Your whole argument relies on the assumption that there is no way to compete against P2P, but there is. Simply offer your own downloads just as free. Monetize it using a means other than consumer cost, such as advertising or subscription services on top of the content. It's been done for decades, since before the internet even existed with broadcasting.
As I've said before, the actual losses are zero. An opportunity cost only exists when an opportunity exists in the first place. Nobody is crying foul that horse and buggy makers are out thousands of jobs and dollars due to the advent of cars.
To content industry: the advent of the internet results in consumer p2p. It cannot be stopped. Deal with it. Do so by competing against it, not legislating against it.
Your example may sound absurd, but I've personally witnessed this exact reaction in the RunUO community. Back in 2006 I remember participating in a debate about whether or not the authors should open source their project. My primary goal was to encourage the development of a Linux port capable of running in Mono, because the authors were unwilling to do it themselves. The authors claimed it couldn't be done, because Mono sucked too much. But in reality, they were just depending far too much on the MS extensions. A year later they about faced and GPL'd the whole thing. It was ported by someone else to Linux/Mono in short order. Though their anti-Linux/Mono stance continued; the maintainer of the Linux port was largely shunned by the community.
If in 1890 there was a group of dedicated people that made buggy whips and passed them out on streetcorners you would be roughly correct.
No, my analogy is sound. The internet has rendered applying a consumer cost to digital information just as obsolete as cars rendered the horse and buggy obsolete for commuters.
Today, most people that take advantage of downloadable materials do so for no personal gain and really are quite neutral on the subject.
Wrong again. Most people that take advantage of p2p do so for the personal gain of getting to experience the content without paying an arbitrary consumer cost for something that can be reproduced ad infinitum and transmitted at negligible cost to anyone, anywhere, instantly, in perfect digital quality.
It is difficult... to compete with "free."
I'll agree with you there. Economic transitions are very difficult.
There is no possibility of "competing against it."
This is argument by lack of imagination. Of course it can be competed against. Your statement implies that it is impossible to derive profit from the distribution of information for free, but it's already been done successfully for decades with broadcast television, radio, and more recently on the internet with ad-supported web services. The content industry merely needs to compete against sites like piratebay and mininova by offering their own content for free on their own sites with a slicker, richer interface. And no DRM. Yes, it can be done.
If someone comes to your place of work tomorrow and says to your boss they will do your job for half your pay, are they competing with you? If someone in Romania offers to do your job for nothing, are they competing with you?
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: your analogy is absurd. Services are a scarce resource. Digital information is not. Once the initial development occurs, it can be reproduced ad infinitum at negligible cost, rendering it economically abundant. The same cannot be said of skilled labor.
The actual number of jobs lost is zero. An opportunity cost only exists when an opportunity exists in the first place. Nobody is crying foul that horse and buggy makers are out thousands of jobs due to the advent of cars.
To content industry: the advent of the internet results in consumer p2p. It cannot be stopped. Deal with it. Do so by competing against it, not legislating against it.
I've lived this cycle, having worked for Yahoo!, then Google, then back to Yahoo!, and now PayPal. Personally, I don't think my migrations and wanting to change things up every now and then particularly makes me fickle. I'd rather be engaged in my work than eternally loyal to my employer. Too much loyalty isn't a good thing anyway.
So copying and redistributing only 2 pictures from a movie is not wrong.
What if it was 10 pictures? Or 20? How about 200? Or 2,000? Is it wrong yet? How about 20,000? Eventually, you'll have every frame of the movie. At what point does it become wrong?
The answer to this question is never, because any other answer would simply be an arbitrary double standard. It thus follows that there is nothing morally wrong with "pirating" the entire movie. Likewise, there is nothing morally wrong with "pirating" Cliff's games, as they are both exactly the same thing: binary data.
The sooner he realizes this, the sooner he can start modernizing his business model and cease the practice of artificial scarcity on an economically abundant good.
I think there's more than humor to your post. The irony is very real and says a lot about the inherent conflicts in his position.
Specifically, it speaks to the arbitrary nature of consumer cost as it applies to digital media. Clearly he sees the idea of attributing an arbitrary consumer cost to redistributing those images which are nothing more than binary data as ridiculous, as he should. But he does not see the idea of attributing an arbitrary consumer cost to redistributing his games which are also nothing more than binary data as ridiculous. Thus the logical contradiction in his position.
