To respect someone means you give them space to express themselves, no matter whether you agree with them. To disrespect someone is to deny them the freedom to express themselves.
Absolutely not. What you are describing is tolerance not respect.
Respect is an expression of admiration. Respect isn't neutral and has nothing to do with giving people space to express themselves.
Yes! How terrible that a project adopt a code of conduct where people are asked to be courteous and treat others with respect!
There is no more need to say this than there is to say:
Don't stick your fingers in electrical outlets Don't jump off cliffs Don't dive head first into a shallow puddle of water Don't jump in front of oncoming traffic
In fact the only purpose of codes of conducts are to codify behavior such that when you are perceived to have violated stated rules punitive action can be taken against you. It exists as a threat of censure not a request or suggestion.
Saying you are being "asked" is as disingenuous as government asking you not to break the law when in fact government is making a non-negotiable demand under threat of physical violence.
The problem with Internet self governance it tends to be comically poor and as a result easily leveraged for corrupt purpose.
Tolerance of assholes is better policy vs. codes of conduct and associated process / governance / political baggage that unnecessarily detracts from the mission.
Respecting people and agreeing with them are two different things.
Respect is a counterproductive misguided precept similar to pride, admiration and allegiance that in the end is at best worthless and at worst harmful.
People who demonstrate trustworthy behavior I am more likely to gamble on.
People who demonstrate they are untrustworthy... saying, expressing or believing "I respect you" when you are in fact not willing to roll the dice as they have proven themselves to not be worthy is disingenuous at best.
What people usually mean when they say "I respect you" especially blanket expressions of respect as you have made is more accurately stated as "I tolerate you".
The essence of diplomacy is to be able to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.
You can have nothing but hatred and contempt for your adversary and successfully engineer desired outcome. Respect is certainly not a prerequisite for diplomacy or anything else for that matter.
No one said they (we) didn't. But if that same aspie can learn a few heuristics on how to deliver things in a more sensitive way, then they will become a BETTER tester or programmer.
The purpose of employment is making your employer money. The assumption being a nice pleasant person is always or even usually the most effective means to that end is way overrated and in many cases total BS.
Sorry, that doesn't change the fact that being near the tower you get a much larger dose than you do from being near even a cluster of phones, so you're just wrong about that. There are zones where either is true, but being near to a tower = a larger dose than being near to a phone, period, and I don't expect you to understand basic shit or research the issue but I install RF equipment for a living and you don't know what you're talking about.
Every doubling of distance results in 4x reduction of energy density. Distance matters more than people tend to intuitively understand.
Assume a cell tower is 100ft AGL and you happen to be standing right under it.
100 watt transmitter with 10 dB gain @ 100 ft distance = 0.008 mW/cm^2 1000 watt transmitter with 10 dB gain @ 100 ft distance = 0.085 mW/cm^2 10000 watt transmitter with 10 dB gain @ 100 ft distance = 0.856 mW/cm^2
Assume you are 10 ft from a small cell tower/w 100 watt transmitter attached to a pole or roof of a building.
100 watt transmitter with 10 dB gain @ 10 ft distance = 0.856 mW/cm^2
Now lets compare with cell phone.
1 watt cell phone transmitter with 0 dB gain @ 1" distance = 12.340 mW/cm^2
1" distance does not actually occur in nature They are kept in pockets or pressed up to ears. The same setup at a half inch is 49.363 mW/cm^2
Obviously RL is much more complicated actual transmit power, duty cycles and exposure vary wildly. Thru it all distance is the dominating factor.
Of course Google is helping to oppress Chinese citizens. It's why people are leaving Google.
In China, all search engines censor, but Google does so less than Baidu. Google does only what they are legally required to do, but Baidu goes further.
Baidu censors less than Google. Google goes the extra mile.
I don't care, because anything else that Google could have done would have made no difference, or would have made things worse.
Ditto for Watson selling Jew death tabulators to Hitler, Goebbels and friends.
Corporations are required to obey the laws of the countries in which they do business. So Google's only alternative would have been to cutback services, and leave the market to competitors that would have been even more compliant.
Assertion it's OK because others would have filled the vacuum anyway is frankly absurd and disgusting.
You can justify anything no matter how egregious or outrageous including selling "showers" to Hitler by invoking this very same garbage.
American corporations are not going to "fix" China, and it is silly to expect them to try.
You literally just argued Google do just that by being "less compliant".
The salient point as far as I'm concerned is American corporations shouldn't contribute to "breaking" China.
- Skyrocketing prices for marginal incremental improvement - Devices costing $500-$1000 dollars lacking user replaceable batteries - Removal of widely used physical interfaces for self-enrichment / courage - Artificially low amounts of internal persistent storage completely out of whack with current technology coupled with refusal to provide SD expansion - Crummy battery life - Phones so thin they snap like graham crackers in your pockets - Lack of usability / physical buttons - eSIMs - Locked bootloaders, operating systems and carriers - Preloaded to the hilt with malware
UHD Blu-Ray is expected to be the last physical format developed
UHD discs are not a new physical format. UHD can be physically read with some minor software/firmware hacks to existing BD players.
