View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
January 23, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
"Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:jfk7t3$2l8v$2@digitalmars.com...
> On 1/23/2012 3:51 AM, foobar wrote:
>> A few additional points:
>> # Microsoft allegedly does a lot of usability research and they came up 
>> with the
>> upcoming Metro design which relies on text instead of icons. # Regarding 
>> the
>> English language - Icons are supposed to be universal so it saves money 
>> for
>> companies to localize their software. Localized UIs do present a trade 
>> off in
>> usability: It depends which terminology is more common, the local or the 
>> foreign
>> (English). E.g. "print" is easy to translate and would be intuitive for 
>> non
>> techies but "bittorent" probably isn't.
>
> One huge issue with "universal" icons is that each company copyrights 
> theirs. So every user interface uses deliberately different icons.

IP is evil. That's what I love about China: Not much respect for IP. Thanks 
to China's disregard for such things, I have an adaptor that lets me use the 
fantastic DualShock2 on Xbox1, GC or PC. That would *never* happen in the US 
or any heavily-US-influenced country. The corporations and lawyers just 
wouldn't allow it.
January 23, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
"Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:jfk81o$2l8v$3@digitalmars.com...
> On 1/23/2012 3:59 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> Back to Thunderbird email. The icon for "Spell" is ABC over a check 
>>> mark.
>>> That is not smaller or more intuitive than "Spell".
>>
>> No, not initially, but once you do know it, it's much easier to identify 
>> at
>> a glance.
>
> I picked that deliberately because the "icon" is 3 *letters*!

It's an ironic example, yes, but a rare one as far as icons go.
January 23, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
On Monday, January 23, 2012 17:37:59 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> IP is evil. That's what I love about China: Not much respect for IP. Thanks
> to China's disregard for such things, I have an adaptor that lets me use the
> fantastic DualShock2 on Xbox1, GC or PC. That would *never* happen in the
> US or any heavily-US-influenced country. The corporations and lawyers just
> wouldn't allow it.

IP is not entirely evil. For instance, I think that it's perfectly legitimate 
for an author to want to be paid for the book that they wrote. The same goes 
for a song or a movie. And if I write code, and I don't release it under an 
open source license, then no one has any business using it without my 
permission as long as the copyright holds. The problem is that companies take 
it way too far. Too much is protected - the prime example of this being 
software patents (it's ludicrous to patent an idea IMHO) - and companies go 
too far in protecting it (e.g. MPAA or RIAA).

The end result is that instead of legitimately protecting innovation and 
inventions, IP is now frequently used to stifle innovation and prevent 
competition.

The basic concept isn't necessarily bad, but how it's been applied has gone 
way too far.

- Jonathan M Davis
January 23, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.754.1327359014.16222.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Monday, January 23, 2012 17:37:59 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> IP is evil. That's what I love about China: Not much respect for IP. 
>> Thanks
>> to China's disregard for such things, I have an adaptor that lets me use 
>> the
>> fantastic DualShock2 on Xbox1, GC or PC. That would *never* happen in the
>> US or any heavily-US-influenced country. The corporations and lawyers 
>> just
>> wouldn't allow it.
>
> IP is not entirely evil. For instance, I think that it's perfectly 
> legitimate
> for an author to want to be paid for the book that they wrote. The same 
> goes
> for a song or a movie. And if I write code, and I don't release it under 
> an
> open source license, then no one has any business using it without my
> permission as long as the copyright holds. The problem is that companies 
> take
> it way too far. Too much is protected - the prime example of this being
> software patents (it's ludicrous to patent an idea IMHO) - and companies 
> go
> too far in protecting it (e.g. MPAA or RIAA).
>
> The end result is that instead of legitimately protecting innovation and
> inventions, IP is now frequently used to stifle innovation and prevent
> competition.
>
> The basic concept isn't necessarily bad, but how it's been applied has 
> gone
> way too far.
>

Right. I guess I meant more "Modern IP" ;)
January 24, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
On 1/23/2012 2:49 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> The basic concept isn't necessarily bad, but how it's been applied has gone
> way too far.

My position is simple:

Copyrights expire after 20 years. Renewable for another 20 years for a fee of 
$1000/year per registered copyright.

No software patents.
January 24, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
"Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:jfkt32$rjc$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 1/23/2012 2:49 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> The basic concept isn't necessarily bad, but how it's been applied has 
>> gone
>> way too far.
>
> My position is simple:
>
> Copyrights expire after 20 years. Renewable for another 20 years for a fee 
> of $1000/year per registered copyright.
>
> No software patents.

Sensible enough. I'd add two things though:

- No using IP to prevent interoperability or user-modification (This would 
also cover things like abusing IP to require all DVD players to obey PUO's - 
Another thing I love about markets that have little regard for US IP law).

- Anyone in the USPTO found to be involved in the voilation of the USPTO's 
*own* "obviousness" rule (software or otherwise) is fired, fined and jailed.
January 24, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
On Monday, 23 January 2012 at 18:11:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/23/2012 3:51 AM, foobar wrote:
>> A few additional points:
>> # Microsoft allegedly does a lot of usability research and 
>> they came up with the
>> upcoming Metro design which relies on text instead of icons. # 
>> Regarding the
>> English language - Icons are supposed to be universal so it 
>> saves money for
>> companies to localize their software. Localized UIs do present 
>> a trade off in
>> usability: It depends which terminology is more common, the 
>> local or the foreign
>> (English). E.g. "print" is easy to translate and would be 
>> intuitive for non
>> techies but "bittorent" probably isn't.
>
> One huge issue with "universal" icons is that each company 
> copyrights theirs. So every user interface uses deliberately 
> different icons.

