Ever hear of GoboLinux? It changes the directory structure to that end. You have/Programs/Package/Version/bin, etc.
For the command line, they just have a seperate directory in the path filed with symbolic links.
There's the feel. It appears quite lightweight, clean (from the user side, anyhow), fast, and simple. I've mostly switched to Chromium for random browsing now.
On an interesting psychological note, though: although Chrome can remember your previous browsing session, I don't use it for remembering my regular tabs; I leave that to Opera. Since I check those specific pages regularly, it just feels right to keep them in a more solid-feeling window.
Electronics don't depend on external magnetic fields; the only concern is a lack of protection from space weather in the meanwhile. Worst case, I imagine somebody makes a killing selling Faraday blankets.
It could work like the Gameboy Color did- it plays the old games (Pokemon Red/Blue), some games can choose to use its additional features while remaining backwards compatable (Gold/Silver), and there may be a few games that will only run on it (Crystal I think, a random Disney game or two, etc.).
I suspect the "alongside" claim was more of a precautionary measure; if the DS had turned out to be a VirtualBoy-esqe flop, then they could discontinue it without it tarnishing the GameBoy brand and create a different successor.
Some are suggesting to simply disable UI interaction with an iframe while it's covered; half a second after the iframe is clear, it can be clicked again. And same-origin frames will probably not be so limited, so you should be fine.
The behavior of menu expansion mentioned several posts up would fall under Gnome, I'd think.
Also, system administration is very much a part of the user experience. I'll excuse a desktop environment for avoiding the details for sanity's sake, no problem.
I am also curious as to which of my words betrayed my preference. Actually, I'm curious as to what my preference is myself. Do tell me, since I didn't know I had an opinion.
And in the case of linking from another page, that can be zapped as unrelated cruft. I have nothing wrong with editing an article to make sure it focuses on its topic, but I do have an issue with implying that Chromic Acid is somehow more notable than Pikachu. More useful? Likely, but what is the general populace more likely to want to look up?
The existence of, members of, and list of songs by Fred's garage band are all facts, yet you won't see them in the Britannica, as most people wouldn't consider them worth looking at.
But! Say the council of Anytown decides to compile a local encyclopedia. Fred may well make it in, being of local interest.
For both the Britannica and the Anytown-pedia, space was a limiting issue. What made Wikipedia so promising was the idea that it didn't have such space limitations- you could include articles on anything. Sadly, they seem to have decided that some objective standard of notability exists, and define it rather narrowly at that.
I don't get these charges of people using Wikipedia for "promotion". Considering it's a reference source, people aren't even going to come across the article for "Mikey and Sally's Garage Rock-AHZ!" unless they were looking for it in the first place- and if somebody finds something worth looking up, is that not notable?
I once wrote a simple wiki for fun; all the server returned was the wiki markup wrapped in a single xml tag. It used a client-side XSLT stylesheet to turn it into a fancy HTML page with the markup in the editbox (hidden, until the edit button was pressed).
On load, a string of regexes was used to convert the markup into HTML; it also allowed previewing an edit without a server trip.
Of course, it wasn't Google friendly at all...
Slashdot Mirror
So, a carbon FairTax?
HTML remains the GUI layer for Javascript.
They used the same reasoning to explain why nobody would ever pay for airplane-facilitated overnight delivery. People are impatient.
Hardly. In any group of two titans, odds are three of them are lying.
For command line applications, sure, POSIX is simple.
But last I checked, glibc doesn't offer much in the way of a GUI.
Clearly all we need do, then, is start a project to develop a computer that we pay the user $99 to use.
Ever hear of GoboLinux? It changes the directory structure to that end. You have /Programs/Package/Version/bin, etc.
For the command line, they just have a seperate directory in the path filed with symbolic links.
There's the feel. It appears quite lightweight, clean (from the user side, anyhow), fast, and simple. I've mostly switched to Chromium for random browsing now.
On an interesting psychological note, though: although Chrome can remember your previous browsing session, I don't use it for remembering my regular tabs; I leave that to Opera. Since I check those specific pages regularly, it just feels right to keep them in a more solid-feeling window.
The Amish, in general, have nothing against technology; they just avoid what they consider to be distractions.
For instance, the buggies do have electric turn signals, and many farms have electrical generators to run machinery.
Electronics don't depend on external magnetic fields; the only concern is a lack of protection from space weather in the meanwhile. Worst case, I imagine somebody makes a killing selling Faraday blankets.
It could work like the Gameboy Color did- it plays the old games (Pokemon Red/Blue), some games can choose to use its additional features while remaining backwards compatable (Gold/Silver), and there may be a few games that will only run on it (Crystal I think, a random Disney game or two, etc.).
I suspect the "alongside" claim was more of a precautionary measure; if the DS had turned out to be a VirtualBoy-esqe flop, then they could discontinue it without it tarnishing the GameBoy brand and create a different successor.
Free in the monetary sense. And likely somebody will write a download-the-song utility before long, a la keepvid.
Some are suggesting to simply disable UI interaction with an iframe while it's covered; half a second after the iframe is clear, it can be clicked again. And same-origin frames will probably not be so limited, so you should be fine.
The behavior of menu expansion mentioned several posts up would fall under Gnome, I'd think.
Also, system administration is very much a part of the user experience. I'll excuse a desktop environment for avoiding the details for sanity's sake, no problem.
I am also curious as to which of my words betrayed my preference. Actually, I'm curious as to what my preference is myself. Do tell me, since I didn't know I had an opinion.
If the graphics subsystem can affect the behavior, and is different on each system, then it's not very consistent, is it?
So how is that UI consistency?
I was thinking CSV, actually. Or maybe SQLite, but I think those were singles.
But you need to double-escape the quote marks, see.
Unless a 1g field is used as a reference environment.
And in the case of linking from another page, that can be zapped as unrelated cruft. I have nothing wrong with editing an article to make sure it focuses on its topic, but I do have an issue with implying that Chromic Acid is somehow more notable than Pikachu. More useful? Likely, but what is the general populace more likely to want to look up?
The existence of, members of, and list of songs by Fred's garage band are all facts, yet you won't see them in the Britannica, as most people wouldn't consider them worth looking at.
But! Say the council of Anytown decides to compile a local encyclopedia. Fred may well make it in, being of local interest.
For both the Britannica and the Anytown-pedia, space was a limiting issue. What made Wikipedia so promising was the idea that it didn't have such space limitations- you could include articles on anything. Sadly, they seem to have decided that some objective standard of notability exists, and define it rather narrowly at that.
I don't get these charges of people using Wikipedia for "promotion". Considering it's a reference source, people aren't even going to come across the article for "Mikey and Sally's Garage Rock-AHZ!" unless they were looking for it in the first place- and if somebody finds something worth looking up, is that not notable?
Now that's gory.
I once wrote a simple wiki for fun; all the server returned was the wiki markup wrapped in a single xml tag. It used a client-side XSLT stylesheet to turn it into a fancy HTML page with the markup in the editbox (hidden, until the edit button was pressed).
On load, a string of regexes was used to convert the markup into HTML; it also allowed previewing an edit without a server trip.
Of course, it wasn't Google friendly at all...