>W: to launch a program you double click it >L: to launch a program you double click it
Except that so many unix programs have no GUI's. Double clicking those will do nothing.
>W: To get a listing of a directory, type dir >L: To get a listing of a directory, type dir
So Linux's command-line is as easy as DOS's command line? That's damning with faint praise.
>W: To log out of the system, select Start|Logoff >L: To log out of the system, type "logoff"
Nope, judging by your first example, you are imagining the user is in a GUI. In this case, typing "logoff" will simply close whatever xterm they were working on. However, you could select in by whatever menu is with your window manager, and it's not that hard. Well, not that hard in Gnome / Enlightenment - others will require you to right click on the desktop or some other strange non-intuitive thing. If Joe user mistakenly chooses some other WM from gdm or kdm, he could easily not know how to logout.
Uh, sorry my post above is incomplete... I accidently submitted.
I didn't finish the analysis of Windows users need to figure out - the point is, though, the windows stuff is more possible to figure out through exploration, where as in Linux, users may not even be aware that the capability to change resolutions on the fly even exists.
You raise good points. I believe (and most UI experts would probably agree) that the Mac and Windows interfaces are still too difficult to use. That is why things like double-clicking and hierarchical directory structures will eventually have to go.
However, the statement that linux is much more difficult to use is certainly true. When designing software, we all need to figure out how people are supposed to know to use the software, and not assume they have read the manual beforehand (no one does this). So, to change resolution, how can the user figure this out:
1) Guess (unlikely) 2) Read the relevant HOWTO but to do this the user needs to 2a) Be aware that HOWTO's exist (certainly these are not prominent) 2b) Figure out what the HOWTO dictory is
2c) Figure out how to get to to and read the HOWTO file and possibly 2d) How to search through the HOWTO file to find what they are looking for. So if they can do that, they now know how to change the resolution. But wait! That was just for the resolution! The bit depth is completely different!
Compare that to the windows users - who has to 1) Be aware of a thing called Control Center 2) Know how to get to the Control Center 3) Figure out that they want to choose the "Display" icon 4) Select from the tab menu
My recommendation, which is possible to do (may require restart), is to put the resolution / bit depth in the Gnome Control Box (or whatever that thing is called).
You misunderstand the point you are replying to. You cannot change the resolution or bit depth of the display from any X tool that I know of. You can press Ctrl-Alt-+ and Ctrl-Alt-- to change the resolution only but that's definately not an acceptable way to do things to the average user. In Mac and Windows it's easy. I wish it were so easy in Linux.
Wow, I'm suprised to see him pop up again. His "Worst of the Web" was consitently one of the funniest thing's I've read online. I really miss those things... I'm sure there are equally bad websites out there today...
Anyone else remember his drunk browsing test?
Or his sample "Worst Homepage" - where a "construction" icon says something like "This page is not under construction - this means I'm a construction worker!"
He's really under-appreciated. Really, who else on the web is more amusing than him? Kibo, perhaps? Lileks?
> 'X is too ugly.' > X can be made to look any way you want it too look
From a usability standpoint, that's an insurmountable problem. That reason alone should be reason enough to get rid of X. Even if you could present a user with a consistent interface, if they wanted to download programs on their own, their interface would shortly become inconsistent, because most X programs looks different. An example is ETerm. I download the new version the other day. But what happened to the menu? Then I discovered to access the menu you have to do a Ctrl-Right-Click. Perhaps when people start figuring that out, they may change it to something more obscure. It's possible to code bad interfaces in any enviroment, but good environments such as Mac/Windows/NeXT make it easy to develop interfaces that are the easiset to use.
> X is too old. > Unix is older. 1970.
Considering how far graphics has come in the last decade, I think this is a valid complaint.
> X has no user interface. X enables you to build whatever user interface your want on top of it.
To repeat, this is why X has got to go! No matter how much you improve it, it continue to be a complete mess, interface-wise.
I don't see what the big deal is here. People who post to Slashdot post to a public forum, available to the whole world. They post so that their comments are out there, in the public domain. No one is under the impression this is a private chat room.
So why anyone has a problem with their previous publicly posted comments being available merely in a different media, with what is likely to be a smaller audience, is beyond me.
Is the problem with lack of credit? If there were user names, what would that solve, since very few people seem to post under their real names, and there are many anonymous posts. I barely pay attention to any of the poster's names myself, those who never read Slashdot will not pay attention at all, and would not gain any useful information by learning that "MisterPudding" has posted an insightful comment about Columbine.
