Seriously, has anyone seen anything about a way to turn this off for your site?
I have, and it works: provide interesting, good quality stuff that people like. If you can't do that, then decide not to go public. I can't, so I don't. It's really that simple when you understand.
The ribbon system allows for the logical grouping of actions by function. This allows for a more intuitive interface for the standard user. They also have context-aware ribbons, such as picture and table editing which appear and hide themselves only when you are working on that specific object.
There is nothing in the standard menu model that prevents it from either having logical top-level groupings, or context aware items. The ribbon is only different in the sense that it exposes the contents of the grouping (usually) as icons, and does so horizontally rather than vertically - notably taking up more screen space in the process, but that may not be a bad thing in itself.
If you can point to some objective evidence for the truth of this "more intuitive interface" then please do so. I for one am sceptical, but then I'd just prefer a CLUI.
...quite possibly the best user interface I know of, because the basic design hasn't changed since the days of the horseless carriage.
No. People like what they are used to, but there is no automatic connection between time and usability. My father was brought up with a currency here in the UK that until 1971 was a total headfuck. You should have seen the howls of pain from those who tried to make out that base 10 was utterly confusing.
How on earth you can equate longevity with usability is utterly beyond me.
Artist? Writer? Invented something? Getting paid more for it that you'll ever be able to spend in your lifetime? Make sure your descendants get the cut that their accident of birth so rightly grants them!
I understand that America-bashing is fashionable these days, but if not done with a minimum of facts, it only makes the basher look like a fool.
Ask Alan Turing about how tolerant Europeans can be about sexual orientation.
Just to avoid any counter-accusation of using the minimum of facts: you realise Turing died in 1954, when homosexuality was still illegal in the UK? I make that over 55 years ago, more than enough time for things to change a bit.
If you don't like what they're selling, don't buy it.
I think you'll find that for the long tail of artists under contract, hardly anyone does buy them. This is EXACTLY WHY the collection agencies (who work for the recording industry) fight so hard to squeeze royalties from us.
While only about 1 in 10 bands recoups the investment that record labels put into them, that doesn't mean the labels won't try to recoup as much as they can in the process, and by whatever means necessary.
I think that what we're seeing right now is the exposure of the fact that since the 1950s, art has been industrialised, and like much industrialisation, it has been working at vast over-capacity for decades, relying for its profits on tiny numbers of artists making vast amounts of money (the Elvises, the Jacksons). The fact is that now we have a free and efficient distribution and communication system, that over-capacity is now obvious for all to see.
"Substantial non-infringing uses," "contributory infringement," "vicarious infringement" and even basic principles like mens rea whoosh past us like a late summer breeze
I don't doubt that you do understand the various subtleties of infringement, but the fact is that these principles are designed to support a system that is fundamentally unjust, anti-social, and culturally corrosive in the extreme.
Put it this way: if you knew as much about the history of copyright, and how a simple industrial regulation of the 1700's was transmogrified by greed into what we have now as a system to extract the maximum amount of money from all of us to line the pockets of a tiny number of staggeringly rich individuals, I doubt you'd be so keen to support something that (in my opinion) is basically state-sponsored usury. Usury which, I would add, is slowly twisting society into a place where it is impossible not to commit "intellectual property" crimes without expending great efforts, and one where large sections of the population are choosing to ignore this and other laws they see as similarly unjust because of it. This latter effect is the most worrying: imposing extremely draconian penalties for "crimes" that many people think are nothing of the kind leads to social effects that none of us want.
Do not defend the indefensible, however clever you may be about it.
So you're saying that if I take very small samples of The Beatles' White Album (as I consider the album an entire work) and make new songs out of those small samples, it is completely legal
Hello. This is Slashdot. On the Web. You need to make things a bit clearer as to whether you are a) joking b) being sarcastic c) doing something else.
Whaaat? 360,000 composers, songwriters, lyricists, and music publishers in the US ALONE.
What does that mean? That there are perhaps MILLIONS of such people world wide?
I don't know about anyone else, but when there are that many "artists" clamouring for money, and I'm seeing so much derivative, boring crappy "art" being produced by them, I'm thinking they can kiss my pink shiny arse.
