You totally missed my point, which had nothing to do with paraplegics nor comparing them to Linux users, although you make a quaint point about yourself. As could easily be picked up from what I said, but I'll say it in non metaphoric language just for you, is that one method of access only works on windows. There are other methods of access that are a few keystrokes away.
You want to watch the inauguration? You don't need to use Windows or Silverlight to do so. There will be plenty of other live feeds available.
And this whole thing is pointless. Obama has bigger and better things to worry about, rather than whether some dipshit can't find a method to watch the inauguration that doesn't involve Windows and the official site; like running a country for instance. Personally, I will watch it on a TV. You know, those things that came out before computers.
It will be accessible. Just not by a small minority on their website. But you can still access it elsewhere!! To complain about it is a bit like protesting that a wheelchair bound person can't access a McDonalds even when there's a ramp right to the same building just around the corner.
What the hell! I thought I had seen the stupidest of the stupidest when I first saw digg. I have now been proven wrong. Not only that, but reading just 2 pages of that has made my life worth many fold times less.
"taught", "thought". Good luck with the horrendous amount of irregular verbs in the English language. Just wait til you begin to realise that some sentences or behaviours that might be perfectly polite in the USA could get you whacked over the head in the UK... And vice versa, and unfortunately for some people they only learn that through experience...
Completely agreed. Unfortunately I used up all my mod points in the IT Jobs article:-(
I find it quite amusing that many "green"s would prefer hydro (environment destroying), coal (CO2 + dirty) etc. over nuclear (very little space taken, no "greenhouse" gasses, radiation no way near as destructive as people make believe).
And yeah, I completely miss the point of this guy's research. What's he trying to do? Tell Google that they should be saving on electricity COSTS? Like they aren't already putting effort into that or something. Or is he trying to convince everyone to do less web searches?
Regardless, I find the content of the article very badly, and unscientifically based. For instance, it's not considering the opportunity cost, that is, what would happen if one wasn't doing those two Google searches... driving to the library? Walking to the library? Yes, even walking uses up extra CO2.
Also the cost of the electricity most likely wouldn't increase anywhere near as much as they say. 2 searches = a boiled kettle. What utter nonsense! The power is also used to keep the computers on regardless of searches, and to be able to handle a heavily increased load of searches. I would vouch that if searches suddenly doubled, the servers are already prepared AND they would use almost no extra energy, percentage wise.
As for saying that it was paid for by Microsoft, well, that would hurt Microsoft's bottom line in more than one way. I would hazard a guess that the MS servers use much more power than Google's.
There is no way the Earth could possibly support 7 billion hunter gatherers. To do that, we would need to cull our population to about 1.000.000, or our food supply would run out in very short order. We'd probably hunt EVERY SINGLE species on Earth to extinction, if we didn't eat their food source first.
Why not? Death is the natural state for an organism that is no longer functioning correctly. And it would appear that Darl certainly fits within that category.
Yes, well most computers don't like any kind of physical interaction with humans, from my post, it is quite apparent that I found one that rather enjoys it ^^
What are you talking about? I was talking about the GP who LIES upfront saying he is a parent, recommending things, when he has no idea what he's talking about.
Also I don't really like advertising in general when it is factually incorrect. That is even supposed to be illegal, not that trade commissions such as the FCC pay much attention to policing it. And just because someone else does something doesn't make something else right.
I have no problem with advertising that is truthful, honest, and targeted. I have problems with straight up lying, misrepresentation, and things that distract me.
Just because advertising "in general" misleads young parents doesn't make it right for any one person to mislead. That's a common type of argument that's made, and one of the most stupidly pathetic.
Nope, I think it's more than just an edge case... I use that feature all the time. Still not an excuse to call it an "Awesome Bar" though. Of course I'm assuming it's not an edge case because I use it, but then I might be an edge case, and you know what they say about crazy people.
Nothing would keep them from doing that, and why should/shouldn't they? The whole purpose of FOSS is so that stuff like that CAN be done. Don't see why Google would bother, I like their bar better than the "Awesome Bar" anyhow. However, that's not enough to make me switch. I still use Firefox (mostly);-)
Or else they have a lot more features planned for 2.0 and they are releasing it early for testers while further updates to the 1.0 branch will be mostly annoyance/speed/bug fixes. Any Google people here to justify/explain?
I am another such person that likes to drag tabs out into new windows. Usually it's because when I've got too many tabs open I hate having to scroll, and I get to multiply the number of tabs easily accessible (IMHO) by tabbing with the OS' task bar at the bottom. I don't usually use more than one monitor unless I have a really big desk because I need the space for things like paper, books and random useless crap.
I have to agree with CannonballHead here. I've never ever wanted to scale pictures up with the text. Usually I just want to read the text bigger, why would I want the images to be bigger? Most images don't scale well enough, and I only ever have problems with text being too small to read.
It would be nice if they put in an option allowing one to choose between scaling both pictures and text XOR scaling text. But if there was to not be an option, I think it would be preferable to just scale the text.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Slashdot still doesn't support a standard that is over 20 years old.
You totally missed my point, which had nothing to do with paraplegics nor comparing them to Linux users, although you make a quaint point about yourself. As could easily be picked up from what I said, but I'll say it in non metaphoric language just for you, is that one method of access only works on windows. There are other methods of access that are a few keystrokes away.
You want to watch the inauguration? You don't need to use Windows or Silverlight to do so. There will be plenty of other live feeds available.
