In article <t26nju$774$1@dont-email.me>, ...w¡ñ§±?ñ
<winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Apps thus are not application software just limited feature alternative
> >> with a limited number of functions.
> >
> > that is incorrect. the term app is simply shorthand for application.
> > the number of features is not a factor.
> >
> Not entirely.

yes entirely.

feature-rich apps such as photoshop, excel, autocad, etc.. are apps,
just as are simple ones, such as a package tracker, stock ticker or
solitaire.

> No matter how one defines it today, the overlap occurs.
> JP introduced the term in this thread.
> - 'it's short for an application but actually means a program"

program is an older term, which is not used as much anymore, although
there are those who are resistant to change and continue to use it.

language evolves, as does the industry.

> Most folks opinions associate all programs as apps.
> All apps and applications are programs

that is correct.

> All programs are not apps.

yes they are. as i said, program is nothing more than an older term
that's not used as much anymore.

> I only stated how I look at apps vs applications.

it may be how you look at it, but that's not how the rest of the world
does.

> Also providing clear examples where an app is less feature rich than its
> corresponding application.

an app does not have a 'corresponding application'. that doesn't even
make any sense.

an app can also be as feature rich as the app developer wants it to be.

> Both programs but uniquely feature different.

that is absolutely false.

> Based on a good percentage of this group's prior input<g>, one might
> never refer to Windows 10/11 included mail client as an application,
> only a feature-less app. A program? Yes. An application like Outlook or
> Tbird, Forte, etc. - not even close.

it's an app no matter what its feature mix might be is or what anyone
thinks of it. just because an one app doesn't have the same features as
another doesn't mean it's not an app.

> Another example - which pretty much started the whole app vs application
> discussion and digression well before the rest of the industry jumped on
> the same bandwagon
> iTunes - desktop/laptop program for downloading media and mobile apps

that is incorrect. itunes began life more than 20 years ago as an app
to manage music libraries, before the ipod was released and certainly
before the iphone and mobile apps were even an idea, let alone an
actual product. music was added directly from cds or pirated.

itunes later gained support for ipods, followed by the itunes music
store, videos, photos, iphones, ipads and a lot more.

many people think itunes does too much, and they're correct.
nevertheless, at its core it's an asset manager.

on mac, itunes has been split into separate apps optimized for each
type of content (music, video and podcasts), with device syncing
implemented as part of the os itself. on windows, it remains a single
app.

> iTunes Store - mobile app for downloading media
> App Store - mobile app for downloading iOS apps and games
> Mac App Store - Mac OS program for downloading apps and games for your
> Mac OS device(s)

those are the stores where apps and media can be downloaded.

the corresponding apps to access each of those stores have the same
name.

until recently, itunes on mac and windows could download iphone/ipad
apps from the app store, which could later be synced to a device.
unfortunately, that functionality was removed a few years ago.

> Plenty of diversion, but as stated earlier apps obtained from MSFT,
> Apple, Google or 3rd party sources(banks, financial outfits, even garage
> door openers, home security systems) consistently have less features on
> their apps than available in there programs or web site accounts.

that is simply false. apps have whatever feature mix the developer
wants them to have. some are sophisticated and some are simple. they're
all apps.

> The question on the difference has been going on for years and began
> with the advent of mobile devices.

nope. the term application dates back to at least the 1980s, if not
earlier.

ashton-tate framework ii, circa 1985, with an 'apps' menu:
<https://www.osnews.com/img/24882/apps.PNG>

<https://www.osnews.com/story/24882/the-history-of-app-and-the-demise-of-
the-programmer/>
As it turns out, the abbreviation Œapp¹ was incredibly widespread,
and was printed in several job postings in not only this issue of the
magazine, but in many subsequent issues as well. It would appear that
not only programmers themselves, but also their employers used the
term Œapp¹ on a regular basis from at least 1981 onwards (but my gut
tells me it was used before 1981 as well ­ this is just the oldest
tangible proof I could find).

As you peruse the job postings from that era, it becomes clear that
they are written in the style of telegrams ­ every character cost
money, so you had to use shorthand as much as possible. Shortening
Œapplication¹ to Œapp¹ was just one of the many logical measures to
cut the costs of placing job postings.