For the record, I personally wrote him detailing this conflict of interest, but he didn't respond to those points at all in the article linked to by Slashdot. My message read as follows:
"Piracy is the inevitable consequence of the consumer cost business model being obsolete as it applies to all economically abundant goods. Your goods are economically abundant because the cost of redistribution is zero. Any consumer cost is merely the practice of artificial scarcity, which is economically unsustainable.
The solution to your problem is not to stop piracy but compete against it. If you allow unrestricted free redistribution of your software and find a way to monetize it in other ways such as subscription services or advertising, you will no longer have to worry about piracy.
If you ignore the problem and continue to practice artificial scarcity, your problem will continue get worse. As the markets for digital content continue to saturate, prices are rapidly falling. Since these goods are economically abundant, prices will fall until they reach free. If you do not confront this issue now and modernize your business model, you will be competed out of existence. It may take decades, but it will happen.
You simply don't want to pay for it at all, and as such you don't deserve access to it whatsoever (until the copyright expires, of course.)
Except that the last decade or so has demonstrated that real world doesn't work that way.
Regardless of whether or not we all believe philosophically or ethically people should pay a consumer cost for digital content, a statistically significant fraction of the consumer base will circumvent that distribution model in order to get that content for free. This is a proven fact.
As I said, you can either work those people into your business model, or you can get the hell out of business. Because that statistically significant fraction is growing. And all of this legislating artificial scarcity and misplaced morality will most certainly fail.
Your concerns don't represent the crowd this bill is targeting. They're not deterred by the rapidly diminishing inconveniences of P2P. They find wasting that precious dollar far more inconvenient than bit torrent. This is the type of crowd that only parts with money when they have to, because the vast majority are putting themselves further and further into debt with each passing semester. A disposable income is the dream a college student's future, not a reality. In my experience, most, if denied the ability to partake without paying would simply not partake.
Nobody learns from history I guess, especially our legislators. Because the following should be obvious by now, even to them:
technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity
Which will fail.
offering alternatives to illegal downloading
Which will fail. None will be as free or convenient. Until we can get all our spiffy new digital music, digital TV, digital movies, and digital books (especially digital college textbooks for those college folk) in 100% quality with no DRM for free paid for by means of ads or some other non-consumer cost business model, then people (especially poor college students) are going to continue to resort to P2P.
It's inevitable. P2P should be competed against. Not legislated against. Make the cheapskate college students part of your business model or go the hell out of business.
you have some deep psychological need to have the last word.
You should read the definition of projection in psychology. Just like this statement, throughout the discussion you have demonstrated in spades what you have routinely falsely accused me of.
Unless your inevitable next post contains an actual argument, feel free to have "the last word" in the discussion because I won't be replying to it if it follows this pattern.
That way we'll both be happy. Your psychological need to have "the last word" which you're projecting on me will be satisfied and I can stop wasting my time repeating the same refutations over and over.
Good. Then I'll assume that the fact that the white on black crowd is in the minority is not in dispute.
It never was.
That statement contradicts the following statement you made earlier in the discussion: "Your very own link proves that I'm not in the minority at all."
I've demonstrated that plenty of what you said is wrong
Either that never happened, or I've forgotten. I tend toward the former.
I hold an opinion. I stated that opinion on a public forum.
Yes, apparently the majority opinion is a "problematic convention" and "not the best solution." But don't ask for a good reason why. It's not like the burden of proof falls on he who asserts or anything. That'd be too logical.
As it stands I have no motivation to [provide an actual argument].
I was never trying to demonstrate that most software markets have moved to white on black
Good. Then I'll assume that the fact that the white on black crowd is in the minority is not in dispute.
My original argument was that on the whole we're so use to black on white that we're not considering that may not be the best solution.
And in order to substantiate that claim, you're going to have to demonstrate why white on black is a better solution than what most people are currently using.
We're talking about expensive top of the line photo editors used by most commercial graphic artists
For every white on black by default graphics app you can find, I can find two more which are black on white by default. Including the most widely used art app of them all: Photoshop.
That single software market you speak of constitutes the graphic arts industry.
Which, like most software markets, is a minority. If you could demonstrate that most software markets are demonstrating a majority trend toward white on black, you'd have a compelling argument.
That is correct. A recent, yet still minority trend in a single software market hardly constitutes evidence that white on black is the ideal choice for all content displayed on a computer screen.
major packages like Corel Photoshop, Adobe Lightroom - are shipping with a black theme by default.