Blu-Ray and UHD Blu-Ray sales are small compared to DVD sales.
Very true. Remember all the predictions about how DVDs would be killed off by BD. Never happened and I never expected it to.
People are not buying physical media - they're going for digital downloads and streaming services - it's generally more convenient for them (not having to search a big physical disc library) and is available everywhere (not having to move it around) as well as just not having to have the space for all those discs.
My contention is convenience and cost benefits are going downhill thanks to market fragmentation. Rate of content disappearing from Netflix catalogues is currently about double rate of disc sales decline. Current trajectory is simply unsustainable. When you have to subscribe to increasing numbers of streaming services to get what you want costs add up and thumbing thru multiple separate directories each with separate interfaces/devices/programs to find what you want is anything but convenient.
Videophiles are pretty much buying up the discs when they can so they can rip them onto media servers, but that's about all. Everyone's giving up physical for the convenience of digital streaming.
Obviously sales are declining and streaming services have certain advantages. It's also obvious "Everyone's giving up" is nonsense.
The growth of streaming services and stagnation of physical sales are proof.
Where have I heard this before? The growth of cell phones and stagnation of PC sales are proof everyone's giving up on PCs? Underlying logic is broke.
Quite likely within 5 years, discs would be like 3D movies today - you can see them, but they will be non-existent unless you import them from other countries.
Very much doubt it. My prediction is greed and disorganization will win the day causing old shit to persist as a result.
Digital purchases do not imply that you own the content. Digital purchases are a contract that you can have access to said content for as long as the distributing company has the right to distribute it.
Companies can hide behind legal masturbation all they want. It does nothing to insulate them from real world consequences.
The moment something I paid for just vanishes for no reason and you try and invoke fine print bullshit to justify it you've lost me as a customer forever.
How much longer are physical media formats going to be developed?
For as long as people are willing to buy discs. I suspect we may soon see a resurgence in sales as streaming wars insanity picks up stream. Oh f**k I'm not going to pay x a month for that other service just for y.. I'll just get it on disc.
It seems to me that the biggest hindrance to digital subscription and services is bandwidth.
You can always trade off time for bandwidth. If you want to watch x then plan ahead. It will be x more minutes before you can begin to watch it. Might not be ideal but it is acceptable.
With Google's push into the ISP arena upping the available bandwidth, not quite nationally, the times of distributed physical media may be nearing an end.
Google is a single mid-sized ISP. Their "influence" to be generous is the equivalent of a pinprick.
I think you missed my point. *I* don't think either device is stalking me. The point is that most people also don't think their phone is stalking them, even though it's an order of magnitude more likely for it to be doing some illegal monitoring of your activities than the wifi-only static microphone in one of your rooms. Yet, this microphone is a feared privacy intrusion device (at least on Slashdot), while the one in your pocket that also listens to "ok, google", "hey, siri", "bixby", or even combinations of those, is ok.
So, the question is -- why is that? It's not a question of let's compare which is worse, but why is it that this particular device incites so much anger around here, while others that do the same do not.
The answer may be that you are seeing what you want to see. I don't believe for a second smartphones are getting a pass. I don't think people are OK with Google and app store malware vendor antics and associated vulnerabilities. NSA bulk collection (e.g. Snowden saga), phone companies monetizing data, routing (SS7..etc) vulnerabilities. Articles about apps GPS tracking, swype keyboard spying, flashlight apps that stalk you in the dark. AT&T coziness with NSA/corruption...There are a large numbers of cellphone and associated privacy related topics routinely discussed here. To say nobody cares or smartphones get a pass is in my estimation ridiculous.
Another major differentiating factor I believe is cost/benefit. Smart speakers are pointless and don't do anything you couldn't easily achieve by other means. Cellular phones provide a capability on the go not easily replaced. While you can take steps to maintain privacy from Google and other app based stalking by modifying your device or loading alternate OS images there is no hiding from cell companies who have to be able to triangulate your approximate location in order for the service to work at all.
Lots of people are speaking up about Google... talking about alternatives such as LineageOS and replacements for Google play services. The issue is THEY ARE NOT DOING IT HERE. because you know what... this is about "SMART" speakers not "SMART" phones.
The "what about this or what about that" is tired. An article critical of Microsoft all of the Microsoft fans come out of the woodwork "WHAT ABOUT APPLE???" or "WHAT ABOUT GOOGLE???" THEY DO IT TOO!!! WHY U NOT MAD @ THEM?
Of course when an article about Apple comes out Apple fans come out of the woodwork... "WHAT ABOUT MICROSOFT???" THEY DO IT TOO!!!