The interesting thing about this is that it automatically proves that
Œapp¹ was already a widespread term, since you can¹t use
abbreviations your target audience doesn¹t understand (remember
, no internet to easily look things up). For me, this means the term
Œapp¹ is way older than 1981 ­ we just don¹t have any tangible proof
from before 1981 (as far as the web is concerned).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_application>
One of the first recognized examples of a killer application is
generally agreed to be the VisiCalc spreadsheet for the Apple II
series.
....
The first recorded use of the term in print was 1988, in PC Week 24
May. 39/1. "Everybody has only one killer application. The secretary
has a word processor. The manager has a spreadsheet."

going back even further to the 1970s with mainframes and minicomputers,
application software differed from system software. computers were not
common back then, so few people used the terminology.

> While not everyone agrees Google, Bing, Duck, Yahoo provide a long
> history of individuals, companies holding the view that apps and
> applications are not always equivalent.

they also show that the earth is flat, the moon landing was fake and
that trump won the election. none of those are true.

In article <t26sg8$1h38$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

>
> >> Kid, you're concentrating on what *isn't* possible, instead of focussing
> >> on what *is* - and how to do it.
> >
> > do not call me kid
>
> Behave like one, get called one.

given your behaviour below, it is you who should be called kid, among
other things.

> Just be glad that I'm giving you the
> benefit of the doubt in that you might grow up and out of it.

you've done no such thing.

what you're doing is your usual shtick of resorting to insults when you
realize just how over your head you actually are.

> You however have, rather arrogantly I might add, started with telling me I'm
> wrong without providing /any/ kind of reasoning for it, that my browser is
> misconfigured and bluntly told me that my browser *has* to run JS.

the reason is obvious: facebook requires javascript, as do many other
sites.

disabling javascript or using an outdated browser is going to cause
problems for many sites. this is not a difficult concept nor does it
need an explanation.

it should also be obvious that the only way to limit access for content
that is not public is to require authenticating to determine whether or
not someone is entitled to see it. for facebook, the way to do that is
by logging into a facebook account. you have stated you do not want to
create a facebook account, therefore such content will be inaccessible
to you. this is also not a difficult concept that requires no
explanation.

> Goodbye. May our paths never cross again.

ok, kid.

In article <t26qm6$7gq$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | > that is incorrect. the term app is simply shorthand for application.
> | > the number of features is not a factor.
> | >
> | Not entirely.
> |
>
> That would be your own private definition. People say
> app because it's cute and Steve Jobs said it.

myth.

people have been saying 'app' long before steve jobs did.

he was simply using a term already in use for *years*.

one example from 1985 is ashton-tate frameworks with an 'apps' menu:
<https://www.osnews.com/img/24882/apps.PNG>

numerous additional examples in other posts.

> And because
> cellphone users typically spend a lot of time with small,
> commercial, services programs. App refers to phone software
> (one of the many unfortunate legacies of Steve Jobs)

the term 'app' is not only just for phones and there's nothing
unfortunate about the term either.

> and
> is short for "application".

yes it is, which has been in use for several decades.

> Software people say application as a fancy word for a
> program. No one else says "application".

oh yes they do. the term has been commonly used for years.

>
> To a great extent you could say that phones are
> mobile consumer services computers and desktops/
> laptops are productivity computers. But even that's
> not entirely true.

it's not true at all.

some people use desktop/laptops for little more than 'consumer
services' such as email, facebook, etc., while others use phones and
tablets for 'productivity', including photo and video editing, drawing,
scientific research and *much* more.

anyone who claims that a smartphone or tablet can't be used for
'productivity' does not know what can be done with one.

In article <t26rbl$kn9$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | BTW,
> | app isn't actually an abbreviation, it's a word.
> |
>
> :) Such a short sense of history you have. Steve Jobs
> started saying "app". ("There's an app for that.")

such an incorrect sense of history you have.

the term 'app' long predates jobs saying 'there's an app for that',
going back to at least the 1980s, if not earlier.

ashton-tate frameworks, circa 1985 with an 'apps' menu:
<https://www.osnews.com/img/24882/apps.PNG>

> App comes from a slang abbreviation.

it's not slang. it's simply shorthand.

> There was
> no such word before iPhone.

oh yes there was.

see above for an example from 1985, more than 20 years before the
iphone was released.

there are many other examples.