To which I responded: "Yet it's still not the majority preference. Even in the art field. Adobe Photoshop doesn't ship with such a theme, which is easily the most widely used art application. Even if it did, the art field doesn't even come close to representing a majority in computer usage. Or even a majority in professional computer usage."
If an idea isn't logically consistent within itself it's not possible to follow it.
Tell that to religious fundamentalists.;)
Results support that it's possible to be logically consistent and hold the position that I do
Results which either support my position as equally as yours, neither of our positions, or actually do more to support my case than yours as is the case with #5.
It is YOU that's making the appeal to authority by asking me to provide you with research papers while dismissing anecdotal evidence, articles, and discussion.
No, the opposite is the case. Firstly, anecdotal evidence is inadmissible. Articles and discussions are fine, but only when well sourced (like a research paper) because otherwise, all you have is an appeal to authority. Without sources, all you have to go on is the credibility of the author.
do you even see the irony in... singing your own praises
Yes. Twisting an insult into a compliment does have a certain irony to it. That was the point.
your attempt to ridicule my choice is ridiculous in and of itself because a large number of people, not much less than those that prefer BoW like it.
The following of an idea has no correlation with its degree of ridiculousness.
we're preferring BoW because we're use to it from centuries of experience with paper.... What I'm talking about is preference being affected by familiarity.
There's nothing wrong with that though. It's perfectly reasonable to prefer black on white because everything else uses it. Consistency is very important.
How many documents do you actually print out anyway? How many of them become unreadable if you print inverse? Then there's the ability to hit a print preview or even set preferences if that's what you prefer. Trouble is unless you're an advanced user you're not choosing the colour of your web pages or the background colour of most apps.
This does not address the point you were replying to. What I said was people who must context switch constantly from a black on white paper medium to a white on black computer screen would suffer from eye strain. This is a very common use case and explains easily why black on white is more often preferred.
major packages like Corel Photoshop, Adobe Lightroom - are shipping with a black theme by default.
Yet it's still not the majority preference. Even in the art field. Adobe Photoshop doesn't ship with such a theme, which is easily the most widely used art application. Even if it did, the art field doesn't even come close to representing a majority in computer usage. Or even a majority in professional computer usage.
black firefox themes are so widely varied
Again, this proves nothing. The number of black on white themed Firefox users are still the vast majority.
If you dim your screen enough the surface of the screen's starts to reflect roughly the same amount of light as it is emitting and suddenly the reflections are so bright in comaparison that that causes eye strain.
This is true. A good example of this would be using a laptop with a glossy screen outside in the bright sun. But the issue here is that the contrast is reduced. That's what causes the eye strain. In this case, whether or not the user is looking at a white on black color scheme or a black on white color scheme is far less relevant than the lack of contrast. The solution is to get into the shade, or go inside.
A piece of office paper in a properly lit room isn't going to be the same
Again true. However, a piece of paper in a properly lit room next to a black on white color scheme on a computer monitor will be far more similar to each other than the same piece of paper next to a white on black color scheme on a computer monitor.
Google the following: black themes less eye strain
Okay: "Anyone who has had to switch from reading printed text to a white on black screen over and over again would appreciate the consistency."
How else is that to be interpreted other than that I hold an unusual or strange position?
It is to be interpreted as I further clarified in this post: "I was referring to people who must context switch constantly in a single work session between a paper medium and a white on black computer screen. These people would easily suffer from eye strain. The consistency of the same color scheme on both paper and the computer screen is appreciated in such scenarios and these scenarios are very common."
your own statistical study that show the number of people that prefer white on black isn't too much lower than those preferring black on white
No, the statistical study I cited demonstrated that the people tested found white on black to be almost as readable as black on white, especially compared to the harsher combinations such as red on green.
The closeness is very relevant
How is it relevant? What does that prove? It most certainly does not prove white on black is more readable than black on white.
you're calling me ridiculous for holding that view.
No, I said your view was ridiculous (in my opinion). There is an important difference.
Where you get to decide what is and isn't valid?
I make that determination by using generally accepted, time honored rules of formal debate.
I've presented evidence. You've dismissed it.
Legitimately.
What would people choose if they had use to get something they weren't already use to? What would people choose if the text was customised to be readable as white on black?
Can you clarify this? I can't even figure out what you're talking about here.