Oh, I totally agree with you. That's why I said "supposed to". :)
I had the same issue at my last work as Don, could never figure 
out the phone icons.
January 24, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
On Monday, 23 January 2012 at 22:50:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Monday, January 23, 2012 17:37:59 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> IP is evil. That's what I love about China: Not much respect 
>> for IP. Thanks
>> to China's disregard for such things, I have an adaptor that 
>> lets me use the
>> fantastic DualShock2 on Xbox1, GC or PC. That would *never* 
>> happen in the
>> US or any heavily-US-influenced country. The corporations and 
>> lawyers just
>> wouldn't allow it.
>
> IP is not entirely evil. For instance, I think that it's 
> perfectly legitimate for an author to want to be paid for the 
> book that they wrote. The same goes for a song or a movie. And 
> if I write code, and I don't release it under an open source 
> license, then no one has any business using it without my 
> permission as long as the copyright holds. The problem is that 
> companies take it way too far. Too much is protected - the 
> prime example of this being software patents (it's ludicrous to 
> patent an idea IMHO) - and companies go too far in protecting 
> it (e.g. MPAA or RIAA).
>
> The end result is that instead of legitimately protecting 
> innovation and inventions, IP is now frequently used to stifle 
> innovation and prevent competition.
>
> The basic concept isn't necessarily bad, but how it's been 
> applied has gone way too far.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

IP can't be evil, it's the basic protocol of the internet ;)
seriously though, the term IP is highly misleading and doesn't 
have a hold in (legal) reality. It's a collection of unrelated 
laws with separate agendas and purposes: copyright, patent, 
trademarks. Each individual law *supposed to* make sense, but at 
a whole they really don't. Yes, it is perfectly legitimate for an 
author/artist/musician/font creator/etc to want to be paid and 
they really should be. it is not hover at all legitimate that a 
book publisher/record company/etc be paid if that business model 
isn't justified anymore in the market place. Forcing those on the 
market when they aren't necessary is the true meaning of evil. I 
also disagree that it's the companies' fault. They simply want to 
make money. That their purpose. The government is the responsible 
party to set the rules for corporations and not vice versa and 
the US government is completely at fault for this huge mess. It's 
like children setting the rule for their parents.
January 24, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
"foobar" <foo@bar.com> wrote in message 
news:gaeafbliswzwkmitpghj@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
>
> IP can't be evil, it's the basic protocol of the internet ;)
> seriously though, the term IP is highly misleading and doesn't have a hold 
> in (legal) reality. It's a collection of unrelated laws with separate 
> agendas and purposes: copyright, patent, trademarks. Each individual law 
> *supposed to* make sense, but at a whole they really don't. Yes, it is 
> perfectly legitimate for an author/artist/musician/font creator/etc to 
> want to be paid and they really should be. it is not hover at all 
> legitimate that a book publisher/record company/etc be paid if that 
> business model isn't justified anymore in the market place. Forcing those 
> on the market when they aren't necessary is the true meaning of evil. I 
> also disagree that it's the companies' fault. They simply want to make 
> money. That their purpose. The government is the responsible party to set 
> the rules for corporations and not vice versa and the US government is 
> completely at fault for this huge mess. It's like children setting the 
> rule for their parents.

I'm not entirely convinced that the US gov isn't effectively a corporate 
puppet.
January 24, 2012
Re: [OT] "The Condescending UI" (was: Do we need Win95/98/Me support?)
On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 07:09:47 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
> "foobar" <foo@bar.com> wrote in message 
> news:gaeafbliswzwkmitpghj@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
>>
>> IP can't be evil, it's the basic protocol of the internet ;)
>> seriously though, the term IP is highly misleading and doesn't 
>> have a hold in (legal) reality. It's a collection of unrelated 
>> laws with separate agendas and purposes: copyright, patent, 
>> trademarks. Each individual law *supposed to* make sense, but 
>> at a whole they really don't. Yes, it is perfectly legitimate 
>> for an author/artist/musician/font creator/etc to want to be 
>> paid and they really should be. it is not hover at all 
>> legitimate that a book publisher/record company/etc be paid if 
>> that business model isn't justified anymore in the market 
>> place. Forcing those on the market when they aren't necessary 
>> is the true meaning of evil. I also disagree that it's the 
>> companies' fault. They simply want to make money. That their 
>> purpose. The government is the responsible party to set the 
>> rules for corporations and not vice versa and the US 
>> government is completely at fault for this huge mess. It's 
>> like children setting the rule for their parents.
>
> I'm not entirely convinced that the US gov isn't effectively a 
> corporate puppet.

If it is it just proves my point and stuff needs to be done to 
change the current circumstances. AFAIK the current situation is 
against the spirit if not the letter of the US constitution which 
forbids any group from oppressing another (in this case Corporate 
America vs. the little guy).

There is this phenomena in the US where some people feel that 
they have the right to be ignorant but they ought to realize that 
this isn't a core human right and it slowly degrades society in 
such a way that they lose all other rights and freedoms. People 
should educate themselves and be responsible for their votes and 
actually do vote. In my country (Israel) an elections with ~67% 
of people voting was the lowest percentage ever and usually it's 
closer to 80%. in the USA it's closer to 50%. That isn't even a 
majority of the population!

The current situation is directly connected to the ignorance and 
lack of caring by the people. After all, a democratic government 
comes from the people and represents the people. Clearly, the 
citizens of the USA didn't care enough.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home