Editing Talk:1295: New Study

There was a joke in Czech Republic a few years ago: American scientists discovered, that 80% Europeans believe in everything that starts with: "American scientists discovered". {{unsigned|‎Jiří Dobrý}}

The main reason why the Browser Usage hoax was so successful is that it's very plausible. Especially regarding the old versions of Internet Explorer. How can people still be using crap like IE 6.0?
:Because 86% of people just use computers as a tool that comes as-is, without wanting to understand how it works and/or could be modified.[[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
:"''How can people still be using crap like IE 6.0?''"  That's like asking how people could still be using crap like a single-flux nonwidget carburetor.  Don't they realize that's so out of date?  Answer, of course not.  To the VAST majority of people aren't, and don't need to be, aware of what version of a browser they use any more than teh vast majority of people don't know (or need to) what components are under the hood of their car. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.89|199.27.128.89]] 17:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
::But when the mechanic has a single-flux non-widget carburetor, there's a problem somewhere.  I can personally vouch that all of Radioshack's POS computers run on Windows XP and use IE 6 for all operations except ringing up purchases and taking credit card payments. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.52|108.162.215.52]] 01:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
::IE6 or IE8? IE8, I could understand, being the highest level of IE normally installable upon XP (and, apart from the looming 'desupporting' date for XP, a solid enough platform for things that already work well on it).  Although I could also understand IE6 if it involves some legacy proprietry scripting code that doesn't run well on IE>6, etc. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 03:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
::: This is the epitome of "if it ain't broke". The last stable release of IE6 was five years ago. For applications like POS computers, any large business would be foolish to the point of actual irresponsibility if they went round changing their hardware and software on a five year cycle. Doing that is hard, complicated, expensive and time-consuming. If your POS (or any other) computer works, and does everything you need it to, you don't change it. There are process control computers running the chemical plant I work on that have been in more or less continuous operation since the 1970s. They'll be replaced when they fail. {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.237}}
:::: I specifically mentioned PEOPLE. For applications like POS computers, IE6 might still suffice (they ARE on closed network, I hope). But live people browsing internet should NOTICE that sites are looking weird or don't work. Lot of services are already complaining if you use obsolete browser to access them (with links to download newer one). Also, every car needs technical inspection every few years (at least in EU it's law requirement). One would expect it's not so hard to understand that computers, too, need some inspection regularly - and that person who will do it would check at least security updates and browser. Five years without updates, in hand of person knowing nothing about computers? It must have half of disc filled with malware! And third, didn't Microsoft done even some ads in TVs for the browser update? Really, hard to understand. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Note that I find hard to believe this was created due to something happening in 2011. While related, I would assume there was some other, more recent study this reacts to. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-bohannon-science-spoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/] ? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

::::"For applications like POS computers, any large business would be foolish to the point of actual irresponsibility if they went round changing their hardware and software on a five year cycle." 

It would depend on tax incentives. I believe about 3 years is standard in Britain. The hardware devalues to the point of no further tax saving whilst the possibility of hardware failure increases. With software upgrades keeping a similar pace it is worth while replacing computers that often.

As for using something that isn't broken, that is a prime incentive not to use any operating systems unless it comes shielded. Apart from Heartbleed, which was probably malicious, there is very little incentive apart from a quasi-criminal cartel (that no sensible business is in thrall to) preventing any British company using decent software.[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 13:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

New to editing. Trying to add this line and it isn't showing up. I believe this is the event he's referring to. <nowiki>* [http://eldeforma.com/2012/08/27/samsung-paga-multa-de-1-billon-de-dolares-a-apple-en-monedas-de-5-centavos/#axzz2lfjwKjjt Samsung pays $1bn USD fine to Apple with 20 billion 5 cent coins]: widely reported on news networks in November 2013</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.54|108.162.216.54]] 15:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Eastwood
:But that story has nothing to do with a "new study" (or any "study," for that matter). [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind... figured it out. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.54|108.162.216.54]] 15:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Eastwood

I think the title text of this comic is particularly clever...in that it infers that that the news being reported in the comic IS the study itself, creating an infinite loop.  This should absolutely be reflected in the explanation!!!  Can someone add it? [[User:Rmyere|Rmyere]] ([[User talk:Rmyere|talk]]) 04:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

:I couldn't determine whether you're right, but I've added the incomplete tag due to the explanation being missing. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.106|173.245.52.106]] 03:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
----
The TV reporter seems to have an impressive head of hair. Is it supposed to be a toupee? [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 21:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)