Gee, I guess they're trying not to help the defense since they're being sued over that. "Choose your own adventure" -- ON A COMPUTER!
The "ON A COMPUTER!" meme comes from patents, but the case you're referring to is about trademarks.
There are several different brands of branching-path gamebook. One is Give Yourself Goosebumps, published by Scholastic. Others include Choose Your Own Adventure, published by Chooseco, and Fighting Fantasy, originally published by Puffin but later sold to Scholastic. But a character in Bandersnatch refers to a gamebook clearly not published by Chooseco as Choose Your Own Adventure, and the work doesn't portray the character as incorrect. It'd be like referring to store-brand batteries as Duracell or some obscure brand of car insurance as GEICO. Someone's lawyers just forgot to play Cover Your Own A$$.
Hell, at this point, I guessing it is only a matter of time before the Weather Channel stops showing weather, and just becomes the home of sharknado marathons or survival of the storm contests.
Starting in the mid-2000s, The Weather Channel once tried to pivot to long-form reality programming connected in some way to earth science, such as Storm Stories, Prospectors, and Highway Thru Hell. But by 2014, DirecTV dropped TWC for WeatherNation for a few months over this, and Verizon FiOS dropped it for AccuWeather Network. TWC dramatically scaled back its reality programming, particularly starting in August 2015 when Weather Underground premiered and Wake Up With Al ended.
Do you think the way Wikipedia is funded is appropriate for the majority of other websites?
The Wikimedia family of sites has the advantages of 1. being run by a registered charity, 2. being structured so as not to need to pay its writers, and 3. scale. It's an exception, and I doubt there is room for many such exceptions on the Internet. I further doubt that charity-run sites alone will provide enough demand for high-speed home Internet to keep home ISPs afloat.
At the end of a day, you're just not paying for a device, but a service.
Let's run with this analogy. Say I want portable video gaming with physical buttons, which fit some game genres better than the flat sheet of glass that is the input device included with an iPhone or Android phone. But I don't want a Nintendo 3DS or Nintendo Switch because I don't want the service of Nintendo imposing limits on what scenarios may and may not appear in a game. Which handheld device isn't made to impose this unwanted service?
This isnt possible with iOS because bothe simulator and phone run the same OS: MAC OS
It's not about the operating system. If I run an Android device simulator under GNU/Linux, it's still Linux on the outside and Linux on the inside. It's about using motion input to distinguish a physically mobile device from one chained to a desk or a server rack. To put it another way: To what extent does running an app in the simulator on an iMac produce motion inputs indistinguishable from those of an iPhone? It'd have to produce, say, minute motions of the device itself when its screen is tapped.
I want there to be a solution. I just haven't yet seen in practice a solution that funds a website's writing and hosting without ads and without multiple subscriptions that total several hundred dollars per viewer per year. I've already cut out Starbucks.
IMO, they should have to FUCKING ASK for the EXACT details of what they want to collect, and IF I say "OK", that OK automatically expires after, say, 90 days.
If you find a document through a web search engine, and it pops up a page-modal alert box asking for permission to collect and disseminate your interest profile in exchange for without-charge or discounted access to the document you are trying to read, would you find that acceptable? If you don't say "OK", then fine; the document's publisher doesn't get your personal data, and you don't get to read the document.
Why do people use the phrase "content creator" instead of the word "author"? The law uses "author" regardless of the medium of a work. This style guide claims that "content" means that a work's primary "purpose is to fill a box and make money," and "creator" unfairly compares authors to deities to make them worthy of extra privileges under law.
doesn't want you to see it without paying and you don't want to see it with paying, I don't see what the problem is.
The first of two problems is that since the introduction of Flexible Sampling in October 2017, Google Search lists documents but fails to disclose on the search engine result that viewing the document either requires payment, requires execution of third-party proprietary script, or has the side effect of starting the meter running on a site with a metered paywall. Which competing web search engine discloses such?
The second is that if it becomes common for authors to charge $5 for the first article on a website as a matter of course, people are likely to end up having to limit the number of websites they view in order to make the most of the subscriptions that they pay. In turn, people who limit the number of websites they view would in the process limit the number of viewpoints to which they are exposed.
As for the payment processor getting a huge portion, it isn't a blocker because there are already sites funding themselves this way.
What are examples of sites funding themselves through a 50 cent per month subscription?