The reason this is interesting is because Ralph Reed is probably one of the most influential people in American politics today.
The news is important, and bizarre. Microsoft tries to get the god-heads on their side. It's a very interesting move, and with Reed as their lobbyist, lots of people will suddenly be a lot more sympathetic. This could well turn the feeling around in Washington - especially amongst the Republicans, who take what Reed and the Christian Coalition say as (pardon the expression) gospel.
I think you are mistaken if you believe that skins could ever fix usability problems. If there are usability problems, they should be fixed in the app, not in skins.
For example, no skin could correct certain interface flaws in xmms. No matter what skin you have, the song title and artist is always tiny. The buttons on the playlist always have the same unintuitive interface, being buttons when they should be pull-down menu items.
Also, the user most susceptible to bad UI's is not going to be sophisticated enough to get a new skin, so making a skin more usable than the default is quite useless.
The problem with themes and UI guidelines for them
on
Suck On Skins And UI
·
· Score: 3
Most of the theme writers have one goal - to make a cool looking theme. They certainly do this most of the time. However, usability is almost always lost in the process.
These are the top problems with themes that I have found (mainly from using xmms themes, and I have yet to find a good one):
1) Radio buttons should have distinguishable on and off states, and any user should be able to tell if the radio button is on or off. Seems simple, huh? It doesn't ususally happen. Most are overly 3-D ized, and when a user presses the radio button, it is supposed to be depressed, and turns slightly darker. "Darker equals on" is not exactly intuitive.
2) Are the buttons even visible? Again, to those using overly 3d displays, the buttons are invariable the same color as the background, but beveled. In xmms, as a bonus, the buttons are also extremely tiny. I can't even see the "close" button, I just have to guess where it is. Contrast is your friend, make use of it.
3) For god's sake people, when make sure all the buttons have some indication of what they do! This frequently is a problem with window manager buttons. You present the user with 3 buttons without labels, because it looks sleeker that way. But it's unusable.
4) Is the text readable? Please make sure it stands out...
I'm sure others can come up with more suggestions...
I agree, many sci-fi authors write great thought experiments. I would say there are only a few true philosphers though.
Of course one true sci-fi philospher is Stanislaw Lem. Occasionally Robert Silverberg will right a good philosophical novel (such as "The Face on the Waters"). That's all I can come up with right now. It's quite rare, I think. I don't think even Philip K Dick really managed it.
"Starmaker" is the sequel to "The First and Last Men", of which I discovered after reading an interview with Philip K Dick, who really loved that book ("The First and Last Men").
These books are true science fiction. Not the modern stories which often are normal stories with some sci-fi elements, or the stories the all revolve around an single sci-fi idea. This is what sci fi should be - it is untouched by John Campbell's influence, thank god.
The true greatness of Starmaker is it actually has a coherent philosophy of the meaning of life (not a single life, but life in general), and our place in the universe. Stapledon was truly an important thinker, and his philosophy could best be expressed through science fiction. Not many sci-fi authors have come close to his achievement, and I'm not aware of anyone who has written a book of the scope of either the Last and First Men, or the Starmaker.
You say what is needed is a free alternative on Win32, to show the masses that they do not have to pay to play DVD's.
What exactly are you talking about? Maybe every other DVD-ROM drive is different than the one I have, but I didn't have to pay for a DVD player for Win32. It came with the drive.
I don't have to pay to play DVD's. I just have to pay for the DVD's itself.
Of course, the price of my DVD-ROM drive is slightly increased due to licensing fees my DVD-ROM maker has to pay, but how of an increase per unit would you think that is? And it's a one time cost for the consumer, not a cost per play.
And you criticize this application? Are you crazy? Do you believe that proprietary software now has no right to be on Linux - it's free or be damned? Are you so caught up in your own rhetoric as to be unable to see that this is making Linux much more attractive, by provide much needed software? Shouldn't we try to encourage more companies to provide software as well, rather than flame them for hurting this or that free software issue? Give me a break...
