That is one of the most common mistakes we software engineers make. Design software to be how we want it, not how the users want it. The users want a slow loading flash page with lots of sounds and a delay due to animation every time you click on something.
Functional pages that present information clearly without use of graphics seem to make users think along the lines of "well, this page looks 'good' like all the other ones, it must not have good information."
A site like this just does not resonate with users today, elegant in its simplicity though it may be.
If you are working on a personal blog or something, you can do it however you want. They don't like your design, screw em, they can go somewhere else. But if you are working on a professional site, you do not have that luxury.
Just my opinion at least. I'm not a great web programming, and certainly not a good designer.
Well, I agree with most of what you said. A massive conventional attack by a sovereign country (Iran, or whoever) could provoke a nuclear response from Israel. That would probably kick off WW3 as I suspect the USA would back Israel in such a situation. That is a whole other discussion though.
I am not certain that Israel's history of an overly aggressive response is unjustified though. They are surrounded by hundreds of millions of people who hate them, most of whom do not understand the difference between forgiveness and weakness; and weakness is NOT something Israel can afford to portray.
And I agree that both sides need to "forgive", but that is never going to happen. It isn't like the problems between Great Briton and Germany in the past. These people have been raised since birth to hate each other, and there is an inordinate amount of misinformation, on both sides I suspect.
Peace in the middle east isn't going to occur in my lifetime. The only way I can see it happening is if, first, people are educated (and not by religious leaders) to clear up all the misinformation and such. And second, the people there need to become wealthy enough that they become too lazy to fight (like most people in the USA). If this works, I expect a noble peace prize!
There is something called the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which the US has signed and is the legal justification for the forthcoming attack on Iran. I was referring more to a natural right for a country to acquire the necessary arms to defend itself, as oppose to a legal right.
If you go and ask people in Lebannon they might not be so keen to believe it at the moment being that their entire country has just been punished for the actions of a few nutcase terrorists. I'm not saying that Israel would never attack anybody, just that they wouldn't do it with nukes unless they were facing imminent destruction, or perhaps if they had been nuked themselves.
I agree with you on everything. Unfortunately music for me is like air, water, and broadband. The music industry has me by the balls. I hate the movie industry just as much, and I rarely buy DVDs because of that, but I just can not exert the same behavior for music.
It isn't having nukes that is the problem. It is how they would be used. Israel would never just randomly nuke Iran. Even if they found a way to do it so that it did not lead back to them, the Muslim world would blame them regardless, and it would be open war on Israel.
Iran, on the other hand, would be happy to nuke them some Jews. They probably wouldn't be so bold as to launch a missile at Israel, but if a suitcase nuke should happen to find it's way in there, well then so be it.
Every country has a right to try and acquire nuclear weapons (and even more so nuclear power). But countries who would be threatened by that also have a right to try and provide incentives (both positive and negative) to try and stop them.
No no, I think it is mostly the same here. I bet less than half of all voters in the USA are pleased with who they choose to vote for. I voted for Bush in 2004. Felt damn dirty. But I was voting against the other guy.
The people continue to vote him and his party in so I'd say most Aussies therefore agree with his policies. I must admit that I don't know much about Australia's government, but in the U.S. at least, it is not always that simple.
I think Bush is a terrible president. I agree with perhaps 1/3 of his policies. Still, I voted for him in 2004. That is because my only other realistic option was John Kerry, and I approve of almost none of his policies. (Probably environmental would be about it.)
So, just because the guy in power is doing a horrible job doesn't mean people are going to throw him out and replace him with someone they think might be worse. It would be nice to be able to vote for someone you truly believe in, and send a message to the people in power that you do not approve, but if the results of doing that means the greater of two evils gets elected, it may just not be worth it.
Note: You may not agree that Bush was the lesser of two evils. My post wasn't about that. Rather I was just trying to make the point that sometimes people will vote for someone even if they disapprove of him.
Yeah I agree. If humans are partially responsible for global warming, then the solution is to just stop doing whatever it is we are doing to cause the problem.
I do not think we understand this stuff nearly well enough for us to intentionally go messing with it. We could make things much worse.
