Slashdot Mirror

Now I have to look this up. I could have sworn it was X-Wing, Tie Fighter, XvT. ...

Oh, you are so owned.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060623025112/www.lucasarts.com/20th/history_2.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20060626090047/www.lucasarts.com/20th/history_3.htm

Now I have to look this up. I could have sworn it was X-Wing, Tie Fighter, XvT. ...

Oh, you are so owned.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060623025112/www.lucasarts.com/20th/history_2.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20060626090047/www.lucasarts.com/20th/history_3.htm

Uh..... ok.

I was referring, as was the AC I'd mentioned, to http://www.erichspecht.com/ - whose name I'm sure you'll recognize from TFA, which you did read. It does correspond, other than with the listed copyright, to http://web.archive.org/web/20050310015150/http://www.androiddata.com/

And, FWIW, that particular domain has been with GoDaddy since 2003, and the androiddata.com archive is showing a copyright of 2002.. Odd that you conjecture that such a site has had no business for six years.

And yes, if you stop and study the law more closely than you have the archives, you'll find that domain squatting is a completely separate case from trademarks.

You do understand that this isn't a domain squatting case? If generous, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt that you're trying to establish that the guy doesn't have a business.

Of course, you did read in TFA that Specht is very definitely stating that contrary to opinion, he is actively developing and marketing product under that name, as he has done for years?

Another FWIW - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219633&cid=27800209 - mine from another part of this topic.

And, the obligatory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark as you are somewhat unclear - he not only can sue under these conditions, he is very, very likely to win.

Whether you find him scum or not is your own opinion.

But, given that he is ready to show in a court of law that his products are current, he has done exactly as you specify:

Maybe if he were actually developing & promoting that product, then he'd have something to say.

If you're bucking for 2nd place in the IRONY Awards, you'll certainly get some votes - although, you'd qualify more highly in other categories.

TFA - sometimes, it's your friend.

Yup. It's sure the first result on Yahoo. Of course, the last update prior to yesterday that I can find has approximately nothing to do with this "Android Data" thing.

A bit more research, and you'll find: The site was last updated yesterday. The content that was there at it's last indexing on Google and MSN is the same as what is currently up at www.pushpuppets.net. As well, android-data.com (the actual domain for the "product") was registered on 2009/04/20; it's been around for a grand total of 12 days. The site that was there before, according to archive.org: it's a parking page for someone else operating a business by the name of "Android Data Services", though checking androiddata.com on archive.org gets you the same site: defunct since 2006, with it's last update being 2003/01/23. Searching for android-data.com gets you no site whatsoever, on Google, Yahoo, or MSN.

This reads to me as though truth is more idiotic than fiction. Nefarious is more likely the case: everything I've been able to tell suggests that the name and product have been dead for at least 3 years, if not more likely 6 years. Looks more like a case of "I might be able to sue Google for lots of money" than anything. The likelihood of actually winning any lawsuit there, suing over a product that nobody has ever heard of, on a trademark that nobody has ever heard of (until today)... um, right. Maybe if he were actually developing & promoting that product, then he'd have something to say.

It's not a colouring book about a terrorist attack at all, just FYI. Check it out if you like.

Though I think the book has been published many years too late for it to be of any benefit.

I looked through the book itself, and the twin towers "scene" is just featured as a cover page. The actual colouring book is more generic, about tornadoes, house fires, etc. The first page asks the reader to draw him/herself before it happened, and further on there's an outline of a face where you can draw how you felt afterwards, also explaining that it can happen without warning, the repeated news on TV, feeling ill afterwards, and eventually getting better. I think it's an excellent resource, and pulling it because of the twin towers is just bogus.

Direct link to the pdf

I mean, I'm just sayin'...

``Isn't anybody going to move a finger, while a significant part of our collective history disappears forever?''

Somebody is: the people who are archiving this stuff!

Besides this effort that seems focused on Geocities, there is also The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine.

``Isn't anybody going to move a finger, while a significant part of our collective history disappears forever?''

Somebody is: the people who are archiving this stuff!

Besides this effort that seems focused on Geocities, there is also The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine.

Wierd. It was there this morning. Archive.org has it, though.

They have not seen archiving geocities.com since 2002. Before then they have less than 25,000 pages saved:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://geocities.com

Assuming they're www 'cyber bodies' there is always the The Wayback Machine.

