True, but the end result is the same. All the same people will continue to pretend that the language is built for classes and ignore prototypes, but now even more will just use the classes interface since it's "official" now. This leaves projects or developers who do use prototypes even farther out in left field, since classes have become an even more common practice.
I'm not going to say it's good or bad thing in a productivity or business sense, since classes are clearly more common and familiar to most people. But from just a language identity standpoint, it's a loss and that's too bad.
So they just gave up on the whole prototype system and duct taped class-based OO on top of it? That's actually kind of sad -- It was a special aspect of Javascript that set it apart from other languages, and homogenization is boring. I guess maybe today's "Javascript developers" just couldn't wrap their heads around it.
Here's a rundown of the new features if anyone else hasn't been following ES6 and is curious. A few of note are
scoped and const declaration via let and const, lazy iterators and generators, format/heredoc strings, and varargs ala Lua.
Overall this looks like a good step in bringing Javascript closer to being on par with more modern languages.
The trend in software development is always towards bloat, cruft and kitchen sink. In the end, you have a program that does everything for everyone, that nobody really can use effectively.
Which is the beauty of the Firefox addon system. The baseline browser as a framework is extensible in an almost unlimited fashion, which should allow them to keep the default web browser lean and focused on browsing the web. If someone wants add chat client or "read it later" functionality, users can choose to install that addon. Mozilla could even show a "suggested addons" page the first time a user runs Firefox that includes stuff like Pocket and the absurd Firefox Hello crap. For that matter, they could even bundle addons for things like Hello, making it easy for users to remove addons they have no interest in.
But no. Mozilla is filled with people hell-bent on destroying Firefox the web browser and and replacing it with Firefox the Platform. I'm just waiting for them to start decommissioning the addon framework, which they've already started by requiring all addons to be signed by Mozilla, or they won't be loaded. It's sickening.
Even that is misleading, because if say an app has a vulnerability that allows arbitrary code execution in its process then that code will be able to write to all the places the app is allowed to write to.
And on Windows you don't even need a vulnerability in one of the whitelisted programs. CreateRemoteThread will gladly give you an execution context in another process you have access to. From there you can LoadLibrary or CreateFile or whatever other evil things you might want to do.
Agree with pretty much everything you said, but especially
Powershell is nice as a scripting language, but it's a bear as a command shell.
I've tried to use Powershell as my shell but it just doesn't feel right; however, I've written several scripts for it for file manipulation and system administration tasks. It's also nice for administering Microsoft stuff like Exchange, both as a shell and scripting engine.
Well, when you're typing out Unix commands on an teletype that's 80 characters wide, creating short options first made a lot of sense.
Powershell's approach is more verbose, but it's also a little more readable (same as long options in Linux), especially when you're dealing with things more complicated than "copy a file", such as "create AD forest trust" or "reconfigure Exchange retention policies". That said, I still tend to use short options by default.
One thing nice about Powershell is that you can truncate options as long as they're not abmiguous. So you can make -Recursive be -Rec, or even -R, as long as there's not also a -Recreate or -Recover options. That seems to be a nice middle-ground.
Save more on 401k, Roth-IRA; leads to tax reduction.... And set your goal to be financial independence.
Do you (or anyone else) have suggestions on how to get started on this? I'm still pretty early in my career and have taken some of the easy obvious steps to saving, but feel like finance planning is full of dark and twisty passageways (likely filled with grue).
Is it worth trying to find a local personal finance adviser you can sit down with face-to-face? Where would you look for someone like this? Suggestions for types of investment and retirement accounts, and how much you should put away?
I realize it's a deep subject but appreciate any comments. Thanks.
What you describe is skuemorphic design which objects mimic real world objects which is the old way of doing things.
Yes and no, I think. I don't think icons generally get classified as skeuomorphic since they just represent targets or classes of entities. Another poster mentioned the Android clock icon -- I don't think the Windows 7 date/time icon was made to resemble another material or object -- it's just a pictogram that clearly presents the idea of a calendar or clock. Compare that to the Android clock icon. I suppose that sort of looks like a clock if you already knew what it was, but it's certainly not clear. In my view that icon has failed at expressing any clear idea and is therefor a failure. Which one do you think a new user would more quickly identify as the way to bring up a date/time widget?
