why you'd care" then shut your pointless mouth. Asshole.
You can call me a cunt, but everyone reading this agrees with me.
The reason you need giant parties is to form governments.
I purposefully didn't say anything to refute this coalition government is impossible nonsense because I didn't want to prejudice you into trying to defend it, but I'm saddened you bring it up because it's absolute bullshit thrown around without any proof or reason.
When you stop conflating bullying people into things with "forming government" perhaps we could continue?
I accept that it does not *have* to be this way - as Churchill said, democracy is the worst possible system - except for all the others that have been tried. Before you pull down this system, let's see your better replacement.
Concrete proof where that's impossible, I've got that right here...
300 MPs from 500 parties
Or, 300 MPs representing 300 districts. See how easy that was?
It's the opinion that it can't be done that's nigh unto the only problem.
Even the lowest level sign-putting-up volunteer can be over-enthusiastic enough to try to fix the system so his side wins.
No, really?! This sort of thing is why I don't take you seriously.
How are you going to draw the line between low-level volunteers, who I am not expected to vouch for, and high level ones I am? I will just classify everybody other than myself as low-level.
You mean, you'll then choose NOT to vouch for them or their actions.
Okay, sounds great. That's the point - when there would be consequences for your words you'd choose not to say them. Less lies (or wishful promises, whatever).
Of course someone you don't vouch for could cheat - that's obvious, but without you defending him we'd be able to deal with it like any other cheater. Problem solved.
It's when parties act to blindly support their members that they're a problem. If your grouping of people didn't try to shield each other from reasonable prosecution we wouldn't have a problem.
What you are constructing is a system of thousands (hundreds of thousands, in my view) of components, with fatal results on first error.
Only for those who want special treatment. Yes, the price is unreasonable, but so is the cost to society of political parties.
Rally around issues, sure. But when you form parties you directly and explicitly vow to misrepresent your constituents and force others to do the same. The only loyalties of a politician can be to the voters they represent.
I hate when people think that both are for the same reason.
Of course. Afghanistan was wild flailing after 9/11 to appear useful and Iraq was a failed frame-up to take out a personal enemy. The reason many people confuse the two is that they were both started by GW Bush around the same time, in the same general area, and under false pretenses. It's an easy mistake, but they are distinct wars.
Back in the 70s and 80s, The leaders of iraq made and tested many weapons of mass destruction, including gases like mustard gas, tabun, botulin toxin and mycotoxin(wikipedia)
Sweet jesus, they tested wikipedia in the 80s?
And like, four or five decades after WW2 they were experimenting with the same toxic weapons we have. Wow, scary shit.
We knew Saddam was killing the Kurds (and others) by the tens of thousands and never cared, regardless of the weapon he used. Then suddenly and conveniently we did. Hmmm.
most of the people that live there still support osama bin laden.
I doubt that seriously, do you think they care more about politics than we do?
But if they did, wouldn't it make sense? From their perspective GW Bush flies in the marines and kidnaps half their family, who they next hear about in the context of Guantanamo Bay gulag. Osama's the one standing up to Bush so yeah, who would they support?
After all, they don't have Fox news telling them the truth!
If you were running for office ... well, I'd be pleasantly surprised.
The problem decision makers are faced with that i don't think your fully grasping is that they are under immense pressure to do something when faced with a threat like 9/11.
Wah. We elect them to deal with pressure, doing useful things, not going to war against innocent nations under false pretenses and bullying our international allies, etc.
I'd put money on none of them having a better solution then troops
How much money? Who's to say better? Define that a bit and I'll take it.
Troops where, for instance. Troops are a good thing in many cases, but you need to invade the right country for them to do any good.
Counterfeiting a work of art and passing it off as an original is merely
... funny?
It would be a small shame if a museum bought it and we had a mistaken impression about some historical detail because of it, but it would be hilarious if a collector bought it for a fortune and displayed it for status. Like the emperor's new art.
And everyone else not only could make do with a poster, but have to because of scarcity anyways.
Some level of copyright might be appropriate [...]
Don't go too far there... Why would granting a monopoly for anything ever be appropriate?
For too long copyright defenders have phrased the terms of the debate and demanded that you justify removing copyright so that they aren't asked to prove its benefits. It (free stuffs for creators), like free ponies for everyone, is a great idea, for wisherism, but totally divorced from reality.