I mean, it's not as if music makes the world go round. I'm sure we can lose a few of these people and not notice any difference.
For this guy to whine about "theft" and "losses" is wonderfully short-sighted.
Instead, if I'd been in his position (ie a tiny independent software developer making what is probably about $5 a month from their software) I'd have contact them and congratulated them on their taste, then asked them to credit me with the fact that they I'd created that background. Bingo! Instant GOOD publicity as opposed to promptly making myself look like a whinging tool.
"Oh, you hired Wil Shipley? Isn't he that guy who always beefs about 'intellectual property' and stuff?" "Rilly?" "Yah, just google him" "OMG! We better kiss him off before he gives us some kind of hassle about making him work out of hours or something!"
We need to attract some equally-brilliant technical writers to donate time to explain how the stuff works in the real world.
I think a problem is that good technical writers don't have a tendency to donate work in their 'hobby time'.
Mainly because technical writing is as least as hard as writing code, possibly harder. But I don't see why difficulty would prevent anyone from contributing to FOSS projects as long as the members of the project see them as equals.
even something with a name as ridiculous and off-putting as "The Gimp."
I hear ya. Frankly, I feel feel embarrassed to talk about a graphics program with that name. "Oh, ho ho ho! The free software hippie uses sadomasochist software! Hey buddy where's your butt-plug?? Arr hahaha!" I can't think of any name less likely to attract an impressionable graphics designer to move from Photoshop. Maybe if it was called Skidmark or something?
For many FOSS applications the UI isn't nearly as polished as the commercial alternatives. This might be partially because UI designers want to get paid for the work (perhaps not a dedicated to the free community as sofware developers).
I am a UI designer, and the couple of occasions when I've tried to offer UI design improvements for FOSS projects have been pretty depressing. Both times I tried, it seemed that one of the coders on the project doubled as a UI designer and resented anyone who would challenge their ideas. Their contribution of code to the project meant that others then close ranks around them, so that any real discussion of UI improvements is killed off and anyone not a coder was frozen out. You could see why Alan Cooper wrote The Lunatics.
Other projects may of course be different. This was just my somewhat bitter experience with two fairly well known web apps.
Mostly free software is exploiting programs to give their work away for free--designers, editors and proofreaders don't fall for it.
I strongly disagree with that. If I could point to a FOSS application and say "I did the UI for that", I would probably double the amount of commercial work I could get (assuming my work was any good!). I would also think that being the only UI designer on a FOSS project would be wonderful - think of the freedom!
The main reason for declining sales is the fact that CD sales during the 90s were artificially boosted by people replacing records and tapes with CDs... then replacing them again when remastered CDs were released a few years later. It was a once-in-a-lifetime event for the recording industry that won't be repeated during our lifetimes.
I used to think this but lately I'm not so sure. My feeling is that since the 1950's and the creation of the music recording industry, we have seen an immense amount of music being produced for (or in the hope of) profit. Before then, when people played and listened to music for entertainment, the amount of music produced was far lower becuase there was no industrialised famework to channel funds, cultural cachet and other benefits to both musicians, and more importantly, their record labels distributors and publishers. Now, however we are seeing the return to the ancient ways: rip mix burn, people being able to make and listen to music without any involvement from anyone else. But the huge difference between now and the pre-1950's situaiton is that we have been led to believe that ALL music is wonderful, that the act of creating it deserves remuneration by right, and that it is somehow a sacred commodity. That, however, is bullshit. We are now able to see that bullshit and will come to realise that a) there is FAR too much production of music (indeed arts of all kinds) and the b) most should and will not see the light of day if left to the "free market" of listeners.
I just don't understand the stance that most people on this board seem to take regarding this issue. How can everyone be so supportive of what very obviously amounts to theft
I suggest you research the issues around all this then. Illegal file sharing is a symptom of something much, much bigger. Personally, I don't "support" it any more than I support the taking of illegal drugs - but I oppose the Drugs War. It's on that level we are talking.
