In my experience people give up doing the formal 'eject' drive process because Windows (any version) will often tell you that it can't eject device because it's in use. But it won't give you a clue as to what's using it. It's yet another useless Windows message that gives you no useful course of action. Users are stuck - so of course Windows teaches them to yank anyway. To have background processes that are doing things that users can't see is fine - I suppose - but when the user wants their USB stick back, those background processes better speak up - in the foreground - and say what the hell they're doing with your USB stick.Even better - offer the user a way to say "I want my USB back and I want it back NOW", Of course - if writing a file - then the writing process has to complete. And if UI components actually presented credible information about when actual writing is happening and then when it's actually done, then people would have reason to learn to yank after it's all done. But then how many dialog boxes with progress bars (or some other progress representation) run all the way to the end and then just sit there? 15 seconds of copying and then 10 minutes of hang - with no useful clue to the user as to what the hell's going on. So, again - you teach users to yank anyway.
The goofy picture of the 'scientist' in white lab coat costume looking at a display while the 'subject' is hooked up to wires. Plus, the whole 'Gosh, isn't it amazing what you can do with Science' tone of the article. This is just someone's idea of viral marketing. And apparently, it's working, too! Is there some connection between all the artists/albums mentioned in the sidebar?
This is rich.. "The whole point of the universality of the Web would be to not have those kind of distinctions, but we're still living with them."... What do you think they teach people in B-school? To make your products indistinguishable from those your competition? what a joke. Truly a capitalist geek whine-fest. The history of software is littered with ego-tripping coders who cry, "if everybody would just use MY standard, we'd all have a simpler more beautiful technology". It's why the web is a tower of babel of so-called "standards".
As for OO being a failure, I claim that you can pick any language or coding-style and code-reuse is joke. I've worked with many programmers whose idea of code-reuse is that they re-use their OWN code! If they get their hands on someone else's code, they may claim they re-use it but they either get the source code and tweak it (there are a lot of programmers that look at other programmer's code and say "I can do it better than that"), or they don't get the source code and so they write a 'wrapper' around it to convert their API into MY API. How many multiperson programming projects are there out there that are just stuffed with so-called 'wrappers' that basically serve the purpose of converting somebody else's interface into MY paradigm? I think there's a lot of them. The fact that OO lets you inherit someone else's object just so you can 'enhance/extend/modify' it is just a fancy way of saying that you'll re-use code just as long as you get to turn it into your own code.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you can't see your score, but is there a new industry created to improve your Syft score?
Isn't this the best answer? Mr. Gibson's carefully thought out technology - and open.
https://www.grc.com/sqrl/sqrl.htm
In my experience people give up doing the formal 'eject' drive process because Windows (any version) will often tell you that it can't eject device because it's in use. But it won't give you a clue as to what's using it. It's yet another useless Windows message that gives you no useful course of action. Users are stuck - so of course Windows teaches them to yank anyway. To have background processes that are doing things that users can't see is fine - I suppose - but when the user wants their USB stick back, those background processes better speak up - in the foreground - and say what the hell they're doing with your USB stick.Even better - offer the user a way to say "I want my USB back and I want it back NOW",
Of course - if writing a file - then the writing process has to complete. And if UI components actually presented credible information about when actual writing is happening and then when it's actually done, then people would have reason to learn to yank after it's all done. But then how many dialog boxes with progress bars (or some other progress representation) run all the way to the end and then just sit there? 15 seconds of copying and then 10 minutes of hang - with no useful clue to the user as to what the hell's going on. So, again - you teach users to yank anyway.
The goofy picture of the 'scientist' in white lab coat costume looking at a display while the 'subject' is hooked up to wires. Plus, the whole 'Gosh, isn't it amazing what you can do with Science' tone of the article. This is just someone's idea of viral marketing. And apparently, it's working, too! Is there some connection between all the artists/albums mentioned in the sidebar?
Paragraph 2 says: "still allows for high visibility."
Paragraph 6 says: "The film blocks or absorbs about 80 percent of visible light"
I am not an engineer - but can you actually prevent 80 % of visible light from getting through and really claim there is "high visibility" ?
This is rich.. "The whole point of the universality of the Web would be to not have those kind of distinctions, but we're still living with them."... What do you think they teach people in B-school? To make your products indistinguishable from those your competition? what a joke. Truly a capitalist geek whine-fest. The history of software is littered with ego-tripping coders who cry, "if everybody would just use MY standard, we'd all have a simpler more beautiful technology". It's why the web is a tower of babel of so-called "standards".
All this lather about "open" and still, STILL, using MP3!?
As for OO being a failure, I claim that you can pick any language or coding-style and code-reuse is joke. I've worked with many programmers whose idea of code-reuse is that they re-use their OWN code! If they get their hands on someone else's code, they may claim they re-use it but they either get the source code and tweak it (there are a lot of programmers that look at other programmer's code and say "I can do it better than that"), or they don't get the source code and so they write a 'wrapper' around it to convert their API into MY API. How many multiperson programming projects are there out there that are just stuffed with so-called 'wrappers' that basically serve the purpose of converting somebody else's interface into MY paradigm? I think there's a lot of them. The fact that OO lets you inherit someone else's object just so you can 'enhance/extend/modify' it is just a fancy way of saying that you'll re-use code just as long as you get to turn it into your own code.