Compare this to one of Apple's absurd interfaces. This day calendar program is clearly trying to emulate a physical day calendar, complete with leather stitching and yellow lined legal paper. This is what the current trend has pushed back against, and that's probably not entirely a bad thing. You can take emulation like this too far, and Apple almost certainly did with their suite of apps.
But I don't think the current "UX" trend has as much to do with a severe over-correction to skeuomorphs as it has to do with flat, near monochromatic designs being a lot simpler to scale and make look uniform on a wide variety of screen sizes and pixel densities (as others said). It might be easy but it looks like shit and is about as usable.
I hadn't seen them laid out so clearly before, but now that I have, all I can say about the original Windows 10 icons (middle row) is oh my god.
Seriously, what happened here? When did we go completely off the rails and let pea-brained designers start throwing this kind of bullshit around, calling it "modern" and "clean". No shit it's clean -- that recycle bin probably took all of 30 seconds to draw with the Line tool. No, faster probably, since they were just pulled out of the Windows 1.0 archives.
I look at those three rows of icons and truly cannot fathom why someone would ever choose (especially) the second or third rows. They're low contrast, simpleton drivel that doesn't even do a good job of representing the objects they're trying to depict. Whoever created them should be fired, along with the manager that approved them.
In fact, Microsoft would be well-served by firing the whole damned "UX" group and replacing this new-age cargo-cult mentality of user interface design with a scientific approach of usability studies and research. You know, that thing they used to do. Let Google and Apple waste their time with that hipster crap if they want to -- normal people and business just want to get shit done and you don't get off on the right foot to do that by making all your icons indistinguishable pale pastel blobs.
I disagree strongly that "culture" (a word that's constantly misconstrued by executive trying to justify a horrible workplace) has any bearing on whether an open plan is successful. It much more strongly depends on the type of work being done.
A police bullpen or typing pool may be fine in a big open area. The same goes for sales and marketing types. However, if you're talking about any work which requires stretches of concentrated effort then it's just a Bad Idea. Engineers? No. Programmers? No. Accountants? No. Any kind of researcher? No.
the lower real estate costs
This is the only real reason they're pushing this model. It's a clear terminus of the erosion that's led us from offices, to cubicles, to the little half walls, to just acres of desks. Well, that, and wanting to look hip by copying other companies who are doing it.
Chrome starts up for me a lot faster than Firefox and runs much smoother.
That's funny, because it's the opposite for me. Chrome starts slow, and feels so clunky. Every now and then it pauses for several seconds, and if I minimize the window it takes 5-10 seconds before it's responsive again (I assume the 20-processes of memory are paged out or something).
Plus Chrome uses html5 playback on Youtube
Firefox does too, by default now, but I don't see why everyone fawns over HTML5 video. It's just a damned webm/H.264 video stream, and we had <embed>'d videos way back when.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but in this case I have to ask, is there a clandestine effort underway to utterly destroy Firefox, and maybe even Mozilla, from the inside?
It's like every decision made over the past several years has been designed to alienate Firefox's remaining users, without bringing in any new users.
Hanlon's razor says
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Of course that doesn't mean malice and stupidity can't walk hand-in-hand, and I'm pretty sure that's what's happening at Mozilla. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were a few bad actors, but there are dozens more that simply suffer from stupidity and lack of foresight. Every "ux expert" and "architect" seems to think they're god's own gift to mankind, and Mozilla is packed to the brim with those. Combine them with some ivory towers and you can pretty easily explain the current sad state of affairs.
I've loved Firefox since it was Firebird and it kills me to see it painfully dying from this cancer. My only hope is that we'll be left with a fork of some kind that continues from somewhere before it went completely off the rails. All such a fork needs is a little momentum behind it and some pragmatic people at the reins and it could be great.
It's true that Blizzard doesn't want you selling your characters, but it happens nonetheless. This was especially true around the time he's talking about, before Battle.net accounts were a thing and it was fairly simple to merge WoW accounts, but it's still possible today. I have a friend who started playing in 2004 and he sold his account for about $4,000 right before starting college in mid-2006.
That's a lot of revenue per month Blizzard has chosen not to receive.
Well, there are two points to consider about this:
1) The ban was not permanent, but was only six months. This is a departure from their previous botting bans and will put expiration near the end of the year, which lines up with a potential patch / expansion release.