A factory-unlocked phone can receive updates over Wi-Fi without interference from any carrier. But for some brands, even a factory-unlocked phone is no guarantee of continuing security updates.
If you depend on using mobile-only applications, such as Venmo, the only "laptop/notebook" that can download those from Google Play Store is a Chromebook.
Patreon solves the first problem [of having to buy a month's subscription to read one article]
Not if the one article is set to patrons-only. There's really not much practical difference between patrons-only posts on Patreon and any other subscription, other than that Patreon is easier for individual authors to set up.
or alternatively, paywalls like the wall street journal and new york times solve it in different ways
What might those be? Last I checked, The Wall Street Journal had a hard paywall, the same as patrons-only posts on Patreon, and I could find not evidence to the contrary. The New York Times and MIT Technology Review use a metered paywall, but known ways of technically deterring users from cheating the meter depend on the same sort of cross-site tracking used for interest-based advertising. These require the user to accept third-party proprietary scripts and third-party cookies.
The second problem is annoying, but not a blocker.
I don't understand the reasoning behind your conclusion that the payment processor getting more money than the publisher is "not a blocker".
And their response to "fix missing functionality" is to use the "Full" supported client i.e.Flash.
Which is why I specifically mentioned purchasing support that extends "past the EOL date of Flash Player", as VMware will no longer be able to call an SWF object "the 'Full' supported client" once no major web browser runs Flash Player anymore.
Think about the websites you visit: are there any you would really miss visiting that you wouldn't be willing to pay for
If I read only one article on a particular website, I might not want to buy an entire month of access. Subscriptions suck you into the filter bubble of the particular websites to which you currently subscribe.
even na token amount like 50 cents a month?
Of which the payment card industry would take 30 cents plus 3% of the total, leaving the merchant with about 18 cents.
Perhaps they're making do with time of flight lidar while waiting for active stereo patents to expire. Or they don't want resolution to decrease dramatically for faraway objects.
I wish Vmware would finally dump the flash requirement (the HTML5 version does not have full functionality)
As a paying customer, you could try filing a support ticket for the missing functionality. This may, however, require you to extend your support contrast past the EOL date of Flash Player.
Armor Games has put a version on Steam. I haven't tried it, but more likely than not, it uses AIR, not Flash Player. Though AIR and Flash Player use very similar runtimes, AIR presents less of an attack surface because an application made with AIR is self-contained, not interacting with the web browser in the same way that an SWF object does.
It appears you propose to switch from compiling C to WebAssembly back to compiling C to JavaScript using Emscripten. This will cause the output of the compiler to run slower in your browser, draining the battery of your laptop, tablet, or smartphone.
Or alternatively, you could have meant to propose to switch from compiling C to WebAssembly back to compiling C to native code using a traditional compiler. In this case, you will lose out on ability to use an application at all because it happened to be compiled for and tested on a combination of instruction set and operating system other than the one you use. This could happen if you use a Mac or GNU/Linux PC but the application's publisher uses Windows or vice versa.
Unless you are willing to pay for new implementation, you don't get to tell people that they can't use their existing implementation "because reasons".
"If you continue to use Internet-facing software that is neither maintained nor formally proven correct, you are at greater risk of a data security breach and a fine or judgment against you, and no liability insurer will accept you."
Unlike your naive world of 2007, here in the future all ads are in fact user hostile
I agree with you that the vast majority of web ads are user-hostile. This includes any ad hosted by a third-party ad network or ad exchange, as those have a habit of stalking users across multiple websites to infer their interests in order to give advertisers the feeling of more control over what viewers see their ads. Ad networks and ad exchanges do this because interest-based advertising reportedly pays out three times as much per view as context-based advertising.
a better designed OS would allow you to schedule events in the future rather than running a sleeping service. When the time is reached, the OS would call your program with whatever parameters you specified.
Sort of like cron. However, a battery optimization app might default to delaying an app's cron jobs until charging has begun.
Slashdot Mirror
Gee, I guess they're trying not to help the defense since they're being sued over that. "Choose your own adventure" -- ON A COMPUTER!
The "ON A COMPUTER!" meme comes from patents, but the case you're referring to is about trademarks.
There are several different brands of branching-path gamebook. One is Give Yourself Goosebumps, published by Scholastic. Others include Choose Your Own Adventure, published by Chooseco, and Fighting Fantasy, originally published by Puffin but later sold to Scholastic. But a character in Bandersnatch refers to a gamebook clearly not published by Chooseco as Choose Your Own Adventure, and the work doesn't portray the character as incorrect. It'd be like referring to store-brand batteries as Duracell or some obscure brand of car insurance as GEICO. Someone's lawyers just forgot to play Cover Your Own A$$.