Does the music downloaded from Walmart have DRM? If so, maybe they figure the kind of people using browsers other than IE aren't the kind of people who would buy the music anyway. The Linux crowd mostly won't be, and the mac crowd is probably buying from iTunes anyway, if they wanted DRM'ed music.
Still, music downloads is a hard business to break in to. You'd think they want every advantage they could get. Is it really just lazy coding, or are they using some sort of activex or something (which I guess just goes right back to lazy coding).
given the sheer number of state-crossing roads in this country, it would cost an astronomical amount of money to pull that off. Very true. Also, I drive from Virginia to Maryland sometimes on the Washington D.C. beltway. At rush hour, traffic is already hardly moving. Can you imagine if you had to stop and present an ID card?
Anyway, this country is unfortunately moving more towards federalism. You are more likely to see the concept of states become more blurred, rather than more enforced.
It would depend on the game. I have no interest in watching some WoW player farm Yeti's, but a game like America's Army could be very fun to watch, I would think. Would have to be done just right though. A game made specifically to be a spectator sport could be very interesting.
When people talk about Net Neutrality, do they mean ISPs can't do any packet shaping at all?
I am, for example, all for ISPs giving lower priority to VOIP if they need to. What I am not OK with is some VOIP company paying an ISP to give them greater priority priority, while the company that can not afford to pay gets shafted.
Working in this article like "the ability of systems engineers to improve latency and jitter issues" make it sounds like no packing shaping at all is allowed. Is that right?
What about the people with non-sensitive data who want to do their word processing anywhere?
The solution would be to run web mail and web based office tools on your local computer at home. That way you would have access to it from anywhere. I think Windows Vista has some sort of feature that gives each computer its own unique ID that can be accesses from the outside somehow. With IPv6, this sort of thing is not too difficult.
Yes I know, casual computer users with their own servers not completely hidden by NAT sounds like a security nightmare. And if they are running Windows, it could be even worse.
But I really think that should be the future of the internet. Not huge data warehouses where you have no control over your data.
Slashdot Mirror
That is one of the most common mistakes we software engineers make. Design software to be how we want it, not how the users want it. The users want a slow loading flash page with lots of sounds and a delay due to animation every time you click on something.
Functional pages that present information clearly without use of graphics seem to make users think along the lines of "well, this page looks 'good' like all the other ones, it must not have good information."
A site like this just does not resonate with users today, elegant in its simplicity though it may be.
If you are working on a personal blog or something, you can do it however you want. They don't like your design, screw em, they can go somewhere else. But if you are working on a professional site, you do not have that luxury.
Just my opinion at least. I'm not a great web programming, and certainly not a good designer.
Well, I agree with most of what you said. A massive conventional attack by a sovereign country (Iran, or whoever) could provoke a nuclear response from Israel. That would probably kick off WW3 as I suspect the USA would back Israel in such a situation. That is a whole other discussion though.
I am not certain that Israel's history of an overly aggressive response is unjustified though. They are surrounded by hundreds of millions of people who hate them, most of whom do not understand the difference between forgiveness and weakness; and weakness is NOT something Israel can afford to portray.
And I agree that both sides need to "forgive", but that is never going to happen. It isn't like the problems between Great Briton and Germany in the past. These people have been raised since birth to hate each other, and there is an inordinate amount of misinformation, on both sides I suspect.
Peace in the middle east isn't going to occur in my lifetime. The only way I can see it happening is if, first, people are educated (and not by religious leaders) to clear up all the misinformation and such. And second, the people there need to become wealthy enough that they become too lazy to fight (like most people in the USA). If this works, I expect a noble peace prize!
And sorry about the off topic
I agree with you on everything. Unfortunately music for me is like air, water, and broadband. The music industry has me by the balls. I hate the movie industry just as much, and I rarely buy DVDs because of that, but I just can not exert the same behavior for music.
It isn't having nukes that is the problem. It is how they would be used. Israel would never just randomly nuke Iran. Even if they found a way to do it so that it did not lead back to them, the Muslim world would blame them regardless, and it would be open war on Israel.
Iran, on the other hand, would be happy to nuke them some Jews. They probably wouldn't be so bold as to launch a missile at Israel, but if a suitcase nuke should happen to find it's way in there, well then so be it.
