"And Scooter, also I've got some good news about the tile damage that we saw on the starboard chine area earlier today," astronaut Alan Poindexter radioed from mission control shortly after 8 p.m.
"Oh, I'm looking forward to that. Go ahead," replied shuttle commander Scott "Scooter" Altman.
"It turns out that a focussed inspection of that area on the starboard chine is not going to be required," Poindexter reported.
"All right, you've got some happy EVA campers on that," Altman said.
"Yeah, don't worry about the inspection, you don't have to go out, really.", Poindexter continued, "and, uh, whatever you guys do, don't look out the window."
"Copy tha--er what??" replied Commander Altman.
"Right, just... focus on the mission. Oh hey, Altam, your wife is here, she'd like to say goodb--uh, hello."
>> The best one can do is ASK. Simply ask for support.
Or... offer content that is worth paying for. People pay for stuff all the time. I know, I've seen them everywhere: in the stores, restaurants, service bureaus; even e-bay gets a huge amount of traffic from people just looking to buy stuff--with money!
If the people are not willing to pay for your content, that says something about its quality, doesn't it? If, on the other hand, it were a cultural barrier, where people are willing to pay for stuff, just not on the Internet, for some reason; then its time to realize that there is no positive business model on the World Wide Web. However, sites like craiglists and e-bay (among others) prove that there are at least some people willing to pay for stuff even on the Internet.
That is just pure revisionist bullshit. AdBlock Plus was based on the original AdBlock, whose whole purpose was to block ads. It was intended to solve some maintenance issues of the original AdBlock in order to add new features.
That sounds like a fair goal. However, may I suggest Wladimir creates a new extension, say, AdBlock Minus, that will help those people who kind of do not want, but you know, just may sometime, but don't know how to do it.
But I thought that was a feature of AdBlock Plus; you know, automatically blocking ads based on general criteria so that I don't have to be bothered with adding every single site I visit.
Another seemingly important reason is because video conferencing may not be as close to face-to-face communications as the technologists like to think. For instance, there is no easy way to look at each other's eyes, which appears to be a subtle yet significant non-verbal cue. This in itself makes the interaction seem "weird" in a similar way to how the uncanny-valley disturbs visual and emotional affinity.
You are right. What I read here are mostly two arguments against public transportation:
1. It's crap, because my town does not have a good public transportation system, so it is not worth it. Oh well, I'm stuck with my car.
2. It would have been worth it had we invested in it from the very beginning, or if my city had been designed from scratch with a mass transportation system in it; but alas, we didn't and it wasn't. Oh well, I'm stuck with my car.
Which part of "what can we do now to solve this problem" is so difficult to grasp? Other parts of the nation, or even the world, have tried changes with various degrees of success, so there are things we could try.
Even cities like New York City, in which most agree the public transportation system works, did not always have that system. Policies and interests pressured it into that direction, to the point that eventually the people adapted to it, and the culture change to support and embrace it. You know, in the same way that people embraced a car-owner culture in Los Angeles, which was brought about by different policies and interests.
It happened with cars in one place, and it happened with trains in another; why can't a change occur again in the former? Did we cross a magic cultural boundary from whence there is no return? A car only means "freedom" if the alternative is an crappy, unreliable system; I lived in Manhattan for a year and did not feel any less "free" when I took the train or the bus--they always took me exactly to where I needed to go.
I understand that it will take time and resources, but the solution does not start by changing our culture first--that happens naturally over time as people adapt. It starts by acknowledging the problem, formulating a solution, and implementing policies to support that solution.
I see you played the old "market share" argument, so I'll retort with the equally old "apache" counter-arguement:
If your argument is correct, and the only reason why non-Windows operating systems do not have a high availability of viruses or security vulnerabilities is because they have a smaller market share than Windows; then how do you account for the Apache web server being the most popular web server in the Internet and having less security vulnerabilities or instances of mass exploits than Microsoft's own IIS?
Sometimes, for various reasons, an inferior alternative just happens to achieve more popularity than its alternatives, regardless of its perceived or inherent shortcomings. Sometimes the reverse is true. The world is an imperfect and unpredictable place.
I agree that any extension developer has the right to request or require compensation for his work. However, the user also has the right to choose not to accept such terms.