Incidentally, I have my own (possibly twisted) morality here. I believe that copyright should last for 14 years renewable on application for another 14, and not in perpetuity as they (in effect) last today. I therefore freely admit to imposing this view on rightsholders by not downloading anything created after 1995. This is therefore another facet of the issue: I download because I can. Rightholders need to wake up to this fact and adjust their business models accordingly.
For example, one might term a new tax structure in which the government takes half of your income "balanced".
Out of interest, what rate would you say is "balanced" in that case? Most countries have a top rate tax band of about 30-40%, and in the 50 years prior to 1980, U.S. federal marginal income tax rates were well over 50% and sometimes into the 90% range according to wikipedia at least.
I would think that for a country the size of the U.S., income tax of anything less than about a 20% top rate would mean you'd probably have very basic public health care, few social services, and a skeleton military defence force. But since no large economy has ever got anywhere near that level, I suppose we'll never know for sure.
"The Nano is destined for markets where it is the only mobility alternative for much of the population and better than the ubiquitous scooter everyone has now. There, the Nano can decrease total road deaths simply because four wheels and a windshield are much safer in the downpouring rain that parts of India and Asia seasonally experience."
I'm really not sure what part of the phrase "good enough" you do not understand. Re-read your two sentences above, then read the phrase "the Nano is good enough". What is the point you are tying to make?
Well, at least now we have the explanation for your painfully parochial world view.
Oh relax - he's American. America is a big place and contains lots of cool things like Disney World, The Bronx, Scientology and cars. Really, why would anyone want to leave?
But instead of the clear pro-warez propaganda of all of the Pirate Parties, they should go more for net neutrality, freedom of speech and making people understand why they should be valued and what can happen if those rights are taken away. "But we just want free warez and dont want to pay for entertainment!" is not going to work, and it is the wrong kind of agenda. You should pay for people who spend tons of it, or just not use it like any other product. Just because it can be digitized on your computer doesn't mean you should be able to get it for free.
I disagree with this argument at it's most basic level. Why is TPB's agenda the wrong one? What - really - is so bad about taking something that you have the ability to take? I understand that people make money from making music, films and other art, but what is so special about those activities that makes them different from, say, mining, weaving or - hell this is Slashdot - coding? All those professions are subject to the tides of history and technology - why not they?
Listen: I like metal, hip-hop, grime and Spielberg as much as the next man, but if 80% of all musicians and artists gave up tomorrow because of piracy, would anyone even notice?
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your email communication.
I think you don't understand the concept of "reasonable expectation of privacy". It's not a technical idea meaning "this data is secure". It's a social/legal idea, meaning "third parties are supposed to know that this data is private, and so they should keep out of it even if they are technically able to look".
The trouble is that this is the first time in history when the three broad realms of "private", "semi-private" and "public" have been mixed together - and it baffles a lot of people.
In the past, if I sat on my toilet with the door locked, that was private. If I went out and spoke to some friends in a bar, that was semi-private (what I said might get around the village, but not much more), and public was pretty much impossible unless I became a politician or a journalist.
Now, however, it's very difficult to work out which state you are in at any one time, and what's worse, you often don't know what's public, which is a state that for the vast majority of humans, is totally new.
Last time I tried a pen to sketch stuff with on a tablet (not a tablet PC, a desk-mounted tablet with a pen), I could never get used to it because, unlike a real pen, the cursor started to respond just before the tip of the pen hit the pad. I persevered, but it was just too difficult for me. I needed the damn thing to respond when the pen hit the pad, and not before.
You need to ask what you need to secure before you can legitimately worry about losing anything.
The remote admin (presumably) do not need to know how much you pay your staff, or what you are corresponding with a lawyer about. So, encrypt those things that you need to hide.
Job done. Worry no more. Sorry the solution wasn't more exotic.
That, and you'll end up with an army of ants swarming the sugary concoction.
Actually, that's a good thing. Every year, I put out a big bowl of sugar syrup for the ants. Because it's relatively easy for them to get at, they don't then venture into my house and harass my Twinkies.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, has anyone seen anything about a way to turn this off for your site?