A new product gets such a bad reaction?
on
More on LinDVD
·
· Score: 1
This product looks pretty good to me. We all want more applications for linux, and here comes a desperately needed one. And now people here scorn it because it conflicts with other interests. Hey, don't take it out on this product. It was bound to happen, sooner or later. I'm glad it happened sooner, because this is a product that is quite useful, and will help the OS. Why any supporter of Linux would scoff at this product is beyond me. The fact remains that at the time that deCSS was produced there was no DVD player, and so this really changes nothing. It makes me wonder if the hard-core free-software guys are becoming too radical - thinking only of their court cases, and nothing of the user experience. In fact, the two are not mutually exclusive, and I'm suprised to see it presented that way here.
No, even in Airplane, there is only one funny thing going on at any time. Sometimes it's in the foreground, sometime it's in the background. If something is happening in the background, the foreground is always standard boilerplate dialog - designed to be unimportant and not to be paid attention to. So you see... never two funny things at once. Watch it again and you will see.
You can easily get ORBS to take you off their list, by telling them to restest your server (it's all automatic). If your server truly is secure, you should be off ORBS in no time at all. If it's not secure, it will tell you why.
I remember the good old days when the Internet just had words on it. Now I can't get what Stallman has to say without turning my sound system on. Why would anyone make available the sounds of an interview, when it would be far more efficient and easier for everyone to access as text?
Is Wired too lazy to transcribe or did I miss a link to the text version?
I doubt the NSA has the scientific prowess to build a quantum computer ahead of the mainstream scientific community. However, think of this likely scenario:
Quantum computers turn out to be extremely expensive. There may be only a few on the planet. Whoever holds these can unlock any encryption. Since, no one else can, this gives the holders of the quantum computer incredible powers. The NSA would almost certainly have it. It's hard for anyone else to make, since it involves quite a bit of scientific knowledge, and certainly some specialized and expensive equipment.
The conclusion is unmistakable. The quantum computer is the new atom bomb.
Canada beer stronger? I think not. You forget that the two countries calculate the percentage differently (IIRC, one based on weight, one based on volume). Read the Beer FAQ for more info. Bottom line - they are the same strength.
What this guy writes is definately true. It's not big suprise here, I hope. I've known it for a long time.
Some examples:
- Not really UI- but just last night, I wanted to download an mp3 encoder. After a brief search at deja.com, I read that lame was a good mp3 encoder to use. I got to the lame homepage, and it said "lame is not an mp3 encoder!". Well, because I was persistant, I downloaded it anyway, and tried it out to see if it would encode my mp3's. It did. Perhaps it's technically right, but it sure seems unnecessarily confusing to me.
-How many GTK themes have you downloaded, where you can't tell, by looking at a pushbutton control, whether the button is on or off? You push the button, and the button gets slightly darker. Does darker mean it's on, as in it's depressed and so it's darker? Or does darker mean it's off, because dark tends to mean off? So many really nice looking themes are difficult to use because of problems like these.
- If Gnome, you can set a desktop. You can also set a desktop in Enlightenment, and most other Window Managers. I'm still not sure how these things interact, or why a user is allowed to set two different backgrounds, one in Gnome and one in the WM.
- Why does the user need to select different themes for both Gnome and Enlightnement, and then for any other app that has themes? I know the reason why, but what I'm saying is, to Joe User, it seems stupid to have to download his favorite theme, BlueSteel, for Gnome, for Enlightenment, and then for xmms.
- Why does X11, after initial set-up on a standard system (for me, at least, using RH5.2), not understand the backspace key? Why do I have to read a FAQ to get this to work?
I'm sure there are plenty of usability annoyances to go around....
Nonsense. A good window manager should have in it whatever it takes to make it useable. If that means a taskbar, then that's fine. A taskbar manages windows - I see no reason why it should not be part of a windows manager. If it confuses the user, that's a different story. But my guess is that taskbars, by being visible all the time, are quite useful to the novice user (and still helpful to the expert).
KISS, but avoid making it too simple. After all, we have to avoid what Don Norman calls "The Tyranny of the Blank Screen"... a screen that offeres no clues as to what to do next, or what is possible to do.
What do you mean "Flame wars are a necessary evil"?
From what I understand about this, it involves death threats, e-mail bombs (denial of service, right?) , real-world stalking, and getting people fired from jobs. Is it just me, or does this sound like something the police maybe should be involved in. Last I heard, making death threats was illegal.
Who exactly are we to say, "Oh it's OK, they were just joking around. It's all part of the great thing we call Usenet." Like "oh yeah, this guys a harmless kook obsessed about aliens" until he shows up at the local TV station with a gun. Remember that one? Well this thing sounds serious - and I have seen some flames before. When you take it to the real world, it crosses the line.