For instance, if I think that *everybody* who uses my extension must pay for it--out of principle--then I shall tell them so as part of the terms of installation. Of course, this means that those who do not think my extension is worth the price will just not install it, reducing the user base and, thus, popularity of my extension.
If, on the other hand, I want to gain popularity/credence/fame/whatever in the community with my extension and decide to allow free downloads, then I am forfeiting any requirements for payment. I can ask for payments or donations, but I made a conscious decision not to make them required. Knowing how most people won't pay for stuff if they don't have to, it will not surprise me when such compensation is very minimal.
But, in any case, such was my *choice*. Neither one seem to offer a smooth path to fame and fortune; and so, if fortune is my goal, I should really re-evaluate my business model or the industry in which I participate.
There is, of course, a secret third option, but I shall not engage in it, for it lies in the realm of thieves and scoundrels: I can choose the second option and *tell* my users that my stuff is free, while secretly contriving to force the user into compensating me, or participating in some scheme that offers me an advantage, at their expense. I must do this without his consent, since I already concluded that if I ask, however nicely, he won't accept such participation.
(This last point should be obvious enough to tell me how morally, ethically, and perhaps even lawfully wrong such schemes are.)
This third option is the one that most people find offensive, and sadly, it seems to be very common. Even though at face value it seems to be indefensible, most who engage in it attempt to justify it with arguments such as "if I don't get paid, I can't continue development". The truth is that, yes there are stingy people and freeloaders all over the Internet, but people pay for stuff all the time. Therefore, if nobody is willing to pay for your stuff, either by requirement or request, then perhaps your stuff is not as valuable as you thought it was.
Actually, the applications, utilities and libraries may be theirs, but anything that is written into my own hard-disk, specifically pertaining to my own user preferences, is mine.
People who use the Internet (and in particular, those in the media who think themselves part of the "in crowd") seem to think that they are the majority, and therefore, that trends appearing on the Internet reflect the population of the country--and sometimes of the world--at large. This has become ridiculuous to the point of comparing the rankings of, say, Google search results with the public opinion of a nation, or at times even fact.
People should understand that, although there are millions of web pages on the Internet and that Google has indexed most, if not all of them; the entire collection of human knowledge is vastly larger than that. In other words, most of this knowledge is not available on the Internet, so you will not be as informed as you think if you depend solely on the Wold Wide Web.
Likewise, there is a large majority of people in this country and in the world who do not use the Internet, or at least who do not depend on it as its sole source of information.
This is precisely the reason why, after an insanely popular "protest" seems successful when offering massive outcry on an online forum such as Tweeter or Amazon.com's comments, it always ends up as an insignificant proverbial "drop in the bucket" when it is time to perform real world action. Suddenly they realize that only a very small group is participating on their march/boycott/picket-line.
The Internet, and the World Wide Web in particular, is the world's largest and most efficient echo chamber.
It really does not scare me. Did you actually read the numbers and put them in context? Here, let me help you:
Total Cases: 421 Total Deaths: 257 Mortality Rate: 61%
That means that in about seven years, throughout the expanse of the planet, 421 people have contracted the desease, of which about 60% died.
I'm not really impressed by that number. Sure, it means that the infected have higher than 50% chance of dying, but it also means that there is very little chance of becoming infected. Then, you also have to consider risk factors, mitigating circumstances, and geographical barriers; and it starts to look like one of those very deadly deseases that sound so scary and everybody knows their names, yet have little chance of ever knowing someone who contracted it, much less died of it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Yeah, don't worry about the inspection, you don't have to go out, really.", Poindexter continued, "and, uh, whatever you guys do, don't look out the window."
"Copy tha--er what??" replied Commander Altman.
"Right, just... focus on the mission. Oh hey, Altam, your wife is here, she'd like to say goodb--uh, hello."
No. But they have flown their trajectory.
Can they use the clone tool to erase the damage?
-dZ.
>> The best one can do is ASK. Simply ask for support.
Or ... offer content that is worth paying for. People pay for stuff all the time. I know, I've seen them everywhere: in the stores, restaurants, service bureaus; even e-bay gets a huge amount of traffic from people just looking to buy stuff--with money!