For a light read in which the US is crippled, in no small part due to transformer failure, see G. Gordon Liddy, "Rules of the Game," pp. 44-?, OMNI, (January 1989), reprinted in "Fight Back" by G. Gordon Liddy, et al., and found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20050406214119/http://www.liddyshow.us/mustread11.php

It's not the normal military you have to worry about, it's the ones that are convinced that they are fighting one God's side in the battle of Armageddon and even if both sides are wiped out, they will live forever in the Promised land.

It certainly is. But in case anyone reading interprets your post to be talking about Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East, it's worth highlighting the influential people in the USA who believe that a large war involving Israel is one of the key steps toward Armageddon and thus their ascension to heaven in "The Rapture", and who are actively working toward this end.

Example: Resolutions passed in Texas (see PDF in link) concerning support for Israel occupying Palestine. Why are states in Texas concerning themselves with this? Because it has a large number of Christian Zionists - estimated 8% of US population belongs to Churches that teach war in Middle East with Israel is one of the steps toward Armageddon. Some of these people are very influential, such as Tom DeLay.

Now I'm not actually unconvinced that US support for Israel's actions wont be the start of Armageddon... I just don't see it as leading to many of us being taken up to Heaven (and if I did - I still wouldn't want it to happen for the sake of all those who weren't going to heaven). So yes - we do have to worry about those who want war because they think it will lead to Heaven for them. But to be clear - there are plenty of those in the US and they have influence on policy to help bring that about.

For a long while Geocities was the only place hobbyists could spew their knowledge. Now it's all over the place. Hopefully the internet archive can hold on to some of those soon-to-be lost gems.

I just had to check (for fun) the archive for old versions of Anand's Hardware Tech Page. Unfortunately, the oldest archived Geocities page is just a notice that the site has moved to Anandtech.com.

http://archive.org/ still has copies of old GeoCities' areas I used to hang out. :)

They made a TOS change somewhere back in the distant past that resulted in my pulling down most of my info from my spot in TheTropics.

http://web.archive.org/web/19990128020615/www.geocities.com/TheTropics/1298/

I don't remember the details at this time.

drew

In my experiance the wayback machine only archives stuff beyond a certain level of popularity and sometimes it gets the homepage but not the important stuff e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/20071002152623/http://www.geocities.com/vampyrdarla/frame.htm has the homepage but none of the pages with the real information.

I've tried to provoke it into collecting the rest of the site on the next run. I'm also trying to archive it locally but it seems my recursive wget has triggered service temporerally unavilible errors before it got quite the whole site.

I think most interesting Geocities pages are already backed up to http://web.archive.org/

The Wayback machine has a pretty good snapshots of GeoShitties

The Wayback machine has a pretty good snapshots of GeoShitties

There are already several project to scan and/or make available ancient texts [see, for example,
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ or http://www.archive.org/ , not to say of the more specialist sites like http://www.etana.org/ (for ancient near-east history) or the impressive Posner Collection at
http://posner.library.cmu.edu/Posner/ ]
However, most of these (with the remarkable exception of gallica and cmu)
  mostly present late XIX
early XX century editions of the texts. This is good, but I feel it is definitely interesting to get also some "primary texts" online, which is what this project is doing [I don't quite like that la "Description de l'Egypte" is under 8000 BC- 499 AD, rather than 1800 AD - 1849 AD: the books are ABOUT Egyptian Antiquities, yet they were written after the Napoleonic expedition!]

I was going to complain about the need to use wget to get the books to browse off line, yet I have just seen that there actually is an option to download the texts as pdf files (alas not djvu); this is really a nice surprise; actually, I was expecting the donating libraries to try their utmost to prevent this [not that it would ever works]

I would say that this is really a worthy project.

P.S.
  There is a small editorial here as well, but I don't know if it requires subscription to be read:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090420/full/news.2009.377.html

Once we hit 100mbps we are good with speeds above only needed for special circumastance.

You're foolish to suggest that a certain amount of bandwidth is enough for an unspecified period of time. The influential Mr. Bill Gates has pointed that out quite nicely: http://web.archive.org/web/19970107024714/http://htimes.com/htimes/today/access/oldfiles/gates23.html

QUESTION: I read in a newspaper that in 1981 you said, "640K of memory should be enough for anybody." What did you mean when you said this? (L. Marshall, lmarshal@science.watstar.uwaterloo.ca)
ANSWER: I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time.

