A "scquircle" eh? Is that how you squirt songs to all your other cool friends that supposedly have Zunes? Man, I sure wish my iPods had all those cool "social features" (whatever the hell that means). Is that kind of like sharing one ear-bud with your 13-year old best friend forever?
The Zune has not been an astounding success... Understatement-of-the-year Nominee! I have never seen a single Zune on the street or at the gym. I figured there'd be at least a few MS fans in tech-savvy Austin TX that would go for one. I really figured I would have seen one by now, given I go to a very popular gym 3-4 times a week where EVERYONE has some sort of digital music player.
I am talking about computer related courses (which are all about "which buttons to push") and fulfilling minimum computer-use requirements such as providing internet access for research, and word processing for homework, etc. Given a Mac does all these things very well, what is so sigh-inducing about a Mac being used for these purposes? Still, if an educator is focusing on what buttons to push when it comes to writing papers and conducting research, then that child is losing. Teaching a child how to choose valid and reliable sources and how to write persuasively are skills that are much more important than knowing which buttons to push. There is plenty of education research that shows students figure the tools out with or without instruction, so why waste time on it?
Apple focuses on consumers, not business. PC companies traditionally have had better products and support to fulfill corporate needs, simply because they've been in the business of doing so. Circular logic. I guess if you define "better" as meaning "used more by companies" then I'd agree, but I actually have a different measurement for "better" and MacOSX pretty much wins that one. (Yes, even in a business context...it WORKS better, it IMPROVES productivity by working better, it costs less in the long run, etc. etc. Bottom-line bean-counters will never see this).
I don't recommend any browser, per se. The only thing I suggest is a bit of user awareness. I don't think it is the job of any browser to cover our collective stupidity of clicking on overtly bogus links that are just trying to steal our money.
Don't get me wrong. I love the Get a Mac ads. All I'm saying is that the substance of the Microsoft "Facts" campaign is not empty, or flippant (like the Mac ads tend to be, skimping on facts, capitalizing on market momentum and funny-yet-true stereotypes). I see that "facts" site to be similar to the Apple web sites of the past that were setup to get people to see why Macs were so much better, and more recently, the "switcher" sections.
That is why I cringe at Macs in schools because they aren't business computers... (...ignoring my appeal to authority for one second) I actually have a grad degree in Education Technology, and that's why I cringe when people post ignorant comments like this. Teaching a child how to USE a computer is called "Computer Science" which, later in life is becomes known as "Adult Continuing Education". There's a big difference between using MS Excel to analyze and use data and teaching a Devry student how to format a cell. (Hint, guess which role earns more money?)
Teaching a student how to LEARN using a computer is the real goal of technology in Education, not which buttons to push. For a decent primer (and to stop making such absurd claims) please visit the ISTE.org website.
And furthermore, please explain how a Mac isn't a "business computer" (whatever that means).
So on a scale of 1-10 in stupidity, Apple's lack of anti-phishing in Safari is about a 1. Maybe Apple has seen the research that finds Mac users are more intelligent than PC users, so aggressive anti-phishing features aren't necessary? (ducks...)
Or you could take the product for what it is, instead of buying into the perception and image efforts of a marketing campaign (or the even more lame efforts of geeks everywhere to demonize the use of Macs). I've been trying to buck the "hipster" Mac stereotype for probably 20 years now. Ok, so I was a hipster wannabe in 1988 (the year I started college), but it took about, oh, a semester or two to outgrow that fad.
Well, out of the 15 Macs I've owned, only 3 have ever needed repairs. That's 3 more than me (and I've owned more than you). Oh wait...I forgot that huge showstopper (not) of the plastic slightly coming up on my current 1stGen MacBook that was fixed at an Apple Store in about 10 minutes (for free, out of warranty).
Oh yeah, and I can't forget my problem-riddled Motorola StarMax Mac Clone that was constantly needing repairs. Maybe that says something about "industry standard" components, and the supposed price benefit? Not so big a deal anymore, but I hated that argument in the mid-90s. There's a reason Apple has been consistently #1 in initial and long term quality ratings and it wasn't because they were using the same parts as Motorola (and every other PC brand out there).
In a business environment "one whole day" of downtime can be very expensive. Evidently it doesn't concern some companies, because our computers (Dells, in Austin, TX none-the-less) go down for weeks on end around here.