2) As others have mentioned, getting banned does not prevent you from creating a new account and buying the game again. That's an instant ~$70 for Blizzard, equivalent to a player subscribing for about 4.5 months.
3) Botting had gotten very bad in some places. A lot of customers were complaining about them turning a blind eye to it and they really needed to do something.
Finally, the primary botting software that was targeted was HonorBuddy which is mostly used for player-vs-player activities. Given how much people have complained about the current state of PvP it's not surprising they went after it in an attempt to improve things. As a bonus, the developer of HonorBuddy has said he will be discontinuing development of the software due to the ban wave.
Build an underground shelter, with sufficient supplies to last until the dust settles. Much cheaper, and much higher chance of survival.
This is a good plan. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plantlife. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. Selecting survivors need not be difficult -- a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills.
Naturally, they would breed prodigiously; there would be much time, and little to do. And, with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, society could be rebuilt. Though since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
deliberate trolling is definitely what is going on
Of course it was, and the group that organized the event didn't try to hide it. Of course, what you call "trolling" they call "exercising First Amendment freedoms". Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
It looks like it's counterproductive and just adds more fuel to those who want to recruit more radicals. "See this thing in Texas kids, it means all of America hates us - so sign up now to teach them what we taught the Russians in Afganistan"
So where do you draw the line? Unless you convert to Islam and sign up for one of their terror camps they'll always have some excuse to point at you and say "He's different! He should be killed!" I suggest reading about the paradox of intolerance. I particularly like Karl Popper's standpoint:
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
There is no "right to not be offended" in the US. Saying we should avoid "throwing fuel on the fire" doesn't address who started the fire in the first place, or how to put it out. No progress will be made by acquiescing to their demands and standing firmly against these kinds of ideas and the people that hold them is the only way to -- slowly -- eradicate them.
Nobody should be required to buy into loss leaders or other pricing schemes like this.
And now they're taking a page out of the BSA's lawyer playbook with this "lost revenue" crap. Just because someone could have bought a $500 ticket from NY to SLC doesn't mean that $100 was stolen from United because they bought a $400 ticket that was NY to LA with a layover in SLC.
And then there's airline pricing in general. I always have a hard time feeling sorry for the airlines, but when the price of oil (the biggest expense for them) dropped like a rock end of last year, did the airlines lower ticket prices or remove fuel surcharges? Nope.
Big companies like airlines have used obscure and convoluted pricing schemes for decades as a way to screw over the average customer. Seeing them get thrown back into their faces isn't illegal -- it's a sweet dose of justice.
"Aw yeah, finally, they are adding a non-intrusive way to view Youtube! Now I can disable my adblocker and pay for it instead of seeing stupid ads all the time!"
Said nobody ever.
That's funny, since that's exactly what I did for Pandora. AdBlock Plus makes Pandora pretty much ad-free, but when I started using it more I decided that I wanted to support companies which offer a way to pay for their service aside from advertising (which I find completely unacceptable and have no compunctions blocking). Pandora isn't the only company whose service I pay for, but it's surprisingly hard to find companies who offer a reasonably priced subscription model. Many expect you to shell out 50x as much money as they'd make off you via advertising, and even more completely ignore that for an ad-blocking user, their gain via conversion to a subscriber is 100%.
You adblocker fucks are hypocrites. You DO want a free lunch.
Ad blockers are simply a form a civil disobedience against the corporate marketing and advertising asshats who are trying to redefine and take over the Internet. It isn't illegal and isn't immoral. The fact that it improves the online experience (your "free lunch") is just a nice side effect.
Re:Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share is
on
Firefox 37 Released
·
· Score: 1
LucidFox
I have no idea where that came from, but it sure rolled off the keyboard easily enough. I'd actually intended to mention the PaleMoon fork of Firefox.
Slashdot Mirror
It's just sugar.
True, but the end result is the same. All the same people will continue to pretend that the language is built for classes and ignore prototypes, but now even more will just use the classes interface since it's "official" now. This leaves projects or developers who do use prototypes even farther out in left field, since classes have become an even more common practice.