It's all bullshit. People trying these arguments are generally predisposed to like what is being attacked get defensive about it and invoke ridiculous fallacy "x does it too"... as if that somehow means something or in any way justifies the underlying behavior.
How is this different from the hardwired telephone we had in the kitchen when I was a kid?
My guess would be wiretapping a telephone is a felony. It's illegal to wiretap without legal cause.
And how is it different from all of the smartphones lying around the house now?
Smartphones are loaded with malware (Google play services and apps downloaded from Google play store) that stalk you with reckless abandon without any fear of political or criminal liability.
I suppose the microphone on the smart speaker is higher-quality...
Yea that... jokes... and ridiculous logic.. that thing over there is just as bad so it doesn't matter if we commit the same transgression.
Exactly! I don't get how this supposedly "always listening and spying on me" device is going to get more out of me than the phone that knows almost everything I do and write, all day every day.
What does the most egregious stalking device get? A special prize? What difference (Senator) does it make who does it best?
I don't tell Alexa before I go to a store where I'm going and what I'm going to get
That's right. You tell other people and Alexa records it.
All the phones these days are listening all the time, as well. And they follow you around.
I really don't see what the problem with a smart speaker is. And it looks like most people agree.
Oh so no big deal then. Most people agree if they get one black eye they have no problem getting a second one.
If you have a smart phone, and you think Alexa is a bigger threat to your privacy, then you are delusional.
The effect is additive. The most egregious offender doesn't win and everyone else walk away empty handed. Everyone wins at your expense.
Imagine an angry flash mob of all remaining Facebook users lobbing bricks at crystal palace. Each brick thrown causes additional damage. It's never the case that the most damaging brick wins and all other damage is magically erased from history.
If you throw a brick at crystal palace because everyone else is doing it your legal liability, karma, chance of going to hell is the same as if nobody else had done it.
Crystal palace never thinks to itself... you know that one dude over there has an awfully big brick and really good aim... I'll just ignore these weaklings throwing bricks because I don't want to be labeled delusional.
My assumption is that doing what google has suggested will improve the mobile web page, but you seem to think that it is perfect the way it is and needs no change.
The above assumes things that were never stated. There is no information provided in TFA with which to evaluate any web page. I certainly never stated a positive or negative opinion about his sites.
Obviously it is impossible for either of us to know the truth. And we might disagree on this even if we knew what site it is referring to.
Yet you were able to state the author is lazy, angry and has a shitty site without evidence.
It seems to me that the things google suggest would improve the mobile experience. That is what I'm talking about.
No, the messages are AMP specific and do not necessarily have anything to do with "mobile experience" which can exist independent of AMP.
It is not clear what effect it will have on page rank. The suggestion itself says "This issue will not affect your appearance on search".
Page rank issue raised in TFA has to do with perceived rank disparity of a website that uses AMP vs. a similar website that does not use AMP.
Rank issues expressed in TFA are unrelated to the screenshots from Google portal. Nobody has made the claim these messages are causing or not causing rank issues.
His argument is that there is more work to also fix it for mobile.
You seem to be confusing outcomes with modalities.
Nowhere in TFA is author indicating refusal to support mobile. There is no indication given whether his mobile site needs or does not need to be "fixed for mobile". The argument is entirely AMP vs NOT AMP.
That means he is choosing to create an inferior version because he doesn't want to do the work. That means he is a lazy developer. That means he is a lazy developer. Which by the way does not mean he is a lazy person A lazy developer is someone who takes the easy way out instead of doing the right thing.. You can do that while still working your ass off.
If the definition of lazy is "someone who takes the easy way out instead of doing the right thing" What is the right thing in this case? Using Google AMP?
To quote TFA: "AMP is being kept alive artificially. AMP survives not because of its merits as a project, but because Google forces websites to either adopt AMP or forego large amounts of potential traffic."
The objective function from the authors perspective when he says "Google forces websites to either adopt" appears to be page rank and the prospect of ranking algorithms favoring Google created technology over actual organic merit as he sees it.
This has nothing to do with mobile usability or otherwise providing an inferior product.
That means he is choosing to create an inferior version because he doesn't want to do the work.
From what I read of TFA sounds to me more like the price the mob is asking him to pay is too high. "Google forces websites to either adopt AMP or forego large amounts of potential traffic".
There also seem to be moral objections raised: "Google has built their entire empire on the backs of other peopleâ(TM)s effort. People use Google to find content on the web. Google is just a doorman, not the destination. Yet the search engine has epic delusions of grandeur and has started to believe they are the destination, that they are the gatekeepers of the web, that they should dictate how the web evolves."
I didn't say angry, but I stand by lazy and shitty websites.
Annoyed is a subset of anger.
The evidence are the screenshots he posted about his sites issues according to Google.
Totality of screenshots provide the following data:
"Reported page navigation issue on your AMP pages Reported missing non-critical content issue on your AMP pages Reported social media issue on your AMP pages Reported media issue on your AMP pages
An evaluation of your site has revealed issues with some of your AMP pages. This issue will not affect your appearance on search, but with just a few changes, you could improve the user experience on these pages. You can see a list of affected pages at the end of this message."