Slashdot Mirror
>W: to launch a program you double click it
>L: to launch a program you double click it
Except that so many unix programs have no GUI's. Double clicking those will do nothing.
>W: To get a listing of a directory, type dir
>L: To get a listing of a directory, type dir
So Linux's command-line is as easy as DOS's command line? That's damning with faint praise.
>W: To log out of the system, select Start|Logoff
>L: To log out of the system, type "logoff"
Nope, judging by your first example, you are imagining the user is in a GUI. In this case, typing "logoff" will simply close whatever xterm they were working on. However, you could select in by whatever menu is with your window manager, and it's not that hard. Well, not that hard in Gnome / Enlightenment - others will require you to right click on the desktop or some other strange non-intuitive thing. If Joe user mistakenly chooses some other WM from gdm or kdm, he could easily not know how to logout.
Uh, sorry my post above is incomplete... I accidently submitted.
I didn't finish the analysis of Windows users need to figure out - the point is, though, the windows stuff is more possible to figure out through exploration, where as in Linux, users may not even be aware that the capability to change resolutions on the fly even exists.
You raise good points. I believe (and most UI experts would probably agree) that the Mac and Windows interfaces are still too difficult to use. That is why things like double-clicking and hierarchical directory structures will eventually have to go.
However, the statement that linux is much more difficult to use is certainly true. When designing software, we all need to figure out how people are supposed to know to use the software, and not assume they have read the manual beforehand (no one does this). So, to change resolution, how can the user figure this out:
1) Guess (unlikely)
2) Read the relevant HOWTO
but to do this the user needs to
2a) Be aware that HOWTO's exist
(certainly these are not prominent)
2b) Figure out what the HOWTO dictory is
2c) Figure out how to get to to and read the
HOWTO file
and possibly
2d) How to search through the HOWTO file to
find what they are looking for.
So if they can do that, they now know how to change the resolution. But wait! That was just for the resolution! The bit depth is completely different!
Compare that to the windows users - who has to
1) Be aware of a thing called Control Center
2) Know how to get to the Control Center
3) Figure out that they want to choose the "Display" icon
4) Select from the tab menu
My recommendation, which is possible to do (may require restart), is to put the resolution / bit depth in the Gnome Control Box (or whatever that thing is called).
You misunderstand the point you are replying to. You cannot change the resolution or bit depth of the display from any X tool that I know of. You can press Ctrl-Alt-+ and Ctrl-Alt-- to change the resolution only but that's definately not an acceptable way to do things to the average user. In Mac and Windows it's easy. I wish it were so easy in Linux.
Wow, I'm suprised to see him pop up again. His "Worst of the Web" was consitently one of the funniest thing's I've read online. I really miss those things... I'm sure there are equally bad websites out there today...
Anyone else remember his drunk browsing test?
Or his sample "Worst Homepage" - where a "construction" icon says something like "This page is not under construction - this means I'm a construction worker!"
He's really under-appreciated. Really, who else on the web is more amusing than him? Kibo, perhaps? Lileks?
> 'X is too ugly.'
> X can be made to look any way you want it too look
From a usability standpoint, that's an insurmountable problem. That reason alone should be reason enough to get rid of X. Even if you could present a user with a consistent interface, if they wanted to download programs on their own, their interface would shortly become inconsistent, because most X programs looks different. An example is ETerm. I download the new version the other day. But what happened to the menu? Then I discovered to access the menu you have to do a Ctrl-Right-Click. Perhaps when people start figuring that out, they may change it to something more obscure. It's possible to code bad interfaces in any enviroment, but good environments such as Mac/Windows/NeXT make it easy to develop interfaces that are the easiset to use.
> X is too old.
> Unix is older. 1970.
Considering how far graphics has come in the last decade, I think this is a valid complaint.
> X has no user interface. X enables you to build whatever user interface your want on top of it.
To repeat, this is why X has got to go! No matter how much you improve it, it continue to be a complete mess, interface-wise.
I don't see what the big deal is here. People who post to Slashdot post to a public forum, available to the whole world. They post so that their comments are out there, in the public domain. No one is under the impression this is a private chat room.
So why anyone has a problem with their previous publicly posted comments being available merely in a different media, with what is likely to be a smaller audience, is beyond me.