• Sealed rooms / cabinets can help the air quality at the expense of heat
• Big (homemade) UPSs with truck batteries can help if you have unreliable power
• Normal hardware works fine. Esp lower power desktop-grade PCs, which are easier to source and service locally.

You think it's creepy in 2009? Imagine seeing something like that in 1940:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments_in_the_Revival_of_Organisms
http://www.archive.org/details/Experime1940
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap1co5ZZHYE

In no way was OS/2 a "launch point" for Windows (either DOS-based or NT).

You and history disagree on this point - I have only (sadly) wikipedia at this point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2

Initially, the companies agreed that IBM would take over maintenance of OS/2 1.0 and development of OS/2 2.0, while Microsoft would continue development of OS/2 3.0. In the end, Microsoft decided to recast NT OS/2 3.0 as Windows NT, leaving all future OS/2 development to IBM.

Unless by launch point I mean - renamed a rev of OS/2 to WinNT.

As for OS/2 Warp not being a complete re-write, your objection to my language use may be correct - the re-write was complete and features such as true preemptive multi-tasking appeared in Warp. So, my comment stands - the hallmark of the completed re-write corresponded to the name change. BTW, the multi-tasking improvement in Win95, released LATER, didn't measure up. If you found Warp and 95 to be a toss-up, then YMMV. If you're comparing pre-Warp to Win95, you're unfair.

Original OS/2 was as much IBM as MS is true if and only if you weigh setting requirements as equal to code production.

In any case, you might enjoy this walk down memory lane - I did. http://www.archive.org/details/CC518_multitasking

I was flat wrong in my timeline on one thing - and as you say, it's important - OS/2 joint development was announced in 1987, and by 1988, the date of the above Computer Chronicles broadcast, OS/2 Presentation Manager, Windows 386 - Windows 2 - were all already in existence. Windows 1.0 was released in 1985. It was not a full OS by any means, and I am not splitting hairs or re-hashing the DOS/Win95 controversy. Windows 2 was Win1 with memory management.

Win3 did not appear until 1990. I would contend that that was an OS in its own right. OS/2 was already out by then.

So, I was not saying and did not say that MS didn't start any Windows anything until their engagement with IBM, but I worded what I said so poorly that I'll bow to the hits and criticisms.

My overall chronology and points against illegal and predatory activities stand as amended with rev numbers. As a footnote - http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Business-general/Microsoft-hampered-OS-2-IBM-official-tells-court-curbs-on-software-develvopers-are-faulted.html

If you've ever watched the power of nightmares, a documentary written for the BBC, the idea that some neoconservatives might have done this to further their own ends isn't totally ludicrous. The only problem with that theory really is working out how they managed to persuade some people to do it for them.

The Islamist theory does have an answer to that question, so that makes it slightly more credible. It still doesn't answer the question of exactly who within the Islamist movement might have been behind it, and how many of them are still around. We are led to believe there is a vast network controlled by Osama Bin Laden, but I'm not sure that's the case.

Take for example the 7/7 bombings in London, and then the failed attempt two weeks later on 21/7. We are told that the two were linked, and they did both try the same things. But I think the like was actually BBC News 24. The original plan was to bomb four tube (Scottish & US English: subway) trains. One of the bombers was unable to bomb his selected train on the Northern Line, because it was closed due to a train breakdown, so he bombed a bus instead. The 21/7 bombers went for three tubes and a bus, just like what actually happened on 7/7, and not like what was supposed to happen. When describing how the bombs were made, the media here have a policy of missing out an important stage in the process to prevent copycats from making more bombs. The 21/7 bombs didn't explode, they just fizzed out. That would suggest they got their bomb plans from the mainstream media, and their policy worked in terms of saving lives.

The classic book on this is "Engineering with Nuclear Explosives". I have a copy, discarded from the Stanford engineering library, and I had the Internet Archive digitize it. It has the Panama canal plan, plus several other proposed projects.

The California Department of Highways seriously considered using 22 nuclear bombs to excavate for I-40 through the mountains between Barstow and Needles. Here's the environmental impact statement: The cloud resulting from each of the two row shots would be cylindrical in shape, about 2 miles high, and 7 miles in diameter. The density of dust in this cloud might be such as to obscure vision during its passage within the first 100 miles. While radioactivity levels in the cloud would not present a hazard, it might be necessary from a traffic hazard viewpoint to close any highways in the path of the cloud during passage within the first 100 miles.