From screenshots alone there is NO useful data presented with which to make any kind of informed determination. The messages are too vague and no contextual data is present. The author actually goes on to explain further the root causes as simply a lack of equivalence to non-AMP version of site.
Therefore your conclusion his websites suck is based entirely on the fact AMP version != Non-AMP version. Your assumption his website sucks is completely without merit.
And the whole article is there because it creates more work for him, and he does not want to do it
Is the assertion here is if something creates more work and you partially cite this as a reason for not wanting to do it this fact makes you a lazy person?
If so I don't see how such a construction is even falsifiable. There seems to be no useful test whereby someone could not be accused of being a lazy person even if everyone agreed workload vs. benefit was unreasonable.
So by acknowledging it has issues but pointing out that parts of it is actually good for end users, that makes me a shill?
Do you think I'm being unfair to you? That was the point.
It was a demonstration of the problem with mudslinging:
"this sounds a bit like the guy in one of the linked articles is annoyed that Google wants him to stop making shitty websites and he doesn't like it at all because it creates more work for him".
You without citing evidence assert the person is lazy, angry and that he makes "shitty websites" in an attempt to marginalize and discredit him. I simply pulled the same stunt and directed it at yourself.
A vendor sells a fundamentally flawed unsafe product. Then refuses to take responsibility for at the very least fixing security problems at their own cost publically known to endanger users.
I don't understand how they get away with this or why they are even allowed to.
In other industries vendors would be successfully sued to oblivion for such refusals.
I get that there are some legitimate issues with AMP, but this sounds a bit like the guy in one of the linked articles is annoyed that Google wants him to stop making shitty websites and he doesn't like it at all because it creates more work for him.
This sounds a bit like a paid Google shill who is annoyed others would dare challenge Google's defacto Monopoly search position and associated bid to take over the Web.
The above statement is a mirror. Don't blame me if you don't like the reflection.
This. Using www as a default in practice is completely different than obscuring subdomains, which are critically important in accessing correct information.
And what behaviour is that exactly? Clarifying and re-classifying as we learn more?
This was explained specifically in the immediately following paragraph. You cited it in your response:
"Domain experts are free to develop whatever specific terms they want to refer to whatever they damn well please AMONGST THEMSELVES. They are not free to take ownership of popular language used by everyone and modify popular language by decree. Certainly not by vote on the last day of an IAU meeting when many had already left involving less than a 4% of astronomers/w zero feedback, input or outreach to the general public. Bullshit to that."
Got it, I assume you also don't believe the skin is an organ because we didn't consider it to be one in the past?
Not at all analogous.
The issue in the case of Pluto has nothing to do with discovering something new about the properties of something that leads it to be classified in a new way based on new information.
The issue here is modifying the DEFINITION of existing popular language. A completely separate concept with no overlap.
Imagine a crack team of biologist get together and vote to declare brains smaller than a certain size to be "dwarf brains". Now snails and goldfish don't have "brains". They have "dwarf brains". This is how pointless and stupid this Pluto nonsense is. Normal people would create useful classifications of "brains" based on their differentiating qualities. Crackpots seeking attention invoke "dwarf brains" bastardization and assert that snails no longer have brains to make the evening news.
Again if astronomers want to get together and create NEW scientific classifications of bodies based on the latest information that's great god bless them. Such activity does NOT require them to alter the meaning of existing popular language. They could have easily avoided controversy by not using language so poorly (dwarf qualifier implies subset of class planet) yet they opted for 15 minutes of fame by invoking dwarf bullshit in a last minute vote when many stakeholders had already left. I refuse to recognize the new definition because the process in my view is both illegitimate and completely unnecessary.
We don't consider medical definitions in the context of the four humours, heck late 19th century astronomers thought space was filled with luminiferous aether so why are their opinions on the definition of planets suddenly considered insightful.
Labels for many body parts and symptoms originally named by Greeks hundreds of years B.C. are still widely used.
What isn't EVER relevant is constructing arguments based on some whacked blanket appeal to age and prejudice rather than actual merit.
My personal view the IAU's behavior is simply illegitimate and I refuse to recognize it.
Domain experts are free to develop whatever specific terms they want to refer to whatever they damn well please AMONGST THEMSELVES. They are not free to take ownership of popular language used by everyone and modify popular language by decree. Certainly not by vote on the last day of an IAU meeting when many had already left involving less than a 4% of astronomers/w zero feedback, input or outreach to the general public. Bullshit to that.
Slashdot Mirror
To respect someone means you give them space to express themselves, no matter whether you agree with them. To disrespect someone is to deny them the freedom to express themselves.
Absolutely not. What you are describing is tolerance not respect.
Respect is an expression of admiration. Respect isn't neutral and has nothing to do with giving people space to express themselves.