I couldn't help notice the eyesore of a Microsoft advertisement plastered right in the top left corner (premium real-estate) of this guy's blog.
I don't get his complaint either. He's mad because a capitalist organization is advertising? I bet he REALLY hates the "Get a Mac" ads, since those make this MS page seem very intelligent, indeed.
Just because you served a billion people doesn't mean your shit is very good, it just means it is good enough. Or it just means there are a billion (or more) stupid people on Earth (most of us live here in the US by just looking around at all the fatsos).
Define "oppressive regimes". That's actually a slippery slope that I'm not comfortable going down. If we start beating down on things we consider to be oppressive, we become the oppressors ourselves. What's the point?
But with html, you can always just bring it into a browser and view the source code there. There is no way (that I am aware) to lock your code into a specific software package, is there?
Say NO to Closed Source software. In all seriousness, doesn't this mean the same thing as saying NO to capitalism? Or am I missing the open source bandwag...errr boat and is there money to be made for Adobe to go open source?
Well, back in the day, GoLive Cyberstudio came with an entire suite of web management tools, to include visual site mapping and multimedia management. I guess it never caught on (and I haven't done web stuff in over 10 years, other than fixing broken html in Robohelp files). I suppose now days its just all templates and CSS, so WYSIWYG editors are best left to those design oriented people who don't have the time/patience to tweak code? Still, it is faster to produce one page of text from scratch, with layout and multimedia elements using Dreamweaver than it is to do it line by line. I presume CSS and templates take that out of the equation, however, and content providers are just dropping their Word files into a directory somewhere and it gets populated into the template. Fair enough, I see the point.
Well I am lazy, and I am only dangerous with code, but that matters not one bit in this discussion. I didn't mean to suggest that one SHOULD use Dreamweaver to do code, only that if you ARE using Dreamweaver to manage and entire site, why not tweak the code in the code-view mode? I'm not saying you have to do it that way, just that it is feasible. Your way is also feasible (probably preferred).
Maybe we don't see the same info the same way. As many people have pointed out, the summary isn't accurate, in that they only seem to code their templates by hand. What I'm saying is if you coding EVERYTHING by hand, all content of every area of the NYTimes, AND managing the links/multimedia/ad-servers, etc. AND changing it on the hour, a software suite might be more in order for the benefit of expediency and management. The problem in this case is that they don't discuss the whole picture, just the templating process, which is probably faster AND more accurate than using Dreamweaver. So maybe I'm not "just wrong".
No, YOU didn't ruin it, the notion that the number of dependable news sources has eroded over the years did. You said nothing wrong, and I agree with everything you said! I forgive you though, since this is slashdot, we have grown to expect that every comment is satirical, self-indulgently condescending, ego-pumping, argumentative time-wasters.
I'm not advocating the use of Dreamweaver, per se, but that was the WYSIWYG editor-of-choice thus far in the discussion. I'm not sure what the status of GoLive is, now that Adobe owns them both, nor am I familiar enough with other packages to really comment. The basic premise of WYSIWYG, though, and all the positive and negative side-effects lends to probably worse output but most likely faster production times when it comes to managing the content of an entire site (not just the CSS and html)
There are also people who believe that Microsoft's font technology is more readable than MacOSX, which I find to be laughable. This only goes to show that "known facts" can be subjective and are indeed not "facts" at all.
Do you hand code your Microsoft Word formatting, or do you simply push the "B" button to make your text bold? I remember the early Word Processor days, and it wasn't pretty. WYSIWYG word processing is probably one of the top 10 revelations of modern-day computing. Some day it might be that way for html as well. Some day.
Slashdot Mirror
A "scquircle" eh? Is that how you squirt songs to all your other cool friends that supposedly have Zunes? Man, I sure wish my iPods had all those cool "social features" (whatever the hell that means). Is that kind of like sharing one ear-bud with your 13-year old best friend forever?
I don't recommend any browser, per se. The only thing I suggest is a bit of user awareness. I don't think it is the job of any browser to cover our collective stupidity of clicking on overtly bogus links that are just trying to steal our money.
Don't get me wrong. I love the Get a Mac ads. All I'm saying is that the substance of the Microsoft "Facts" campaign is not empty, or flippant (like the Mac ads tend to be, skimping on facts, capitalizing on market momentum and funny-yet-true stereotypes). I see that "facts" site to be similar to the Apple web sites of the past that were setup to get people to see why Macs were so much better, and more recently, the "switcher" sections.