> My Webster's dictionary has
> only "app.", defined as short for appendix, appointed,
> approval, or approximate. Why? Because it predates the
> invention of the iPhone.

no, that's not why.

the oxford english dictionary lists 1987, although the term actually
predates that.
<https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/103376#eid40167813>
killer application  n. Computing an application which is
particularly significant or useful; a feature, function, or
application of a new technology or product which is presented
as virtually indispensable or much superior to rival products;
also in extended use.

1987 PC Week 8 Sept. 107/2   Everybody has only one killer
application. The secretary has a word processor. The manager
has a spreadsheet.
1991 UnixWorld Dec. 30/3   The killer applications cost twice
as much in unix versions for no reason other than greed.

On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 09:38:00, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
>On 4/1/2022 8:54 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
>> Excellent book.
>
>
>Yes. I thought you'd probably know it. You and I seem to have a lot in
>common.
>
I think so! Do email me: we're probably trying the patience of the good
people of Windowsland with this thread. I am happy to talk about
language for hours though - it's in my blood, backwards and sideways
(though my carer was in electronics). But others here maybe not.
[]
>> To me, an acronym is a _pronounceable_ abbreviation
>
>
>Yes. Same to me. My point exactly.

Many of the examples of _long_ ones - when we used to take the Guinness
Book of Records, anyway - seem to come from the US military. I remember
one that contained something like NatComSubordPhibPac, though was much
longer than that.
>
>Interestingly, the abbreviation for "Food and Agricultural
>Organization" is "FAO. I don't know how it's pronounced in the UK, but

I was _going_ to say we have our own - MAFF (ministry of agriculture,
fisheries, and food), at least some of which I think is now part of
DEFRA (department of - I think - the environment, I forget the rest -
oh, might be rural affairs), but ...

>here in the USA, it's eff-eh-oh. However in Rome, where its
>headquarters are, it's an acronym, FAH-oh.

.... that suggests it is an international organisation, so we probably
_do_ have something to do with it. Yes, we'd spell it out, eff-ay-oh,
too: probably because -ao is not a common ending in (either British _or_
American) English, but maybe is in Italian, which I think would
pronounce it that way.
>
>One other, more minor, complaint about modern usage. Many people who
>understand what "acronym" means, call abbreviations that are not
>acronyms "initialisms." As far as I'm concerned, that's completely
>unnecessary. Just calling them "abbreviations" should suffice.
>
Indeed. They abolish - initially by misuse - a distinction, then find
they need the distinction, so they invent a new word )-:.
[]
>Before someone tells me that language isn't static and is always
>changing, yes, I know that. A Shakespeare play doesn't sound like a
>modern one, and Shakespeare isn't like Chaucer. But two points:

Yes, Shakespeare English does usually need a lot of explanation. Though
in the hands of _skilful_ actors/speakers, _can_ - with a few glitches -
be spoken in such a way that you can understand it. Chaucer is more
difficult, and mostly beyond me (my mother's degree was in Mediaeval
French - as she was fond of saying, a less marketable one would be hard
to find!).
>
>1. Languages now changes faster that it ever did, largely because of
>television, and that's bad, not good, because not everyone can keep up
>with such rapid change. There are many modern terms that leave me
>baffled, largely because I watch almost no television.

I think the internet - and, especially, social media (in the modern
sense of Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, Tiktok, and so on; AFAIAC usenet
is a social medium, very much so) - has probably far outstripped
television as the cause of rapid change.
>
>2. Changes that merge separate meanings into a single word, such as
>"acronym," are bad, not good. It's losing a valuable distinction, as
>you point out.
>
(-:
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]

> >One other, more minor, complaint about modern usage. Many people who
> >understand what "acronym" means, call abbreviations that are not
> >acronyms "initialisms." As far as I'm concerned, that's completely
> >unnecessary. Just calling them "abbreviations" should suffice.
> >
> Indeed. They abolish - initially by misuse - a distinction, then find
> they need the distinction, so they invent a new word )-:.

I 'disagree'. Acronyms and initialisms are both forms of
abbreviations, but they're both a special kind of abbreviation, that's
why both terms exist. We've already covered the regular form of an
abbreviation, which is cutting of part of the word, i.e. 'app', 'etc',
etc. :-) So why do we need a special term for the acronym-type
abbreviation, but not for the initialism-type?