Hell, at this point, I guessing it is only a matter of time before the Weather Channel stops showing weather, and just becomes the home of sharknado marathons or survival of the storm contests.
Starting in the mid-2000s, The Weather Channel once tried to pivot to long-form reality programming connected in some way to earth science, such as Storm Stories, Prospectors, and Highway Thru Hell. But by 2014, DirecTV dropped TWC for WeatherNation for a few months over this, and Verizon FiOS dropped it for AccuWeather Network. TWC dramatically scaled back its reality programming, particularly starting in August 2015 when Weather Underground premiered and Wake Up With Al ended.
Do you think the way Wikipedia is funded is appropriate for the majority of other websites?
The Wikimedia family of sites has the advantages of 1. being run by a registered charity, 2. being structured so as not to need to pay its writers, and 3. scale. It's an exception, and I doubt there is room for many such exceptions on the Internet. I further doubt that charity-run sites alone will provide enough demand for high-speed home Internet to keep home ISPs afloat.
At the end of a day, you're just not paying for a device, but a service.
Let's run with this analogy. Say I want portable video gaming with physical buttons, which fit some game genres better than the flat sheet of glass that is the input device included with an iPhone or Android phone. But I don't want a Nintendo 3DS or Nintendo Switch because I don't want the service of Nintendo imposing limits on what scenarios may and may not appear in a game. Which handheld device isn't made to impose this unwanted service?
This isnt possible with iOS because bothe simulator and phone run the same OS: MAC OS
It's not about the operating system. If I run an Android device simulator under GNU/Linux, it's still Linux on the outside and Linux on the inside. It's about using motion input to distinguish a physically mobile device from one chained to a desk or a server rack. To put it another way: To what extent does running an app in the simulator on an iMac produce motion inputs indistinguishable from those of an iPhone? It'd have to produce, say, minute motions of the device itself when its screen is tapped.
I want there to be a solution. I just haven't yet seen in practice a solution that funds a website's writing and hosting without ads and without multiple subscriptions that total several hundred dollars per viewer per year. I've already cut out Starbucks.
IMO, they should have to FUCKING ASK for the EXACT details of what they want to collect, and IF I say "OK", that OK automatically expires after, say, 90 days.
If you find a document through a web search engine, and it pops up a page-modal alert box asking for permission to collect and disseminate your interest profile in exchange for without-charge or discounted access to the document you are trying to read, would you find that acceptable? If you don't say "OK", then fine; the document's publisher doesn't get your personal data, and you don't get to read the document.
If a content creator
Why do people use the phrase "content creator" instead of the word "author"? The law uses "author" regardless of the medium of a work. This style guide claims that "content" means that a work's primary "purpose is to fill a box and make money," and "creator" unfairly compares authors to deities to make them worthy of extra privileges under law.
doesn't want you to see it without paying and you don't want to see it with paying, I don't see what the problem is.
The first of two problems is that since the introduction of Flexible Sampling in October 2017, Google Search lists documents but fails to disclose on the search engine result that viewing the document either requires payment, requires execution of third-party proprietary script, or has the side effect of starting the meter running on a site with a metered paywall. Which competing web search engine discloses such?
The second is that if it becomes common for authors to charge $5 for the first article on a website as a matter of course, people are likely to end up having to limit the number of websites they view in order to make the most of the subscriptions that they pay. In turn, people who limit the number of websites they view would in the process limit the number of viewpoints to which they are exposed.
As for the payment processor getting a huge portion, it isn't a blocker because there are already sites funding themselves this way.
What are examples of sites funding themselves through a 50 cent per month subscription?
A factory-unlocked phone can receive updates over Wi-Fi without interference from any carrier. But for some brands, even a factory-unlocked phone is no guarantee of continuing security updates.
If you depend on using mobile-only applications, such as Venmo, the only "laptop/notebook" that can download those from Google Play Store is a Chromebook.
