Great point! Most of the people with stashes of kiddie porn didn't get it from a store or from a mail-order catalogue, they're getting it from (and I might be wrong here) free sources like Usenet, websites and trading groups. You'd have to be pretty stupid to see a website offering child porn for sale and say "well, I'd better give them my credit card number and address" because either (A) it's a trap to get your information or (B) it will someday get taken down by the authorities who will then have your information.
One can argue I suppose that because it's hard(er) to acquire that people are more likely to kidnap, molest and violate young children to produce their own but that's a far from likely scenario.
I tried to explain the differences in criminal minds to a co-worker once. You have a murder in a small town and the two likely suspects are (A) a convicted pedophile and (B) a shoplifter. Which is more likely to have done it? People tend to pick the pedophile because that crime is seen as so much more dangerous than shoplifting and they just ignore the fact that all three are totally different mindsets. One's reason for murder is rarely the same as their reason for sexual assault or their reason for mild stealing. Shoplifters are not more likely to turn to armed robery than lets say drug dealers just because those two are both forms of theft.
Of course, the context of that situation was different (should someone who skipped a shift from work two days earlier be held responsible for a later theft of $50 just because both are "crimes") but the point is, people commit different crimes for different reasons. The person that owns kiddie porn for sexual gratification isn't going to be any more or less likely to sexually assault a child.
Now, I'm not saying the two groups are mutually exclusive (there are going to be some shoplifters who turn to armed robbery) but in this case the people that are going to molest children (or back to the topic, create kiddie porn) typically aren't doing so because they've got a 40 gig hd of pr0n and they want to "give back" to the community, they're doing it because they like molesting children and the people who do have a 40 gig hd of pr0n aren't going to go after their neighbors just because they want to add to their collection. The content creators may have a huge collection of material, but that's an over-lapping interest and not a causal one.
I have met some guys so titilated by having a few naughty pics on their palm-pilots, or proud of their collection of Playboys and they're no more or less likely to rape a woman than the guy with no stash and an over-active hormonal balance.
"they are creating a demand which is going to increase the supply"
No, they are not creating a demand which is going to increase the supply. They're creating a supply that fits the demand.
Demand doesn't increase supply in and of itself. That's like saying that the wealth of online *adult* pornography creates the market for it, when it's just satisfying the market that's out there. The fact that it's a voracious market has nothing to do with it. Not providing an adequate supply of it only puts a premium price on it. If there wasn't so much free porn (of all kinds) online then pay-porn would be a premium because people would have to pay extra to get that which satisfies their demand.
I don't disagree with laws against kiddie porn (which, when you filter , I just disagree with people who think that supply creates demand when supply FILLS demand (economics 101... hell, more basic than that... it's high school.)
Uh-huh... and you and I both know there are probably singles attending your church, so that means they've only got another $1700 a year in other donations before they make the supposed 2% (wish we had real averages and stats, but we can play with these), and what about the 2 income power couples... or the families with 4 children but only one income...
What's more likely than assuming everyone in your congregations donates $1300 (which doesn't address the point of the earlier posts which is that people complain that Bill's 2% isn't enough. I mean, if we're going to use your church's 4k a week donations as a sample, then we need to address other biases, like your denomination's actual income levels, etc. If your average church-goer, which using your sample would include each child, earns that $50,000 then they've got a lot of other donations to make before they reach 2%... if your average church goer earns $17,000 then they're above the curve. If there are only 3 children in your parish then we could have a theoretical 147 income bearing people at whatever income we set... if there are 113 children we're down to a total of 37 income bearing people so the donation percentages spike.
On the one hand, thank you for accepting that it takes more than one person to prove/disprove an example, on the other, without reference points and biases it still stands as only slightly more informative than the "THat's not what I pay!" post. And actually, using a church as an example is skewed for other reasons and presents other problems namely the (a) what is a charity question (if all that money goes straight into maintanence and repairs, and yes, I realize that some of the money needs to go towards overhead in any organization but follow the example, without going back to the public then a person could argue your church isn't a charity so much as it's "a social gathering" where everyone pays $1300 in dues for the purpose of having a place to sing and read stories, if your church uses that 4k a week to fund and maintain outreach programs, etc, then does that qualify as charity or a public relations stunt by whatever branch of whatever religion your church follows, just as Bill's foundation is considered (b) churches, by virtue of actually collecting donations, would lend to a more biased sample than lets say people in a doctor's waiting room where donations are not expected or a restaurant, etc, etc. and (c) we both know not every person there is giving $26 each Sunday. It's more than likely you're getting a mom dropping a $10 while her kids each put a dollar or something else token in, a random old woman donating 25 from her Social Security, that good looking doctor who always gives $100... whatever your sample is. My grandmother was a makeshift book-keeper for her church for years... it had an average attendance of 8 but every Monday morning there was a check from a former parishoner who "just wanted to help out" for between a hundred and a thousand, as well as whatever the parishoners themselves gave. Thus, using your example, that boils down to somewhere between $20 and $125 bucks a week and so if we go on the low estimate of an average of $50 a week, that means each person there donated $2600 a week, not adjusted for inflation.
Of course, churches always open up a whole other can of worms... like donations to megachurches like Creflo Dollar's World Changers where the man has how many BMWs that he paid for with donation money becuase "the parishioners want him to have it." Yup, Creflo's BMW was paid for with someone's tax-deductable charitable contribution while Bill gets attitude for donating money to help fight malaria (yeah, the library sounds like pure ego though. Still, others are using the library while I don't think Creflo is using his BMW to taxi people to the hospital.)
Lying about charity on taxes is ridiculously common because (A) it doesn't count up to much and the IRS flags are high enough so that unless you quote an extremely high figure about how much you donate ("oh, I donate $5,000) it won't flag anything. (B) the benefit for lying about charitable donations is almost negligable becuase it's basically just money you're not paying taxes on so saying you paid $500 to charity just means that's $500 the government won't tax and (C) (although I'm not entirely sure about this, I'd have to ask) the charitable deductions only ACTUALLY count if you're itemizing which most people don't do because the standard deduction is a better deal. (D) So many things are permisable as charitable donations it's not funny including near-obselete computers, eye-glasses, those broken down cars that get fixed up, old cell phones that get refurbished, paying PBS $35 to get a "free gift", giving NPR $25 for a "free bag"... Let's be honest, if public broadcasting didn't offer "free gifts" people would be donating less, which is why they invest thier donations into these free gifts to entice you to donate at the next level. (E) Charity is almost entirely subjective in the government's eyes. If a local playhouse calls a performance a "fund raiser" it's a charitable deduction, if they call it a play it's entertainment. If you go to an automatic car wash it's a luxury, if you pay it to 10 kids giving up their saturday to earn money for a trip to Disneyworld it's charity (only in America would we call trips to a high priced amusement park charity.) ABC probably writes off the entire Extreme Makeover Home Edition show as a charitable donation while still collecting ad revenue from it and getting many of the supplies the show actually uses as similar "charitable donations" from other big companies. Like I said, it's subjective... all you've got to do is convince yourself that if the government were to audit you (very low odds provided you don't routinely trip thier flags) you wouldn't feel bad about defending your decision.
And on the other hand, charitable donations of time (volunteering at church or at a hospital) usually isn't counted on people's taxes even though a few hours in any kind of professional capacity can often be worth far more than financial contributionss.
Lying on taxes goes on all the time... there's probably even a list somewhere of some of the more famous people that have gotten caught while there's oodles more that don't. As for your 10% figure, if that's accurate then good for you. I see you make a dig about me being "cheap" for not donating, but since you just made it obvious don't know what I do I'll let it slide... be the better man and all that jazz, except that I think by advertising that I'm a better man it knocks me back down to the same level as you. See, that's the thing about humility... it requires actual humility.
Also, rule of thumb, just because YOU do something doesn't mean everyone else does it. You do not break the rule, you are at best, and if you're honest, an exception and so you can believe what you want, you saying you give 10% doesn't impress me.
As for where charities get their money, well, for one thing there's (1) giant philanthropic donations from people like Bill and Melinda Gates who are able to single-handedly fund more programs than your $10 donations. (2) Investments within the charitable organizations that keep themselves salient, (3) grants, grants and more grants, (4) minor donations that, en masse add up. A charity getting a half million toys to deliver to needy children is the equivalent of getting 10% of NYC citizens to give up one coffee one morning. The Salvation Army isn't getting huge checks from you towards their $100,000 (or whatever their local goal for your area), they're getting $1 from every 3rd person that walks past the kettle into any of a dozen stores around town during the entire month of December.
Yes, some people do give large checks to charity. Others give small. It still goes to the same po
To quote from my first post: "of course, now I'm going to have a string of posts after this from people saying "no, you're wrong, I personally donate 3% and so thus, EVERYONE must be donating 3%'"
Of the people I personally know, regular church-goers or not, the ammount of contributions looks to be somewhere in the $200 a year range and THAT is my being generous and assuming they threw 2 bucks to the Salvation Army on each weekend trip to the mall during the holidays and that they've been subscribing to PBS when I'm not looking. Granted, it's kind of a straw poll and not hard numbers, but "hey, here's what an informal sampling of my friends have to say" is a moderately more effective sample size than "oh, here's what I do." I drink coffee less than once a month but I don"t think thats representative of the general public. I've never killed a man, but the news tells me there are people out there that have. And I can't remember the current stats, but statistically out of every 10 friends a person has, one of those should be gay, 3 Latino and 2 African American and 5.1 women. The funny thing is, I have friends without any Latino friends, maybe 2 women they could consider friends, no (known) gay friends.