Based on the Sedan experience, it is estimated that access to the channel for limited periods of time for inspection purposes would be possible within about 24 hours. Entry for an 8-hour work day or 40-hour work week without unusual safeguards should be possible within about 4 days.

Things were so much simpler then.

Full site (as far as I can tell): http://web.archive.org/web/20071118120426/www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks

Whatever happened to improvisational near real time performances in the public domain.. rotfl.

Well anyway if someone wants a recording of the bad storms that rolled through here about 3 hours ago with some guitar recorded live.. here it is.

Tennessee Storms of April 10, 2009 and guitar

Like the universe..the net has a lot of alternatives, and not just mine. Stop being force-fed what you like.

Here is a url for some music that you can download for FREE, They are old 78 rpm recordings. Go to http://www.archive.org/details/prelinger I downloaded enough to fill a dvd disk.

... are much overblown, but you need to make the captchas per-message rather than per-account.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070822051020/http://petmail.lothar.com/design.html#auto34

" Hire People To Solve CAPTCHA Challenges

Spammers set up a sweatshop (which I will call a Turing Farm) to employ people to look at computer screens and answer CAPTCHA challenges. They get to send one message to one recipient for each challenge passed. Assuming 10 seconds per challenge, and paying roughly $5/hour, that represents $14 per thousand messages. A typical spam run of 1 million messages per day would cost $14000 per day and require 116 people working 24/7.

This would break the economic model used by most current spammers. A recent Wired article showed one spammer earning $10 for each successful sale. At that rate, $14k/1Mspam requires a 1 in 1000 success rate just to break even, whereas current spammers are managing a 1/100k or even 1/1M sucess rate. "

Actually, it lists the results in multiple places. It's used to correct OCR at The Internet Archive. I don't think there's a specific list where you can see what was corrected by the reCAPTCHA method, although there is a post about it in their announcements forum.

Actually, it lists the results in multiple places. It's used to correct OCR at The Internet Archive. I don't think there's a specific list where you can see what was corrected by the reCAPTCHA method, although there is a post about it in their announcements forum.

I remember something about headers for the kernel being no longer available,

Those who do not remember the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat it. Sorry for paraphrasing, but a little license can be taken, I think. Enough pressure and Apple can be made to do the right thing sometimes, but it's not their default mode.

Yes, but there was never a time when we weren't at war with Eurasia.

I defy you to find a reference to it anywhere in history!

And don't give me that "here is some paper that proves it" crap, everyone knows that paper can be counterfeited. Only the internet can be believed.

This term isn't in 'True Names' as far as I can tell:

http://web.archive.org/web/20051127010734/http://home.comcast.net/~kngjon/truename/truename.html

though of course a similar concept is there. Gibson actually names the 'Cyberspace Seven' matrix simulator in 'Burning Chrome', a couple of years before 'Neuromancer':

http://web.bentley.edu/empl/c/rcrooks/courses/350s96/gibson.html

    Actually, that's a lot of the reason that they made some of the root nameservers multicast. Have a look at F, and I through M. It's not perfect, but it moved the root servers away from a handful of central points.

    Back in the day, the MAE's had their bandwidth graphs online. You could see the aggregate for all ports, and (if I recall correctly) utilization by port. Ports were listed out on another page, so you knew the port names, IP's and providers.

    It would have been a pretty simple matter to flood traffic towards a few specific ports in a couple MAE's, and watch things break.

    Now there are a lot more peerings, and those peerings are significantly more robust. It was one thing to kill a 100Mb/s interconnection (oohh, and that was fast then too), but filling up an OC192 will take a lot more work. To overwhelm a MAE, it wouldn't just be one or two OC192's, it would be a significant number of them.

    Have a look at the 1998 MAE services description. If you dig around a little bit on there, you'll see that they used to publish the IP's of each customer interface. "Ahh, lets knock down provider X", sure, you see the IP's of every interface. Flood them to death. :) Of course back then, most people were sitting on 56k dialups, which never really saw 56k, and those frequently connected through modem servers on a T1. You may be able to support 28 dialup modems on a T1, but they'd oversubscribe them like crazy.

    Now, people have bandwidth to do more damage, but it's much less likely to do damage to the core of the Internet. The real damage can occur on small sites, with single servers up on relatively slow lines.