FWIW :-), I don't care if someone calls a certain initialism 'an
abbreviation'. I *do* care if someone calls a non-pronouncable
initialism/abbreviation 'an acronym'. So 'FWIW' is *not* an acronym.

I *have* spoken!

[...]
> []
> >Before someone tells me that language isn't static and is always
> >changing, yes, I know that. A Shakespeare play doesn't sound like a
> >modern one, and Shakespeare isn't like Chaucer. But two points:
>
> Yes, Shakespeare English does usually need a lot of explanation. Though
> in the hands of _skilful_ actors/speakers, _can_ - with a few glitches -
> be spoken in such a way that you can understand it. Chaucer is more
> difficult, and mostly beyond me (my mother's degree was in Mediaeval
> French - as she was fond of saying, a less marketable one would be hard
> to find!).
> >
> >1. Languages now changes faster that it ever did, largely because of
> >television, and that's bad, not good, because not everyone can keep up
> >with such rapid change. There are many modern terms that leave me
> >baffled, largely because I watch almost no television.
>
> I think the internet - and, especially, social media (in the modern
> sense of Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, Tiktok, and so on; AFAIAC usenet
> is a social medium, very much so) - has probably far outstripped
> television as the cause of rapid change.
> >
> >2. Changes that merge separate meanings into a single word, such as
> >"acronym," are bad, not good. It's losing a valuable distinction, as
> >you point out.
> >
> (-:
> >
> >
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
>
> If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand

On 31/03/2022 20:56, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> "Full stop" is OK. Like most Americans, I'm familiar with the term. If I
> remember correctly, I first learned it from the last sentence in "1066
> and All That": "History came to a ."

For a moment there, but a search suggests that in fact that's a
different book which I also remember, I thought you'd at last given me
the title of a book of historical cartoons I remember from the library
of a 'prep' school that I attended. From that very distant memory, the
page size was about an A4 sheet in landscape orientation, the title
almost certainly contained '1066', and included 'William The Conker'
among its cast of characters lampooned, and it was old and well-thumbed
by generations of schoolkids even then in the 1950s, so was probably
published around the same time as the above in the 1930s or 40s. Does
anybody else remember such a book?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 4/1/2022 10:59 AM, Java Jive wrote:
> On 31/03/2022 20:56, Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>> "Full stop" is OK. Like most Americans, I'm familiar with the term. If I
>> remember correctly, I first learned it from the last sentence in "1066
>> and All That": "History came to a ."
>
> For a moment there, but a search suggests that in fact that's a
> different book which I also remember, I thought you'd at last given me
> the title of a book of historical cartoons I remember from the library
> of a 'prep' school that I attended. From that very distant memory, the
> page size was about an A4 sheet in landscape orientation, the title
> almost certainly contained '1066', and included 'William The Conker'
> among its cast of characters lampooned, and it was old and well-thumbed
> by generations of schoolkids even then in the 1950s, so was probably
> published around the same time as the above in the 1930s or 40s. Does
> anybody else remember such a book?

"1066 And All That" is by W. C. Sellar and RJ Yeatman. It's well-knowm.
It's not a book of cartoons, although there's an occasional cartoon in it.

I also found "1066 and Before All That: The Battle of Hastings,
Anglo-Saxon and Norman England (A Very, Very Short History of England
Book 1)" on Amazon.com, but I've never read it and can't tell you
anything about it.

--
Ken

On 4/1/2022 10:05 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 09:38:00, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
> (my responses usually FOLLOW):
>>On 4/1/2022 8:54 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
>>> Excellent book.
>>
>>
>>Yes. I thought you'd probably know it. You and I seem to have a lot in
>>common.
>>
> I think so! Do email me: we're probably trying the patience of the good
> people of Windowsland with this thread. I am happy to talk about
> language for hours though - it's in my blood, backwards and sideways
> (though my carer was in electronics). But others here maybe not.

Yes. For everyone else here, I responded to John via e-mail and this
conversation is now over here.

--
Ken

On 4/1/2022 2:17 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

> Yes. For everyone else here, I responded to John via e-mail and this
> conversation is now over here.

Why don't you stop trolling and have your conversations there then?

