Re:Big Brother and the iTunes Company
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
How about just no using the iTunes Music Store? I use iTunes but have disabled access to the Music Store (check the preferences, it is there) -- I am not getting any kind of "You listen to x, try y!".
People really have to at least pretend to read the EUL -- at the very least, after you've found disturbing behavior check the EUL. "Discovering" a clearly documented feature doesn't make you a Super Slueth Security guru.
And for the fuck that wrote up the description: there is a big difference between "malware" and "spyware" -- at worst you may call iTunes "spyware", but it is no less damaging to your system then any other large, comercially produced software package.
No, those comments do not need to be seen. If they are not germane to the submission, then they are off-topic. Discussions about the discussion, about the submitter, about the submission itself are by definition not about the topic and should be modded appropriatly.
I didn't realize it was so little; Taco mentioned "spamming the submission queue", I thought it was on the order of 20 or so submitted stories a day.
Looking at Beetles-Beetles submission history, he's getting about one article a week. Really, is this even an issue? Maybe it's time for a new moderation choice, "-1 Meta Discussion" or "-1 Slashdot Discussion" as a way to prune those annoying off-topic comments from an article.
Because that is probably my number two gripe: comments that have nothing to do with the article. Bitching about submitters, authors, editors,/., or moderation just drags down the comments and leads to a dozen off-topic tangents. Lord knows that once I hit a thread like that those 5 mod points get burned away quickly...
. . . blatantly mis-represented in the summaries. ..
That has got to be one of the most annoying attributes a submission could have; even if the article is interesting, half the conversation ends up being about the submission and how wrong it is.
Published articles with misleading titles and summaries bring down the quality of Slashdot and the submission's discussion. This is my one beef with Authors/Editors -- inaccurate summaries should never be published.
That may be the best opprotunity for "Submission Moderation": just a quick Yes/No "Is this submission accurate?" checkbox, possibly avialable to all subscribers, or all subscribers with mod points at the time.
So a better solution might be to cap the number of submissions, not "accepted" submissions.
If you only have a change to submit three stories a day, you know damn well that you're going to submit only the best. And if someone can come up with three great, published submissions a day, then let them whore their blog all they want: then they truly deserive it.
The unfortunate Internet has only one peer when it comes to obfuscation due to an inundation of excessive punditry,
That peer is the very sentance you are writing, correct?
This entire essay is bunk; every paragraph the author brings up a point that can quickly be refuted. He overgeneralizes issues and adds a big dollup of emotional appeal to make his points. And frankly, his points are just misguided, if not straight out wrong.
Or, to put it another way: a lot of smart geeks do it, and do it for a reason.
A lot of smart geeks have questionable hygene habits and have sex with flowers. What is your point?
Saying "just stop doing that" is stupid and doesn't address the reasons why they do it.
Eh, maybe. I think that "smart geeks" (vs all the chicken head eaters out there) learn to use their enviorment to their best advantage -- or they re-code their enviornment. They don't whine about what what is out there and then, when presented with a work around, make some broad appeal to an imagined majority to justify their personal issues.
Also, widescreen threw me for a bit of a loop... webpages aren't designed to be viewed at 1920 pixels wide, and aren't designed for 16:9 / 16:10, and some of them end up being much harder to read than you'd think they would.
Stop browsing with a maximized window.
I end up wanting software to "halve" the monitor so it acts like a left and a right half.
The software is there: resize your browser window.
In the "What resolution should I target my webpages to?" post on "Ask Slashdot", it seems that a lot of people run all of their prgrams maximized. Why? You're not in 800x600, you probably have a ton of screen realestate; why are you taking it all up with one window, especially when it is very likely that the program you're using wasn't designed for 16 hojillion x 10 hojillon screens?
Whereas everybody, computer literate or no, understands . ..
No, they don't. First off, just as one can speak a language with out being able to read it, most computer users aren't "computer literate": they really have no idea what the internet is, and cannot diffrentiate between a computer that won't boot and one that has a loose network cable -- all they know is that they can not check their email.
None of the neophytes understand "Internet Exporer", they just look for the big blue thing to click on to get to the intarweb.
Notepad? When does a newb ever come across a text file? Heaven forbid they did, they'll try to change everything to 20pt Comic Sans.::shudder::
Even though the purpose of all technology is to be used easily and intuitively by human beings
You're wrong.
Phrase it as "the purpose of technology is to make life better" and I'll agree with you. But a lot of the better things aren't necessarily easy.
Take transportation: mankind has never been as mobile as it is now. Does that mean it is easy to fly a plane? Is it even easy to drive a car competently? No, it's not... technology just isn't easy. Naming a program "email", "exchange" (wow, that's actually pretty good), "pine", or "Outlook" isn't going to make it any easier to send an email until you've taught the user how to start the program, address an email, and send it -- and that assums that the person already knows the correct way to turn on the computer and monitor and start/log into the operating system.