If the people are not willing to pay for your content, that says something about its quality, doesn't it? If, on the other hand, it were a cultural barrier, where people are willing to pay for stuff, just not on the Internet, for some reason; then its time to realize that there is no positive business model on the World Wide Web. However, sites like craiglists and e-bay (among others) prove that there are at least some people willing to pay for stuff even on the Internet.
-dZ.
And yet, somehow the world managed to go on.
-dZ.
>> Is the Mac OS X user interface and built-in apps already so perfect that they can't find things to improve?
I thought that concentrating on performance optimizations and stability was an improvement to the current version.
-dZ.
That is just pure revisionist bullshit. AdBlock Plus was based on the original AdBlock, whose whole purpose was to block ads. It was intended to solve some maintenance issues of the original AdBlock in order to add new features.
-dZ.
That sounds like a fair goal. However, may I suggest Wladimir creates a new extension, say, AdBlock Minus, that will help those people who kind of do not want, but you know, just may sometime, but don't know how to do it.
-dZ.
But I thought that was a feature of AdBlock Plus; you know, automatically blocking ads based on general criteria so that I don't have to be bothered with adding every single site I visit.
-dZ.
Another seemingly important reason is because video conferencing may not be as close to face-to-face communications as the technologists like to think. For instance, there is no easy way to look at each other's eyes, which appears to be a subtle yet significant non-verbal cue. This in itself makes the interaction seem "weird" in a similar way to how the uncanny-valley disturbs visual and emotional affinity.
-dZ.
Imagine reading them, as interpreted by the Google Voice-to-Text system. Hilarity!
-dZ.
Uh... you mean "speech to text", don't you?
-dZ.
Then you sue Chiquita International.
-dZ.
You are right. What I read here are mostly two arguments against public transportation:
1. It's crap, because my town does not have a good public transportation system, so it is not worth it. Oh well, I'm stuck with my car.
2. It would have been worth it had we invested in it from the very beginning, or if my city had been designed from scratch with a mass transportation system in it; but alas, we didn't and it wasn't. Oh well, I'm stuck with my car.
Which part of "what can we do now to solve this problem" is so difficult to grasp? Other parts of the nation, or even the world, have tried changes with various degrees of success, so there are things we could try.
Even cities like New York City, in which most agree the public transportation system works, did not always have that system. Policies and interests pressured it into that direction, to the point that eventually the people adapted to it, and the culture change to support and embrace it. You know, in the same way that people embraced a car-owner culture in Los Angeles, which was brought about by different policies and interests.
It happened with cars in one place, and it happened with trains in another; why can't a change occur again in the former? Did we cross a magic cultural boundary from whence there is no return? A car only means "freedom" if the alternative is an crappy, unreliable system; I lived in Manhattan for a year and did not feel any less "free" when I took the train or the bus--they always took me exactly to where I needed to go.
I understand that it will take time and resources, but the solution does not start by changing our culture first--that happens naturally over time as people adapt. It starts by acknowledging the problem, formulating a solution, and implementing policies to support that solution.
-dZ.
>> That's insane. I just paid $585 CAD for a year's insurance.
And I just saved $500 dollars by switching to Geico!
-dZ.
The argument was that the most popular OS is the one who is exploited the most, and that the reason is its popularity, ipso facto.
Your response, though perhaps accurate, does not invalidate my counter-argument.
-dZ.
I see you played the old "market share" argument, so I'll retort with the equally old "apache" counter-arguement:
If your argument is correct, and the only reason why non-Windows operating systems do not have a high availability of viruses or security vulnerabilities is because they have a smaller market share than Windows; then how do you account for the Apache web server being the most popular web server in the Internet and having less security vulnerabilities or instances of mass exploits than Microsoft's own IIS?
Sometimes, for various reasons, an inferior alternative just happens to achieve more popularity than its alternatives, regardless of its perceived or inherent shortcomings. Sometimes the reverse is true. The world is an imperfect and unpredictable place.
-dZ.
And, as they say in my language (loosely translated): "if my grandma had wheels she'd be a bicycle."
But the fact is that she doesn't, so she's not. Likewise, web browsers do not render that way, and so load times *are* an issue.