Yes! How terrible that a project adopt a code of conduct where people are asked to be courteous and treat others with respect!
There is no more need to say this than there is to say:
Don't stick your fingers in electrical outlets
Don't jump off cliffs
Don't dive head first into a shallow puddle of water
Don't jump in front of oncoming traffic
In fact the only purpose of codes of conducts are to codify behavior such that when you are perceived to have violated stated rules punitive action can be taken against you. It exists as a threat of censure not a request or suggestion.
Saying you are being "asked" is as disingenuous as government asking you not to break the law when in fact government is making a non-negotiable demand under threat of physical violence.
The problem with Internet self governance it tends to be comically poor and as a result easily leveraged for corrupt purpose.
Tolerance of assholes is better policy vs. codes of conduct and associated process / governance / political baggage that unnecessarily detracts from the mission.
Pop quiz: who deserves respect?
Absolutely nobody, myself especially.
Respecting people and agreeing with them are two different things.
Respect is a counterproductive misguided precept similar to pride, admiration and allegiance that in the end is at best worthless and at worst harmful.
People who demonstrate trustworthy behavior I am more likely to gamble on.
People who demonstrate they are untrustworthy... saying, expressing or believing "I respect you" when you are in fact not willing to roll the dice as they have proven themselves to not be worthy is disingenuous at best.
What people usually mean when they say "I respect you" especially blanket expressions of respect as you have made is more accurately stated as "I tolerate you".
The essence of diplomacy is to be able to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.
You can have nothing but hatred and contempt for your adversary and successfully engineer desired outcome. Respect is certainly not a prerequisite for diplomacy or anything else for that matter.
No one said they (we) didn't. But if that same aspie can learn a few heuristics on how to deliver things in a more sensitive way, then they will become a BETTER tester or programmer.
The purpose of employment is making your employer money. The assumption being a nice pleasant person is always or even usually the most effective means to that end is way overrated and in many cases total BS.
Sorry, that doesn't change the fact that being near the tower you get a much larger dose than you do from being near even a cluster of phones, so you're just wrong about that. There are zones where either is true, but being near to a tower = a larger dose than being near to a phone, period, and I don't expect you to understand basic shit or research the issue but I install RF equipment for a living and you don't know what you're talking about.
Every doubling of distance results in 4x reduction of energy density. Distance matters more than people tend to intuitively understand.
Assume a cell tower is 100ft AGL and you happen to be standing right under it.
100 watt transmitter with 10 dB gain @ 100 ft distance = 0.008 mW/cm^2
1000 watt transmitter with 10 dB gain @ 100 ft distance = 0.085 mW/cm^2
10000 watt transmitter with 10 dB gain @ 100 ft distance = 0.856 mW/cm^2
Assume you are 10 ft from a small cell tower /w 100 watt transmitter attached to a pole or roof of a building.
100 watt transmitter with 10 dB gain @ 10 ft distance = 0.856 mW/cm^2
Now lets compare with cell phone.
1 watt cell phone transmitter with 0 dB gain @ 1" distance = 12.340 mW/cm^2
1" distance does not actually occur in nature They are kept in pockets or pressed up to ears. The same setup at a half inch is 49.363 mW/cm^2
Obviously RL is much more complicated actual transmit power, duty cycles and exposure vary wildly. Thru it all distance is the dominating factor.
More companies making cyanide would have made the situation worse.
More companies delivering search results makes the situation better.
That is a stupid analogy. It is completely backwards:
I completely agree with you. More companies censoring makes the situation worse not better.
They are not "helping".
Of course Google is helping to oppress Chinese citizens. It's why people are leaving Google.
In China, all search engines censor, but Google does so less than Baidu. Google does only what they are legally required to do, but Baidu goes further.
Baidu censors less than Google. Google goes the extra mile.
I don't care, because anything else that Google could have done would have made no difference, or would have made things worse.
Ditto for Watson selling Jew death tabulators to Hitler, Goebbels and friends.
Corporations are required to obey the laws of the countries in which they do business. So Google's only alternative would have been to cutback services, and leave the market to competitors that would have been even more compliant.
Assertion it's OK because others would have filled the vacuum anyway is frankly absurd and disgusting.
You can justify anything no matter how egregious or outrageous including selling "showers" to Hitler by invoking this very same garbage.
American corporations are not going to "fix" China, and it is silly to expect them to try.
You literally just argued Google do just that by being "less compliant".
The salient point as far as I'm concerned is American corporations shouldn't contribute to "breaking" China.
List of impressive smartphone innovations:
- Skyrocketing prices for marginal incremental improvement
- Devices costing $500-$1000 dollars lacking user replaceable batteries
- Removal of widely used physical interfaces for self-enrichment / courage
- Artificially low amounts of internal persistent storage completely out of whack with current technology coupled with refusal to provide SD expansion
- Crummy battery life
- Phones so thin they snap like graham crackers in your pockets
- Lack of usability / physical buttons
- eSIMs
- Locked bootloaders, operating systems and carriers
- Preloaded to the hilt with malware
Keep up the good work.