Back to the article, though: the names of the applications is not what is hindering Linux-on-the-desktop.
Dragging an unwated file into a trash can is much more intuitive to users than any command that must be learned first.
Everything must be learned first.
True story: SO gets a mac for christmass (circa '94, some kind of Performa). SO's mom sits down infront of it, tries to use the mouse. Drags it to the end of the mouse pad and asks "where do I go now?". "Pick it up and move it," was the reply. So she picks the mouse straight up, puts it down right where it was, and is in the same situation. Then she tries picking it up and shaking it (ah, the "move it" part!) before putting it down in the same spot. We had to train on mouse usage: you can physically pick up the mouse it put in anywhere you want, and the pointer will stay (relativly) still.
... so this might be "ha ha funny", but how many people really know how to use a mouse? Do your parents know what you mean when you say "right click" or "use the scroll wheel"? Or even dragging and dropping files -- most modern users have no clue about file system basics, they aren't dragging anything anywhere. Not on purpose, anyway; lord knows I've seen more than a few desktops where half the realestate was taken up by the task bar.
Names are secondary in a GUI based OS.
Then you've just disputed the topic of TFA, didn't you?:-)
The basic operations in Windows have been fairly consistent over the years
I heartily disagree, but that discussion is way off topic for this article.
Names don't matter, it is all about training and then familiarity.
What's more intuitive, "Matt", or "Coffee Boy"?
Oh, and what does Exel and Outlook do? Does Outlook Express do it any faster?
As a technical discussion, names as handles to objects or ideas don't matter (excluding downright misleading names, like a boy named Sue): it gets down to user training. To write that "Whatever the reason, desktop Linux's usability is hindered by its naming practices" is just silly: in a work enviornment, users will use what they are trained on. At home, Grandma is going to use whatever will let her get her polaroids out of her new camera.
And Windows isn't particularly easy to use; rather, everybody has had some exposure to it.
As for your examples... once you know what they stand for ("list","remove","disk free", etc.), those commands are a hell of a lot quicker to type (and less prone to error) than spelling the words out.
... I do think that people with 1920px-wide displays usually don't browse the web w/ a maximized window; that just seems like a tremendous waste of desktop realestate.
I run 1792x1344 at home, and the only applications I have maximized are image editors, spreadsheets, and Word -- but in Word I'm looking at two pages side-by-side.
So you can see that my screen resolution has increased enormously with the advent of the LCD.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc?
Judging by the make of those monitors, I think a truer statement would be "My screen resolution has increased enormously, in line with my disposable income."
Slashdot Mirror
How about just no using the iTunes Music Store? I use iTunes but have disabled access to the Music Store (check the preferences, it is there) -- I am not getting any kind of "You listen to x, try y!".
People really have to at least pretend to read the EUL -- at the very least, after you've found disturbing behavior check the EUL. "Discovering" a clearly documented feature doesn't make you a Super Slueth Security guru.
And for the fuck that wrote up the description: there is a big difference between "malware" and "spyware" -- at worst you may call iTunes "spyware", but it is no less damaging to your system then any other large, comercially produced software package.
30 years old at the end of January and I game nightly.
Usually "Slap Boxing the One-Eyed Chimp", though if I'm lucky I get to play "Hide the Salami".
No, they are all off topic -- but a little more specific so that there is no way to metamoderate as "unfair".
Yes, please, save up a bunch of money and then go buy a handful.
... I want Apple to run through the first generation models as quickly as possible, so I can get the bug-fixed 2nd gen :-)
No, those comments do not need to be seen. If they are not germane to the submission, then they are off-topic. Discussions about the discussion, about the submitter, about the submission itself are by definition not about the topic and should be modded appropriatly.
I didn't realize it was so little; Taco mentioned "spamming the submission queue", I thought it was on the order of 20 or so submitted stories a day.
Looking at Beetles-Beetles submission history, he's getting about one article a week. Really, is this even an issue? Maybe it's time for a new moderation choice, "-1 Meta Discussion" or "-1 Slashdot Discussion" as a way to prune those annoying off-topic comments from an article.
Because that is probably my number two gripe: comments that have nothing to do with the article. Bitching about submitters, authors, editors, /., or moderation just drags down the comments and leads to a dozen off-topic tangents. Lord knows that once I hit a thread like that those 5 mod points get burned away quickly...
That has got to be one of the most annoying attributes a submission could have; even if the article is interesting, half the conversation ends up being about the submission and how wrong it is.
Published articles with misleading titles and summaries bring down the quality of Slashdot and the submission's discussion. This is my one beef with Authors/Editors -- inaccurate summaries should never be published.
That may be the best opprotunity for "Submission Moderation": just a quick Yes/No "Is this submission accurate?" checkbox, possibly avialable to all subscribers, or all subscribers with mod points at the time.
So a better solution might be to cap the number of submissions, not "accepted" submissions.
If you only have a change to submit three stories a day, you know damn well that you're going to submit only the best. And if someone can come up with three great, published submissions a day, then let them whore their blog all they want: then they truly deserive it.