Is the problem with lack of credit? If there were user names, what would that solve, since very few people seem to post under their real names, and there are many anonymous posts. I barely pay attention to any of the poster's names myself, those who never read Slashdot will not pay attention at all, and would not gain any useful information by learning that "MisterPudding" has posted an insightful comment about Columbine.
According the article, the laptop uses water vapor to cool the processor.
That's really too bad - I'd love to have one of these things, but unfortunately, it's vaporware.
The reason this is interesting is because Ralph Reed is probably one of the most influential people in American politics today.
The news is important, and bizarre. Microsoft tries to get the god-heads on their side. It's a very interesting move, and with Reed as their lobbyist, lots of people will suddenly be a lot more sympathetic. This could well turn the feeling around in Washington - especially amongst the Republicans, who take what Reed and the Christian Coalition say as (pardon the expression) gospel.
I think you are mistaken if you believe that skins
could ever fix usability problems. If there are usability problems, they should be fixed in the app, not in skins.
For example, no skin could correct certain interface flaws in xmms. No matter what skin you have, the song title and artist is always tiny. The buttons on the playlist always have the same unintuitive interface, being buttons when they should be pull-down menu items.
Also, the user most susceptible to bad UI's is not going to be sophisticated enough to get a new skin, so making a skin more usable than the default is quite useless.
Most of the theme writers have one goal - to make a cool looking theme. They certainly do this most of the time. However, usability is almost always lost in the process.
These are the top problems with themes that I have found (mainly from using xmms themes, and I have yet to find a good one):
1) Radio buttons should have distinguishable on and off states, and any user should be able to tell if the radio button is on or off. Seems simple, huh? It doesn't ususally happen. Most are overly 3-D ized, and when a user presses the radio button, it is supposed to be depressed, and turns slightly darker. "Darker equals on" is not exactly intuitive.
2) Are the buttons even visible? Again, to those using overly 3d displays, the buttons are invariable the same color as the background, but beveled. In xmms, as a bonus, the buttons are also extremely tiny. I can't even see the "close" button, I just have to guess where it is. Contrast is your friend, make use of it.
3) For god's sake people, when make sure all the buttons have some indication of what they do! This frequently is a problem with window manager buttons. You present the user with 3 buttons without labels, because it looks sleeker that way. But it's unusable.
4) Is the text readable? Please make sure it stands out...
I'm sure others can come up with more suggestions...
I agree, many sci-fi authors write great thought experiments. I would say there are only a few true philosphers though.
Of course one true sci-fi philospher is Stanislaw Lem. Occasionally Robert Silverberg will right a good philosophical novel (such as "The Face on the Waters"). That's all I can come up with right now. It's quite rare, I think. I don't think even Philip K Dick really managed it.
"Starmaker" is the sequel to "The First and Last Men", of which I discovered after reading an interview with Philip K Dick, who really loved that book ("The First and Last Men").
These books are true science fiction. Not the modern stories which often are normal stories with some sci-fi elements, or the stories the all revolve around an single sci-fi idea. This is what sci fi should be - it is untouched by John Campbell's influence, thank god.
The true greatness of Starmaker is it actually has a coherent philosophy of the meaning of life (not a single life, but life in general), and our place in the universe. Stapledon was truly an important thinker, and his philosophy could best be expressed through science fiction. Not many sci-fi authors have come close to his achievement, and I'm not aware of anyone who has written a book of the scope of either the Last and First Men, or the Starmaker.
You say what is needed is a free alternative on Win32, to show the masses that they do not have to pay to play DVD's.
What exactly are you talking about? Maybe every other DVD-ROM drive is different than the one I have, but I didn't have to pay for a DVD player for Win32. It came with the drive.
I don't have to pay to play DVD's. I just have to pay for the DVD's itself.
Of course, the price of my DVD-ROM drive is slightly increased due to licensing fees my DVD-ROM maker has to pay, but how of an increase per unit would you think that is? And it's a one time cost for the consumer, not a cost per play.
And you criticize this application? Are you crazy? Do you believe that proprietary software now has no right to be on Linux - it's free or be damned? Are you so caught up in your own rhetoric as to be unable to see that this is making Linux much more attractive, by provide much needed software? Shouldn't we try to encourage more companies to provide software as well, rather than flame them for hurting this or that free software issue? Give me a break...