I have, and it works: provide interesting, good quality stuff that people like. If you can't do that, then decide not to go public. I can't, so I don't. It's really that simple when you understand.
The ribbon system allows for the logical grouping of actions by function. This allows for a more intuitive interface for the standard user. They also have context-aware ribbons, such as picture and table editing which appear and hide themselves only when you are working on that specific object.
There is nothing in the standard menu model that prevents it from either having logical top-level groupings, or context aware items. The ribbon is only different in the sense that it exposes the contents of the grouping (usually) as icons, and does so horizontally rather than vertically - notably taking up more screen space in the process, but that may not be a bad thing in itself.
If you can point to some objective evidence for the truth of this "more intuitive interface" then please do so. I for one am sceptical, but then I'd just prefer a CLUI.
...quite possibly the best user interface I know of, because the basic design hasn't changed since the days of the horseless carriage.
No. People like what they are used to, but there is no automatic connection between time and usability. My father was brought up with a currency here in the UK that until 1971 was a total headfuck. You should have seen the howls of pain from those who tried to make out that base 10 was utterly confusing.
How on earth you can equate longevity with usability is utterly beyond me.
Artist? Writer? Invented something? Getting paid more for it that you'll ever be able to spend in your lifetime? Make sure your descendants get the cut that their accident of birth so rightly grants them!
It's the news rights aristocracy!.
I understand that America-bashing is fashionable these days, but if not done with a minimum of facts, it only makes the basher look like a fool.
Ask Alan Turing about how tolerant Europeans can be about sexual orientation.
Just to avoid any counter-accusation of using the minimum of facts: you realise Turing died in 1954, when homosexuality was still illegal in the UK? I make that over 55 years ago, more than enough time for things to change a bit.
If you don't like what they're selling, don't buy it.
I think you'll find that for the long tail of artists under contract, hardly anyone does buy them. This is EXACTLY WHY the collection agencies (who work for the recording industry) fight so hard to squeeze royalties from us.
While only about 1 in 10 bands recoups the investment that record labels put into them, that doesn't mean the labels won't try to recoup as much as they can in the process, and by whatever means necessary.
I think that what we're seeing right now is the exposure of the fact that since the 1950s, art has been industrialised, and like much industrialisation, it has been working at vast over-capacity for decades, relying for its profits on tiny numbers of artists making vast amounts of money (the Elvises, the Jacksons). The fact is that now we have a free and efficient distribution and communication system, that over-capacity is now obvious for all to see.
"Substantial non-infringing uses," "contributory infringement," "vicarious infringement" and even basic principles like mens rea whoosh past us like a late summer breeze
I don't doubt that you do understand the various subtleties of infringement, but the fact is that these principles are designed to support a system that is fundamentally unjust, anti-social, and culturally corrosive in the extreme.
Put it this way: if you knew as much about the history of copyright, and how a simple industrial regulation of the 1700's was transmogrified by greed into what we have now as a system to extract the maximum amount of money from all of us to line the pockets of a tiny number of staggeringly rich individuals, I doubt you'd be so keen to support something that (in my opinion) is basically state-sponsored usury. Usury which, I would add, is slowly twisting society into a place where it is impossible not to commit "intellectual property" crimes without expending great efforts, and one where large sections of the population are choosing to ignore this and other laws they see as similarly unjust because of it. This latter effect is the most worrying: imposing extremely draconian penalties for "crimes" that many people think are nothing of the kind leads to social effects that none of us want.
Do not defend the indefensible, however clever you may be about it.
So you're saying that if I take very small samples of The Beatles' White Album (as I consider the album an entire work) and make new songs out of those small samples, it is completely legal
Hello. This is Slashdot. On the Web. You need to make things a bit clearer as to whether you are a) joking b) being sarcastic c) doing something else.
Right now, you are looking like a fair idiot.
Whaaat? 360,000 composers, songwriters, lyricists, and music publishers in the US ALONE.
What does that mean? That there are perhaps MILLIONS of such people world wide?
I don't know about anyone else, but when there are that many "artists" clamouring for money, and I'm seeing so much derivative, boring crappy "art" being produced by them, I'm thinking they can kiss my pink shiny arse.