I learned a long time ago that one person's actions does not a representative sample make. Maybe $3000 is in fact a representative charitable donation, but I doubt it.
2% may sound like a reasonable ammount to donate to charities but in practice I doubt many people actually donate that much of their non-megasized income. Lets say X makes an average sized $50k a year... 2% of that is what... $1000? (don't trust my math though...) and how many people really donate $1000 a year to charity? I don't mean they SAY they do on their taxes, or they donate an overvalued used computer or something else so that on paper it looks like $1000, but really donate it straight from their bank.
I'm not saying people aren't generous but usually that generosity is coaxed, like Bill paying for naming rights, people donating to PBS for the "free gift" that depends on how much you donate and the like.
I know that's neither here nor there but I just see that everyone is bandying about this 2% like it's pocket change they're used to throwing around and having seen the people that try to claim $1 buy-a-heart/star/shamrock charity donations on their taxes I know it's not as common as some people think.
The next time someone complains about Bill ONLY donating 2%, they should try adding up how much they donate (of course, now I'm going to have a string of posts after this from people saying "no, you're wrong, I personally donate 3% and so thus, EVERYONE must be donating 3%")
People have time. Time needs filling. Before the internet, those 8 hours or so that weren't filled with work and sleep were filled with: Cooking, cleaning, reading, writing, watching tv, listening to the radio, exercise, going to bars/clubs/concerts, talking with friends, playing games. The list goes on but I don't need to.
Now, with the internet everyone where those 8 hours are filled with: Cooking, cleaning, reading, writing, watching tv, listening to the radio, exercise, going to bars/clubs/concerts, talking with friends, playing games. The list goes on, but again, I don't need to.
What's changed? Instead of playing games on my Nintendo or out of a box, we can use the keyboard and frag (is that term still cool? No, it's probably not. A cool kid can correct me. I'm feeling old now...) online, the radio MIGHT be an Ipod hooked up with just the songs the user likes, the TV might be some bittorrented show from last night (or maybe even last season, or overseas) that you didn't watch (or couldn't watch because it was unavailable to you before the internet), you're reading Slashdot or CNN instead of watching it on TV or in Time Magazine, or Wired I guess would be the more appropriate comparison. Your friends MIGHT be flashing in a window or they MIGHT be sitting next to you.
If I spend loads of money and time taking photographs, making them purty for the gallery, waiting for just the right angle of the sun, then it's art, it's a hobby, it's safe. If, in the course of that pursuit, I include time for photoshopping effects, post them to a blog with some commentary, write a little FAQ showing how to achieve those results, trading pics with friends who also like snapping, then it's an addiction, it's obsessive, it's unhealthy.
If I spent 8 hours a day typing the Great American Novel, then (provided it doesn't suck) I'd be hailed a genius, but if I spent 8 hours a day typing The Great American Blog (if it's a real blog, it's not mine) and according to this, be considered a prime candidate for... what's that obsession for writting too much? Lexigraphy or something? Someone wiki it for me because my addiction clock says that this post is already going on long enough to rank as evidence of addiction.
Are there people addicted to the internet? Yeah. Porn? Yeah. Even off-the-wall addictions like piracy (downloading crap you can't use, won't use and don't even have the time to enjoy because you've got to download the next set of albums, the next season, the next release) are out there. These are probably the same people that in 1 b.i. (before internet) were driving Roseanne's ratings up, spending their nights building ugly birdhouses, whatever else.
Clicking the Check Mail button is just a translation of sitting by the phone waiting for that special someone to call, even if you're a little sure they won't. Spending too much time on World of Warcraft is just an online translation of staying up too late at night because the latest book you're reading is just that good.
Legos don't die. That's half their fun. If the company goes bankrupt tomorrow and liquidates everything they have, renaming Legoland to Megabloktopia and dumping the Harry Potter franchise, there's more than enough Legos out there to sustain the hard-core Lego fans until the generic people step up production.
Specialized bricks have their place. I agree on the one hand that many of them ARE one-use only crap. It's true. I used to love getting their space sets (seems like a popular choice here) and trying to make copies of space sets I already had, and sometimes ones that I just saw in the nifty catalogues that used to come out and for those, you usually needed a couple of those specialized pieces. Great concept... warring space empires ripping off each other's designs for their own knock-off vehicles.
Then came the age of pirates. I loved the boats and still have a huge fleet of them, but the set that is both my most beloved and my most hated was that one where you made a small island fortress using three (I think... I'd have to dig it out of the closet) huge wall pieces and a cannon. I didn't have enough matching pieces to add on to it without it looking stupid, and using the walls for another project always looked a little stupid becuase they didn't fit in with the rest of my sets very well.
And then I couldn't use my basic bricks because they looked out of place and kiddy (who has a solid blue townhouse next to their neighbor's solid yellow townhouse? And what pirate would be caught dead with a bright red castle?) Next the doors looked out of place so they went out of circulation... then the thick wheel units...
Eventually I just gave up on legos altogether because basically I could make the set and have a fun shelf-saver or I could have a bunch of little dinky pieces that, when I was younger, I would have loved turning into lasers for space ships (since EVERYTHING became a laser for my space army's ships) but now exist as just feeder for the bottom of my tubs.
Long story longer, the bricks didn't change... we did. With a little creativity all those one use only pieces probably can be used for all kinds of things... we're just too short-sighted to enjoy them without Lego giving us a couple of alternative ideas. I was blown away the time I saw someone place a fence upside down between two rows of holes and built up from there. My suggestion... give those one-offs to your kids and see how many cool things they can come up with.
As for mindstorms themselves (so I at least appear to be on topic)... never tried them for the same reason I didn't enjoy the few Technic sets I tried... they weren't "pure" Lego. Although I'm sure this is news to some of you, but not everyone that plays with Legos is an engineer in training, some of us just liked having another medium to play in and trying to work the technic stuff into the stuff we were already building was more trouble than it was worth. Nobody is blaming Lego for the lack of support of Clickits or that morphing-boy-show lego set, both of which I think would have touched much larger markets than the robot-fan group.
Oh, and while I'm complaining... I saw the Megablok's Narnia set, the Winter Rescue one, and could I be any more disappointed? Well, only if Lego had made it. There's the mini-figs of a few players and then almost everything else is one big one-use-only brick. It's bad enough they've probably scared Marvel out of the Construction toy market... now they're ruining the one thing that could have given Harry Potter legos some real fight.
Re:What I have to say will certainly get me banned
on
The Prodigy Puzzle
·
· Score: 1
Nah, he mentioned they do the work BETTER than Americans. I, personally, can't tell the difference but I'd really, really love to talk with someone NOT at HP's South Indian Call Center (and yet, still calling themselves Max, Joan and Ethel... no kidding) when my 33 day old laptop totally powers down because of a faulty power converter.
Other than being called booksmart (in my pre-contacts days), I think I'm pretty well rounded... I could fumble my way through a tire change (probably. I think) and with some discipline in the coding area I could probably learn that too (twice I've tried the "learn C++ in X time" stuff, both times to quit around day 7 because I had other stuff more important to me) but I can also pass for a low-end jock on some days and would have no problem beating down at least half of the guys on here. Girls too, maybe, but some geek girls are pretty butch... not like the G4 ladies.
Just wanted to add my view of the smart-smart-kids vs. book-smart-kids argument and now I'm going back to slacking... not because I want to look cool or because I'm not challenged enough but because I'm just a slacker lately.
Not sure if this is exactly on this thread or not, but has anyone considered the implications on a work-world scenario? There have been the office-email hacks for years... the secretary who's got to check her webmail when the boss isn't looking, the accountant's office that uses AIM for "communiciation" even though one member has 87 people on his buddy list (and it's a 4 person office) but has anyone sat down and thought about how a group of students that "grow up," as it were, on stealth browsing while *maybe* taking some notes will handle the office situation with theoretically (and I know arguments could be made) less responsibility (most places require a lot of forking up before they'll let you go) and more rewards ("I get paid $25 an hour to surf the web!")
I know there's not going to be results for another couple years (I think campus wifi, well, students using campus wifi) has only become widespread enough for notice in the past year and a half since most newer notebooks started coming with built-in wifi (if you have to buy a card, install software, etc, you're going to alienate the casual "well, it's arleady set up, I just need to click the E-button" browsers who're just going to stick with solitaire) but I'm interested in other people's theoretical impacts.
Yeah, I kind of thought that's what you meant but wanted the confirmation that my "dumbed down" answer wasn't too dumb, but you've given me an interesting question:
How much space does IE actually take? If it could be removed, just outright butchered, from Windows, I wonder how much space it actually takes up compared to Firefox. The problem, obviously, would come in deciding what's actually IE and what's actually Windows (Windows Explorer is just fancy File Manager, but it's basically IE doing File Manager's job so what does it qualify as?)