If you want to have a civilized argument
I do, that's why I've been continuing to ignore your ad hominems. It would be equally big of you to ignore the ones you're falsely perceiving me to be lobbing against you.
it's possible - at least possible - that it's due to people becoming use to seeing black writing on white background that there's a difference in the amount of contrast.
That idea is actually part of my argument. As I've stated above, consistency is very important. If you have to constantly switch from a paper medium to a computer screen (such as someone doing data entry), the constant contrast inversion can be extremely eye straining.
a screen emits light it's not the same as a reflective medium like paper. Bright light shone in one's eyes can produce eye strain - much more than that of staring at not overly reflective paper.
Whether the light is reflected or emitted is irrelevant. I can dim my monitor to emit less light than the piece of paper on my desk is reflecting, thereby making my computer screen even easier on my eyes than paper.
You didn't say it was unusual? Lying dishonest troll!
Then quote a passage I've written to the contrary.
You repeatedly stated that my argument was irrelevant because it was in the vast minority
No, I stated that the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim that white on black is superior to black on white since your position is in the minority.
Since your argument is that my point of view is ridiculous
That is not my argument. That is a subjective conclusion I've drawn based on my argument.
I have to prove it's the mainstream point of view?
Only if you're disputing the fact that your position is in the minority.
Like the graph YOU gave that shows only a slight difference, perhaps less than 20% between people who prefer white on black vs black on white.
The closeness is irrelevant. The legibility study proved with statistical significance that black on white is more legible than white on black. And yes, it also proved with statistical significance that white on black is more legible than several other worse combinations, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that this study proves black on white is more legible which explains why it is the majority preference for content on the internet.
you're happy to disregard any evidence that contradicts your pre-conceived notion
Present valid contrary evidence that disproves my "pre-conceived notion" that black on white is more legible than white on black and I'll be more than happy to concede the point.
majority opinion doesn't make it right
Sure it does. The correct choice is the color scheme most people find the most legible.
You know very well that's not what I said and it's all in black and white. You're not waiting for me to substantiate anything.
You said "we've gotten use to conventions that are problematic." This implies that black on white text is a "problematic convention" and that your stated preference of white on black is superior. If that's what you believe, you must substantiate it. That's what I've been waiting for.
I don't believe that being civil to someone who calls you a basement dwelling logical incompetent twists your words and ridicules you
Since it is obvious that continuing to deny these repeated baseless accusations will serve only to waste my time, I'll instead respond with this: I'm sorry you feel that way, but I doubt posterity will agree with your assessment of my conduct as that's neither what actually happened nor my intent.
Perhaps if you weren't so emotionally attached to your argument, you wouldn't get so offended by a perfectly reasonable attack on your argument. Remember: an attack on your argument is not an attack on you.
In fact the evidence YOU brought to the table show's it's not... even an unusual opinion.
I didn't say it was unusual. I said it was the minority opinion. Unusual would be something like red on green which the study I linked to cited as the least legible.
I've shown you [my argument is] neither ridiculous [n]or just a minority opinion.
In order to show that your position is not a minority opinion, you must prove that the vast majority of the internet prefers white on black to black on white. As I've stated before, linking to a VIM color schemes page or referencing a discussion on Digg, Slashdot, or someone's personal site doesn't cut the mustard. Nor does anecdotal evidence.
The most accurate metric I'm aware of to draw an objective conclusion regarding this is to survey the majority color scheme used by most content on the internet, which is black on white. This implies that black on white is the majority preference for most people, which is supported by objective evidence, such as the color study I linked to.
As for the ridiculousness of the argument, feel free to dismiss that as my own subjective personal opinion.
I can only conclude you're too stupid to understand that others may have a legitimate point of view that differs from yours. You can deny all you like. It's all in the discussion, recorded for posterity.
I never said that your point of view was illegitimate. I said it was in the minority. You're the one who in fact implied that the majority of content on the internet has chosen an inferior color scheme by stating that black on white is a "problematic convention" which is the statement I've been waiting for you to substantiate this entire discussion.
As for posterity, I am curious: How do you expect your ongoing lack of decorum will be perceived?
Slashdot Mirror
Your whole argument relies on the assumption that there is no way to compete against P2P, but there is. Simply offer your own downloads just as free. Monetize it using a means other than consumer cost, such as advertising or subscription services on top of the content. It's been done for decades, since before the internet even existed with broadcasting.
Wrong: the demand is vanishing. The astounding rise in consumer p2p reduces the demand for the physical CD, DVD, pay-for download, etc.