On 4/1/2022 12:38 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

> Yes. I thought you'd probably know it. You and I seem to have a lot in
> common.

When are you going to stop trolling?

On 3/31/2022 7:35 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

> Ye, I'd settle for a phone number. But when I try, I get hits that are
> either for someone with a similar but wrong name, or old info.

Can't you troll somewhere else?

On 01/04/2022 19:15, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> On 4/1/2022 10:59 AM, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 31/03/2022 20:56, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>
>>> "Full stop" is OK. Like most Americans, I'm familiar with the term.
>>> If I remember correctly, I first learned it from the last sentence in
>>> "1066 and All That": "History came to a ."
>>
>> For a moment there, but a search suggests that in fact that's a
>> different book which I also remember, I thought you'd at last given me
>> the title of a book of historical cartoons I remember from the library
>> of a 'prep' school that I attended.  From that very distant memory, the
>> page size was about an A4 sheet in landscape orientation, the title
>> almost certainly contained '1066', and included 'William The Conker'
>> among its cast of characters lampooned, and it was old and well-thumbed
>> by generations of schoolkids even then in the 1950s, so was probably
>> published around the same time as the above in the 1930s or 40s.  Does
>> anybody else remember such a book?
>
> "1066 And All That" is by W. C. Sellar and RJ Yeatman. It's well-knowm.
> It's not a book of cartoons, although there's an occasional cartoon in it.

Yes, that came up readily in a search, but I'm fairly sure that's a
different book.

> I also found "1066 and Before All That: The Battle of Hastings,
> Anglo-Saxon and Norman England (A Very, Very Short History of England
> Book 1)" on Amazon.com, but I've never read it and can't tell you
> anything about it.

Definitely not the one I remember, but thanks anyway.

Since writing the description above, I've remembered that other cartoons
included native Britains in coracles.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <t23qra$i9k$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser wrote...
>
> Philip,
>
> > It's certainly possible to have a direct web-link to a particular post
>
> No, it isn't possible.
>
> I took the time to follow such a link (
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/{name}/posts/{big number} ), and all that I
> got was a page full of JS. With the only human readable contentin some
> "<meta property=" tags in the "head" part of the page.
>
> IOW, the link itself is *at best* an indirect one - with the actual content
> hidden behind a lot of JS.
>
> Why do you think I asked ?
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

Well, there's not much point asking if you're going to dismiss any answers you
get.

This is such a link. It points to a 'page' maintained by a (rather good)
fitness equipment manufacturer. Unsurprisingly, acces isn't restricted to
Facebook users. To verify this, I logged out of FB in the browser in which I
access Facebook (having dug out this link) then fired up a different browser
(in which I don't access FB) and pasted the link. Up comes the page, together
with an encouragement to log in to Facebook. Groups work the same way, but
although I've occasionally been surprised to spot a 'public' group, I can't
currently think of one. Here's the link:

https://www.facebook.com/Bowflex/photos/a.10150424282868938/10160229963088938/
(Their Max Trainer is an *amazing* bit of kit...)

--

Phil, London

In article <t24t00$1arb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser wrote...
>
> nospam,
>
> > > It's certainly possible to have a direct web-link to a particular post
> >
> >> No, it isn't possible.
> >
> > yes it is.
>
....
> ... My browser doesn't do javascript. Thats all you
> need to know.
>

Indeed it is.

You may well have a good rationale for shunning a technology that's used to
deliver content on a very large proportion of sites, and that's enabled on a
the overwhelming majority of browsers in use, but failing to mention that does
distort the question somewhat. So no, you can't get to this stuff, and you
might as well stop trying. Most of the content you seek is going to be behind
a permissions wall anyway.