I'm not going to say it's good or bad thing in a productivity or business sense, since classes are clearly more common and familiar to most people. But from just a language identity standpoint, it's a loss and that's too bad.
revamped syntax featuring classes
So they just gave up on the whole prototype system and duct taped class-based OO on top of it? That's actually kind of sad -- It was a special aspect of Javascript that set it apart from other languages, and homogenization is boring. I guess maybe today's "Javascript developers" just couldn't wrap their heads around it.
Here's a rundown of the new features if anyone else hasn't been following ES6 and is curious. A few of note are
scoped and const declaration via let and const,
lazy iterators and generators,
format/heredoc strings,
and varargs ala Lua.
Overall this looks like a good step in bringing Javascript closer to being on par with more modern languages.
The trend in software development is always towards bloat, cruft and kitchen sink. In the end, you have a program that does everything for everyone, that nobody really can use effectively.
Which is the beauty of the Firefox addon system. The baseline browser as a framework is extensible in an almost unlimited fashion, which should allow them to keep the default web browser lean and focused on browsing the web. If someone wants add chat client or "read it later" functionality, users can choose to install that addon. Mozilla could even show a "suggested addons" page the first time a user runs Firefox that includes stuff like Pocket and the absurd Firefox Hello crap. For that matter, they could even bundle addons for things like Hello, making it easy for users to remove addons they have no interest in.
But no. Mozilla is filled with people hell-bent on destroying Firefox the web browser and and replacing it with Firefox the Platform. I'm just waiting for them to start decommissioning the addon framework, which they've already started by requiring all addons to be signed by Mozilla, or they won't be loaded. It's sickening.
No Battletoads?
Unfortunately, somebody must have actually finished the game in order for it to be eligible for entry into the Hall of Fame.
Some people don't understand how big each of the 50 states is:
http://mightymaps.org/wp-conte...
Um... that's based on GDP, not land area. Last time I checked, Canada wasn't the same size as New York state.
Even that is misleading, because if say an app has a vulnerability that allows arbitrary code execution in its process then that code will be able to write to all the places the app is allowed to write to.
And on Windows you don't even need a vulnerability in one of the whitelisted programs. CreateRemoteThread will gladly give you an execution context in another process you have access to. From there you can LoadLibrary or CreateFile or whatever other evil things you might want to do.
Agree with pretty much everything you said, but especially
Powershell is nice as a scripting language, but it's a bear as a command shell.
I've tried to use Powershell as my shell but it just doesn't feel right; however, I've written several scripts for it for file manipulation and system administration tasks. It's also nice for administering Microsoft stuff like Exchange, both as a shell and scripting engine.
Well, when you're typing out Unix commands on an teletype that's 80 characters wide, creating short options first made a lot of sense.
Powershell's approach is more verbose, but it's also a little more readable (same as long options in Linux), especially when you're dealing with things more complicated than "copy a file", such as "create AD forest trust" or "reconfigure Exchange retention policies". That said, I still tend to use short options by default.
One thing nice about Powershell is that you can truncate options as long as they're not abmiguous. So you can make -Recursive be -Rec, or even -R, as long as there's not also a -Recreate or -Recover options. That seems to be a nice middle-ground.
Save more on 401k, Roth-IRA; leads to tax reduction. ... And set your goal to be financial independence.
Do you (or anyone else) have suggestions on how to get started on this? I'm still pretty early in my career and have taken some of the easy obvious steps to saving, but feel like finance planning is full of dark and twisty passageways (likely filled with grue).
Is it worth trying to find a local personal finance adviser you can sit down with face-to-face? Where would you look for someone like this? Suggestions for types of investment and retirement accounts, and how much you should put away?
I realize it's a deep subject but appreciate any comments. Thanks.
You can't buy and eat a box of "stops."
Ha ha, loved that.
What you describe is skuemorphic design which objects mimic real world objects which is the old way of doing things.
Yes and no, I think. I don't think icons generally get classified as skeuomorphic since they just represent targets or classes of entities. Another poster mentioned the Android clock icon -- I don't think the Windows 7 date/time icon was made to resemble another material or object -- it's just a pictogram that clearly presents the idea of a calendar or clock. Compare that to the Android clock icon. I suppose that sort of looks like a clock if you already knew what it was, but it's certainly not clear. In my view that icon has failed at expressing any clear idea and is therefor a failure. Which one do you think a new user would more quickly identify as the way to bring up a date/time widget?