Physical media sales are dropping, fast.
Certainly true.
UHD Blu-Ray is expected to be the last physical format developed
UHD discs are not a new physical format. UHD can be physically read with some minor software/firmware hacks to existing BD players.
Blu-Ray and UHD Blu-Ray sales are small compared to DVD sales.
Very true. Remember all the predictions about how DVDs would be killed off by BD. Never happened and I never expected it to.
People are not buying physical media - they're going for digital downloads and streaming services - it's generally more convenient for them (not having to search a big physical disc library) and is available everywhere (not having to move it around) as well as just not having to have the space for all those discs.
My contention is convenience and cost benefits are going downhill thanks to market fragmentation. Rate of content disappearing from Netflix catalogues is currently about double rate of disc sales decline. Current trajectory is simply unsustainable. When you have to subscribe to increasing numbers of streaming services to get what you want costs add up and thumbing thru multiple separate directories each with separate interfaces/devices/programs to find what you want is anything but convenient.
Videophiles are pretty much buying up the discs when they can so they can rip them onto media servers, but that's about all. Everyone's giving up physical for the convenience of digital streaming.
Obviously sales are declining and streaming services have certain advantages. It's also obvious "Everyone's giving up" is nonsense.
The growth of streaming services and stagnation of physical sales are proof.
Where have I heard this before? The growth of cell phones and stagnation of PC sales are proof everyone's giving up on PCs? Underlying logic is broke.
Quite likely within 5 years, discs would be like 3D movies today - you can see them, but they will be non-existent unless you import them from other countries.
Very much doubt it. My prediction is greed and disorganization will win the day causing old shit to persist as a result.
Digital purchases do not imply that you own the content. Digital purchases are a contract that you can have access to said content for as long as the distributing company has the right to distribute it.
Companies can hide behind legal masturbation all they want. It does nothing to insulate them from real world consequences.
The moment something I paid for just vanishes for no reason and you try and invoke fine print bullshit to justify it you've lost me as a customer forever.
How much longer are physical media formats going to be developed?
For as long as people are willing to buy discs. I suspect we may soon see a resurgence in sales as streaming wars insanity picks up stream. Oh f**k I'm not going to pay x a month for that other service just for y.. I'll just get it on disc.
It seems to me that the biggest hindrance to digital subscription and services is bandwidth.
You can always trade off time for bandwidth. If you want to watch x then plan ahead. It will be x more minutes before you can begin to watch it. Might not be ideal but it is acceptable.
With Google's push into the ISP arena upping the available bandwidth, not quite nationally, the times of distributed physical media may be nearing an end.
Google is a single mid-sized ISP. Their "influence" to be generous is the equivalent of a pinprick.
I think you missed my point. *I* don't think either device is stalking me. The point is that most people also don't think their phone is stalking them, even though it's an order of magnitude more likely for it to be doing some illegal monitoring of your activities than the wifi-only static microphone in one of your rooms. Yet, this microphone is a feared privacy intrusion device (at least on Slashdot), while the one in your pocket that also listens to "ok, google", "hey, siri", "bixby", or even combinations of those, is ok.
So, the question is -- why is that? It's not a question of let's compare which is worse, but why is it that this particular device incites so much anger around here, while others that do the same do not.
The answer may be that you are seeing what you want to see. I don't believe for a second smartphones are getting a pass. I don't think people are OK with Google and app store malware vendor antics and associated vulnerabilities. NSA bulk collection (e.g. Snowden saga), phone companies monetizing data, routing (SS7..etc) vulnerabilities. Articles about apps GPS tracking, swype keyboard spying, flashlight apps that stalk you in the dark. AT&T coziness with NSA/corruption ...There are a large numbers of cellphone and associated privacy related topics routinely discussed here. To say nobody cares or smartphones get a pass is in my estimation ridiculous.
Another major differentiating factor I believe is cost/benefit. Smart speakers are pointless and don't do anything you couldn't easily achieve by other means. Cellular phones provide a capability on the go not easily replaced. While you can take steps to maintain privacy from Google and other app based stalking by modifying your device or loading alternate OS images there is no hiding from cell companies who have to be able to triangulate your approximate location in order for the service to work at all.
Lots of people are speaking up about Google... talking about alternatives such as LineageOS and replacements for Google play services. The issue is THEY ARE NOT DOING IT HERE. because you know what... this is about "SMART" speakers not "SMART" phones.
The "what about this or what about that" is tired. An article critical of Microsoft all of the Microsoft fans come out of the woodwork "WHAT ABOUT APPLE???" or "WHAT ABOUT GOOGLE???" THEY DO IT TOO!!! WHY U NOT MAD @ THEM?