I suppose the arguement would be that it's around 1 gig (because everything in Windows must in some way connect back to IE somehow) but I think it would be interesting to see which browser actually accomplishes the most while requiring the least *insert whatever measurement you prefer but probably some measurement of space here* in return.
I always assumed that IE opened faster from OE because the general browser framework was so integrated into the operating system, like being able to access your favorites from the start menu or Windows Explorer. Wasn't that the big controversy? That IE went from being a 6 meg add-on to Windows to being the heart and lungs (or at least the rib-cage) of the operating system while Netscape remained a 6 meg add-on? On the same note, however, the start button/windows explorer still only open IE favorites and don't (to my knowledge at least) have a way of switching to the Firefox Bookmarks
Eh, someone will correct me. Regardless, good PR for MS... I'm probably developing a reputation as a pro-MS user (and I suppose I am in some respects) but they know that if they make even a token appearance at embracing some tech-friendly whatzit the hard-core anti-MS people are going to dismiss it (but then again, there's no winning those people over) while the soft-core anti-MS people get a little shocked and the on-the-fence people might get tipped to their side.
And yet, they aren't taking the matters into their hands because it's not a problem they're dealing with, a bug they want to work-around or a nifty idea that would make thier life better.
See, that's the thing about commercial products... they are, by their very nature, forced to consider what other people want or they don't exist. With the little home-brew jobbers, it's only going to get created if the author/authors feel they'll get something out of it and usually that's accomplishing some task they want done, not some task that some minority that they don't know somewhere may have a use for it.
No, writing the word application itself from C++ or writing the LaTeX distribution itself from scratch would be like hand-molding the parts of the car.
Next, you're going to argue that no, hand molding the car parts is like hand-making a computer, and then I'll have to argue that hand-making the computer is analogous to smelting the metal for the car because you don't understand your falacies.
You're arguing that performing one process is easier than another by giving an incorrect assumption. When this is pointed out to you, you compare the process to the creation of the progress. Apples to oranges.
The process is typing a letter/bulleted list/whatever or driving a car in analogy but what you're really going through when you talk about typing the letter is performing the underlying formatting, which would be akin to hooking up the lights that make driving easier... do you now see your mistake? You're not good with logic, but it's funny that you "shudder" at ours. You are the one that's "averse" to a little learning.
The 10 minute tutorial isn't "our" argument. It was one guy saying most people won't use the software unless it can be learned in 10 minutes. That's true and it's appropriate. If it takes longer to accomplish something "the easy way" than it would "the hard way" there's no reason to do it the hard way. The thing I'm disowning is how you keep butchering the comparison and eventually you'll try arguing that manual formatting is easy because Word is eating your brain or some other nonsense analogy.
Christ, there's no getting through to you, but hell, the arguments have been made and I think that if you'd skipped into a logic and analysis class (I thought programmer types were required to do some kind of logic-based skill training? My mistake. Or I guess I should do the slashdot thing and say "geez, he must be a Windows user") but you keep changing the scope of the analogy which by it's very nature invalidates the analogy. Analogies are fact pattern A is roughly the same as fact pattern B type constructions (I'm fatally oversimplifying, I know, but you don't handle complexity well) and what you're doing is fact pattern A is roughly the same as fact pattern B but only if you ignore all the things that AREN'T the same.
And just saying that we're poor at analogies doesn't make it true, it simply makes it all the more ironic that you don't recognize your own ineptitude. Congrats, you just made the stupidity hall of fame!
I'm word prolific enough to know that I've never had a problem saving a document a few times, with "any significant outline-list yadda crap yadda..." and to have it open EXACTLY as it was saved. What you're talking about is user error, plain and simple. Word isn't out to fork you over but subtly messing with your files after you save it so stop being paranoid.
Nobody is saying that YOU don't think that it's easier for YOU to use LaTeX, we're just saying that everyone else understands the fact that it's not easier for any reasonable computer user and that you're just trying to toot your own horn on what ammounts to an ability few care about.
Your 10-minute tutorial arguement has already been refuted, a couple of times I think, so stop using it. You're trying to compare driving lessons to learning computer software but what you are ACTUALLY comparing is learning how to put the car together and how they need to wire every function they're going to want the car to do (installing the airbag every time they get in, manually connecting their brake lights.)
I'm glad you're not a lawyer, you'd get your ass handed to you trying to make those arguments. While I have no problem with you teaching your children how to properly connect and disconnect their brakelights every time they need to use them (assinine? Yes. Waste of time? Yes. Your perogative? At least until the state takes them away from a the crazy man.) but leave things like logic, analogies... hell, anything that requires THOUGHT and not the mindless rememberance of code that is easily accomplished through other, quicker ways, to the schools other wise they won't be able to compete in the real world as anything more than bulk coders and we've already established that's the next factory job... simple, trainable, specialized and yet, easily shipped overseas for pennies on the dollar.
You enjoy making your kids unemployable and skilled in useless abilities, I'll enjoy giving my children the best in life and the tools they need to be able to enjoy it.
"I also don't find anything friggin impossible or even difficult about "\documentstyle{letter} \begin{document}... letters... \end{document}", in fact, it's simpler and faster than messing with MSWord."
And yet you have a problem clicking the lightning bolt beneath your bulleted list and selecting "stop doing (whatever the hell it's doing that's screwing you up)"? I'm not Word prolific as I should be, but I (and most other people that have any familiarity with MS products) know that when it does automatic formatting, it gives you the option to turn it off and somewhere there's going to be a box to turn it off. Yes, sometimes you may need to look in both the options menu and then the formatting menu to find it, but don't tell me that's any harder than trying to convince all these people that the \documentstyle{letter} string is simpler than searching for one check box in two menus.
The beauty of modern computing.
I feel bad for your children, being told they need to learn how to program the dashboard computers for every car they'll ever drive because it's not really that hard to learn a few response codes and which widget to tighten. On the positive side, they'll be the last to join in gang violence what with their having to learn the art of smelting before they can construct their guns. It's really not that hard to learn metalwork... they can teach themselves with a few books and they can feel so much better knowing they made it themselves.
Well I think we're finally hammering each other into agreement! I also don't think adware would be good. In fact, it would be damn near impossible to work with if banner ads or something similar popped up when we used some extensions. I was talking about the actual download sites. Let Mozilla worry about getting advertisers/screening out the crap and then they can divy up the few cents they earn click/hundred-click amongst the people who get the most downloads.
The paypal donation buttons would be a bitch, if only because many of the extensions that people use aren't all that useful. If X is paying a token sum of $100 for a paint program, he won't see the benefit of paypalling 2 bucks to the developer of the paint-selector tool because he knows he can keep using it for free and that 2 bucks is a little much for a short-cut for something he can already do, just with 2 or 3 extra clicks. Anything less than $2.00 and the loss to paypal takes away from the spirit of all the sharing.
Besides, paypal is such a bitch. I'd rather give it right to some kind of Mozilla Fiduciary Fund and have them assign it. Then again, you run the risk of profit-based programming (which isn't all that bad... it gives us some of our best stuff) where they're not making the extension for the sake of making it and then being rewarded, they're making it for the sake of being rewarded, even just a little, and when they're not rewarded, they stop making it. Every system has problems.
I just posted in another reply that I think some kind of donation-per-extension plan might help with the delay between upgrades (5% of downloaders paying 25 cents may not add up to all that much, but considering the nothing these guys are getting now might be enough to swing the guys who've given up on their extensions back into the game) but I do acknowledge the almost impossibility of having forever-compatable extensions.
Do I have a solution? No. I'm just pointing out something that I think could be an obstacle in getting mainstream acceptance. IE is stealthy... it'll wait till the feature takes hold, integrate it into their thing and then boom, it's part of the core... power users apreciate getting something they were once only able to get in Firefox and the mainstreamers know it won't leave them.
Contrary to the maxim, people would rather never have loved at all than to have loved and lost. I may not like losing a few extensions every upgrade, but it's worth it (to me at least) for the new extensions/features that pop up, but of the 87% not using Firefox, what percentage of them are going to use a new browser who's main feature (the only thing that's going to differentiate Firefox from the next IE, which should have tabbed browsing, in most of their minds) is that they can add in extensions that they'll periodically have to replace with new extensions or go without for weeks until new updates are made.
Hello, I am the original poster and as such, I can assure you that I did not expect everything to work (hell, it pops up with a screen telling me which add-ons it's going to disable.) Every update breaks a few extensions. I'm not blaming the core team for the extensions, I'm just griping that there's not some way of having the best of both worlds (longer lasting compatability with the benefits of third party extensions) and I also realize that it's not possible. Sometimes we complain about things that can't be changed.
Personally, I think a pay-per-extension scheme might be a great option for the problem of broken extensions. Establish some revenue model for extension makers... like ads on their Mozilla Update page so people with the most popular/most useful extensions get some scratch for their efforts while even the smaller extensions can see some kind of reward. Hell, give users a way to transfer some cash to Mozilla and then divy it up to extension makers they like. If 5% of the downloaders for any given extension gave up 25 cents they'd have more incentive to keep their extensions current.
Of course then there'd be people upset when extensions they've "paid for" break, so it's not a perfect situation, but there's always room for improvement.