    I was actually surprised there hadn't been a successful attack on some major peerings. I always assumed someone would manage a sustained attack that would do damage. Now it's than much more complex, where you don't get the luxury of bandwidth graphs on the target. :) The only real successful large scale "attacks" I've seen lately were where one provider got annoyed by another provider, and cut off their peering on short notice.

P.S.

2000 kilobytes bloated websites v. 50 kilobyte websites on my DSL connetion is the difference between 21 seconds and half a second. So yeah, I prefer simplifying pages as much as possible. Here are some more examples of nice, fast-loading websites without bloat. I consider all of these sites superior to their modern, bloated incarnations:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000226063343/http://www.psu.edu/index.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20000229125450/http://www.whitehouse.gov/
http://web.archive.org/web/20001018024101/http://www.imdb.com/

P.S.

2000 kilobytes bloated websites v. 50 kilobyte websites on my DSL connetion is the difference between 21 seconds and half a second. So yeah, I prefer simplifying pages as much as possible. Here are some more examples of nice, fast-loading websites without bloat. I consider all of these sites superior to their modern, bloated incarnations:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000226063343/http://www.psu.edu/index.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20000229125450/http://www.whitehouse.gov/
http://web.archive.org/web/20001018024101/http://www.imdb.com/

P.S.

2000 kilobytes bloated websites v. 50 kilobyte websites on my DSL connetion is the difference between 21 seconds and half a second. So yeah, I prefer simplifying pages as much as possible. Here are some more examples of nice, fast-loading websites without bloat. I consider all of these sites superior to their modern, bloated incarnations:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000226063343/http://www.psu.edu/index.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20000229125450/http://www.whitehouse.gov/
http://web.archive.org/web/20001018024101/http://www.imdb.com/

>>>Or do you want to go back to what the "web" looked like in 1995... almost entirely ASCII text with no formating, very few graphics, no flashy interactive content, just text and links to more text.
>>>

Honestly? Yes. I think it's ridiculous that I am being bombarded with 2000 kilobytes of various videos or sounds (i.e. imdb.com), when there's no value added over the old 50 kilobyte pages of the 90s. Today's web designers are ignoring best practices, which include optimizing the page so it loads as fast as possible.

I don't think we need to go all the way back to 1995, but when I look at archive.org circa 2000 and I see how FAST those pages load, I think we should return to that minimal style. Only use flash when it's needed (like hulu.com) and use compact animated GIFs or PNGs everywhere else. Keep the internet from becoming bloated like Vista.

Example: http://web.archive.org/web/19990420123742/www.scifi.com/

Setting free those who were convicted of non-violent drug offenses then many will become tax paying employees...

Um, and these jobs are coming from where?

Legally selling drugs for one thing. People could, and did, farm hemp aka marijuana. During World War II the US government made the movie "Hemp for Victory" to encourage farmers to grow it. Hemp was grown and or used by many of the USA's Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson was a big supporter of hemp, at one point he even said farmers should be required to grow it. Of course he never did propose such a law because he knew it would deny farmers the right to grow what they wanted. TJ made even have written the "Declaration of Independence" on hemp. An MIT study concluded an acre of hemp could produce as much paper as 3 acres of forest. Henry Ford designed and built a car that used hemp for parts such as the dash. It was also fueled with hemp, he made alcohol from hemp. One of the fuels the designer of the diesel engine, Rudolph Diesel, used to power it was hemp oil. Hemp can also be used as a feedstock for plastic, bioplastic. Actually originally plastics, such as cellophane was made from plants. It wasn't until DuPont received a patent for making plastics from petroleum before petrol was used for this.

Have you tried to find a job with a felony conviction on your record lately? We've got people with Masters degrees slinging coffee at Starbucks, and I don't mean just the MFAs.

That's because drugs are illegal. If drugs hadn't been illegal they never would have been convicted of a crime.

The sort of jobs these people could hold no longer exist in our economy.

Sure there are. People with all sorts of jobs and at all levels of education, including those with PhDs use, or would use if legal, drugs. Before hemp was made illegal via the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 when congress was debating the act Dr James Woodward, who was a lawyer as well as a doctor, testified before congress for the AMA that hemp was a medically useful plant. He said the AMA didn't find out what drug was being made illegal until just before the congressional debate, otherwise the they would have spoken out in support of hemp earlier.

But don't think that closing the War on Drugs is going to be the end of the problem.