Compare this to one of Apple's absurd interfaces. This day calendar program is clearly trying to emulate a physical day calendar, complete with leather stitching and yellow lined legal paper. This is what the current trend has pushed back against, and that's probably not entirely a bad thing. You can take emulation like this too far, and Apple almost certainly did with their suite of apps.
But I don't think the current "UX" trend has as much to do with a severe over-correction to skeuomorphs as it has to do with flat, near monochromatic designs being a lot simpler to scale and make look uniform on a wide variety of screen sizes and pixel densities (as others said). It might be easy but it looks like shit and is about as usable.
I hadn't seen them laid out so clearly before, but now that I have, all I can say about the original Windows 10 icons (middle row) is oh my god.
Seriously, what happened here? When did we go completely off the rails and let pea-brained designers start throwing this kind of bullshit around, calling it "modern" and "clean". No shit it's clean -- that recycle bin probably took all of 30 seconds to draw with the Line tool. No, faster probably, since they were just pulled out of the Windows 1.0 archives.
I look at those three rows of icons and truly cannot fathom why someone would ever choose (especially) the second or third rows. They're low contrast, simpleton drivel that doesn't even do a good job of representing the objects they're trying to depict. Whoever created them should be fired, along with the manager that approved them.
In fact, Microsoft would be well-served by firing the whole damned "UX" group and replacing this new-age cargo-cult mentality of user interface design with a scientific approach of usability studies and research. You know, that thing they used to do. Let Google and Apple waste their time with that hipster crap if they want to -- normal people and business just want to get shit done and you don't get off on the right foot to do that by making all your icons indistinguishable pale pastel blobs.
I disagree strongly that "culture" (a word that's constantly misconstrued by executive trying to justify a horrible workplace) has any bearing on whether an open plan is successful. It much more strongly depends on the type of work being done.
A police bullpen or typing pool may be fine in a big open area. The same goes for sales and marketing types. However, if you're talking about any work which requires stretches of concentrated effort then it's just a Bad Idea. Engineers? No. Programmers? No. Accountants? No. Any kind of researcher? No.
the lower real estate costs
This is the only real reason they're pushing this model. It's a clear terminus of the erosion that's led us from offices, to cubicles, to the little half walls, to just acres of desks. Well, that, and wanting to look hip by copying other companies who are doing it.
JavaScript itself is not kludgy at all
That's going a bit far. Javascript definitely has some kludge in the corners and along the basebords. The wallpaper also needs to go.
Not many lanaguage need a book called "the good parts" (great book, by the way). Or, a little more tongue-in-cheek....
Chrome starts up for me a lot faster than Firefox and runs much smoother.
That's funny, because it's the opposite for me. Chrome starts slow, and feels so clunky. Every now and then it pauses for several seconds, and if I minimize the window it takes 5-10 seconds before it's responsive again (I assume the 20-processes of memory are paged out or something).
Plus Chrome uses html5 playback on Youtube
Firefox does too, by default now, but I don't see why everyone fawns over HTML5 video. It's just a damned webm/H.264 video stream, and we had <embed>'d videos way back when.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but in this case I have to ask, is there a clandestine effort underway to utterly destroy Firefox, and maybe even Mozilla, from the inside?
It's like every decision made over the past several years has been designed to alienate Firefox's remaining users, without bringing in any new users.
Hanlon's razor says
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Of course that doesn't mean malice and stupidity can't walk hand-in-hand, and I'm pretty sure that's what's happening at Mozilla. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were a few bad actors, but there are dozens more that simply suffer from stupidity and lack of foresight. Every "ux expert" and "architect" seems to think they're god's own gift to mankind, and Mozilla is packed to the brim with those. Combine them with some ivory towers and you can pretty easily explain the current sad state of affairs.
I've loved Firefox since it was Firebird and it kills me to see it painfully dying from this cancer. My only hope is that we'll be left with a fork of some kind that continues from somewhere before it went completely off the rails. All such a fork needs is a little momentum behind it and some pragmatic people at the reins and it could be great.
Selling your character would also be banned.
It's true that Blizzard doesn't want you selling your characters, but it happens nonetheless. This was especially true around the time he's talking about, before Battle.net accounts were a thing and it was fairly simple to merge WoW accounts, but it's still possible today. I have a friend who started playing in 2004 and he sold his account for about $4,000 right before starting college in mid-2006.