As I've said before, the actual losses are zero. An opportunity cost only exists when an opportunity exists in the first place. Nobody is crying foul that horse and buggy makers are out thousands of jobs and dollars due to the advent of cars.
To content industry: the advent of the internet results in consumer p2p. It cannot be stopped. Deal with it. Do so by competing against it, not legislating against it.
Your example may sound absurd, but I've personally witnessed this exact reaction in the RunUO community. Back in 2006 I remember participating in a debate about whether or not the authors should open source their project. My primary goal was to encourage the development of a Linux port capable of running in Mono, because the authors were unwilling to do it themselves. The authors claimed it couldn't be done, because Mono sucked too much. But in reality, they were just depending far too much on the MS extensions. A year later they about faced and GPL'd the whole thing. It was ported by someone else to Linux/Mono in short order. Though their anti-Linux/Mono stance continued; the maintainer of the Linux port was largely shunned by the community.
No, my analogy is sound. The internet has rendered applying a consumer cost to digital information just as obsolete as cars rendered the horse and buggy obsolete for commuters.
Wrong again. Most people that take advantage of p2p do so for the personal gain of getting to experience the content without paying an arbitrary consumer cost for something that can be reproduced ad infinitum and transmitted at negligible cost to anyone, anywhere, instantly, in perfect digital quality.
I'll agree with you there. Economic transitions are very difficult.
This is argument by lack of imagination. Of course it can be competed against. Your statement implies that it is impossible to derive profit from the distribution of information for free, but it's already been done successfully for decades with broadcast television, radio, and more recently on the internet with ad-supported web services. The content industry merely needs to compete against sites like piratebay and mininova by offering their own content for free on their own sites with a slicker, richer interface. And no DRM. Yes, it can be done.
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: your analogy is absurd. Services are a scarce resource. Digital information is not. Once the initial development occurs, it can be reproduced ad infinitum at negligible cost, rendering it economically abundant. The same cannot be said of skilled labor.
The actual number of jobs lost is zero. An opportunity cost only exists when an opportunity exists in the first place. Nobody is crying foul that horse and buggy makers are out thousands of jobs due to the advent of cars.
To content industry: the advent of the internet results in consumer p2p. It cannot be stopped. Deal with it. Do so by competing against it, not legislating against it.
The debate is over. The result of the discussion was keep. See talk page.
I'm definitely not counting it out. Galactica and fleet could still settle there now that they've discovered Earth is a devastated wasteland!
I've lived this cycle, having worked for Yahoo!, then Google, then back to Yahoo!, and now PayPal. Personally, I don't think my migrations and wanting to change things up every now and then particularly makes me fickle. I'd rather be engaged in my work than eternally loyal to my employer. Too much loyalty isn't a good thing anyway.
So copying and redistributing only 2 pictures from a movie is not wrong.
What if it was 10 pictures? Or 20? How about 200? Or 2,000? Is it wrong yet? How about 20,000? Eventually, you'll have every frame of the movie. At what point does it become wrong?
The answer to this question is never, because any other answer would simply be an arbitrary double standard. It thus follows that there is nothing morally wrong with "pirating" the entire movie. Likewise, there is nothing morally wrong with "pirating" Cliff's games, as they are both exactly the same thing: binary data.
The sooner he realizes this, the sooner he can start modernizing his business model and cease the practice of artificial scarcity on an economically abundant good.
I think there's more than humor to your post. The irony is very real and says a lot about the inherent conflicts in his position.
Specifically, it speaks to the arbitrary nature of consumer cost as it applies to digital media. Clearly he sees the idea of attributing an arbitrary consumer cost to redistributing those images which are nothing more than binary data as ridiculous, as he should. But he does not see the idea of attributing an arbitrary consumer cost to redistributing his games which are also nothing more than binary data as ridiculous. Thus the logical contradiction in his position.
For the record, I personally wrote him detailing this conflict of interest, but he didn't respond to those points at all in the article linked to by Slashdot. My message read as follows:
"Piracy is the inevitable consequence of the consumer cost business model being obsolete as it applies to all economically abundant goods. Your goods are economically abundant because the cost of redistribution is zero. Any consumer cost is merely the practice of artificial scarcity, which is economically unsustainable.
The solution to your problem is not to stop piracy but compete against it. If you allow unrestricted free redistribution of your software and find a way to monetize it in other ways such as subscription services or advertising, you will no longer have to worry about piracy.
