> If they were certain to make more money by selling
> Photoshop for three bucks, why wouldn't they do it?

The post that started this sub-thread stated...

> Sure if Photoshop sold for $3 to ***EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO OWNS A PC***
(my emphasis)

Not everybody on the planet would want Photoshop, even if it was free.

> I need to somehow automagically figure out what device you are using,
> the screen sizes, interface capabilities, etc. and CUSTOMIZE
> my style sheets (one more nail in the fucktard coffin) just for your device.

Dear web-developer... PLEASE stop strying to customize for what you think my browser+device combo is. You are a pain in the ass. I use 3 different browsers at times, all on Linux...

1) Firefox under linux. When I go to live365.com internet radio, with the native user agent, part of the player selection menu is missing, and I can't play music, When I fake the user agent as Firefox on Windows, it works properly.

2) When I go to various sites with Opera, on my desktop, they seem to think it's "Opera Mobile", and I get the crappy mobile site. Mobile sites are such a bleeping joke that XKCD laughs at them... http://xkcd.com/1174/ http://xkcd.com/869/ I have to lie about the user agent to get the desktop version web page.

3) Ditto for uzbl, which is a webkit-based desktop browser. Some web sites see "webkit" and think it's a mobile browser.

Dear web developers... if I *WANTED* to go to "m.bad.example.com" I'd go there. If I ask for "bad.example.com", without the "m", please respect my wishes.

Hint for web developers... you can get away with one web site for mobile and desktop. Smartphones no longer have 240x160 pixel displays. Retina screens can have resolutions equivalant to regular desktops. And smartphones have this ability called pinch-and-zoom. A couple of rules to follow...
1) Allow resizing, so that pinch-and-zoom works.
2) Avoid Schlockwave Trash, and you'll be viewable vy iphone/ipad users

> " (data usage okay, but no cell usage)."

Guess what VOIP is? That's right, data.

We only catch the dumb ones, the low-hanging fruit. The smart criminals, by definition are smart enough not to get caught.

> Have we all forgotten how to use paper, pen, envelope and
> stamp? Just leave off your return address - and don't sign it!

And don't forget to buy envelopes and paper in plastic wrappers at the store and wear thin gloves while you
* unwrap the paper and envelopes
* write the letter
* stuff it into the envelope
* seal the envelope (using a damp cloth)
* put on the stamp (using a damp cloth)

And don't lick the envelope or the stamp, otherwise they could get your DNA from your saliva... sounds like an episode from CSI

> What they really ought to do is come out with service packs for the old
> OSs after their EOL dates, and charge subscription fees for patching.
> I'm on the record as being willing to pony up $30/yr. for XP patches
> rather than replace my old XP machine. A lot of people are in this,
> "take our money, please" situation; but MS won't go that way.

No need to to pay anything ReactOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReactOS is probably what you're looking for.

Should read "first proposed in 1975", It appears that the trailing "1" was a superscript link, but that was lost when the submitter cut-n-pasted the summary.

I don't have Java installed. I run linux, but Java is cross-platform, and I don't fall into the "it can't happen here" camp. Besides, I save a few hundred megabytes of disk space by not installing Java.

Flash is another issue altogether. I follow one forum that autoruns Flash movie ads on occasion. If you hovered over the ad, it would enable sound too.Firefox used to lock up for a few minutes. Running with system load = 3 or 4, on a 2-core machine is begging for thrashing/near-lockup.

I now use 2 browsers...
1) one browser has Flash disabled entirely
2) the other one I launch when I see a link to Youtube/whatever. When the video finishes, I close it. The taskbar has a mini-version of "top" running. Sometimes, after turning off the Flash browser, I'll watch the system load fall from 1.3 down to 0.3... satisfying.

1) Back in the day when it was universities-only, "what happened on Facebook, stayed on Facebook". So students were candid on Facebook, making it useful to analyze their personalities.

2) Then Facebook opened up to the public, and (potential) employers could view (potential) employees' posts durung their university days. So many students used their privacy settings to hide the bad stuff, and were able to remain candid on Facebook.

3) Then (potential) employers started demanding Facebook passwords. People started sanitizing their Facebook pages, either manually, or with apps like Facewash http://lifehacker.com/5978872/facewash-makes-sure-your-facebook-profile-is-clean-and-interview+ready ( now renamed http://www.simplewa.sh/ )

A lot of Facebook pages are now glorified Linked-In clones sanitized for employer viewing, because people are scared of being fire/rejected-for-employment.

> Also, the law comes down like a hammer compared to when I was a kid.
> Stole something? You got a mean talking to by a police officer and
> told "I don't want to see you again". Now you will end up in court. Get
> into a fight and break someones nose? Possibly sued and/or court. Today
> ISN'T the same for our children as it was for our generation. It is
> reasonable to posit that the same upbringing isn't as appropriate

How true. I'm retired. I grew up in the 60's. Kids would be out all day long during summer break. And we didn't have cell phones either. Parents were getting birth-control pills for their 12-year-old daughters. People who used condoms were laughed at. If you got an STD, no problem. A few shots at the local health clinic, and you'd be back in action in a couple of weeks. My parents were rather strict, so I didn't get in on the fun. I was envious of the kids that did.

Then shit happened
1) herpes
2) AIDS
3) easier availability of drugs
4) "Megan's Law" and its variants
5) asshole DA's trying to look "tough on crime" with "zero tolerance".

So parents were genuinely concerned about their kids getting herpes or AIDS, or becoming hooked on drugs. Add to that asshole DA's merely concerned with getting more "notches in their belts". It's now gotten to the point where...
* if age-of-consent in a state is 16
* a boy and girl just weeks away from their 16th birthday are caught having sex
* they're *BOTH* convicted of statutory rape (sex with an under-16) and they *BOTH* become "registered sex offenders" for the rest of their lives

> Today ISN'T the same for our children as it was for our generation
>. It is reasonable to posit that the same upbringing isn't as appropriate

What he said. The risks are much, much greater, and increased risk-avoidance is necessary.

Could Slashdot please refuse to post stories that link to paywalled sites? BTW, I put some of the text from the summary into Google, and the first non-paywalled link that popped up was http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/e-books-reading-the-minds-of-reader-to-learn-what-they-crave/articleshow/27903865.cms