This product looks pretty good to me. We all want more applications for linux, and here comes a desperately needed one. And now people here scorn it because it conflicts with other interests. Hey, don't take it out on this product. It was bound to happen, sooner or later. I'm glad it happened sooner, because this is a product that is quite useful, and will help the OS. Why any supporter of Linux would scoff at this product is beyond me. The fact remains that at the time that deCSS was produced there was no DVD player, and so this really changes nothing. It makes me wonder if the hard-core free-software guys are becoming too radical - thinking only of their court cases, and nothing of the user experience. In fact, the two are not mutually exclusive, and I'm suprised to see it presented that way here.
No, even in Airplane, there is only one funny thing going on at any time. Sometimes it's in the foreground, sometime it's in the background. If something is happening in the background, the foreground is always standard boilerplate dialog - designed to be unimportant and not to be paid attention to. So you see... never two funny things at once. Watch it again and you will see.
You are absolutely on target with this.
I remember some comedy wisdom dispensed by the
guys who did "Airplane", "Naked Gun" and others...
they said "Never try to do two jokes at once".
And they were right, as we all can see...
You can easily get ORBS to take you off their list, by telling them to restest your server (it's all automatic). If your server truly is secure, you should be off ORBS in no time at all. If it's not secure, it will tell you why.
You know it's an unfriendly install program when you have to teach a class about it.
I remember the good old days when the Internet just had words on it. Now I can't get what Stallman has to say without turning my sound system on. Why would anyone make available the sounds of an interview, when it would be far more efficient and easier for everyone to access as text?
Is Wired too lazy to transcribe or did I miss a link to the text version?
I doubt the NSA has the scientific prowess to build a quantum computer ahead of the mainstream scientific community. However, think of this likely scenario:
Quantum computers turn out to be extremely expensive. There may be only a few on the planet. Whoever holds these can unlock any encryption. Since, no one else can, this gives the holders of
the quantum computer incredible powers. The NSA would almost certainly have it. It's hard for anyone else to make, since it involves quite a bit of scientific knowledge, and certainly some specialized and expensive equipment.
The conclusion is unmistakable. The quantum computer is the new atom bomb.
Canada beer stronger? I think not. You forget that the two countries calculate the percentage differently (IIRC, one based on weight, one based on volume). Read the Beer FAQ for more info. Bottom line - they are the same strength.
Some examples:
- Not really UI- but just last night, I wanted to download an mp3 encoder. After a brief search at deja.com, I read that lame was a good mp3 encoder to use. I got to the lame homepage, and it said "lame is not an mp3 encoder!". Well, because I was persistant, I downloaded it anyway, and tried it out to see if it would encode my mp3's. It did. Perhaps it's technically right, but it sure seems unnecessarily confusing to me.
-How many GTK themes have you downloaded, where you can't tell, by looking at a pushbutton control, whether the button is on or off? You push the button, and the button gets slightly darker. Does darker mean it's on, as in it's depressed and so it's darker? Or does darker mean it's off, because dark tends to mean off? So many really nice looking themes are difficult to use because of problems like these.
- If Gnome, you can set a desktop. You can also set a desktop in Enlightenment, and most other Window Managers. I'm still not sure how these things interact, or why a user is allowed to set two different backgrounds, one in Gnome and one in the WM.
- Why does the user need to select different themes for both Gnome and Enlightnement, and then for any other app that has themes? I know the reason why, but what I'm saying is, to Joe User, it seems stupid to have to download his favorite theme, BlueSteel, for Gnome, for Enlightenment, and then for xmms.
- Why does X11, after initial set-up on a standard system (for me, at least, using RH5.2), not understand the backspace key? Why do I have to read a FAQ to get this to work?
I'm sure there are plenty of usability annoyances to go around....
KISS, but avoid making it too simple. After all, we have to avoid what Don Norman calls "The Tyranny of the Blank Screen"... a screen that offeres no clues as to what to do next, or what is possible to do.
From what I understand about this, it involves death threats, e-mail bombs (denial of service, right?) , real-world stalking, and getting people fired from jobs. Is it just me, or does this sound like something the police maybe should be involved in. Last I heard, making death threats was illegal.
Who exactly are we to say, "Oh it's OK, they were just joking around. It's all part of the great thing we call Usenet." Like "oh yeah, this guys a harmless kook obsessed about aliens" until he shows up at the local TV station with a gun. Remember that one? Well this thing sounds serious - and I have seen some flames before. When you take it to the real world, it crosses the line.