If you ignore the problem and continue to practice artificial scarcity, your problem will continue get worse. As the markets for digital content continue to saturate, prices are rapidly falling. Since these goods are economically abundant, prices will fall until they reach free. If you do not confront this issue now and modernize your business model, you will be competed out of existence. It may take decades, but it will happen.
I hope that was helpful. :)
Eric Newport
(a fellow software developer.)"
Except that the last decade or so has demonstrated that real world doesn't work that way.
Regardless of whether or not we all believe philosophically or ethically people should pay a consumer cost for digital content, a statistically significant fraction of the consumer base will circumvent that distribution model in order to get that content for free. This is a proven fact.
As I said, you can either work those people into your business model, or you can get the hell out of business. Because that statistically significant fraction is growing. And all of this legislating artificial scarcity and misplaced morality will most certainly fail.
Your concerns don't represent the crowd this bill is targeting. They're not deterred by the rapidly diminishing inconveniences of P2P. They find wasting that precious dollar far more inconvenient than bit torrent. This is the type of crowd that only parts with money when they have to, because the vast majority are putting themselves further and further into debt with each passing semester. A disposable income is the dream a college student's future, not a reality. In my experience, most, if denied the ability to partake without paying would simply not partake.
Nobody learns from history I guess, especially our legislators. Because the following should be obvious by now, even to them:
Which will fail.
Which will fail. None will be as free or convenient. Until we can get all our spiffy new digital music, digital TV, digital movies, and digital books (especially digital college textbooks for those college folk) in 100% quality with no DRM for free paid for by means of ads or some other non-consumer cost business model, then people (especially poor college students) are going to continue to resort to P2P.
It's inevitable. P2P should be competed against. Not legislated against. Make the cheapskate college students part of your business model or go the hell out of business.
You should read the definition of projection in psychology. Just like this statement, throughout the discussion you have demonstrated in spades what you have routinely falsely accused me of.
Unless your inevitable next post contains an actual argument, feel free to have "the last word" in the discussion because I won't be replying to it if it follows this pattern.
That way we'll both be happy. Your psychological need to have "the last word" which you're projecting on me will be satisfied and I can stop wasting my time repeating the same refutations over and over.
That statement contradicts the following statement you made earlier in the discussion: "Your very own link proves that I'm not in the minority at all."
Either that never happened, or I've forgotten. I tend toward the former.
Yes, apparently the majority opinion is a "problematic convention" and "not the best solution." But don't ask for a good reason why. It's not like the burden of proof falls on he who asserts or anything. That'd be too logical.
I can see that.
Good. Then I'll assume that the fact that the white on black crowd is in the minority is not in dispute.
And in order to substantiate that claim, you're going to have to demonstrate why white on black is a better solution than what most people are currently using.
For every white on black by default graphics app you can find, I can find two more which are black on white by default. Including the most widely used art app of them all: Photoshop.
Which, like most software markets, is a minority. If you could demonstrate that most software markets are demonstrating a majority trend toward white on black, you'd have a compelling argument.
That is correct. A recent, yet still minority trend in a single software market hardly constitutes evidence that white on black is the ideal choice for all content displayed on a computer screen.
No, I didn't. The response was in this post.
You wrote:
To which I responded: "Yet it's still not the majority preference. Even in the art field. Adobe Photoshop doesn't ship with such a theme, which is easily the most widely used art application. Even if it did, the art field doesn't even come close to representing a majority in computer usage. Or even a majority in professional computer usage."
Tell that to religious fundamentalists. ;)
Results which either support my position as equally as yours, neither of our positions, or actually do more to support my case than yours as is the case with #5.
No, the opposite is the case. Firstly, anecdotal evidence is inadmissible. Articles and discussions are fine, but only when well sourced (like a research paper) because otherwise, all you have is an appeal to authority. Without sources, all you have to go on is the credibility of the author.
Yes. Twisting an insult into a compliment does have a certain irony to it. That was the point.
The following of an idea has no correlation with its degree of ridiculousness.
There's nothing wrong with that though. It's perfectly reasonable to prefer black on white because everything else uses it. Consistency is very important.
This does not address the point you were replying to. What I said was people who must context switch constantly from a black on white paper medium to a white on black computer screen would suffer from eye strain. This is a very common use case and explains easily why black on white is more often preferred.