I had the same problem when I installed Firefox to my new laptop. The new version that had just been released at the time was 1.0.7 (which, to the best of my knowledge was the last non-beta they released as it is the one you download from getfirefox.com). I had a dozen or so extensions on my desktop computer that were wonderful and often useful, and instead of making a list of extensions to check back on routinely to make sure that IF they did get updated I would finally be able to use that functionality again, I moved on to other extensions that were either poorly done but compatable with the new version, not quite the same features but close enough for me to do what I was doing or I just gave up on them and went back to pre-Firefox methods of doing whatever they did.
Betas aren't the only things to break extensions. Believe it or not, some of us know what happens when we go to a beta, and we take the chances anyway. Sometimes the number of new features outweighs the benefits of a couple of pre-existing tweaks. It doesn't mean we sign away our right to prefer somethings the way they were.
So, using your logic, I should have gone scraping around P2P sites for a pre 1.0.7 version (keeping a few extensions I enjoyed but giving up all the new ones that I wanted more) just because 1.0.7 wasn't out long enough for about a dozen random guys to update their extensions.
Part of the point of release notes is to serve as a kind of informed warning and you apparently are too thick to realize the concept of a trade-off. Sometimes you give up something you like for something you like more. It doesn't stop you from liking what you gave up, it just means you liked your new thing more.
In slashdot-terms, it's like moving out of your parents basement. Yes, you like living there because they pay for all the bills and your mother is very good about filling your Dorito stash, BUT if you move out, you could bring women over. You won't, but that's not the point. You weigh the two (Mommy buying doritos, the potential of meeting someone real) and make a decision.
"The contest is expected to generate hundreds of new extensions for Firefox, allowing people to further personalize their Web browsing experience and to make surfing the Web even more fun and convenient."
"We're eager to see what our developer community has in store for Firefox users with this call for the next wave of extensions,"
Yes the contest prizes do say "new/upgraded" but clearly the goal is to encourage *new* extensions. You'll see it in the context of the article... how they talk about how they enjoy "the breadth and depth of the Firefox Extensions currently available" but only after talking about the "next wave of extensions" designed to make use of 1.5's new features (and one could make an arguement that some of the new modifications were inspired, or at least accomplished, by earlier extensions) and links to a website "to find resources and pointers to help create extensions for Firefox" which, while I'm sure would be helpful to current developers is obviously a nod to the fact that it hopes to promote the creation of extensions.
Modifying broken extensions is at best a result of the new Firefox, and not a result of the contest. There are several extensions with questionable use (in their current form) but lots of promise that have already been abandoned.
Poor feedback, people who can't request features nicely (and an argument can be made that I'm one of them, but I just want to repeat that I'm not trying to complain so much as point out a potential problem) and people who start something and then move on to something else that's more important (work, lives, family) have stopped the development of some extensions. Yes, some of these are probably wastes of time for most of us, but with some work (and more polite response) they could have easily become the next new thing.
I do also realize that some are in sleeper mode, waiting for the official release, but I'm just saying that there is the potential for some problems when people go to upgrade (and they'll be more likely to do so when updating is made easy, as the new version tries to do) only to find out features they've grown to love don't work.
To put this in a way Slashdotters understand: If Microsoft were to issue the next IE and told users they had to wait a week because Bookmarks was now a seperate department and the head of that department was having a really bad couple of days so nobody could make it compatable, then everyone would be up in arms.
Before anyone tries to argue that bookmarks are an inherent feature in IE while the extensions are voluntary installs, I would like to pre-argue that the ability to add those extensions is an inherent feature in Firefox. When websites "break" in new browsers because they weren't the absolute best coded, people become enraged at the lack of embracing new uniform standards and while it's probably impossible to come up with useful extensions that are theoretically forever-compatable with all future versions of Firefox I'm just pointing out that some people aren't going to like it when their features break.
I love Firefox and everything, but when I upgraded to one of the 1.5 betas (because everyone told me about all the new things that were going to be in it, which were admittedly small stuff like being able to reorganize my tabs) half of my extensions went bye-bye. Some came back when they were fixed, but others... not so much. A little while after the second beta came out I decided to get that too, thinking that I was over the extensions I could no longer use and that enough time had passed so that the ones I used (and surely every other person using Firefox) must have been updated as well. Not the case.
Needless to say, I went with reckless abandon into RC1 and will probably go to the official version as soon as it's out, just to get there. My hope is that the developers of most of the extensions I used were waiting for a more stable build and so in the future I should just wait until those come out instead of jumping into the newest upgrade for a few random features.
Now, there's going to be a dozen people telling me "Quit complaining, start programming" but I hope this comes off more as "constructive criticism" than anything else because of the web-browser user base (all 87% percent of the US or whatever number it is), a good 75 have never, can never and will never program (unless it becomes simplified to the point of telling your computer in plain language what you want it to do and it cobbles together something... "I want something to remember my recipes and generates a shopping list and gets approximate prices from the internet" and 30 seconds later a fully functional database comes out.)
Although the percentage of coders to non-coders may be higher with Firefox, the high priests of Firefox are desperate for a piece of that mainstream market. If I show Firefox and all that I can make it do to a friend who wants it installed, I don't want to tell that friend "now, never, EVER install an update because you'll lose half of the functions you've become accustomed too, at least for a little while but possibly forever" because they'll say screw it and stick with IE.
I loved Aardvark (it was so handy in cleaning up Mapquest stuff, news articles...) but it's become increasingly broke and in RC1 it's apparently fully dead until I hunt for the website (it didn't play well with the updater) to see if it's got an update. Stop-or-reload... same thing. Grease Monkey? Gone. Try searching for a torrent using the new Firefox. Now, these middle-adapters, the ones you have to prove the value of software to, aren't known for being upgrade happy (think your mom, still running IE 5 how many years after 6.0?) or else they may have tried Firefox earlier, but when they do upgrade, they don't want to switch to a different, competing extension becuase there's is broken, nor do they want to lose functionality they've become used to.
The extensions are awesome, best part of the browser but I think down the road the breakability of extensions is going to throttle the number of new-users. Think of old Netscape where slowly it became a nerd-only alternative, depsite their protests that it was more secure/more capable/better browser but IE kept winning people over because it (a) kept adapting to enable new features (I can't think of any, but that's because I haven't used Netscape since 2000), and (b) retained most of it's features.
IMO, people would rather use something that lacks features but has all the ones they're attached to than use something that introduces them to new features, and then takes them away.
Not every extension is going to be the next big thing... that extension so useful that the browser gods themselves reach down to integrate it into their next version, but if there's a user base at all for it, they're not going to like being told they can't use it with the newest toys because the developer didn't think there was enough of a user base to continue his support. Yeah, it's his or her decision to not update, but the user isn't going to care... they're going to blame Firefox.
Then again, this whole theory only applies to the semi-casual users who know enough to find and love extensions and not to the people who don't know anything about extensions or will just be using the browser as is.
I just spent like 6 minutes typing up an (improperly formatted) but much longer version of exactly what you just said. Just goes to show that conciseness is a virtue.
Unless my sarcasm detector blew up, I'd have to say you're being serious. If you are, then here's my serious response. If you're not then... um... this is sarcasm too? Actually, no, even if you are being sarcastic, this is still serious. Well, I find it funny, as will everyone who knows people that waste money in hopes of appearing high class.
There are studies upon studies saying anything about 380 for a thread count is practically indistinguishable. I know Consumer Reports has run their tests on high thread count sheets before and come to the fact that most people will never know the difference between "high quality" Egyptian cotton and a set of 300 thread count Sears special.
Besides, the sheer fact that you simply can't manufacture threads fine enough to achieve more than 500 (I don't have the official scientific sounding number but without the source, and without the inclination to look online for some back-up, I'll err on the high side) thread count can't be denied.
For the larger thread counts you claim to be purchasing you're actually getting two-ply sheets. Unlike toilet paper, two ply sheets do nothing. The sheet isn't any finer, softer, silkier or better; it's simply twice as thick, thus doubling the number of actual threads you can claim. I'm doing a disservice by saying its two-ply though; it's kind of like having two-ply toilet paper with a little stitching through-out to keep it together.
I'm not questioning your apparent income (or girlfriend's income, or credit line, whatever the case may be) but $2,000 is already at the point where you're spending the money just to say you're spending it with no actual benefit (and I'm including the imaginary benefits, like the kind you get from calling cow crap manure so it goes from waste product to valuable commodity) so if you were told these sheets were worth $6,000 and you were getting a good deal, then congratulations, you saved $4,000 that nobody who knew what they were buying would ever spend.
And please, spare me the argument that your tastes are just so refined *you* will know the difference and thus I must not be as sophisticated as you cause trust me, that is not the case. I have no problem paying for quality; I just have a problem with people who don't know what quality is.
Besides, I can't remember ever running across anyone trying to peddle anything more than "1200 thread count" so congratulations to whoever is purchasing these mysterious 1500 thread count sheets but you would have been better off (a) buying 400 thread count sheets and (b) knowing what you were buying.
Oh well, I suppose its better that their money went to linen-shysters and not terrorists, drug lords or politicians.