And this whole thing is pointless. Obama has bigger and better things to worry about, rather than whether some dipshit can't find a method to watch the inauguration that doesn't involve Windows and the official site; like running a country for instance. Personally, I will watch it on a TV. You know, those things that came out before computers.
It will be accessible. Just not by a small minority on their website. But you can still access it elsewhere!! To complain about it is a bit like protesting that a wheelchair bound person can't access a McDonalds even when there's a ramp right to the same building just around the corner.
What the hell! I thought I had seen the stupidest of the stupidest when I first saw digg. I have now been proven wrong. Not only that, but reading just 2 pages of that has made my life worth many fold times less.
Yes, when I first read that, I thought, wouldn't "get[ting] rid of sales people and other mismanagement" be the RIGHT thing to do?
"taught", "thought". Good luck with the horrendous amount of irregular verbs in the English language. Just wait til you begin to realise that some sentences or behaviours that might be perfectly polite in the USA could get you whacked over the head in the UK... And vice versa, and unfortunately for some people they only learn that through experience...
No!!! Not before Godwin's law comes into effect!
Thanks for that, it really made me crack up.
I think you have a VERY high standard of "correct".
Excuse me! My middle name is arsehole. Pedantic comes right after that. Yes, I'm an arsehole pedantic, not a pedantic arsehole.
Umm, how is this off-topic?
Completely agreed. Unfortunately I used up all my mod points in the IT Jobs article :-(
I find it quite amusing that many "green"s would prefer hydro (environment destroying), coal (CO2 + dirty) etc. over nuclear (very little space taken, no "greenhouse" gasses, radiation no way near as destructive as people make believe).
And yeah, I completely miss the point of this guy's research. What's he trying to do? Tell Google that they should be saving on electricity COSTS? Like they aren't already putting effort into that or something. Or is he trying to convince everyone to do less web searches?
I'm not sure if I hope you're joking or not...
Regardless, I find the content of the article very badly, and unscientifically based. For instance, it's not considering the opportunity cost, that is, what would happen if one wasn't doing those two Google searches... driving to the library? Walking to the library? Yes, even walking uses up extra CO2.
Also the cost of the electricity most likely wouldn't increase anywhere near as much as they say. 2 searches = a boiled kettle. What utter nonsense! The power is also used to keep the computers on regardless of searches, and to be able to handle a heavily increased load of searches. I would vouch that if searches suddenly doubled, the servers are already prepared AND they would use almost no extra energy, percentage wise.
As for saying that it was paid for by Microsoft, well, that would hurt Microsoft's bottom line in more than one way. I would hazard a guess that the MS servers use much more power than Google's.
There is no way the Earth could possibly support 7 billion hunter gatherers. To do that, we would need to cull our population to about 1.000.000, or our food supply would run out in very short order. We'd probably hunt EVERY SINGLE species on Earth to extinction, if we didn't eat their food source first.
Why not? Death is the natural state for an organism that is no longer functioning correctly. And it would appear that Darl certainly fits within that category.
Yes, well most computers don't like any kind of physical interaction with humans, from my post, it is quite apparent that I found one that rather enjoys it ^^
Oh crap, I'm still using USB 1!!
(Actually my computer died, and I had to pull an old one out of the closet).
Haha, that's something I always mean to say, and forget to when someone says "if you know ... then ... is ..."
What are you talking about? I was talking about the GP who LIES upfront saying he is a parent, recommending things, when he has no idea what he's talking about.
Also I don't really like advertising in general when it is factually incorrect. That is even supposed to be illegal, not that trade commissions such as the FCC pay much attention to policing it. And just because someone else does something doesn't make something else right.
I have no problem with advertising that is truthful, honest, and targeted. I have problems with straight up lying, misrepresentation, and things that distract me.
Just because advertising "in general" misleads young parents doesn't make it right for any one person to mislead. That's a common type of argument that's made, and one of the most stupidly pathetic.
Nope, I think it's more than just an edge case... I use that feature all the time. Still not an excuse to call it an "Awesome Bar" though. Of course I'm assuming it's not an edge case because I use it, but then I might be an edge case, and you know what they say about crazy people.
"Smart Location Bar"... that's still a retarded name ;-)
Nothing would keep them from doing that, and why should/shouldn't they? The whole purpose of FOSS is so that stuff like that CAN be done. Don't see why Google would bother, I like their bar better than the "Awesome Bar" anyhow. However, that's not enough to make me switch. I still use Firefox (mostly) ;-)
Or else they have a lot more features planned for 2.0 and they are releasing it early for testers while further updates to the 1.0 branch will be mostly annoyance/speed/bug fixes. Any Google people here to justify/explain?
I am another such person that likes to drag tabs out into new windows. Usually it's because when I've got too many tabs open I hate having to scroll, and I get to multiply the number of tabs easily accessible (IMHO) by tabbing with the OS' task bar at the bottom. I don't usually use more than one monitor unless I have a really big desk because I need the space for things like paper, books and random useless crap.
I have to agree with CannonballHead here. I've never ever wanted to scale pictures up with the text. Usually I just want to read the text bigger, why would I want the images to be bigger? Most images don't scale well enough, and I only ever have problems with text being too small to read.
It would be nice if they put in an option allowing one to choose between scaling both pictures and text XOR scaling text. But if there was to not be an option, I think it would be preferable to just scale the text.