Odds are those "smart" features will be obsolete before your TV is
Even if they don't go obsolete, chances are your TV manufacturer won't provide any feature additions as they come. If you want them, you'll have to buy next year's model, which is dumb.
That's the problem with buying anything "smart" -- phone, TV, car, whatever. The people making these things are only interested in being able to advertise lots of features. They don't give two shits about updating them, making them secure or even if they are useful at all.
The point of the vendor prefixes was so vendors could implement experimental, non-standard, or all around "stuff that is not meant for all browsers".
So what's the point of having standards then?
We already went through this bullshit years ago with Internet Explorer.
Because IE comes pre-installed on Windows, that's what most people tend to use. As a result, developers started creating pages that ignored standards and used IE's nonstandard bullshit. IE became the standard, and for years (as just one example) people rarely used CSS because IE's support for CSS was so shitty and broken.
It wasn't until Firefox and Chrome came along that there was a big push to get everyone to adhere to W3C standards. Now we're headed in the opposite direction again.
Those prefixes are no longer needed, but web developers still launch sites that have the -webkit prefix only, without support for any other browser. So, only Webkit browsers use that CSS, and other browsers look like shit because the web developers didn't bother to put the standard properties, only the prefixed properties. The problem is not browsers, it is lazy and/or incompetent website developers (again).
This is true, BUT, when people encounter a page that doesn't display properly on one browser, but works fine on another, they automatically blame the browser, not the lazy, shitty developers.
There is a simple fix -- name and shame. If a non-webkit browser encounters a page with only a -webkit prefix, then the browser should display a message which says something along the line of "This page contains code specifically designed for Safari, Chrome or Opera and may not display properly if you are using a different browser".
It's not a perfect solution, but at least it informs the user that the problem is with the lazy, shitty developers and not the browser. Time to grow some balls -- name and shame.
I don't play any games and i have zero interest in the "other" desktop. Other than my web browser, none of the applications I use are available on that "other" desktop.
Let's say a single lifetime is 100 years. Well above average, but whatever. The nearest star to Sol is a little over 4 light years away. So you have to go over 4% of c to succeed. Good luck with that!
While we are working on that warp engine, we need to also be working even harder on something that is more important -- being able to identify planets that are at least marginally inhabitable.
While astronomer brag that they have now identified hundreds of extra-solar planets, they still know absolutely nothing about them. And a few planets which have been 'discovered' in recent years have turned out to not actually exist.
What kind of crappy adblocker do you have?, and how bad are you at using one that works?, I have adp with pd and no problems
I don't use an adblocker, they're for chumps. The entire forbes site is one blank white page. Examining the page source, it's because the whole thing runs as a javascript infection vector, and my scriptblocker won't allow that to run.
So fuck you, and the malware that's trying to piggyback along with it.
Welcome to Web 3.0 where Javascript has replaced Flash as the cancer that is ruining the Internet.
I literally did not understand what he was saying (the the quoted summary). I don't have the patience to decode what he's trying to say in this convoluted mess of word salad. Why doesn't he just come out and state his thesis? Maybe I'll just look him up on wikipedia.
I like his unintentional humour: "which is why we get impatient when writers don't come out and simply tell us what they're arguing."
Long-winded prose, which uses 1000 words when only 10 are needed, used to be confined to academia. But now, thanks to the interwebs, it's everywhere.
Asshole editors, inability to allow a mediocre edit be improved by others, rules that only apply to casual editors and not "the elite wikipedians" (read as crazy nut jobs with no lives on power trips), inability to make changes to articles where the thing has changed over time (like standards), on and on and on... and at the end of it all you cannot delete your account/disassociate yourself from Wikimedia because assholes.
The Wikimedia foundation spent $52.5 Million in fiscal year 2015 (an increase of $7 Million over the previous year). None of that money was spent on content creation and editing -- that's all done by unpaid volunteers.
Until Wikipedia starts running itself like a real business, the decline will continue. That includes a full time staff of employees who are paid to oversee content creation, weed out the asshole editors that eventually drive away anyone interested in contributing, and who are held responsible if they don't do their job.
Well, that's how copyright works. You don't have to justify why you treat derivative project A differently from derivative project B; unlike trademarks you aren't required to defend copyrights to maintain your monopoly on the material.
And since the guy making the film is (allegedly) a lawyer, he's supposed to know that. He seems to be operating under the old "it's better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission" philosophy, which unfortunately rarely works with copyright issues.
Audio cassettes, vinyl, video cassettes, Justin Bieber, rap . . . . . . . for whatever reason, there are a lot of people out there who are perfectly happy with low quality crap. Weird but true.
The problem is far more complicated that you realize.
It has already been shown that if everyone followed existing laws perfectly, traffic would grind to a complete stop. So obviously you need to change the rules, right? But, trying to change the rules to accommodate every possible situation will simply result in a mess that's even worse than what it is right now, because those "fantastical corner cases" are much more common than you think.
Slashdot Mirror
Odds are those "smart" features will be obsolete before your TV is
Even if they don't go obsolete, chances are your TV manufacturer won't provide any feature additions as they come. If you want them, you'll have to buy next year's model, which is dumb.
That's the problem with buying anything "smart" -- phone, TV, car, whatever. The people making these things are only interested in being able to advertise lots of features. They don't give two shits about updating them, making them secure or even if they are useful at all.
Twitter with large tweets is just an average blog.
Twitter with 10,000 characters is just Facebook.
The point of the vendor prefixes was so vendors could implement experimental, non-standard, or all around "stuff that is not meant for all browsers".
So what's the point of having standards then?