Yet it's still not the majority preference. Even in the art field. Adobe Photoshop doesn't ship with such a theme, which is easily the most widely used art application. Even if it did, the art field doesn't even come close to representing a majority in computer usage. Or even a majority in professional computer usage.
Again, this proves nothing. The number of black on white themed Firefox users are still the vast majority.
This is true. A good example of this would be using a laptop with a glossy screen outside in the bright sun. But the issue here is that the contrast is reduced. That's what causes the eye strain. In this case, whether or not the user is looking at a white on black color scheme or a black on white color scheme is far less relevant than the lack of contrast. The solution is to get into the shade, or go inside.
Again true. However, a piece of paper in a properly lit room next to a black on white color scheme on a computer monitor will be far more similar to each other than the same piece of paper next to a white on black color scheme on a computer monitor.
Okay. Results:
It is to be interpreted as I further clarified in this post: "I was referring to people who must context switch constantly in a single work session between a paper medium and a white on black computer screen. These people would easily suffer from eye strain. The consistency of the same color scheme on both paper and the computer screen is appreciated in such scenarios and these scenarios are very common."
No, the statistical study I cited demonstrated that the people tested found white on black to be almost as readable as black on white, especially compared to the harsher combinations such as red on green.
How is it relevant? What does that prove? It most certainly does not prove white on black is more readable than black on white.
No, I said your view was ridiculous (in my opinion). There is an important difference.
I make that determination by using generally accepted, time honored rules of formal debate.
Legitimately.
Can you clarify this? I can't even figure out what you're talking about here.
I do, that's why I've been continuing to ignore your ad hominems. It would be equally big of you to ignore the ones you're falsely perceiving me to be lobbing against you.
That idea is actually part of my argument. As I've stated above, consistency is very important. If you have to constantly switch from a paper medium to a computer screen (such as someone doing data entry), the constant contrast inversion can be extremely eye straining.
Whether the light is reflected or emitted is irrelevant. I can dim my monitor to emit less light than the piece of paper on my desk is reflecting, thereby making my computer screen even easier on my eyes than paper.
Then quote a passage I've written to the contrary.
No, I stated that the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim that white on black is superior to black on white since your position is in the minority.
That is not my argument. That is a subjective conclusion I've drawn based on my argument.
Only if you're disputing the fact that your position is in the minority.
The closeness is irrelevant. The legibility study proved with statistical significance that black on white is more legible than white on black. And yes, it also proved with statistical significance that white on black is more legible than several other worse combinations, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that this study proves black on white is more legible which explains why it is the majority preference for content on the internet.
Present valid contrary evidence that disproves my "pre-conceived notion" that black on white is more legible than white on black and I'll be more than happy to concede the point.
Sure it does. The correct choice is the color scheme most people find the most legible.
You said "we've gotten use to conventions that are problematic." This implies that black on white text is a "problematic convention" and that your stated preference of white on black is superior. If that's what you believe, you must substantiate it. That's what I've been waiting for.
Since it is obvious that continuing to deny these repeated baseless accusations will serve only to waste my time, I'll instead respond with this: I'm sorry you feel that way, but I doubt posterity will agree with your assessment of my conduct as that's neither what actually happened nor my intent.
Perhaps if you weren't so emotionally attached to your argument, you wouldn't get so offended by a perfectly reasonable attack on your argument. Remember: an attack on your argument is not an attack on you.
I didn't say it was unusual. I said it was the minority opinion. Unusual would be something like red on green which the study I linked to cited as the least legible.
In order to show that your position is not a minority opinion, you must prove that the vast majority of the internet prefers white on black to black on white. As I've stated before, linking to a VIM color schemes page or referencing a discussion on Digg, Slashdot, or someone's personal site doesn't cut the mustard. Nor does anecdotal evidence.
The most accurate metric I'm aware of to draw an objective conclusion regarding this is to survey the majority color scheme used by most content on the internet, which is black on white. This implies that black on white is the majority preference for most people, which is supported by objective evidence, such as the color study I linked to.
As for the ridiculousness of the argument, feel free to dismiss that as my own subjective personal opinion.
I never said that your point of view was illegitimate. I said it was in the minority. You're the one who in fact implied that the majority of content on the internet has chosen an inferior color scheme by stating that black on white is a "problematic convention" which is the statement I've been waiting for you to substantiate this entire discussion.
As for posterity, I am curious: How do you expect your ongoing lack of decorum will be perceived?