That's a lot of revenue per month Blizzard has chosen not to receive.
Well, there are two points to consider about this:
1) The ban was not permanent, but was only six months. This is a departure from their previous botting bans and will put expiration near the end of the year, which lines up with a potential patch / expansion release.
2) As others have mentioned, getting banned does not prevent you from creating a new account and buying the game again. That's an instant ~$70 for Blizzard, equivalent to a player subscribing for about 4.5 months.
3) Botting had gotten very bad in some places. A lot of customers were complaining about them turning a blind eye to it and they really needed to do something.
Finally, the primary botting software that was targeted was HonorBuddy which is mostly used for player-vs-player activities. Given how much people have complained about the current state of PvP it's not surprising they went after it in an attempt to improve things. As a bonus, the developer of HonorBuddy has said he will be discontinuing development of the software due to the ban wave.
Build an underground shelter, with sufficient supplies to last until the dust settles. Much cheaper, and much higher chance of survival.
This is a good plan. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plantlife. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. Selecting survivors need not be difficult -- a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills.
Naturally, they would breed prodigiously; there would be much time, and little to do. And, with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, society could be rebuilt. Though since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
Mein Fuhrer, we should start planning at once!
You gotta make the core hot and turn it into liquid so it spins. You might need a battery to excite the coil.
Battery? No, what we need are nukes, a subterranean (submarsean?) vehicle that can travel to the core to place them, and a team of misfit heroes.
deliberate trolling is definitely what is going on
Of course it was, and the group that organized the event didn't try to hide it. Of course, what you call "trolling" they call "exercising First Amendment freedoms". Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
It looks like it's counterproductive and just adds more fuel to those who want to recruit more radicals. "See this thing in Texas kids, it means all of America hates us - so sign up now to teach them what we taught the Russians in Afganistan"
So where do you draw the line? Unless you convert to Islam and sign up for one of their terror camps they'll always have some excuse to point at you and say "He's different! He should be killed!" I suggest reading about the paradox of intolerance. I particularly like Karl Popper's standpoint:
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
There is no "right to not be offended" in the US. Saying we should avoid "throwing fuel on the fire" doesn't address who started the fire in the first place, or how to put it out. No progress will be made by acquiescing to their demands and standing firmly against these kinds of ideas and the people that hold them is the only way to -- slowly -- eradicate them.
A one armed gunman?
A one-armed armed gunman killed my wife!
Nobody should be required to buy into loss leaders or other pricing schemes like this.
And now they're taking a page out of the BSA's lawyer playbook with this "lost revenue" crap. Just because someone could have bought a $500 ticket from NY to SLC doesn't mean that $100 was stolen from United because they bought a $400 ticket that was NY to LA with a layover in SLC.
And then there's airline pricing in general. I always have a hard time feeling sorry for the airlines, but when the price of oil (the biggest expense for them) dropped like a rock end of last year, did the airlines lower ticket prices or remove fuel surcharges? Nope.
Big companies like airlines have used obscure and convoluted pricing schemes for decades as a way to screw over the average customer. Seeing them get thrown back into their faces isn't illegal -- it's a sweet dose of justice.
"Aw yeah, finally, they are adding a non-intrusive way to view Youtube! Now I can disable my adblocker and pay for it instead of seeing stupid ads all the time!"
Said nobody ever.
That's funny, since that's exactly what I did for Pandora. AdBlock Plus makes Pandora pretty much ad-free, but when I started using it more I decided that I wanted to support companies which offer a way to pay for their service aside from advertising (which I find completely unacceptable and have no compunctions blocking). Pandora isn't the only company whose service I pay for, but it's surprisingly hard to find companies who offer a reasonably priced subscription model. Many expect you to shell out 50x as much money as they'd make off you via advertising, and even more completely ignore that for an ad-blocking user, their gain via conversion to a subscriber is 100%.
You adblocker fucks are hypocrites. You DO want a free lunch.
Ad blockers are simply a form a civil disobedience against the corporate marketing and advertising asshats who are trying to redefine and take over the Internet. It isn't illegal and isn't immoral. The fact that it improves the online experience (your "free lunch") is just a nice side effect.
LucidFox
I have no idea where that came from, but it sure rolled off the keyboard easily enough. I'd actually intended to mention the PaleMoon fork of Firefox.