I think we should scrap it unless its supporters can show us proof it helps - it's a regulatory and enforcement nightmare, another eternal war. Sure there'd be a blip, especially for some people, but with 1% of the banking bailout we could provide them all with welfare for years.
We stayed at a friend's and watched their movies on DVD. Ugh. Such a hassle to go through the menus, watch all the forced crap (at least 20s on almost all DVDs, into a few minutes for some movies). At least half the time when we stopped it'd fail to restart and we'd have to watch the forced stuff again.
It was horrible. Like having to use a VCR and rewind or something.
I'll *never* buy a movie until it's at least no harder to use than one I download. And they're so big. A 3.5" HD is about the size of 2 DVDs in cases, and the weight of about 40, it can hold 1800 movies in reasonable quality. Not a hard choice.
hollywood is looking at its first ever possible 5 billion dollar summer this year, its first ever. and thats what matters
How is inflation relevant?
It's a fucking joke. All movies these days are the highest grossing movies ever, in unadjusted dollars. It merely means they're going to add an extra zero soon.
Bah, there is no respect outside of the streetcorner thugs.
No, they demand respect, like cops, which is an oxymoron.
Respect is what you have for people who don't demand you respect them.
We are training schoolchildren to take whatever is offered without any thought of payment.
No, they take what is available, not what is offered. If they only took what was offered the studios would be happy.
And we aren't training them, they're doing what they do for the same reason I do, they choose to. I wasn't conditioned against my will, neither were they.
Personally, I think the end is coming like a freight train.
The end of the free ride (tax-payer funded of course) that monopoly grants like patents and copyrights gave to a few select industries? Oh yes, please.
Until we have a good answer for this there is no possibility of revenue from digital goods.
Doom and gloom unless we lock ourselves into this little box so that you can bill us properly. Oh yeah. Because doing all that for Iron Man 2 is so important.
You know that copyright isn't a god-given right, right? It's just something we came up with that helped some things at one time. When it stops being beneficial to society at large (those schoolchildren you treat like mindless cattle, and everyone else) we should get rid of it.
Maybe we could expect them to come up with the ways to stop like you did, instead of just dumping their incapability on everyone else.
I can't count the number of people I've run into who say "I forgot" defensively. Yes, I *know* you forgot, I'm pointing it out to you! Do something so that you do not keep forgetting!
But anyways, though I'm unlikely to ever meet you, thanks for picking quieter pens. For doing something instead of talking about what you couldn't do.
Does this answer the "Details, you do not have them?"
No, in case you're confused, it does not. This isn't a contest of Apple vs Nokia for best website. One overly detailed piece of info is no better either, the poster was merely telling Apple that their website sucked because it didn't answer his questions.
Two things. First, there's a lot of distance between "light sensor" and "Part #..". Would you mock your mother this way by pointing out that she could google the specs listed in the FCC disclosure to tell if the phone would work on her network. This guy was merely merely looking for more than "Accelerometer" and didn't find help easily on Apple's website?
Second, what kind of fucking retard are you that you have to answer a "Bob did X" with "Yeah, but Dave did too". You and people like you are the reason we can't have sane politics.
Wow, you are an unimaginative bastard aren't you.
What we need is sweeping Copyright reform and
... nullification?
Yeah, that'd do. No more crazy government monopolies on thoughts.
I'm afraid that ATCA will not be the answer we're looking for.
And this is why Obama said that if leaks got out, the terrorists would win. You need faith in the treaty, blind faith.
ACs don't bother. You're filtered. I don't even know you're there.
Then you're an idiot.
I've seen some of the best posts here in over ten years made by non-logged in users.
Thanks for telling me that you're less likely to be clued in on the whole thread, having missed at least half the other posts. It means I can skip what you have to say with less chance of missing something relevant than skipping an AC's post. You've proven yourself to be kneejerk, they've only not chosen a snappy nickname.
It's easy to fix the (privacy related) problem with facebook. Remove Facebook the company.
You're right that the fundamental problems of information security won't change so why have a useless middleman picking and choosing who can see that info when you can have an open system where at least beneficial apps can have the access too. In the current (type of) system you're guaranteed to have corruption because the people who can pay the most for exclusive access are those with the most harmful intentions.
Hopefully not. The thought that after a long day of being as annoying as you can, you still have to "go home" (so to speak, I bet you're in your basement fortress right now) and use windows is enjoyable.
The courts couldn't assign such a fitting punishment to a troll.