--

Phil, London

In article <t247nn$udl$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana wrote...
>
> "Philip Herlihy" <PhillipHerlihy@SlashDevNull.invalid> wrote
>
> | It's certainly possible to have a direct web-link to a particular post -
> termed
> | "permalink" in FB. That link is underneath the faint grey legend of the
> | date/time of posting, just beneath the post.
>
> As Rudy pointed out, that still leaves the problem of
> extensive javascript, which probably won't work at all
> in older browsers. I'm finding that in XP on an increasing
> number of sites. The most recent was my doctor's website,
> built on reactJS. These sites are complicated software,
> designed to only work in the very latest browsers, by people
> who don't actually have any idea of how to code a webpage.
> One look at the code makes it clear that it's all machine-
> generated.
>
> | So it's possible to access a
> | given post via the web, if the applicable permissions allow. But if
> nobody
> | identifies that link for you, then without a profile you'll be knocking at
> a
> | locked door. It's perfectly possible to have a minimal profile, even
> using
> | genuine information, and to configure it so that none of it is visible to
> | anyone that you haven't explicitly given permission to. And that would
> give
> | you many more chances to get at the info you're looking for. But some
> people
> | simply knee-jerk at the thought (often based on third-hand accounts) of
> social
> | media. The choice is yours.
> |
>
> You talk as though social media is just a neutral tool. It's
> actually a profound cultural change. Sleazy, for-profit companies
> have taken control of peoples' social lives; especially teenagers.
> If you ask young people why they don't quit they say they'd never
> hear about parties. Their social lives are owned by Zuck and his
> ilk. That's like teenagers who grow up in malls rather than in
> parks and on Main St. They grow up seeing themselves having a
> duty to be consumers, rather than as citizens. But social media has
> greatly amplified that effect.
>
> And that's just part of it. Social media has also created crushing
> peer pressure. When I go onto public trains and buses I see virtually
> everyone, especially the young, swiping through posts. Then they
> put their phone away, only to take it out again, 2-3 seconds later,
> like automatons on a software loop. As of 2021, 1 in 12 children
> in the US is on psychoactive drugs prescribed by a doctor. I don't know
> how many are in "therapy", but I know it's been normalized. I know
> a 14 year old now who's going home from school regularly with
> "panic attacks". That sea change is not an arbitrary accident.
>
> Young people are living in a fishbowl of peer pressure, forever
> doomed to the mob rule of the playground. They're growing up
> in terror of actually being alone, because they don't know that
> experience. Nor are they normally where they are. Their bodies are
> in one place; their interactions in another.
>
> If you look at wokist mania and cancel culture you can see
> reverberations of that. Brutal peer pressure with no adult supervision.
> Young people screaming about feeling "safe", obsessed with tokenistic
> self-righteousness. They all feel under the microscope of social media
> and that has produced a witch hunting mob of people who mercilessly
> accuse others for fear they'll be accused themselves. They don't
> even dare to be male or female!
>
> To regard social media as neutral is like the geeks on Slashdot
> desperately wanting to believe that 5 hours/day of murdering
> people in video games has no effect on young minds. If that were
> true there would be no such thing as raising children, because
> the raising would have no effect. 40-year-old GTA addicts
> just can't bring themselves to admit that they're wasting
> their lives in a sick addiction.
>
> Which is not to say that I think the whole idea is evil. Rather, the
> ubiquity, the for-profit model, and the lack of supervision for children
> is what worries me. I've been using Reddit for some time, to join
> specific discussions where I can offer help. Their current version is broken
> for me, but they were nice enugh to offer an older, compatible version
> at old.reddit.com. They require minimal personal info and it's not a
> social site in the sense of people conducting their personal lives there.
> It's more like usenet with whining.
>
> But even Reddit has a dark side. They want people to be happy
> and keep coming back. So groups tend to form around topics of
> interest and then the "moderators" can be petty tyrants, strictly
> controlling what can be said. Anyone is free to complain that they
> feel "harmed" by someone they disagree with. Posts can be upvoted
> and downvoted. So that nasty peer pressure gets going again.
> People begin to post in hopes of votes. I know that because they
> talk about it. Younger people, especially, are so accustomed to the
> mob rule of social media that for them social discourse means saying
> whatever they think will gain them acceptance. Again, you can see
> that mindset reflected in wokism, BLM, gender battles, and so on.
> No one dares to think for themselves. It's all desperate "virtue
> signalling" while accusing others of lacking in virtue.
>
> I saw some good commentary about that kind of groupthink around
> last week's Oscars. There was pure idiocy, like Jessica Chastain
> defending LGBTQ out of the blue, as though someone had just
> beat up a lesbian onstage, and "Power of the Dog" almost winning
> simply because it attacks "toxic masculinity" and champions
> men acting more feminine, bringing out their "hidden homosexuality".
> CODA won because the actors are deaf. No one dares to judge
> the movies on quality.
>
> Ricky Gervais was asked what he might say if he were hosting,
> and as usual, he injected a bit of sane decency:
>
> "I'm proud to announce that this is the most diverse and progressive Oscars
> ever. Looking out I see people from all walks of life. Every demographic
> under the sun. Except poor people, obviously. Fuck them."