I mean, it's not as if music makes the world go round. I'm sure we can lose a few of these people and not notice any difference.
That does not mean that irradiation does not have deleterious effects.
Although I assume that if there were any observable *consequences* of those effects on the population, you would have provided evidence for that.
For this guy to whine about "theft" and "losses" is wonderfully short-sighted.
Instead, if I'd been in his position (ie a tiny independent software developer making what is probably about $5 a month from their software) I'd have contact them and congratulated them on their taste, then asked them to credit me with the fact that they I'd created that background. Bingo! Instant GOOD publicity as opposed to promptly making myself look like a whinging tool.
"Oh, you hired Wil Shipley? Isn't he that guy who always beefs about 'intellectual property' and stuff?" "Rilly?" "Yah, just google him" "OMG! We better kiss him off before he gives us some kind of hassle about making him work out of hours or something!"
I think a problem is that good technical writers don't have a tendency to donate work in their 'hobby time'.
Mainly because technical writing is as least as hard as writing code, possibly harder. But I don't see why difficulty would prevent anyone from contributing to FOSS projects as long as the members of the project see them as equals.
even something with a name as ridiculous and off-putting as "The Gimp."
I hear ya. Frankly, I feel feel embarrassed to talk about a graphics program with that name. "Oh, ho ho ho! The free software hippie uses sadomasochist software! Hey buddy where's your butt-plug?? Arr hahaha!" I can't think of any name less likely to attract an impressionable graphics designer to move from Photoshop. Maybe if it was called Skidmark or something?
For many FOSS applications the UI isn't nearly as polished as the commercial alternatives. This might be partially because UI designers want to get paid for the work (perhaps not a dedicated to the free community as sofware developers).
I am a UI designer, and the couple of occasions when I've tried to offer UI design improvements for FOSS projects have been pretty depressing. Both times I tried, it seemed that one of the coders on the project doubled as a UI designer and resented anyone who would challenge their ideas. Their contribution of code to the project meant that others then close ranks around them, so that any real discussion of UI improvements is killed off and anyone not a coder was frozen out. You could see why Alan Cooper wrote The Lunatics.
Other projects may of course be different. This was just my somewhat bitter experience with two fairly well known web apps.
Mostly free software is exploiting programs to give their work away for free--designers, editors and proofreaders don't fall for it.
I strongly disagree with that. If I could point to a FOSS application and say "I did the UI for that", I would probably double the amount of commercial work I could get (assuming my work was any good!). I would also think that being the only UI designer on a FOSS project would be wonderful - think of the freedom!
The main reason for declining sales is the fact that CD sales during the 90s were artificially boosted by people replacing records and tapes with CDs... then replacing them again when remastered CDs were released a few years later. It was a once-in-a-lifetime event for the recording industry that won't be repeated during our lifetimes.
I used to think this but lately I'm not so sure. My feeling is that since the 1950's and the creation of the music recording industry, we have seen an immense amount of music being produced for (or in the hope of) profit. Before then, when people played and listened to music for entertainment, the amount of music produced was far lower becuase there was no industrialised famework to channel funds, cultural cachet and other benefits to both musicians, and more importantly, their record labels distributors and publishers. Now, however we are seeing the return to the ancient ways: rip mix burn, people being able to make and listen to music without any involvement from anyone else. But the huge difference between now and the pre-1950's situaiton is that we have been led to believe that ALL music is wonderful, that the act of creating it deserves remuneration by right, and that it is somehow a sacred commodity. That, however, is bullshit. We are now able to see that bullshit and will come to realise that a) there is FAR too much production of music (indeed arts of all kinds) and the b) most should and will not see the light of day if left to the "free market" of listeners.
I take it you have not watched the movie of Manufacturing Consent?. You should - I think you'd like it.
I just don't understand the stance that most people on this board seem to take regarding this issue. How can everyone be so supportive of what very obviously amounts to theft
I suggest you research the issues around all this then. Illegal file sharing is a symptom of something much, much bigger. Personally, I don't "support" it any more than I support the taking of illegal drugs - but I oppose the Drugs War. It's on that level we are talking.
