wizardbeard

If someone's a piece of shit, whatever corporate mannerisms they do or don't pick up are not going to be what makes or breaks the fact they're a shit person.

Most still are/can be. Enough that I find it hard to believe people are missing out without podcasts through these paid services.

You might have better results working with a doctor and getting perscriptions for the mind altering drugs that assist you.

Trying to trust your own brain to self assess what works and doesn't while actively messing with its chemistry it uses to do that assessment... it can work, but it's definitely choosing to do it on hard mode.

If you unironically have trouble believing in the persistance of things outside of your own immediate senses, please go talk with your therapist more.

That's kind of base level underpinnings of your existence and how you interact with the rest of the world shit.

Harsh question: Do you have a real need to prevent this data from being collected, or are you investigating just for ~~funsies~~ best practice advice? There are a lot of posts like this where people overestimate the threat model they have and insist on needing to block things that are nearly impossible to, or at least have significant tradeoffs like you are dealing with now.

Javascript is also not the only source that sites can use for these pieces of info from your machine. Local time in particular can be estimated by looking up the rough location of your IP address then matching to a time zone.

Anyway.

I would assume you could technically fork localCDN (replaces remote javascript libraries with local copies) and then manually edit the local javascript library copies to remove the calls you are concerned about.

There's also options like uBlock Origin's methods of only whitelisting specific scripts. Much more flexible than NoScript. You can block scripts that are third party and only allow site specific ones fairly easily, without digging deep into the settings.

Bear in mind that your specific combination of installed extensions can also be a unique identifier though.

Education would be more effective than complaining.

As a straight, isn't all this is missing for "topping" a strap-on? As in the "top" is usually doing the penetrating?

A good exception to this rule is "Sneakers". Love that movie, and now I'm due for a rewatch.

Same, but nice to know the fanservice was equal opportunity.

Do they really think anyone believes this? We know they sure don't. Broadcom's MO for ages now has been to buy successful companies and gut them for short term profit, then move on.

Who is served by the CTO making this statement? His own barely clinging on remaining shred of his malnourished and abandoned sense of concience?

Like, of course something is more worth the cost if you fully utilize all its features. But if the majority of your user base are complaining of the price and don't need or use the full feature set, it's not the customer's job to change their business use cases to fit your profit needs. It's your job to offer the product they actually need.

What? That's explicitly false. Grab nearly any instruction booklet for physical media, at least for any from 1990 or later. There are explicit sections laying out that you have licensed the content. 35 years ago.

In another comment on this post, someone pointed out that IBM began software licensing in the 50s. So... 75 years ago.

How far back are you going here?

For stuff like game carts/discs, VHS, and DVDs they simply had no way of enforcing the license terms, and the terms much more often included clauses for transference (lending, resale).

By law, it was almost always a license. That was the entire push behind the old attempts to criminalize backup devices and emulation (the bleem! case is good to read up on).

No arguments about how things worked out in day to day life, but a lot of shit was far more of a legal grey area that no one cared to persue. It wasn't as much of a difference of legal rights.

Edit: Well shit, I might be wrong about this. A quick search of the Pokemon Blue Instruction Booklet on the Internet Archive has a section toward the end about copying/backups and not being allowed to rent the game out wirhout approval, but nothing about the license for use.

That said, I'm certain I've seen licensing terms in multiple instruction books from that decade. Maybe it was in the secondary black and white booklet that was generic but came with every GB cart? Don't know where mine are, or if I even still have those.

Ok, checking my physical stuff. Ape Escape for PS1 has no licensing terms in the manual. Just warranty. Great game btw, I'm due for a replay.

Bubsy 3D is next in my collection of PS1 games still CIB, and it does though. Last page forbids transference or resale. Somebody better call that retro game store I bought it from for the lols.

By the way, Bubsy 3D isn't even worth it for the laughs. Not "so bad it's good". Just "so bad it's bad". It cribs the weird control style from Jumping Flash, but does such a worse job with it.

So it looks like the licensing thing may just be case by case. That would explain why some people insist there was licensing terms, and others insist there wasn't.

Edit: This came off intensely aggressive. Sorry.

I'm looking down the barrel of a massive project to shift all of our departments away from network shares to SharePoint. Simultaneously, my team is going to stop supporting "special" permissioned sub-folders, like share/Facilities/Managers/ so people can't see their co-worker's yearly review. Each Sharepoint site's "owner" (read, department manager) will be responsible for access management in their own site.

Also, knowing some of these departments, they will absolutely run up against the limit on amount of files in a single Sharepoint site. My boss seems to refuse to believe that's possible.

This is going to be such a clusterfuck. I am afraid.

Original comment:

Sincerely: How the fuck are your users utilizing Sharepoint that they don't need to navigate the file/folder structure concept? Just using the search bar every time? Maintaining a list of shortcuts or browser favorites?

How does a file being shared from another user's storage invalidate the need to still know how to get to it?

I can't speak to Google Drive, as I've only used that minorly as an end user. Object based storage is an entirely different use case than document/data organization.

File names and tags with shit chucked in what is effectively a root folder are not adequate for most companies' data organization and "securing so only the right people have access" needs.

I feel like this analogy is perfect, but not just for the reason you used it.

Car manufacturers making cars easier to use and require less maintenance is great. Your point in regards to people just not needing the old skills because of that is spot on.

But car manufacturers have also been making intentional design decisions to make accessing things under the hood require speciality tools or needlessly complex when it is needed. There are cars where you can't replace headlights without removing the whole front bumper assembly. That isn't the fault of the owner/user, and it's not a case of "improvements make old skills obsolete". It's design intentionally hostile to the goal of allowing owners to even attempt it themselves. Scummy as hell, and we should be holding these companies responsible.

Google has done and is doing the same thing with Chromebooks and Android. File system? Folders to organize my files? What?

And now we have people who don't know how to operate their car's headlights, and people who can't find files if they aren't in the "recent documents" list.