Slashdot Mirror
Great point! Most of the people with stashes of kiddie porn didn't get it from a store or from a mail-order catalogue, they're getting it from (and I might be wrong here) free sources like Usenet, websites and trading groups. You'd have to be pretty stupid to see a website offering child porn for sale and say "well, I'd better give them my credit card number and address" because either (A) it's a trap to get your information or (B) it will someday get taken down by the authorities who will then have your information.
One can argue I suppose that because it's hard(er) to acquire that people are more likely to kidnap, molest and violate young children to produce their own but that's a far from likely scenario.
I tried to explain the differences in criminal minds to a co-worker once. You have a murder in a small town and the two likely suspects are (A) a convicted pedophile and (B) a shoplifter. Which is more likely to have done it? People tend to pick the pedophile because that crime is seen as so much more dangerous than shoplifting and they just ignore the fact that all three are totally different mindsets. One's reason for murder is rarely the same as their reason for sexual assault or their reason for mild stealing. Shoplifters are not more likely to turn to armed robery than lets say drug dealers just because those two are both forms of theft.
Of course, the context of that situation was different (should someone who skipped a shift from work two days earlier be held responsible for a later theft of $50 just because both are "crimes") but the point is, people commit different crimes for different reasons. The person that owns kiddie porn for sexual gratification isn't going to be any more or less likely to sexually assault a child.
Now, I'm not saying the two groups are mutually exclusive (there are going to be some shoplifters who turn to armed robbery) but in this case the people that are going to molest children (or back to the topic, create kiddie porn) typically aren't doing so because they've got a 40 gig hd of pr0n and they want to "give back" to the community, they're doing it because they like molesting children and the people who do have a 40 gig hd of pr0n aren't going to go after their neighbors just because they want to add to their collection. The content creators may have a huge collection of material, but that's an over-lapping interest and not a causal one.
I have met some guys so titilated by having a few naughty pics on their palm-pilots, or proud of their collection of Playboys and they're no more or less likely to rape a woman than the guy with no stash and an over-active hormonal balance.
"they are creating a demand which is going to increase the supply"
No, they are not creating a demand which is going to increase the supply. They're creating a supply that fits the demand.
Demand doesn't increase supply in and of itself. That's like saying that the wealth of online *adult* pornography creates the market for it, when it's just satisfying the market that's out there. The fact that it's a voracious market has nothing to do with it. Not providing an adequate supply of it only puts a premium price on it. If there wasn't so much free porn (of all kinds) online then pay-porn would be a premium because people would have to pay extra to get that which satisfies their demand.
I don't disagree with laws against kiddie porn (which, when you filter , I just disagree with people who think that supply creates demand when supply FILLS demand (economics 101... hell, more basic than that... it's high school.)
Uh-huh... and you and I both know there are probably singles attending your church, so that means they've only got another $1700 a year in other donations before they make the supposed 2% (wish we had real averages and stats, but we can play with these), and what about the 2 income power couples... or the families with 4 children but only one income...
What's more likely than assuming everyone in your congregations donates $1300 (which doesn't address the point of the earlier posts which is that people complain that Bill's 2% isn't enough. I mean, if we're going to use your church's 4k a week donations as a sample, then we need to address other biases, like your denomination's actual income levels, etc. If your average church-goer, which using your sample would include each child, earns that $50,000 then they've got a lot of other donations to make before they reach 2%... if your average church goer earns $17,000 then they're above the curve. If there are only 3 children in your parish then we could have a theoretical 147 income bearing people at whatever income we set... if there are 113 children we're down to a total of 37 income bearing people so the donation percentages spike.
On the one hand, thank you for accepting that it takes more than one person to prove/disprove an example, on the other, without reference points and biases it still stands as only slightly more informative than the "THat's not what I pay!" post. And actually, using a church as an example is skewed for other reasons and presents other problems namely the (a) what is a charity question (if all that money goes straight into maintanence and repairs, and yes, I realize that some of the money needs to go towards overhead in any organization but follow the example, without going back to the public then a person could argue your church isn't a charity so much as it's "a social gathering" where everyone pays $1300 in dues for the purpose of having a place to sing and read stories, if your church uses that 4k a week to fund and maintain outreach programs, etc, then does that qualify as charity or a public relations stunt by whatever branch of whatever religion your church follows, just as Bill's foundation is considered (b) churches, by virtue of actually collecting donations, would lend to a more biased sample than lets say people in a doctor's waiting room where donations are not expected or a restaurant, etc, etc. and (c) we both know not every person there is giving $26 each Sunday. It's more than likely you're getting a mom dropping a $10 while her kids each put a dollar or something else token in, a random old woman donating 25 from her Social Security, that good looking doctor who always gives $100... whatever your sample is. My grandmother was a makeshift book-keeper for her church for years... it had an average attendance of 8 but every Monday morning there was a check from a former parishoner who "just wanted to help out" for between a hundred and a thousand, as well as whatever the parishoners themselves gave. Thus, using your example, that boils down to somewhere between $20 and $125 bucks a week and so if we go on the low estimate of an average of $50 a week, that means each person there donated $2600 a week, not adjusted for inflation.
Of course, churches always open up a whole other can of worms... like donations to megachurches like Creflo Dollar's World Changers where the man has how many BMWs that he paid for with donation money becuase "the parishioners want him to have it." Yup, Creflo's BMW was paid for with someone's tax-deductable charitable contribution while Bill gets attitude for donating money to help fight malaria (yeah, the library sounds like pure ego though. Still, others are using the library while I don't think Creflo is using his BMW to taxi people to the hospital.)
Lying about charity on taxes is ridiculously common because (A) it doesn't count up to much and the IRS flags are high enough so that unless you quote an extremely high figure about how much you donate ("oh, I donate $5,000) it won't flag anything. (B) the benefit for lying about charitable donations is almost negligable becuase it's basically just money you're not paying taxes on so saying you paid $500 to charity just means that's $500 the government won't tax and (C) (although I'm not entirely sure about this, I'd have to ask) the charitable deductions only ACTUALLY count if you're itemizing which most people don't do because the standard deduction is a better deal. (D) So many things are permisable as charitable donations it's not funny including near-obselete computers, eye-glasses, those broken down cars that get fixed up, old cell phones that get refurbished, paying PBS $35 to get a "free gift", giving NPR $25 for a "free bag"... Let's be honest, if public broadcasting didn't offer "free gifts" people would be donating less, which is why they invest thier donations into these free gifts to entice you to donate at the next level. (E) Charity is almost entirely subjective in the government's eyes. If a local playhouse calls a performance a "fund raiser" it's a charitable deduction, if they call it a play it's entertainment. If you go to an automatic car wash it's a luxury, if you pay it to 10 kids giving up their saturday to earn money for a trip to Disneyworld it's charity (only in America would we call trips to a high priced amusement park charity.) ABC probably writes off the entire Extreme Makeover Home Edition show as a charitable donation while still collecting ad revenue from it and getting many of the supplies the show actually uses as similar "charitable donations" from other big companies. Like I said, it's subjective... all you've got to do is convince yourself that if the government were to audit you (very low odds provided you don't routinely trip thier flags) you wouldn't feel bad about defending your decision.
And on the other hand, charitable donations of time (volunteering at church or at a hospital) usually isn't counted on people's taxes even though a few hours in any kind of professional capacity can often be worth far more than financial contributionss.
Lying on taxes goes on all the time... there's probably even a list somewhere of some of the more famous people that have gotten caught while there's oodles more that don't. As for your 10% figure, if that's accurate then good for you. I see you make a dig about me being "cheap" for not donating, but since you just made it obvious don't know what I do I'll let it slide... be the better man and all that jazz, except that I think by advertising that I'm a better man it knocks me back down to the same level as you. See, that's the thing about humility... it requires actual humility.
Also, rule of thumb, just because YOU do something doesn't mean everyone else does it. You do not break the rule, you are at best, and if you're honest, an exception and so you can believe what you want, you saying you give 10% doesn't impress me.
As for where charities get their money, well, for one thing there's (1) giant philanthropic donations from people like Bill and Melinda Gates who are able to single-handedly fund more programs than your $10 donations. (2) Investments within the charitable organizations that keep themselves salient, (3) grants, grants and more grants, (4) minor donations that, en masse add up. A charity getting a half million toys to deliver to needy children is the equivalent of getting 10% of NYC citizens to give up one coffee one morning. The Salvation Army isn't getting huge checks from you towards their $100,000 (or whatever their local goal for your area), they're getting $1 from every 3rd person that walks past the kettle into any of a dozen stores around town during the entire month of December.
Yes, some people do give large checks to charity. Others give small. It still goes to the same po
To quote from my first post: "of course, now I'm going to have a string of posts after this from people saying "no, you're wrong, I personally donate 3% and so thus, EVERYONE must be donating 3%'"
Of the people I personally know, regular church-goers or not, the ammount of contributions looks to be somewhere in the $200 a year range and THAT is my being generous and assuming they threw 2 bucks to the Salvation Army on each weekend trip to the mall during the holidays and that they've been subscribing to PBS when I'm not looking. Granted, it's kind of a straw poll and not hard numbers, but "hey, here's what an informal sampling of my friends have to say" is a moderately more effective sample size than "oh, here's what I do." I drink coffee less than once a month but I don"t think thats representative of the general public. I've never killed a man, but the news tells me there are people out there that have. And I can't remember the current stats, but statistically out of every 10 friends a person has, one of those should be gay, 3 Latino and 2 African American and 5.1 women. The funny thing is, I have friends without any Latino friends, maybe 2 women they could consider friends, no (known) gay friends.