Every country has a right to try and acquire nuclear weapons (and even more so nuclear power). But countries who would be threatened by that also have a right to try and provide incentives (both positive and negative) to try and stop them.
If you do not have your router set as your computer's DNS source, this would not effect you would it?
So like, if you had a Linksys, you'd have to have your computer set to use 192.168.1.1 (by default) as your DNS server right?
No no, I think it is mostly the same here. I bet less than half of all voters in the USA are pleased with who they choose to vote for. I voted for Bush in 2004. Felt damn dirty. But I was voting against the other guy.
I think Bush is a terrible president. I agree with perhaps 1/3 of his policies. Still, I voted for him in 2004. That is because my only other realistic option was John Kerry, and I approve of almost none of his policies. (Probably environmental would be about it.)
So, just because the guy in power is doing a horrible job doesn't mean people are going to throw him out and replace him with someone they think might be worse. It would be nice to be able to vote for someone you truly believe in, and send a message to the people in power that you do not approve, but if the results of doing that means the greater of two evils gets elected, it may just not be worth it.
Note: You may not agree that Bush was the lesser of two evils. My post wasn't about that. Rather I was just trying to make the point that sometimes people will vote for someone even if they disapprove of him.
Mission accomplished!
Yeah I agree. If humans are partially responsible for global warming, then the solution is to just stop doing whatever it is we are doing to cause the problem.
I do not think we understand this stuff nearly well enough for us to intentionally go messing with it. We could make things much worse.
Does the music downloaded from Walmart have DRM? If so, maybe they figure the kind of people using browsers other than IE aren't the kind of people who would buy the music anyway. The Linux crowd mostly won't be, and the mac crowd is probably buying from iTunes anyway, if they wanted DRM'ed music.
Still, music downloads is a hard business to break in to. You'd think they want every advantage they could get. Is it really just lazy coding, or are they using some sort of activex or something (which I guess just goes right back to lazy coding).
Anyway, this country is unfortunately moving more towards federalism. You are more likely to see the concept of states become more blurred, rather than more enforced.
It would depend on the game. I have no interest in watching some WoW player farm Yeti's, but a game like America's Army could be very fun to watch, I would think. Would have to be done just right though. A game made specifically to be a spectator sport could be very interesting.
You say that like it is a bad thing.
I'm with you on that. Maybe if they pushed hard on all of it, at least some of it would get done.
At least that is what it should be.
I have little faith that congress can get this right.
search.yahoo.com used 6% more RAM than www.google.com for me.
Not noticeable.
I prefer Yahoo.
www.yahoo.com = 13 characters
www.google.com = 14 characters
That is like 8% more characters in Google's address. I just don't have that kind of time.
I don't know, but I was at my bank the other day and on the window there was a Diebold sticker. Made me less eager to hand them my checks.
When people talk about Net Neutrality, do they mean ISPs can't do any packet shaping at all?
I am, for example, all for ISPs giving lower priority to VOIP if they need to. What I am not OK with is some VOIP company paying an ISP to give them greater priority priority, while the company that can not afford to pay gets shafted.
Working in this article like "the ability of systems engineers to improve latency and jitter issues" make it sounds like no packing shaping at all is allowed. Is that right?
"Aliens attacked earth today after encountering our army of exploding robots and interpreting them as an act of war. News at 10."
The solution would be to run web mail and web based office tools on your local computer at home. That way you would have access to it from anywhere. I think Windows Vista has some sort of feature that gives each computer its own unique ID that can be accesses from the outside somehow. With IPv6, this sort of thing is not too difficult.
Yes I know, casual computer users with their own servers not completely hidden by NAT sounds like a security nightmare. And if they are running Windows, it could be even worse.
But I really think that should be the future of the internet. Not huge data warehouses where you have no control over your data.
I suspect this would be fairly easy to circumvent, but I love the idea!
I have always thought that piracy should be solved through law enforcement, not technology. Much like traffic law enforcement.
DRM is the equivalent to putting a 70 mph speed cap on all cars. This watermarking is sort of like requiring cars to have a license plate.
If they can find a way to make this work I'd be overjoyed.