A great deal of what you say has truth in it (as I've come to expect). But
I've seen a lot of good done in social media, and Facebook in particular. I've
been an admin with significant responsibility in two main groups. One is a
'locality' based group, which really does have to be open (initially at least!)
to anyone based in the relevant area. But with locality the key thing that
people have in common, it has been a battle-ground for trolls and
'campaigners' of all types. I came up with, first, a rather wordy
"constitution" which gave a basis for solving a lot of the problems admins
faced. This was superseeded after a few years with a bald set of three
"values", with related "Rules", and further "Guidelines" on how those Rules
would be interpreted. The group continues with about 18K members, and is
recognised by FB as one of the best in class across Europe. Without a fairly
dedicated admin prepared to defend the core principles, though, it would fail.
If you're interested, the Values, etc can be found here:
http://leytonstone.life/
Life changed for me when the pandemic hit, and I had to hand over to another
admin - who's doing a sterling job. I hope to get back into it before too
long. I miss the fun, the local gossip, the predominant goodwill, and also the
challenge of dealing with difficult people in a constructive way. I learned a
lot from that role.

The other group was for users of a particularly wonderful exercise machine.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/bowflexmaxtrainer
Conflict is almost unheard of, despite 6.7K members. What you get is almost
universal mutual support and encouragement. Over several years, the admins
only had to sanction errant members in single figures. There was almost
nothing for admins to do, other than welcome new members.

--

Phil, London

Philip,

> You may well have a good rationale for shunning a technology that's
> used to deliver content on a very large proportion of sites, and
> that's enabled on a the overwhelming majority of browsers in use, but
> failing to mention that does distort the question somewhat.

You know what also distorts what you think my question is ? You not
actually having read it (in my initial post).

I suggest you do that now. You might want to apologize afterwards.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Philip,

> Well, there's not much point asking if you're going to dismiss any
> answers you get.

It was in no way ment dismissive. If I would have wanted to do that I would
not added an explanation to why I disagreed.

I know what you ment, and it probably looks like that for you (with JS
enabled in your browser), but for me (with JS disabled) I see something
different.

> This is such a link.
....
> Up comes the page, together with an encouragement to log in to Facebook.

Below is what I see. I've trimmed all lines otherwise it would be 268
KByte :

< !DOCTYPE html>< html id="facebook" class="_9dls __fb-light-mode" lang="nl"
< link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/r
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3/y-/r/ITe
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3iT8I4/yf/
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3iGHn4/yp/
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3iF2Q4/yn/
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3ijxk4/yi/
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3iqH14/yY/
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3i2sC4/yJ/
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3iECz4/yM/
< link rel="preload" href="https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3/yP/r/HZG
< !--EF-->

< title>Facebook< /title>
< script>requireLazy(["HasteSupportData"],function(m){m.handle({"bxData":{"
< /head>< body class="_6s5d _71pn _-kb">< div id="mount_0_0_/4">< /div>
< script>var hc=navigator&&navigator.hardwareConcurrency;null!=hc&&4>hc&&do
< script>requireLazy(["replaceNativeTimer"],function(j){j()})< /script>
< script>requireLazy(["bootstrapWebSession"],function(j){j(1648920612)})<
/script>
<
script>qpl_tag(["comet_aa_coinflip:false"]);qpl_inl("7082060102531052788","
<
script>__SSRInit({"cavalry_get_lid":"7082060102531052788","success_status":
<
script>requireLazy(["JSScheduler"],function(j){j.makeSchedulerGlobalEntry(null,false)})<
/script>
<
script>requireLazy(["JSScheduler","ServerJS","ScheduledApplyEach"],function(J
< script>qpl_inl("7082060102531052788","tierOneEnd");< /script>

<
script>qpl_inl("7082060102531052788","tierTwo");qpl_inl("7082060102531052788-server","tierTwo",263);<
/script>
<
script>requireLazy(["HasteSupportData"],function(m){m.handle({"clpData":{"1743
requireLazy(["JSScheduler","ServerJS","ScheduledApplyEach"],function(JSScheduler,
< script>qpl_inl("7082060102531052788","tierTwoEnd");< /script>