That peer is the very sentance you are writing, correct?
This entire essay is bunk; every paragraph the author brings up a point that can quickly be refuted. He overgeneralizes issues and adds a big dollup of emotional appeal to make his points. And frankly, his points are just misguided, if not straight out wrong.
A lot of smart geeks have questionable hygene habits and have sex with flowers. What is your point?
Eh, maybe. I think that "smart geeks" (vs all the chicken head eaters out there) learn to use their enviorment to their best advantage -- or they re-code their enviornment. They don't whine about what what is out there and then, when presented with a work around, make some broad appeal to an imagined majority to justify their personal issues.
Stop browsing with a maximized window.
The software is there: resize your browser window.
In the "What resolution should I target my webpages to?" post on "Ask Slashdot", it seems that a lot of people run all of their prgrams maximized. Why? You're not in 800x600, you probably have a ton of screen realestate; why are you taking it all up with one window, especially when it is very likely that the program you're using wasn't designed for 16 hojillion x 10 hojillon screens?
Biodiesel is blended so that it will run in current production, un-modified diesel engines.
Oompa Loompas are not slaves.
No, they don't. First off, just as one can speak a language with out being able to read it, most computer users aren't "computer literate": they really have no idea what the internet is, and cannot diffrentiate between a computer that won't boot and one that has a loose network cable -- all they know is that they can not check their email.
None of the neophytes understand "Internet Exporer", they just look for the big blue thing to click on to get to the intarweb.
Notepad? When does a newb ever come across a text file? Heaven forbid they did, they'll try to change everything to 20pt Comic Sans. ::shudder::
You, sir, haven't driven through New Jersey -- most drivers here will prove you wrong, especially this chap.
You're wrong.
Phrase it as "the purpose of technology is to make life better" and I'll agree with you. But a lot of the better things aren't necessarily easy.
Take transportation: mankind has never been as mobile as it is now. Does that mean it is easy to fly a plane? Is it even easy to drive a car competently? No, it's not... technology just isn't easy. Naming a program "email", "exchange" (wow, that's actually pretty good), "pine", or "Outlook" isn't going to make it any easier to send an email until you've taught the user how to start the program, address an email, and send it -- and that assums that the person already knows the correct way to turn on the computer and monitor and start/log into the operating system.
Back to the article, though: the names of the applications is not what is hindering Linux-on-the-desktop.
Everything must be learned first.
True story: SO gets a mac for christmass (circa '94, some kind of Performa). SO's mom sits down infront of it, tries to use the mouse. Drags it to the end of the mouse pad and asks "where do I go now?". "Pick it up and move it," was the reply. So she picks the mouse straight up, puts it down right where it was, and is in the same situation. Then she tries picking it up and shaking it (ah, the "move it" part!) before putting it down in the same spot. We had to train on mouse usage: you can physically pick up the mouse it put in anywhere you want, and the pointer will stay (relativly) still.
... so this might be "ha ha funny", but how many people really know how to use a mouse? Do your parents know what you mean when you say "right click" or "use the scroll wheel"? Or even dragging and dropping files -- most modern users have no clue about file system basics, they aren't dragging anything anywhere. Not on purpose, anyway; lord knows I've seen more than a few desktops where half the realestate was taken up by the task bar.
Then you've just disputed the topic of TFA, didn't you? :-)
I heartily disagree, but that discussion is way off topic for this article.
Not a technical issue; the application's name does not hinder your use of it.
See my comments on "familiarity", above.
Those are not technical issues; those psychological, trademark/legal, and marketing issues.
Names don't matter, it is all about training and then familiarity.
What's more intuitive, "Matt", or "Coffee Boy"?
Oh, and what does Exel and Outlook do? Does Outlook Express do it any faster?
As a technical discussion, names as handles to objects or ideas don't matter (excluding downright misleading names, like a boy named Sue): it gets down to user training. To write that "Whatever the reason, desktop Linux's usability is hindered by its naming practices" is just silly: in a work enviornment, users will use what they are trained on. At home, Grandma is going to use whatever will let her get her polaroids out of her new camera.
And Windows isn't particularly easy to use; rather, everybody has had some exposure to it.
As for your examples... once you know what they stand for ("list","remove","disk free", etc.), those commands are a hell of a lot quicker to type (and less prone to error) than spelling the words out.
... I do think that people with 1920px-wide displays usually don't browse the web w/ a maximized window; that just seems like a tremendous waste of desktop realestate.
I run 1792x1344 at home, and the only applications I have maximized are image editors, spreadsheets, and Word -- but in Word I'm looking at two pages side-by-side.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc?
Judging by the make of those monitors, I think a truer statement would be "My screen resolution has increased enormously, in line with my disposable income."
I don't see this providing easy access to the, uhm... "components".
help purge
You're welcome :-)
Wait a sec... I thought that is what IRIX was for?