We already went through this bullshit years ago with Internet Explorer.
Because IE comes pre-installed on Windows, that's what most people tend to use. As a result, developers started creating pages that ignored standards and used IE's nonstandard bullshit. IE became the standard, and for years (as just one example) people rarely used CSS because IE's support for CSS was so shitty and broken.
It wasn't until Firefox and Chrome came along that there was a big push to get everyone to adhere to W3C standards. Now we're headed in the opposite direction again.
Those prefixes are no longer needed, but web developers still launch sites that have the -webkit prefix only, without support for any other browser. So, only Webkit browsers use that CSS, and other browsers look like shit because the web developers didn't bother to put the standard properties, only the prefixed properties. The problem is not browsers, it is lazy and/or incompetent website developers (again).
This is true, BUT, when people encounter a page that doesn't display properly on one browser, but works fine on another, they automatically blame the browser, not the lazy, shitty developers.
There is a simple fix -- name and shame. If a non-webkit browser encounters a page with only a -webkit prefix, then the browser should display a message which says something along the line of "This page contains code specifically designed for Safari, Chrome or Opera and may not display properly if you are using a different browser".
It's not a perfect solution, but at least it informs the user that the problem is with the lazy, shitty developers and not the browser. Time to grow some balls -- name and shame.
Webkit kicked my dog and raped my wife.
Or was it the other way around....
It would be the year of another desktop.
I don't play any games and i have zero interest in the "other" desktop. Other than my web browser, none of the applications I use are available on that "other" desktop.
This is not a new phenomenon. I remember a lawyer giving me her newspaper at the courthouse when I was 8 or 9. "
Wait . . . . what?
At that speed, you could catch Voyager I in 2 weeks.
And another 100 years to reach Alpha Centauri
Let's say a single lifetime is 100 years. Well above average, but whatever.
The nearest star to Sol is a little over 4 light years away.
So you have to go over 4% of c to succeed. Good luck with that!
While we are working on that warp engine, we need to also be working even harder on something that is more important -- being able to identify planets that are at least marginally inhabitable.
While astronomer brag that they have now identified hundreds of extra-solar planets, they still know absolutely nothing about them. And a few planets which have been 'discovered' in recent years have turned out to not actually exist.
What kind of crappy adblocker do you have?, and how bad are you at using one that works?, I have adp with pd and no problems
I don't use an adblocker, they're for chumps.
The entire forbes site is one blank white page. Examining the page source, it's because the whole thing runs as a javascript infection vector, and my scriptblocker won't allow that to run.
So fuck you, and the malware that's trying to piggyback along with it.
Welcome to Web 3.0 where Javascript has replaced Flash as the cancer that is ruining the Internet.
I literally did not understand what he was saying (the the quoted summary). I don't have the patience to decode what he's trying to say in this convoluted mess of word salad. Why doesn't he just come out and state his thesis? Maybe I'll just look him up on wikipedia.
I like his unintentional humour: "which is why we get impatient when writers don't come out and simply tell us what they're arguing."
Long-winded prose, which uses 1000 words when only 10 are needed, used to be confined to academia. But now, thanks to the interwebs, it's everywhere.
With that much excessively verbose pomposity in the summary, the article must be insufferable.
+5
Based on other comments I'm guessing they're an ISP. So how about refusing to let someone cancel their service?
You're thinking of AOL.
Since your Google appears to be broken
https://www.linode.com/
They are a "Cloud Hosting" company. Which makes the recent events quite the Lulz.
If Wikipedia and its current admins had been around in 1890, they would have deleted the entry for Vincent Van Gogh due to "lack of notability".
Asshole editors, inability to allow a mediocre edit be improved by others, rules that only apply to casual editors and not "the elite wikipedians" (read as crazy nut jobs with no lives on power trips), inability to make changes to articles where the thing has changed over time (like standards), on and on and on... and at the end of it all you cannot delete your account/disassociate yourself from Wikimedia because assholes.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
The Wikimedia foundation spent $52.5 Million in fiscal year 2015 (an increase of $7 Million over the previous year). None of that money was spent on content creation and editing -- that's all done by unpaid volunteers.
Until Wikipedia starts running itself like a real business, the decline will continue. That includes a full time staff of employees who are paid to oversee content creation, weed out the asshole editors that eventually drive away anyone interested in contributing, and who are held responsible if they don't do their job.
and NYC cops will descend on you in seconds
Yeah, right.
These will be vandalized and destroyed with in a week. They'll be as useful as the payphones they are replacing.
It's would be much smarter
Being smart is not a requirement for running a business.
Well, that's how copyright works. You don't have to justify why you treat derivative project A differently from derivative project B; unlike trademarks you aren't required to defend copyrights to maintain your monopoly on the material.
And since the guy making the film is (allegedly) a lawyer, he's supposed to know that. He seems to be operating under the old "it's better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission" philosophy, which unfortunately rarely works with copyright issues.
People are stupid.
Go figure.
Nice troll.
The "Internet of Things" will be nothing but a gigantic clusterfuck, due to the fact that nobody gives two shits about security.
Audio cassettes, vinyl, video cassettes, Justin Bieber, rap . . . . . . . for whatever reason, there are a lot of people out there who are perfectly happy with low quality crap. Weird but true.
What about Uranus?
The problem is far more complicated that you realize.
It has already been shown that if everyone followed existing laws perfectly, traffic would grind to a complete stop. So obviously you need to change the rules, right? But, trying to change the rules to accommodate every possible situation will simply result in a mess that's even worse than what it is right now, because those "fantastical corner cases" are much more common than you think.