Patreon solves the first problem [of having to buy a month's subscription to read one article]
Not if the one article is set to patrons-only. There's really not much practical difference between patrons-only posts on Patreon and any other subscription, other than that Patreon is easier for individual authors to set up.
or alternatively, paywalls like the wall street journal and new york times solve it in different ways
What might those be? Last I checked, The Wall Street Journal had a hard paywall, the same as patrons-only posts on Patreon, and I could find not evidence to the contrary. The New York Times and MIT Technology Review use a metered paywall, but known ways of technically deterring users from cheating the meter depend on the same sort of cross-site tracking used for interest-based advertising. These require the user to accept third-party proprietary scripts and third-party cookies.
The second problem is annoying, but not a blocker.
I don't understand the reasoning behind your conclusion that the payment processor getting more money than the publisher is "not a blocker".
And their response to "fix missing functionality" is to use the "Full" supported client i.e.Flash.
Which is why I specifically mentioned purchasing support that extends "past the EOL date of Flash Player", as VMware will no longer be able to call an SWF object "the 'Full' supported client" once no major web browser runs Flash Player anymore.
Think about the websites you visit: are there any you would really miss visiting that you wouldn't be willing to pay for
If I read only one article on a particular website, I might not want to buy an entire month of access. Subscriptions suck you into the filter bubble of the particular websites to which you currently subscribe.
even na token amount like 50 cents a month?
Of which the payment card industry would take 30 cents plus 3% of the total, leaving the merchant with about 18 cents.
Among the following, which would you prefer:
- Ads
- Paywalls
- The Internet returning to being a hobby, apart from sites that sell physical goods
- A fourth option (specify)
<Windows.h>: no such file or directory
Perhaps they're making do with time of flight lidar while waiting for active stereo patents to expire. Or they don't want resolution to decrease dramatically for faraway objects.
I wish Vmware would finally dump the flash requirement (the HTML5 version does not have full functionality)
As a paying customer, you could try filing a support ticket for the missing functionality. This may, however, require you to extend your support contrast past the EOL date of Flash Player.
Armor Games has put a version on Steam. I haven't tried it, but more likely than not, it uses AIR, not Flash Player. Though AIR and Flash Player use very similar runtimes, AIR presents less of an attack surface because an application made with AIR is self-contained, not interacting with the web browser in the same way that an SWF object does.
It appears you propose to switch from compiling C to WebAssembly back to compiling C to JavaScript using Emscripten. This will cause the output of the compiler to run slower in your browser, draining the battery of your laptop, tablet, or smartphone.
Or alternatively, you could have meant to propose to switch from compiling C to WebAssembly back to compiling C to native code using a traditional compiler. In this case, you will lose out on ability to use an application at all because it happened to be compiled for and tested on a combination of instruction set and operating system other than the one you use. This could happen if you use a Mac or GNU/Linux PC but the application's publisher uses Windows or vice versa.
Unless you are willing to pay for new implementation, you don't get to tell people that they can't use their existing implementation "because reasons".
"If you continue to use Internet-facing software that is neither maintained nor formally proven correct, you are at greater risk of a data security breach and a fine or judgment against you, and no liability insurer will accept you."
I use a plugin that aims to disable a lot of autoplay, but it doesn't always work.
I'm interested in what your plug-in can and can't block. How many of these tests still play?
I know I can stop it all by turning off JS entirely
CSS animated filmstrips, such as this and this, still play with video autoplay, GIF autoplay, and JavaScript all turned off.
Unlike your naive world of 2007, here in the future all ads are in fact user hostile
I agree with you that the vast majority of web ads are user-hostile. This includes any ad hosted by a third-party ad network or ad exchange, as those have a habit of stalking users across multiple websites to infer their interests in order to give advertisers the feeling of more control over what viewers see their ads. Ad networks and ad exchanges do this because interest-based advertising reportedly pays out three times as much per view as context-based advertising.
But "all" is stretching it. I don't see how ads that are hosted by a website's publisher, such as the display ads on Daring Fireball and Read the Docs, are user-hostile. Newspapers and magazines got along fine with this model for decades, despite web publishers complaining that they could never make money that way.
That's a bit tricky when the ISP quotes you six figures to upgrade from dial-up to broadband (source 1; source 2; source 3).
a better designed OS would allow you to schedule events in the future rather than running a sleeping service. When the time is reached, the OS would call your program with whatever parameters you specified.
Sort of like cron. However, a battery optimization app might default to delaying an app's cron jobs until charging has begun.
it seems like a solution in search of a problem given that email exists.
Not all parents are rich enough to already have a PC and Internet at home. Phones on Lifeline plans are less likely to support email.