I learned a long time ago that one person's actions does not a representative sample make. Maybe $3000 is in fact a representative charitable donation, but I doubt it.
2% may sound like a reasonable ammount to donate to charities but in practice I doubt many people actually donate that much of their non-megasized income. Lets say X makes an average sized $50k a year... 2% of that is what... $1000? (don't trust my math though...) and how many people really donate $1000 a year to charity? I don't mean they SAY they do on their taxes, or they donate an overvalued used computer or something else so that on paper it looks like $1000, but really donate it straight from their bank.
I'm not saying people aren't generous but usually that generosity is coaxed, like Bill paying for naming rights, people donating to PBS for the "free gift" that depends on how much you donate and the like.
I know that's neither here nor there but I just see that everyone is bandying about this 2% like it's pocket change they're used to throwing around and having seen the people that try to claim $1 buy-a-heart/star/shamrock charity donations on their taxes I know it's not as common as some people think.
The next time someone complains about Bill ONLY donating 2%, they should try adding up how much they donate (of course, now I'm going to have a string of posts after this from people saying "no, you're wrong, I personally donate 3% and so thus, EVERYONE must be donating 3%")
People have time. Time needs filling. Before the internet, those 8 hours or so that weren't filled with work and sleep were filled with: Cooking, cleaning, reading, writing, watching tv, listening to the radio, exercise, going to bars/clubs/concerts, talking with friends, playing games. The list goes on but I don't need to.
Now, with the internet everyone where those 8 hours are filled with: Cooking, cleaning, reading, writing, watching tv, listening to the radio, exercise, going to bars/clubs/concerts, talking with friends, playing games. The list goes on, but again, I don't need to.
What's changed? Instead of playing games on my Nintendo or out of a box, we can use the keyboard and frag (is that term still cool? No, it's probably not. A cool kid can correct me. I'm feeling old now...) online, the radio MIGHT be an Ipod hooked up with just the songs the user likes, the TV might be some bittorrented show from last night (or maybe even last season, or overseas) that you didn't watch (or couldn't watch because it was unavailable to you before the internet), you're reading Slashdot or CNN instead of watching it on TV or in Time Magazine, or Wired I guess would be the more appropriate comparison. Your friends MIGHT be flashing in a window or they MIGHT be sitting next to you.
If I spend loads of money and time taking photographs, making them purty for the gallery, waiting for just the right angle of the sun, then it's art, it's a hobby, it's safe. If, in the course of that pursuit, I include time for photoshopping effects, post them to a blog with some commentary, write a little FAQ showing how to achieve those results, trading pics with friends who also like snapping, then it's an addiction, it's obsessive, it's unhealthy.
If I spent 8 hours a day typing the Great American Novel, then (provided it doesn't suck) I'd be hailed a genius, but if I spent 8 hours a day typing The Great American Blog (if it's a real blog, it's not mine) and according to this, be considered a prime candidate for... what's that obsession for writting too much? Lexigraphy or something? Someone wiki it for me because my addiction clock says that this post is already going on long enough to rank as evidence of addiction.
Are there people addicted to the internet? Yeah. Porn? Yeah. Even off-the-wall addictions like piracy (downloading crap you can't use, won't use and don't even have the time to enjoy because you've got to download the next set of albums, the next season, the next release) are out there. These are probably the same people that in 1 b.i. (before internet) were driving Roseanne's ratings up, spending their nights building ugly birdhouses, whatever else.
Clicking the Check Mail button is just a translation of sitting by the phone waiting for that special someone to call, even if you're a little sure they won't. Spending too much time on World of Warcraft is just an online translation of staying up too late at night because the latest book you're reading is just that good.
Legos don't die. That's half their fun. If the company goes bankrupt tomorrow and liquidates everything they have, renaming Legoland to Megabloktopia and dumping the Harry Potter franchise, there's more than enough Legos out there to sustain the hard-core Lego fans until the generic people step up production.
Specialized bricks have their place. I agree on the one hand that many of them ARE one-use only crap. It's true. I used to love getting their space sets (seems like a popular choice here) and trying to make copies of space sets I already had, and sometimes ones that I just saw in the nifty catalogues that used to come out and for those, you usually needed a couple of those specialized pieces. Great concept... warring space empires ripping off each other's designs for their own knock-off vehicles.
Then came the age of pirates. I loved the boats and still have a huge fleet of them, but the set that is both my most beloved and my most hated was that one where you made a small island fortress using three (I think... I'd have to dig it out of the closet) huge wall pieces and a cannon. I didn't have enough matching pieces to add on to it without it looking stupid, and using the walls for another project always looked a little stupid becuase they didn't fit in with the rest of my sets very well.
And then I couldn't use my basic bricks because they looked out of place and kiddy (who has a solid blue townhouse next to their neighbor's solid yellow townhouse? And what pirate would be caught dead with a bright red castle?) Next the doors looked out of place so they went out of circulation... then the thick wheel units...
Eventually I just gave up on legos altogether because basically I could make the set and have a fun shelf-saver or I could have a bunch of little dinky pieces that, when I was younger, I would have loved turning into lasers for space ships (since EVERYTHING became a laser for my space army's ships) but now exist as just feeder for the bottom of my tubs.
Long story longer, the bricks didn't change... we did. With a little creativity all those one use only pieces probably can be used for all kinds of things... we're just too short-sighted to enjoy them without Lego giving us a couple of alternative ideas. I was blown away the time I saw someone place a fence upside down between two rows of holes and built up from there. My suggestion... give those one-offs to your kids and see how many cool things they can come up with.
As for mindstorms themselves (so I at least appear to be on topic)... never tried them for the same reason I didn't enjoy the few Technic sets I tried... they weren't "pure" Lego. Although I'm sure this is news to some of you, but not everyone that plays with Legos is an engineer in training, some of us just liked having another medium to play in and trying to work the technic stuff into the stuff we were already building was more trouble than it was worth. Nobody is blaming Lego for the lack of support of Clickits or that morphing-boy-show lego set, both of which I think would have touched much larger markets than the robot-fan group.
Oh, and while I'm complaining... I saw the Megablok's Narnia set, the Winter Rescue one, and could I be any more disappointed? Well, only if Lego had made it. There's the mini-figs of a few players and then almost everything else is one big one-use-only brick. It's bad enough they've probably scared Marvel out of the Construction toy market... now they're ruining the one thing that could have given Harry Potter legos some real fight.
Nah, he mentioned they do the work BETTER than Americans. I, personally, can't tell the difference but I'd really, really love to talk with someone NOT at HP's South Indian Call Center (and yet, still calling themselves Max, Joan and Ethel... no kidding) when my 33 day old laptop totally powers down because of a faulty power converter.
Other than being called booksmart (in my pre-contacts days), I think I'm pretty well rounded... I could fumble my way through a tire change (probably. I think) and with some discipline in the coding area I could probably learn that too (twice I've tried the "learn C++ in X time" stuff, both times to quit around day 7 because I had other stuff more important to me) but I can also pass for a low-end jock on some days and would have no problem beating down at least half of the guys on here. Girls too, maybe, but some geek girls are pretty butch... not like the G4 ladies.
Just wanted to add my view of the smart-smart-kids vs. book-smart-kids argument and now I'm going back to slacking... not because I want to look cool or because I'm not challenged enough but because I'm just a slacker lately.
Not sure if this is exactly on this thread or not, but has anyone considered the implications on a work-world scenario? There have been the office-email hacks for years... the secretary who's got to check her webmail when the boss isn't looking, the accountant's office that uses AIM for "communiciation" even though one member has 87 people on his buddy list (and it's a 4 person office) but has anyone sat down and thought about how a group of students that "grow up," as it were, on stealth browsing while *maybe* taking some notes will handle the office situation with theoretically (and I know arguments could be made) less responsibility (most places require a lot of forking up before they'll let you go) and more rewards ("I get paid $25 an hour to surf the web!")
I know there's not going to be results for another couple years (I think campus wifi, well, students using campus wifi) has only become widespread enough for notice in the past year and a half since most newer notebooks started coming with built-in wifi (if you have to buy a card, install software, etc, you're going to alienate the casual "well, it's arleady set up, I just need to click the E-button" browsers who're just going to stick with solitaire) but I'm interested in other people's theoretical impacts.
Yeah, I kind of thought that's what you meant but wanted the confirmation that my "dumbed down" answer wasn't too dumb, but you've given me an interesting question:
How much space does IE actually take? If it could be removed, just outright butchered, from Windows, I wonder how much space it actually takes up compared to Firefox. The problem, obviously, would come in deciding what's actually IE and what's actually Windows (Windows Explorer is just fancy File Manager, but it's basically IE doing File Manager's job so what does it qualify as?)