Of course when an article about Apple comes out Apple fans come out of the woodwork... "WHAT ABOUT MICROSOFT???" THEY DO IT TOO!!!
It's all bullshit. People trying these arguments are generally predisposed to like what is being attacked get defensive about it and invoke ridiculous fallacy "x does it too"... as if that somehow means something or in any way justifies the underlying behavior.
How is this different from the hardwired telephone we had in the kitchen when I was a kid?
My guess would be wiretapping a telephone is a felony. It's illegal to wiretap without legal cause.
And how is it different from all of the smartphones lying around the house now?
Smartphones are loaded with malware (Google play services and apps downloaded from Google play store) that stalk you with reckless abandon without any fear of political or criminal liability.
I suppose the microphone on the smart speaker is higher-quality...
Yea that... jokes... and ridiculous logic.. that thing over there is just as bad so it doesn't matter if we commit the same transgression.
Exactly! I don't get how this supposedly "always listening and spying on me" device is going to get more out of me than the phone that knows almost everything I do and write, all day every day.
What does the most egregious stalking device get? A special prize? What difference (Senator) does it make who does it best?
I don't tell Alexa before I go to a store where I'm going and what I'm going to get
That's right. You tell other people and Alexa records it.
All the phones these days are listening all the time, as well. And they follow you around.
I really don't see what the problem with a smart speaker is. And it looks like most people agree.
Oh so no big deal then. Most people agree if they get one black eye they have no problem getting a second one.
If you have a smart phone, and you think Alexa is a bigger threat to your privacy, then you are delusional.
The effect is additive. The most egregious offender doesn't win and everyone else walk away empty handed. Everyone wins at your expense.
Imagine an angry flash mob of all remaining Facebook users lobbing bricks at crystal palace. Each brick thrown causes additional damage. It's never the case that the most damaging brick wins and all other damage is magically erased from history.
If you throw a brick at crystal palace because everyone else is doing it your legal liability, karma, chance of going to hell is the same as if nobody else had done it.
Crystal palace never thinks to itself... you know that one dude over there has an awfully big brick and really good aim... I'll just ignore these weaklings throwing bricks because I don't want to be labeled delusional.
My assumption is that doing what google has suggested will improve the mobile web page, but you seem to think that it is perfect the way it is and needs no change.
The above assumes things that were never stated. There is no information provided in TFA with which to evaluate any web page. I certainly never stated a positive or negative opinion about his sites.
Obviously it is impossible for either of us to know the truth. And we might disagree on this even if we knew what site it is referring to.
Yet you were able to state the author is lazy, angry and has a shitty site without evidence.
It seems to me that the things google suggest would improve the mobile experience. That is what I'm talking about.
No, the messages are AMP specific and do not necessarily have anything to do with "mobile experience" which can exist independent of AMP.
It is not clear what effect it will have on page rank. The suggestion itself says "This issue will not affect your appearance on search".
Page rank issue raised in TFA has to do with perceived rank disparity of a website that uses AMP vs. a similar website that does not use AMP.
Rank issues expressed in TFA are unrelated to the screenshots from Google portal. Nobody has made the claim these messages are causing or not causing rank issues.
His argument is that there is more work to also fix it for mobile.
You seem to be confusing outcomes with modalities.
Nowhere in TFA is author indicating refusal to support mobile. There is no indication given whether his mobile site needs or does not need to be "fixed for mobile". The argument is entirely AMP vs NOT AMP.
That means he is choosing to create an inferior version because he doesn't want to do the work. That means he is a lazy developer. That means he is a lazy developer. Which by the way does not mean he is a lazy person
A lazy developer is someone who takes the easy way out instead of doing the right thing.. You can do that while still working your ass off.
If the definition of lazy is "someone who takes the easy way out instead of doing the right thing" What is the right thing in this case? Using Google AMP?
To quote TFA:
"AMP is being kept alive artificially. AMP survives not because of its merits as a project, but because Google forces websites to either adopt AMP or forego large amounts of potential traffic."
The objective function from the authors perspective when he says "Google forces websites to either adopt" appears to be page rank and the prospect of ranking algorithms favoring Google created technology over actual organic merit as he sees it.
This has nothing to do with mobile usability or otherwise providing an inferior product.
That means he is choosing to create an inferior version because he doesn't want to do the work.
From what I read of TFA sounds to me more like the price the mob is asking him to pay is too high. "Google forces websites to either adopt AMP or forego large amounts of potential traffic".
There also seem to be moral objections raised:
"Google has built their entire empire on the backs of other peopleâ(TM)s effort. People use Google to find content on the web. Google is just a doorman, not the destination. Yet the search engine has epic delusions of grandeur and has started to believe they are the destination, that they are the gatekeepers of the web, that they should dictate how the web evolves."
I didn't say angry, but I stand by lazy and shitty websites.
Annoyed is a subset of anger.
The evidence are the screenshots he posted about his sites issues according to Google.