Web developers should design for real browsers, not for imaginary perfect browsers.
-dZ.
I agree that any extension developer has the right to request or require compensation for his work. However, the user also has the right to choose not to accept such terms.
For instance, if I think that *everybody* who uses my extension must pay for it--out of principle--then I shall tell them so as part of the terms of installation. Of course, this means that those who do not think my extension is worth the price will just not install it, reducing the user base and, thus, popularity of my extension.
If, on the other hand, I want to gain popularity/credence/fame/whatever in the community with my extension and decide to allow free downloads, then I am forfeiting any requirements for payment. I can ask for payments or donations, but I made a conscious decision not to make them required. Knowing how most people won't pay for stuff if they don't have to, it will not surprise me when such compensation is very minimal.
But, in any case, such was my *choice*. Neither one seem to offer a smooth path to fame and fortune; and so, if fortune is my goal, I should really re-evaluate my business model or the industry in which I participate.
There is, of course, a secret third option, but I shall not engage in it, for it lies in the realm of thieves and scoundrels: I can choose the second option and *tell* my users that my stuff is free, while secretly contriving to force the user into compensating me, or participating in some scheme that offers me an advantage, at their expense. I must do this without his consent, since I already concluded that if I ask, however nicely, he won't accept such participation.
(This last point should be obvious enough to tell me how morally, ethically, and perhaps even lawfully wrong such schemes are.)
This third option is the one that most people find offensive, and sadly, it seems to be very common. Even though at face value it seems to be indefensible, most who engage in it attempt to justify it with arguments such as "if I don't get paid, I can't continue development". The truth is that, yes there are stingy people and freeloaders all over the Internet, but people pay for stuff all the time. Therefore, if nobody is willing to pay for your stuff, either by requirement or request, then perhaps your stuff is not as valuable as you thought it was.
-dZ.
Actually, the applications, utilities and libraries may be theirs, but anything that is written into my own hard-disk, specifically pertaining to my own user preferences, is mine.
Well, not mine really--I don't use Windows.
-dZ.
Uh, could it be because the "w" refers to the machine's Word Size; you know, either 16, 32, or 64 bit address space?
-dZ.
>> They used to say that real men programmed in Fortran (or should I say FORTRAN).
Actually, the adage is more like "Real men can program FORTRAN in any language." The implications of that statement were not complementary.
-dZ.
Right. That's precisely why credit and debit cards are infallible and secure, and why we never hear about identity theft or fraud.
-dZ.
Amen!
People who use the Internet (and in particular, those in the media who think themselves part of the "in crowd") seem to think that they are the majority, and therefore, that trends appearing on the Internet reflect the population of the country--and sometimes of the world--at large. This has become ridiculuous to the point of comparing the rankings of, say, Google search results with the public opinion of a nation, or at times even fact.
People should understand that, although there are millions of web pages on the Internet and that Google has indexed most, if not all of them; the entire collection of human knowledge is vastly larger than that. In other words, most of this knowledge is not available on the Internet, so you will not be as informed as you think if you depend solely on the Wold Wide Web.
Likewise, there is a large majority of people in this country and in the world who do not use the Internet, or at least who do not depend on it as its sole source of information.
This is precisely the reason why, after an insanely popular "protest" seems successful when offering massive outcry on an online forum such as Tweeter or Amazon.com's comments, it always ends up as an insignificant proverbial "drop in the bucket" when it is time to perform real world action. Suddenly they realize that only a very small group is participating on their march/boycott/picket-line.
The Internet, and the World Wide Web in particular, is the world's largest and most efficient echo chamber.
-dZ.
It really does not scare me. Did you actually read the numbers and put them in context? Here, let me help you:
That means that in about seven years, throughout the expanse of the planet, 421 people have contracted the desease, of which about 60% died.
I'm not really impressed by that number. Sure, it means that the infected have higher than 50% chance of dying, but it also means that there is very little chance of becoming infected. Then, you also have to consider risk factors, mitigating circumstances, and geographical barriers; and it starts to look like one of those very deadly deseases that sound so scary and everybody knows their names, yet have little chance of ever knowing someone who contracted it, much less died of it.
-dZ.