I suppose the arguement would be that it's around 1 gig (because everything in Windows must in some way connect back to IE somehow) but I think it would be interesting to see which browser actually accomplishes the most while requiring the least *insert whatever measurement you prefer but probably some measurement of space here* in return.
I always assumed that IE opened faster from OE because the general browser framework was so integrated into the operating system, like being able to access your favorites from the start menu or Windows Explorer. Wasn't that the big controversy? That IE went from being a 6 meg add-on to Windows to being the heart and lungs (or at least the rib-cage) of the operating system while Netscape remained a 6 meg add-on? On the same note, however, the start button/windows explorer still only open IE favorites and don't (to my knowledge at least) have a way of switching to the Firefox Bookmarks
Eh, someone will correct me. Regardless, good PR for MS... I'm probably developing a reputation as a pro-MS user (and I suppose I am in some respects) but they know that if they make even a token appearance at embracing some tech-friendly whatzit the hard-core anti-MS people are going to dismiss it (but then again, there's no winning those people over) while the soft-core anti-MS people get a little shocked and the on-the-fence people might get tipped to their side.
And yet, they aren't taking the matters into their hands because it's not a problem they're dealing with, a bug they want to work-around or a nifty idea that would make thier life better. See, that's the thing about commercial products... they are, by their very nature, forced to consider what other people want or they don't exist. With the little home-brew jobbers, it's only going to get created if the author/authors feel they'll get something out of it and usually that's accomplishing some task they want done, not some task that some minority that they don't know somewhere may have a use for it.
No, writing the word application itself from C++ or writing the LaTeX distribution itself from scratch would be like hand-molding the parts of the car. Next, you're going to argue that no, hand molding the car parts is like hand-making a computer, and then I'll have to argue that hand-making the computer is analogous to smelting the metal for the car because you don't understand your falacies. You're arguing that performing one process is easier than another by giving an incorrect assumption. When this is pointed out to you, you compare the process to the creation of the progress. Apples to oranges. The process is typing a letter/bulleted list/whatever or driving a car in analogy but what you're really going through when you talk about typing the letter is performing the underlying formatting, which would be akin to hooking up the lights that make driving easier... do you now see your mistake? You're not good with logic, but it's funny that you "shudder" at ours. You are the one that's "averse" to a little learning. The 10 minute tutorial isn't "our" argument. It was one guy saying most people won't use the software unless it can be learned in 10 minutes. That's true and it's appropriate. If it takes longer to accomplish something "the easy way" than it would "the hard way" there's no reason to do it the hard way. The thing I'm disowning is how you keep butchering the comparison and eventually you'll try arguing that manual formatting is easy because Word is eating your brain or some other nonsense analogy. Christ, there's no getting through to you, but hell, the arguments have been made and I think that if you'd skipped into a logic and analysis class (I thought programmer types were required to do some kind of logic-based skill training? My mistake. Or I guess I should do the slashdot thing and say "geez, he must be a Windows user") but you keep changing the scope of the analogy which by it's very nature invalidates the analogy. Analogies are fact pattern A is roughly the same as fact pattern B type constructions (I'm fatally oversimplifying, I know, but you don't handle complexity well) and what you're doing is fact pattern A is roughly the same as fact pattern B but only if you ignore all the things that AREN'T the same. And just saying that we're poor at analogies doesn't make it true, it simply makes it all the more ironic that you don't recognize your own ineptitude. Congrats, you just made the stupidity hall of fame!
I'm word prolific enough to know that I've never had a problem saving a document a few times, with "any significant outline-list yadda crap yadda..." and to have it open EXACTLY as it was saved. What you're talking about is user error, plain and simple. Word isn't out to fork you over but subtly messing with your files after you save it so stop being paranoid. Nobody is saying that YOU don't think that it's easier for YOU to use LaTeX, we're just saying that everyone else understands the fact that it's not easier for any reasonable computer user and that you're just trying to toot your own horn on what ammounts to an ability few care about. Your 10-minute tutorial arguement has already been refuted, a couple of times I think, so stop using it. You're trying to compare driving lessons to learning computer software but what you are ACTUALLY comparing is learning how to put the car together and how they need to wire every function they're going to want the car to do (installing the airbag every time they get in, manually connecting their brake lights.) I'm glad you're not a lawyer, you'd get your ass handed to you trying to make those arguments. While I have no problem with you teaching your children how to properly connect and disconnect their brakelights every time they need to use them (assinine? Yes. Waste of time? Yes. Your perogative? At least until the state takes them away from a the crazy man.) but leave things like logic, analogies... hell, anything that requires THOUGHT and not the mindless rememberance of code that is easily accomplished through other, quicker ways, to the schools other wise they won't be able to compete in the real world as anything more than bulk coders and we've already established that's the next factory job... simple, trainable, specialized and yet, easily shipped overseas for pennies on the dollar. You enjoy making your kids unemployable and skilled in useless abilities, I'll enjoy giving my children the best in life and the tools they need to be able to enjoy it.
"I also don't find anything friggin impossible or even difficult about "\documentstyle{letter} \begin{document} ... letters ... \end{document}", in fact, it's simpler and faster than messing with MSWord."
And yet you have a problem clicking the lightning bolt beneath your bulleted list and selecting "stop doing (whatever the hell it's doing that's screwing you up)"? I'm not Word prolific as I should be, but I (and most other people that have any familiarity with MS products) know that when it does automatic formatting, it gives you the option to turn it off and somewhere there's going to be a box to turn it off. Yes, sometimes you may need to look in both the options menu and then the formatting menu to find it, but don't tell me that's any harder than trying to convince all these people that the \documentstyle{letter} string is simpler than searching for one check box in two menus.
The beauty of modern computing.
I feel bad for your children, being told they need to learn how to program the dashboard computers for every car they'll ever drive because it's not really that hard to learn a few response codes and which widget to tighten. On the positive side, they'll be the last to join in gang violence what with their having to learn the art of smelting before they can construct their guns. It's really not that hard to learn metalwork... they can teach themselves with a few books and they can feel so much better knowing they made it themselves.
Well I think we're finally hammering each other into agreement! I also don't think adware would be good. In fact, it would be damn near impossible to work with if banner ads or something similar popped up when we used some extensions. I was talking about the actual download sites. Let Mozilla worry about getting advertisers/screening out the crap and then they can divy up the few cents they earn click/hundred-click amongst the people who get the most downloads. The paypal donation buttons would be a bitch, if only because many of the extensions that people use aren't all that useful. If X is paying a token sum of $100 for a paint program, he won't see the benefit of paypalling 2 bucks to the developer of the paint-selector tool because he knows he can keep using it for free and that 2 bucks is a little much for a short-cut for something he can already do, just with 2 or 3 extra clicks. Anything less than $2.00 and the loss to paypal takes away from the spirit of all the sharing. Besides, paypal is such a bitch. I'd rather give it right to some kind of Mozilla Fiduciary Fund and have them assign it. Then again, you run the risk of profit-based programming (which isn't all that bad... it gives us some of our best stuff) where they're not making the extension for the sake of making it and then being rewarded, they're making it for the sake of being rewarded, even just a little, and when they're not rewarded, they stop making it. Every system has problems.
I just posted in another reply that I think some kind of donation-per-extension plan might help with the delay between upgrades (5% of downloaders paying 25 cents may not add up to all that much, but considering the nothing these guys are getting now might be enough to swing the guys who've given up on their extensions back into the game) but I do acknowledge the almost impossibility of having forever-compatable extensions.
Do I have a solution? No. I'm just pointing out something that I think could be an obstacle in getting mainstream acceptance. IE is stealthy... it'll wait till the feature takes hold, integrate it into their thing and then boom, it's part of the core... power users apreciate getting something they were once only able to get in Firefox and the mainstreamers know it won't leave them.
Contrary to the maxim, people would rather never have loved at all than to have loved and lost. I may not like losing a few extensions every upgrade, but it's worth it (to me at least) for the new extensions/features that pop up, but of the 87% not using Firefox, what percentage of them are going to use a new browser who's main feature (the only thing that's going to differentiate Firefox from the next IE, which should have tabbed browsing, in most of their minds) is that they can add in extensions that they'll periodically have to replace with new extensions or go without for weeks until new updates are made.
Hello, I am the original poster and as such, I can assure you that I did not expect everything to work (hell, it pops up with a screen telling me which add-ons it's going to disable.) Every update breaks a few extensions. I'm not blaming the core team for the extensions, I'm just griping that there's not some way of having the best of both worlds (longer lasting compatability with the benefits of third party extensions) and I also realize that it's not possible. Sometimes we complain about things that can't be changed.
Personally, I think a pay-per-extension scheme might be a great option for the problem of broken extensions. Establish some revenue model for extension makers... like ads on their Mozilla Update page so people with the most popular/most useful extensions get some scratch for their efforts while even the smaller extensions can see some kind of reward. Hell, give users a way to transfer some cash to Mozilla and then divy it up to extension makers they like. If 5% of the downloaders for any given extension gave up 25 cents they'd have more incentive to keep their extensions current.
Of course then there'd be people upset when extensions they've "paid for" break, so it's not a perfect situation, but there's always room for improvement.
Actually, it's not JUST a beta issue.