Incidentally, I have my own (possibly twisted) morality here. I believe that copyright should last for 14 years renewable on application for another 14, and not in perpetuity as they (in effect) last today. I therefore freely admit to imposing this view on rightsholders by not downloading anything created after 1995. This is therefore another facet of the issue: I download because I can. Rightholders need to wake up to this fact and adjust their business models accordingly.
"Balanced" does not mean "fair" or "right".
For example, one might term a new tax structure in which the government takes half of your income "balanced".
Out of interest, what rate would you say is "balanced" in that case? Most countries have a top rate tax band of about 30-40%, and in the 50 years prior to 1980, U.S. federal marginal income tax rates were well over 50% and sometimes into the 90% range according to wikipedia at least.
I would think that for a country the size of the U.S., income tax of anything less than about a 20% top rate would mean you'd probably have very basic public health care, few social services, and a skeleton military defence force. But since no large economy has ever got anywhere near that level, I suppose we'll never know for sure.
"The Nano is destined for markets where it is the only mobility alternative for much of the population and better than the ubiquitous scooter everyone has now. There, the Nano can decrease total road deaths simply because four wheels and a windshield are much safer in the downpouring rain that parts of India and Asia seasonally experience."
I'm really not sure what part of the phrase "good enough" you do not understand. Re-read your two sentences above, then read the phrase "the Nano is good enough". What is the point you are tying to make?
Well, at least now we have the explanation for your painfully parochial world view.
Oh relax - he's American. America is a big place and contains lots of cool things like Disney World, The Bronx, Scientology and cars. Really, why would anyone want to leave?
But instead of the clear pro-warez propaganda of all of the Pirate Parties, they should go more for net neutrality, freedom of speech and making people understand why they should be valued and what can happen if those rights are taken away. "But we just want free warez and dont want to pay for entertainment!" is not going to work, and it is the wrong kind of agenda. You should pay for people who spend tons of it, or just not use it like any other product. Just because it can be digitized on your computer doesn't mean you should be able to get it for free.
I disagree with this argument at it's most basic level. Why is TPB's agenda the wrong one? What - really - is so bad about taking something that you have the ability to take? I understand that people make money from making music, films and other art, but what is so special about those activities that makes them different from, say, mining, weaving or - hell this is Slashdot - coding? All those professions are subject to the tides of history and technology - why not they?
Listen: I like metal, hip-hop, grime and Spielberg as much as the next man, but if 80% of all musicians and artists gave up tomorrow because of piracy, would anyone even notice?
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your email communication.
I think you don't understand the concept of "reasonable expectation of privacy". It's not a technical idea meaning "this data is secure". It's a social/legal idea, meaning "third parties are supposed to know that this data is private, and so they should keep out of it even if they are technically able to look".
The trouble is that this is the first time in history when the three broad realms of "private", "semi-private" and "public" have been mixed together - and it baffles a lot of people.
In the past, if I sat on my toilet with the door locked, that was private. If I went out and spoke to some friends in a bar, that was semi-private (what I said might get around the village, but not much more), and public was pretty much impossible unless I became a politician or a journalist.
Now, however, it's very difficult to work out which state you are in at any one time, and what's worse, you often don't know what's public, which is a state that for the vast majority of humans, is totally new.
Last time I tried a pen to sketch stuff with on a tablet (not a tablet PC, a desk-mounted tablet with a pen), I could never get used to it because, unlike a real pen, the cursor started to respond just before the tip of the pen hit the pad. I persevered, but it was just too difficult for me. I needed the damn thing to respond when the pen hit the pad, and not before.
You need to ask what you need to secure before you can legitimately worry about losing anything.
The remote admin (presumably) do not need to know how much you pay your staff, or what you are corresponding with a lawyer about. So, encrypt those things that you need to hide.
Job done. Worry no more. Sorry the solution wasn't more exotic.
That, and you'll end up with an army of ants swarming the sugary concoction.
Actually, that's a good thing. Every year, I put out a big bowl of sugar syrup for the ants. Because it's relatively easy for them to get at, they don't then venture into my house and harass my Twinkies.