Totality of screenshots provide the following data:
"Reported page navigation issue on your AMP pages
Reported missing non-critical content issue on your AMP pages
Reported social media issue on your AMP pages
Reported media issue on your AMP pages
An evaluation of your site has revealed issues with some of your AMP pages. This issue will not affect your appearance on search, but with just a few changes, you could improve the user experience on these pages. You can see a list of affected pages at the end of this message."
From screenshots alone there is NO useful data presented with which to make any kind of informed determination. The messages are too vague and no contextual data is present. The author actually goes on to explain further the root causes as simply a lack of equivalence to non-AMP version of site.
Therefore your conclusion his websites suck is based entirely on the fact AMP version != Non-AMP version. Your assumption his website sucks is completely without merit.
And the whole article is there because it creates more work for him, and he does not want to do it
Is the assertion here is if something creates more work and you partially cite this as a reason for not wanting to do it this fact makes you a lazy person?
If so I don't see how such a construction is even falsifiable. There seems to be no useful test whereby someone could not be accused of being a lazy person even if everyone agreed workload vs. benefit was unreasonable.
Do you even have evidence of that being the case?
So by acknowledging it has issues but pointing out that parts of it is actually good for end users, that makes me a shill?
Do you think I'm being unfair to you? That was the point.
It was a demonstration of the problem with mudslinging:
"this sounds a bit like the guy in one of the linked articles is annoyed that Google wants him to stop making shitty websites and he doesn't like it at all because it creates more work for him".
You without citing evidence assert the person is lazy, angry and that he makes "shitty websites" in an attempt to marginalize and discredit him. I simply pulled the same stunt and directed it at yourself.
Don't like it? Don't do it.
A vendor sells a fundamentally flawed unsafe product. Then refuses to take responsibility for at the very least fixing security problems at their own cost publically known to endanger users.
I don't understand how they get away with this or why they are even allowed to.
In other industries vendors would be successfully sued to oblivion for such refusals.
I get that there are some legitimate issues with AMP, but this sounds a bit like the guy in one of the linked articles is annoyed that Google wants him to stop making shitty websites and he doesn't like it at all because it creates more work for him.
This sounds a bit like a paid Google shill who is annoyed others would dare challenge Google's defacto Monopoly search position and associated bid to take over the Web.
The above statement is a mirror. Don't blame me if you don't like the reflection.
This. Using www as a default in practice is completely different than obscuring subdomains, which are critically important in accessing correct information.
How do you know www isn't a subdomain?
And what behaviour is that exactly? Clarifying and re-classifying as we learn more?
This was explained specifically in the immediately following paragraph. You cited it in your response:
"Domain experts are free to develop whatever specific terms they want to refer to whatever they damn well please AMONGST THEMSELVES. They are not free to take ownership of popular language used by everyone and modify popular language by decree. Certainly not by vote on the last day of an IAU meeting when many had already left involving less than a 4% of astronomers /w zero feedback, input or outreach to the general public. Bullshit to that."
Got it, I assume you also don't believe the skin is an organ because we didn't consider it to be one in the past?
Not at all analogous.
The issue in the case of Pluto has nothing to do with discovering something new about the properties of something that leads it to be classified in a new way based on new information.
The issue here is modifying the DEFINITION of existing popular language. A completely separate concept with no overlap.
Imagine a crack team of biologist get together and vote to declare brains smaller than a certain size to be "dwarf brains". Now snails and goldfish don't have "brains". They have "dwarf brains". This is how pointless and stupid this Pluto nonsense is. Normal people would create useful classifications of "brains" based on their differentiating qualities. Crackpots seeking attention invoke "dwarf brains" bastardization and assert that snails no longer have brains to make the evening news.
Again if astronomers want to get together and create NEW scientific classifications of bodies based on the latest information that's great god bless them. Such activity does NOT require them to alter the meaning of existing popular language. They could have easily avoided controversy by not using language so poorly (dwarf qualifier implies subset of class planet) yet they opted for 15 minutes of fame by invoking dwarf bullshit in a last minute vote when many stakeholders had already left. I refuse to recognize the new definition because the process in my view is both illegitimate and completely unnecessary.
We don't consider medical definitions in the context of the four humours, heck late 19th century astronomers thought space was filled with luminiferous aether so why are their opinions on the definition of planets suddenly considered insightful.
Labels for many body parts and symptoms originally named by Greeks hundreds of years B.C. are still widely used.
What isn't EVER relevant is constructing arguments based on some whacked blanket appeal to age and prejudice rather than actual merit.
My personal view the IAU's behavior is simply illegitimate and I refuse to recognize it.
Domain experts are free to develop whatever specific terms they want to refer to whatever they damn well please AMONGST THEMSELVES. They are not free to take ownership of popular language used by everyone and modify popular language by decree. Certainly not by vote on the last day of an IAU meeting when many had already left involving less than a 4% of astronomers /w zero feedback, input or outreach to the general public. Bullshit to that.