Teaching a student how to LEARN using a computer is the real goal of technology in Education, not which buttons to push. For a decent primer (and to stop making such absurd claims) please visit the ISTE.org website.
And furthermore, please explain how a Mac isn't a "business computer" (whatever that means).
Or you could take the product for what it is, instead of buying into the perception and image efforts of a marketing campaign (or the even more lame efforts of geeks everywhere to demonize the use of Macs). I've been trying to buck the "hipster" Mac stereotype for probably 20 years now. Ok, so I was a hipster wannabe in 1988 (the year I started college), but it took about, oh, a semester or two to outgrow that fad.
Oh yeah, and I can't forget my problem-riddled Motorola StarMax Mac Clone that was constantly needing repairs. Maybe that says something about "industry standard" components, and the supposed price benefit? Not so big a deal anymore, but I hated that argument in the mid-90s. There's a reason Apple has been consistently #1 in initial and long term quality ratings and it wasn't because they were using the same parts as Motorola (and every other PC brand out there).
I don't get his complaint either. He's mad because a capitalist organization is advertising? I bet he REALLY hates the "Get a Mac" ads, since those make this MS page seem very intelligent, indeed.
Leave Britney ALONE!!!!
Define "oppressive regimes". That's actually a slippery slope that I'm not comfortable going down. If we start beating down on things we consider to be oppressive, we become the oppressors ourselves. What's the point?
Where was this sort of lawsuit when I bought a 160GB Maxtor HD, only to find out that WinXP could only recognize the first 120GB?
But with html, you can always just bring it into a browser and view the source code there. There is no way (that I am aware) to lock your code into a specific software package, is there?
Well, back in the day, GoLive Cyberstudio came with an entire suite of web management tools, to include visual site mapping and multimedia management. I guess it never caught on (and I haven't done web stuff in over 10 years, other than fixing broken html in Robohelp files). I suppose now days its just all templates and CSS, so WYSIWYG editors are best left to those design oriented people who don't have the time/patience to tweak code? Still, it is faster to produce one page of text from scratch, with layout and multimedia elements using Dreamweaver than it is to do it line by line. I presume CSS and templates take that out of the equation, however, and content providers are just dropping their Word files into a directory somewhere and it gets populated into the template. Fair enough, I see the point.
Well I am lazy, and I am only dangerous with code, but that matters not one bit in this discussion. I didn't mean to suggest that one SHOULD use Dreamweaver to do code, only that if you ARE using Dreamweaver to manage and entire site, why not tweak the code in the code-view mode? I'm not saying you have to do it that way, just that it is feasible. Your way is also feasible (probably preferred).
Maybe we don't see the same info the same way. As many people have pointed out, the summary isn't accurate, in that they only seem to code their templates by hand. What I'm saying is if you coding EVERYTHING by hand, all content of every area of the NYTimes, AND managing the links/multimedia/ad-servers, etc. AND changing it on the hour, a software suite might be more in order for the benefit of expediency and management. The problem in this case is that they don't discuss the whole picture, just the templating process, which is probably faster AND more accurate than using Dreamweaver. So maybe I'm not "just wrong".
No, YOU didn't ruin it, the notion that the number of dependable news sources has eroded over the years did. You said nothing wrong, and I agree with everything you said! I forgive you though, since this is slashdot, we have grown to expect that every comment is satirical, self-indulgently condescending, ego-pumping, argumentative time-wasters.
I'm not advocating the use of Dreamweaver, per se, but that was the WYSIWYG editor-of-choice thus far in the discussion. I'm not sure what the status of GoLive is, now that Adobe owns them both, nor am I familiar enough with other packages to really comment. The basic premise of WYSIWYG, though, and all the positive and negative side-effects lends to probably worse output but most likely faster production times when it comes to managing the content of an entire site (not just the CSS and html)
There are also people who believe that Microsoft's font technology is more readable than MacOSX, which I find to be laughable. This only goes to show that "known facts" can be subjective and are indeed not "facts" at all.
Do you hand code your Microsoft Word formatting, or do you simply push the "B" button to make your text bold? I remember the early Word Processor days, and it wasn't pretty. WYSIWYG word processing is probably one of the top 10 revelations of modern-day computing. Some day it might be that way for html as well. Some day.