Legalized drugs will end some of the problems we have now, unfortunately like legal alcohol there will be other problems. Those problems can be dealt with the same way alcohol problems are dealt with. Even though marijuana is legal in the Netherlands they have a lower rate of it's use than the US does. If legal it could be taxed, then if someone addicted to it wanted therapy for the addiction they could go and ask for it. The tax would pay for it.

Falcon

The Internet Archive does that. Although not on a very large scale.

The print-on-demand industry has, I think, made a positioning error. They produce cheap paperbacks at hardcover prices. What's needed is a high-quality hardcover binding machine as part of the print-on-demand process. The actual manufacturing cost of binding a book is about $1-$2, but the markup on hardcovers is much higher. Lulu.com now does hardcovers, but they all look exactly the same, all with the same dimensions and bound in plain blue linen. They charge $15 extra for hardcover binding, which is excessive.

Screen devices will take over the disposable book market. There's no reason to use paper for read-once books.

It was faster, and more stable than the Mozilla bundle.

You do realise that that was the case because it was as bare-bones as it could get, right?

By the time it hit the 0.8/0.9 range, the Mozilla Foundation had realized that it was so much better a browser than the full suite that it was able to compete with IE, and that's when the advertising started.

This is blatant revisionism. The truth is that because it was new, people got excited, and flocked to it. This is how it got exposure. What also added to the spotlight a lot was that it tried to be an IE clone in terms of looks. Just check the articles of back in the day as far back as Firebird 0.6. The Mozilla Foundation decided to follow the wave. The roadmap shows this: http://web.archive.org/web/20030801081914/www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html

And Netscape was in a rapid downward spiral, so it wasn't exactly difficult to take market share from it even without advertising.

If that was true, Mozilla would have had a bigger market share back in the day. Yet many stayed with Netscape.

What's with the rainbow colours? Each story has a little flash of colour on it, and then top right there's a dropdown with some colours on it, and if I choose a colour the stories all seem to dance about a bit and shuffle around. What. The. Flip? And then on the top left there's an 'Edit' box which has - amongst it's other unexplained options - another colour selector. Which does what? I have no idea. Is it some kind of quality thing? I don't have a map of quality to colour in my head. This is meaningless. And don't try and explain what it all means - I'm trying to read the news here, I don't want to have to read a manual. I'll go elsewhere.

And what do colour-blind people think? At least if you are playing with colour be smart and use Color Brewer palettes.

Honestly, I think slashdot looked pretty good enough in 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020806091841/slashdot.org/

  - go back to that, change the fonts and colours a bit, perfect.

Another recent example of a design-gone-bad - www.freshmeat.net - is the current new implementation:

  http://www.freshmeat.net/

  really better in terms of ease of use than 2002?

http://web.archive.org/web/20020603034258/http://freshmeat.net/

Raaaaage!

B

What's with the rainbow colours? Each story has a little flash of colour on it, and then top right there's a dropdown with some colours on it, and if I choose a colour the stories all seem to dance about a bit and shuffle around. What. The. Flip? And then on the top left there's an 'Edit' box which has - amongst it's other unexplained options - another colour selector. Which does what? I have no idea. Is it some kind of quality thing? I don't have a map of quality to colour in my head. This is meaningless. And don't try and explain what it all means - I'm trying to read the news here, I don't want to have to read a manual. I'll go elsewhere.

And what do colour-blind people think? At least if you are playing with colour be smart and use Color Brewer palettes.

Honestly, I think slashdot looked pretty good enough in 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020806091841/slashdot.org/

  - go back to that, change the fonts and colours a bit, perfect.

Another recent example of a design-gone-bad - www.freshmeat.net - is the current new implementation:

  http://www.freshmeat.net/

  really better in terms of ease of use than 2002?

http://web.archive.org/web/20020603034258/http://freshmeat.net/

Raaaaage!

B

http://web.archive.org/web/19961220154856/http://www.aol.com/

That's why PCWorld as worst in Customer service and in practically every single other cateory as well among the 14 Top ISPs? That's why the BBB had previously warned people about Charter's miserable customer service?

Are you one of the customer support reps that LIE to people on the phone when they ask when the installer is coming?

You can resent my stance all you want, you can pretend that the constant heap of shit you pile on your customers is making them happy, but it seems like there is an awfully large amount of incredibly unhappy customers.