I had the same problem when I installed Firefox to my new laptop. The new version that had just been released at the time was 1.0.7 (which, to the best of my knowledge was the last non-beta they released as it is the one you download from getfirefox.com). I had a dozen or so extensions on my desktop computer that were wonderful and often useful, and instead of making a list of extensions to check back on routinely to make sure that IF they did get updated I would finally be able to use that functionality again, I moved on to other extensions that were either poorly done but compatable with the new version, not quite the same features but close enough for me to do what I was doing or I just gave up on them and went back to pre-Firefox methods of doing whatever they did.
Betas aren't the only things to break extensions. Believe it or not, some of us know what happens when we go to a beta, and we take the chances anyway. Sometimes the number of new features outweighs the benefits of a couple of pre-existing tweaks. It doesn't mean we sign away our right to prefer somethings the way they were.
So, using your logic, I should have gone scraping around P2P sites for a pre 1.0.7 version (keeping a few extensions I enjoyed but giving up all the new ones that I wanted more) just because 1.0.7 wasn't out long enough for about a dozen random guys to update their extensions.
Part of the point of release notes is to serve as a kind of informed warning and you apparently are too thick to realize the concept of a trade-off. Sometimes you give up something you like for something you like more. It doesn't stop you from liking what you gave up, it just means you liked your new thing more.
In slashdot-terms, it's like moving out of your parents basement. Yes, you like living there because they pay for all the bills and your mother is very good about filling your Dorito stash, BUT if you move out, you could bring women over. You won't, but that's not the point. You weigh the two (Mommy buying doritos, the potential of meeting someone real) and make a decision.
No, read the article.
"The contest is expected to generate hundreds of new extensions for Firefox, allowing people to further personalize their Web browsing experience and to make surfing the Web even more fun and convenient."
"We're eager to see what our developer community has in store for Firefox users with this call for the next wave of extensions,"
Yes the contest prizes do say "new/upgraded" but clearly the goal is to encourage *new* extensions. You'll see it in the context of the article... how they talk about how they enjoy "the breadth and depth of the Firefox Extensions currently available" but only after talking about the "next wave of extensions" designed to make use of 1.5's new features (and one could make an arguement that some of the new modifications were inspired, or at least accomplished, by earlier extensions) and links to a website "to find resources and pointers to help create extensions for Firefox" which, while I'm sure would be helpful to current developers is obviously a nod to the fact that it hopes to promote the creation of extensions.
Modifying broken extensions is at best a result of the new Firefox, and not a result of the contest. There are several extensions with questionable use (in their current form) but lots of promise that have already been abandoned.
Poor feedback, people who can't request features nicely (and an argument can be made that I'm one of them, but I just want to repeat that I'm not trying to complain so much as point out a potential problem) and people who start something and then move on to something else that's more important (work, lives, family) have stopped the development of some extensions. Yes, some of these are probably wastes of time for most of us, but with some work (and more polite response) they could have easily become the next new thing.
I do also realize that some are in sleeper mode, waiting for the official release, but I'm just saying that there is the potential for some problems when people go to upgrade (and they'll be more likely to do so when updating is made easy, as the new version tries to do) only to find out features they've grown to love don't work.
To put this in a way Slashdotters understand: If Microsoft were to issue the next IE and told users they had to wait a week because Bookmarks was now a seperate department and the head of that department was having a really bad couple of days so nobody could make it compatable, then everyone would be up in arms.
Before anyone tries to argue that bookmarks are an inherent feature in IE while the extensions are voluntary installs, I would like to pre-argue that the ability to add those extensions is an inherent feature in Firefox. When websites "break" in new browsers because they weren't the absolute best coded, people become enraged at the lack of embracing new uniform standards and while it's probably impossible to come up with useful extensions that are theoretically forever-compatable with all future versions of Firefox I'm just pointing out that some people aren't going to like it when their features break.
I love Firefox and everything, but when I upgraded to one of the 1.5 betas (because everyone told me about all the new things that were going to be in it, which were admittedly small stuff like being able to reorganize my tabs) half of my extensions went bye-bye. Some came back when they were fixed, but others... not so much. A little while after the second beta came out I decided to get that too, thinking that I was over the extensions I could no longer use and that enough time had passed so that the ones I used (and surely every other person using Firefox) must have been updated as well. Not the case.
Needless to say, I went with reckless abandon into RC1 and will probably go to the official version as soon as it's out, just to get there. My hope is that the developers of most of the extensions I used were waiting for a more stable build and so in the future I should just wait until those come out instead of jumping into the newest upgrade for a few random features.
Now, there's going to be a dozen people telling me "Quit complaining, start programming" but I hope this comes off more as "constructive criticism" than anything else because of the web-browser user base (all 87% percent of the US or whatever number it is), a good 75 have never, can never and will never program (unless it becomes simplified to the point of telling your computer in plain language what you want it to do and it cobbles together something... "I want something to remember my recipes and generates a shopping list and gets approximate prices from the internet" and 30 seconds later a fully functional database comes out.)
Although the percentage of coders to non-coders may be higher with Firefox, the high priests of Firefox are desperate for a piece of that mainstream market. If I show Firefox and all that I can make it do to a friend who wants it installed, I don't want to tell that friend "now, never, EVER install an update because you'll lose half of the functions you've become accustomed too, at least for a little while but possibly forever" because they'll say screw it and stick with IE.
I loved Aardvark (it was so handy in cleaning up Mapquest stuff, news articles...) but it's become increasingly broke and in RC1 it's apparently fully dead until I hunt for the website (it didn't play well with the updater) to see if it's got an update. Stop-or-reload... same thing. Grease Monkey? Gone. Try searching for a torrent using the new Firefox. Now, these middle-adapters, the ones you have to prove the value of software to, aren't known for being upgrade happy (think your mom, still running IE 5 how many years after 6.0?) or else they may have tried Firefox earlier, but when they do upgrade, they don't want to switch to a different, competing extension becuase there's is broken, nor do they want to lose functionality they've become used to.
The extensions are awesome, best part of the browser but I think down the road the breakability of extensions is going to throttle the number of new-users. Think of old Netscape where slowly it became a nerd-only alternative, depsite their protests that it was more secure/more capable/better browser but IE kept winning people over because it (a) kept adapting to enable new features (I can't think of any, but that's because I haven't used Netscape since 2000), and (b) retained most of it's features.
IMO, people would rather use something that lacks features but has all the ones they're attached to than use something that introduces them to new features, and then takes them away.
Not every extension is going to be the next big thing... that extension so useful that the browser gods themselves reach down to integrate it into their next version, but if there's a user base at all for it, they're not going to like being told they can't use it with the newest toys because the developer didn't think there was enough of a user base to continue his support. Yeah, it's his or her decision to not update, but the user isn't going to care... they're going to blame Firefox.
Then again, this whole theory only applies to the semi-casual users who know enough to find and love extensions and not to the people who don't know anything about extensions or will just be using the browser as is.
I just spent like 6 minutes typing up an (improperly formatted) but much longer version of exactly what you just said. Just goes to show that conciseness is a virtue.
And in the height of my seriousness, I forgot to properly format my response. I guess the linen-shysters win after all.
Unless my sarcasm detector blew up, I'd have to say you're being serious. If you are, then here's my serious response. If you're not then... um... this is sarcasm too? Actually, no, even if you are being sarcastic, this is still serious. Well, I find it funny, as will everyone who knows people that waste money in hopes of appearing high class. There are studies upon studies saying anything about 380 for a thread count is practically indistinguishable. I know Consumer Reports has run their tests on high thread count sheets before and come to the fact that most people will never know the difference between "high quality" Egyptian cotton and a set of 300 thread count Sears special. Besides, the sheer fact that you simply can't manufacture threads fine enough to achieve more than 500 (I don't have the official scientific sounding number but without the source, and without the inclination to look online for some back-up, I'll err on the high side) thread count can't be denied. For the larger thread counts you claim to be purchasing you're actually getting two-ply sheets. Unlike toilet paper, two ply sheets do nothing. The sheet isn't any finer, softer, silkier or better; it's simply twice as thick, thus doubling the number of actual threads you can claim. I'm doing a disservice by saying its two-ply though; it's kind of like having two-ply toilet paper with a little stitching through-out to keep it together. I'm not questioning your apparent income (or girlfriend's income, or credit line, whatever the case may be) but $2,000 is already at the point where you're spending the money just to say you're spending it with no actual benefit (and I'm including the imaginary benefits, like the kind you get from calling cow crap manure so it goes from waste product to valuable commodity) so if you were told these sheets were worth $6,000 and you were getting a good deal, then congratulations, you saved $4,000 that nobody who knew what they were buying would ever spend. And please, spare me the argument that your tastes are just so refined *you* will know the difference and thus I must not be as sophisticated as you cause trust me, that is not the case. I have no problem paying for quality; I just have a problem with people who don't know what quality is. Besides, I can't remember ever running across anyone trying to peddle anything more than "1200 thread count" so congratulations to whoever is purchasing these mysterious 1500 thread count sheets but you would have been better off (a) buying 400 thread count sheets and (b) knowing what you were buying. Oh well, I suppose its better that their money went to linen-shysters and not terrorists, drug lords or politicians.