< script>window.__onSSRPayload([{"status":"fail_ssr_disabled"}],[]);<
/script>

<
script>qpl_inl("7082060102531052788","tierThree");qpl_inl("7082060102531052788-server","tierThree",277);<
/script>
<
script>requireLazy(["HasteSupportData"],function(m){m.handle({"clpData":{"194989
requireLazy(["CometResourceScheduler","JSScheduler","Bootloader"],function(c,s,b){
requireLazy(["JSScheduler","ServerJS","ScheduledApplyEach"],function(JSScheduler,S
< script>qpl_inl("7082060102531052788","tierThreeEnd");< /script>

< script>window.pldmp =
{"7082060102531052788":{"js\/12c9cvaqgi80w4o4.pkg.js":{"ur
<
script>qpl_tag(["lastServerTagFlushed"]);qpl_inl("7082060102531052788-server","e
< /body>< /html>

Apart from he "title" tag (which doesn't mention the intended target) I do
not see anything in there thats ment to be read by a human, do you ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser wrote:

> Apart from he "title" tag (which doesn't mention the intended target) I do
> not see anything in there thats ment to be read by a human, do you ?

But if you let the jscript run, does it not result in a human-readable page that
you could parse from the DOM?

nospam wrote:

> yes they are. as i said, program is nothing more than an older term
> that's not used as much anymore.

If you've been reading this and other forums, the term 'program' has
been used as liberally if not more than 'application'.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

Andy,

> But if you let the jscript run, does it not result in a human-readable
> page
> that you could parse from the DOM?

In relation to what do you want to have that answered ? I see at least
three questions intermingled, and all of them have different answers.

One related to my origional question
One related to the post this one could be considered a reply to
One which is a simple "If you do A than you can do B "

Than again, I might have missed what you actually wanted to know/say/ask.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 02/04/2022 22:06, R.Wieser wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I might have missed what you actually wanted to know/say/ask.
>
>

You are missing the main point here and that is all modern websites
require users to have scripts enabled in their browsers because that is
what creators expected from its users.

Creators are interested in using modern technologies to make their life
easier. Facebook is using a database to store information and that info
needs to be extracted somehow so they use scripts. You might say why
don't they use php or c#. The answer is they are using them as well but
these don't capture login info from users so it makes it difficult to
operate efficiently.

The days of using just plain html/css/php are over. Websites are
becoming Web-Apps and the likely-hood is that people won't need to
install any applications on their machines because with modern browsers
things can be done more efficiently.

"Philip Herlihy" <PhillipHerlihy@SlashDevNull.invalid> wrote

| A great deal of what you say has truth in it (as I've come to expect).
But
| I've seen a lot of good done in social media, and Facebook in particular.

I have nothing against social media as a concept. The trouble
is with exploitive, commercial venues. But I expect that will never
be solved. Most people just don't want to run their own life if
they can find someone else to do it for them.

| If you're interested, the Values, etc can be found here:
| http://leytonstone.life/

Seems very reasonable. Though the dictate to be fair only
works if admins have no vested interest and no drive to
power. I've noticed that on Reddit a lot of groups are
run by petty tyrants who just shut down anyone they disagree
with. It easily becomes an echo chamber. Even in a support group
that's not healthy.

R.Wieser wrote:

> Than again, I might have missed what you actually wanted to know/say/ask.

The O/P seems to be complaining that if he scrapes a facebook URL, all he gets
is javascript, not readable content ... I was just pointing out that he'll have
to let the javascript run, and then scrape the resulting content, there's no
point in moaning how facebook assemble their content, they're unlikely to revert
to static html ...

Isshu,

>> I might have missed what you actually wanted to know/say/ask.
>
> You are missing the main point here and that is all modern websites
> require users to have scripts enabled in their browsers because that
> is what creators expected from its users.

Thieves all over the world expect me to carry my (ofcourse well-filled)
wallet in such a way that they can easily get at it. For some odd reason
I've never felt inclined to cater to their expectations.

And kid, I asked a question. If all you can think of is "but you are not
allowed to want that!" than you are welcome to stay outof this thread.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser