Actually, privacy is only this big a thing in germany in the last 20-something years. The "basic law of informational self-determination" was derived from the constitutional principle that the human dignity shall be inviolabile at a similar court case in 1987 - concerning a census. See also wikipedia:Informational_self-determination
While nazis are always interesting to bring up, and there were quite a few old-nazis in germany after the war, I do not think that privacy advocates have much to thank them.
QT is GPL v3 [...] And since QT is GPL v3, you don't even have the option of writing GPL v2 code Sorry, but please read before stating such untruths.
Qt is now GPLv2 + GPLv3 + commercial + QPL (in the case of the X11 version) + any future GPL version as publicly accepted by Trolltech and the Free Qt Foundation. Additionally your own code can be under one of various licenses as stated in Trolltechs gpl exception.
"Springer Verlag" is the (german) root of the scientific publisher founded by a man called "Julius Springer" in 1842 which is now "Springer Science+Business Media" (Which is basically the Springer Verlag merged with Kluwer Publishers). If you are interested here is the company history: http://www.springer-sbm.de/index.php?L=0&id=165
No, I don't [know who Don Norman is]. I noticed some other books on his blog that looked interesting, but I'm writing based specifically on this article. Not on prior achievements.
Don Norman is a very well known cognitive scientist, and well known figure in the field of HCI. His book "The Design of Everyday Things" is probably on the reading list of every HCI course there is. For more details, check out wikipedia
In any case, it's a poorly thought-out article regardless of his intentions.
I do not share your view in this matter. Both linked articles of Don Norman have, imho, merrit.
Lets start with the one about Google:
The piece reads like Mr. Norman has heard people say "OMG!!!11!1! GOOGLE IS SO SIMPLE!!!1!!!!11!!eleven" so often, that he could not stand it anymore. Actually, he says so in the fifth sentence.
His point is not that the search engine part of google is hard to use. He admits that is very nice and clean and easy to use. His real point is this:that's because you can only do one thing from their home page: search.
My condensed version of that essay: "Simplicity" (meaning lack of features, or having hidden the features) and "Ease of Use" are not to be confused.
The second piece, his column from the upcomming <interactions> is more about the question if we really want "simple" products as much as we say we do. His verdict is that we rather talk about simple products than use them. Arguing that if you would build products as simple as possible, you might very well go out of business. Marketing in their featuritis might for once be correct. His punchline tells all Yes, we want simplicity, but we dont want to give up any of those cool features. Simplicity is highly overrated.
I personally think those two pieces of writing are very well argued. Read them again when you have cooled down a bit.;-)
Whenever something gets really popular - iPods, Google, Warcrack - you get the inevitable beacon of intellectual purity who sets up his or her own (usually off-the-wall) criteria/definition and proceeds to roast the most popular thing around.
You do know who Don Norman is, do you?
I am quite sure he is not the type of person to "roast the most popular thing around" just for it being popular.
if you really want to make a serious criticism of X for not being Y, when everyone around you says X is the epitome of Y, then you need to define Y.
Read Normans books. He has quite a few examples for a lot of possible X and Y, as long as X and Y is related to product design and HCI.
They are suggesting that Google works so well and is so incredibly simple from the end users perspective, because of how much complexity went into the back end.
Don Norman is actually suggesting that Googles front page is so simple because, in the end, it is a one-trick-pony. He describes the hard work needed if you actually want to do something besides searching for a query.
Best summarized by this quote:
Is Google simple? No. Google is deceptive. It hides all the complexity by simply showing one search box on the main page. The main difference, is that if you want to do anything else, the other search engines let you do it from their home pages, whereas Google makes you search through other, much more complex pages.
Complaining about these flaws which are really just industry-standard "features" is really just an excuse to accuse the US Army of shortsightedness under the guise of reviewing a game.
Hmm...Actually it seems the military did commision (at least some of) those "industry-standard" flaws: (Citing the article quoting Mark Long, co-CEO of Zombie, where the game was built under contract)
"High tech has all kinds of low-tech vulnerabilities and they didn't want the vulnerabilities programmed in."
The US could certainly do more to reduce emissions, but for the power we consume, we're already the most efficient (or very nearly so) in the world producing.
Well if you accept wikipedia as source, it looks as if the US is rather "energy inefficient"
(If you do not accept wikipedia, someone would have to follow the leads, which I am in the moment to lazy to do...or rather, I am too energy efficient;-)
Almost every part of GTK+, from the colors to widget shapes, can be changed in user themes. Qt has no way to do either of these without linking in bloated external libraries.
Well, I guess then the class QStyle is completely useless....and setting a "usertheme" with qt-config is something I must have dreamed then....*g*
Until Qt 4, there was no way to load.ui files at run time.
> KHTML has to be rendered by a browser...
> The desktop is just a Konquerer shell anyway.
Hmmm...A few points about KDE:
Konqueror is just a shell to plug in KParts. One of those KParts is a khtml part, which makes Konqueror behave like a webbrowser. So to render a webpage you will not need Konqueror but khtml!
The Desktop is a program called kdesktop. It is not Koqueror!
Why do I get the feeling you are not the KDE expert you seem to think you are?
I would imagine the difference is less in the resolution of the image as in the range of colours. Displays sold for Medical Imaging have mostely quite a large dynamic range to allow differentiation of miniscule details of shade.
I am not sure if your inexpensive junk desktop scanner can handle the range that is needed.
What they are really saying is that they can't find CHEAP farmworkers. There are plenty of people who are willing to work; just not at the wages that the farmers are willing to pay.
Well, it might be that they do not want to pay those wages, because Wal-Mart does not want to pay the extra cost when buying their produce. Wal-Mart does not want to buy the produce at the extra cost, because the customers do not like to spend that much.
So, do you want to spend twice the amount for food?
Re:Desktop icons aligning properly yet?
on
Preview of KDE 3.5
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I have a "Align to Grid" option...that obviously aligns all icons onto a grid, not into vertical columns or rows...that is the quasi-radon scattering you talk about. It just moves the icon to the nearest position on the grid.
But I also have "Line up Vertically" and "Line up Horizontally" commands which...well I think do exactly as you wish;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, privacy is only this big a thing in germany in the last 20-something years. The "basic law of informational self-determination" was derived from the constitutional principle that the human dignity shall be inviolabile at a similar court case in 1987 - concerning a census. See also wikipedia:Informational_self-determination
While nazis are always interesting to bring up, and there were quite a few old-nazis in germany after the war, I do not think that privacy advocates have much to thank them.
Qt is now GPLv2 + GPLv3 + commercial + QPL (in the case of the X11 version) + any future GPL version as publicly accepted by Trolltech and the Free Qt Foundation. Additionally your own code can be under one of various licenses as stated in Trolltechs gpl exception.
Since Europe is not the uniform entity some people seem to think it is, your statement does not hold much weight.
I am in europe (germany) and have never heard of any such rules.
Would you care to elaborate?
http://doc.trolltech.com/4.2/stylesheet.html
No they are not.
m e.htm
"Springer Verlag" is the (german) root of the scientific publisher founded by a man called "Julius Springer" in 1842 which is now "Springer Science+Business Media" (Which is basically the Springer Verlag merged with Kluwer Publishers). If you are interested here is the company history: http://www.springer-sbm.de/index.php?L=0&id=165
The "Axel Springer Verlag" is a completely different company, which was founded by a man called "Axel Springer" in 1946. See also: http://www.axelspringer.com/englisch/unterneh/fra
The founders of both companies shared the last name, hence the "Springer" in both company names.
Two different things
;-)
You have the Science Publisher Springer: http://www.springer.com/
And then you have the Axel Springer Verlag, which produces the Bild: http://www.axelspringer.com/
Do not let the common "Springer" part confuse you
Sorry, but that is bull.
e nsing/qtlicensing
While they do license per developer, you can change the licensed developer.
http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/lic
A rhetorical question does not expect an answer...
...so maybe "rhetorical bandwidth" is a nice way of saying that the data flows only in one direction? ;-)
Nobody argued that googles search interface is bad(It's hard to beat it actually). It's just that that's all there is.
I remember the proverb:"If all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail!"
Don Norman is a very well known cognitive scientist, and well known figure in the field of HCI. His book "The Design of Everyday Things" is probably on the reading list of every HCI course there is. For more details, check out wikipedia
I do not share your view in this matter. Both linked articles of Don Norman have, imho, merrit.
Lets start with the one about Google:
The piece reads like Mr. Norman has heard people say "OMG!!!11!1! GOOGLE IS SO SIMPLE!!!1!!!!11!!eleven" so often, that he could not stand it anymore. Actually, he says so in the fifth sentence.
His point is not that the search engine part of google is hard to use. He admits that is very nice and clean and easy to use. His real point is this:that's because you can only do one thing from their home page: search.
My condensed version of that essay: "Simplicity" (meaning lack of features, or having hidden the features) and "Ease of Use" are not to be confused.
The second piece, his column from the upcomming <interactions> is more about the question if we really want "simple" products as much as we say we do. His verdict is that we rather talk about simple products than use them. Arguing that if you would build products as simple as possible, you might very well go out of business. Marketing in their featuritis might for once be correct. His punchline tells all Yes, we want simplicity, but we dont want to give up any of those cool features. Simplicity is highly overrated.
I personally think those two pieces of writing are very well argued. Read them again when you have cooled down a bit. ;-)
You do know who Don Norman is, do you?
I am quite sure he is not the type of person to "roast the most popular thing around" just for it being popular.
Read Normans books. He has quite a few examples for a lot of possible X and Y, as long as X and Y is related to product design and HCI.No, I think, sadly you did.
Don Norman is actually suggesting that Googles front page is so simple because, in the end, it is a one-trick-pony. He describes the hard work needed if you actually want to do something besides searching for a query.
Best summarized by this quote: Is Google simple? No. Google is deceptive. It hides all the complexity by simply showing one search box on the main page. The main difference, is that if you want to do anything else, the other search engines let you do it from their home pages, whereas Google makes you search through other, much more complex pages.Hmm...Actually it seems the military did commision (at least some of) those "industry-standard" flaws:
(Citing the article quoting Mark Long, co-CEO of Zombie, where the game was built under contract)
(If you do not accept wikipedia, someone would have to follow the leads, which I am in the moment to lazy to do...or rather, I am too energy efficient
Look at the homepage of trolltech. Look at the choice of color. ;-)
So...ask again...why green?
Have a nice day :-)
> Nuclear energy could solve all of our energy needs but we, instead, choose to use a non-renewable energy source for our needs.
;-)
Nuclear power is non-renewable.
(Actually no power source that I know of is really "renewable"...it just gets automatically recycled thanks to the sun
> The desktop is just a Konquerer shell anyway.
Hmmm...A few points about KDE:
Why do I get the feeling you are not the KDE expert you seem to think you are?
I would imagine the difference is less in the resolution of the image as in the range of colours. Displays sold for Medical Imaging have mostely quite a large dynamic range to allow differentiation of miniscule details of shade.
I am not sure if your inexpensive junk desktop scanner can handle the range that is needed.
What they are really saying is that they can't find CHEAP farmworkers. There are plenty of people who are willing to work; just not at the wages that the farmers are willing to pay.
Well, it might be that they do not want to pay those wages, because Wal-Mart does not want to pay the extra cost when buying their produce. Wal-Mart does not want to buy the produce at the extra cost, because the customers do not like to spend that much.
So, do you want to spend twice the amount for food?
I have a "Align to Grid" option...that obviously aligns all icons onto a grid, not into vertical columns or rows...that is the quasi-radon scattering you talk about. It just moves the icon to the nearest position on the grid.
;-)
But I also have "Line up Vertically" and "Line up Horizontally" commands which...well I think do exactly as you wish
This is in KDE 3.4 by the way...
$0.99 for an OGG version or $1.24 for a FLAC - what a ripoff.
...it is per 10 minute blocks ;-)
Actually it is not per song....
I think this is a rather nice way of paying for music...