How would you handle the following criticism? For the average web site, there are more users of version 4 browsers than there are disabled users needing the latest accessible code. A table-based site can be accessible, while still accommodating the larger abled audience. Now is not the time to pursue full compliance with W3C specs.
I stopped shopping Safeway when they abandoned print coupons in favor of the trackable discounts that are only available via their ID card, er I mean "membership" card.
The benefit of the ID card is that, with testing, a store can raise its prices to just below the point where a majority of people stop buying. The bottom line is that if you use the card, you contribute to higher prices for everyone.
I remain capable of looking at the in-store sales tags that are placed next to, or on top of, the existing shelf price tags. I don't need or want a talking shopping cart, nor do I want everyone else's carts creating noise pollution.
I haven't gone to the movie theatre in more than six months and it's been over a year since I bought a corporate CD (only local artists now). Who needs 'em?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Galileo never studied or taught at Berkeley, did he? You're throwing away the historic instruments used *at* your institution. There's a huge difference between a relic and your institutional history.
I swore off posting on/. when Rob openly insulted his users. I guess I have to post one more time to say I won't be reading/. ever again because of this ridiculous spoiler. Thank's for ruining the show/. When a site admin loses sense of reality and becomes abusive, it's time to leave. Goodbye.
My last post - anyone want a 50 karma account?
on
April Fools Wrap Up
·
· Score: 3, Troll
Angry and clueless? OK, now that I know what CmdrTaco thinks of me, I won't post anymore. This just goes to show how ignorant some web site operators can be. (Read the linked editorial. As a media organization, Slashdot undermines the trust it has worked to build.)
(My take on/. today: it is idiocy to place fake stories. They don't fool, at least not me, and they don't amuse. They just annoy and get in the way. Then CmdrTaco insulting his users, well, that takes the cake!)
Contact your local blind support group. They will have computer resources/referrals for people with "low vision." You may not consider yourself visually impaired, but you are. They can help.
This will fail. I use Yahoo mail every day, and would have loved to use the service when it was free... but I never knew they even offered it!
Yahoo's site design is so utterly cluttered these days that I am unaware of most of their services. It's too much trouble to explore their site, much easier to just stick with the bare minimum you do now.
Then, *gasp*, maybe we should promote alternatives to Google.
You know, I like Dr. Pepper. It's the best. But I can live with drinking Mr. Pibb, or even Dr. Skipper. There must be reasonable alternatives to Google.
Today people don't much care about Scientology filing a lawsuit against this person or that person. "Who are those people and why do I care if they're fighting an organization I don't even understand? Scientology never hurt me."
I bet people would take notice if Google was sued. Three things could happen:
1. Google gains even more users.
2. Opponents mirror the offending material more now than ever, making it even easier to find in Google.
3. Scientology's public image could be ruined if it endangered Google's future.
People could begin asking, "What is Scientology and why did they make my favorite search engine go away? I can't find anything anymore."
Under the current situation I only see:
1. Google losing respect as an authoritative search engine, bowing to legal pressure at the expense of its core mission (helping people find web pages).
If Google would guarantee that Scientology appears as the first link in Google results when users search for the world "Scientology," I don't see why Scientology would care about anti-Scientology material. Only people interested in that material will spend the time to look at it. People read the first link, and if it sounds right, they click it. End of story.
In all my observations of user behavior, I've never seen a user read all of the search results and thoughtfully consider them before selecting which link is appropriate. They click the first link that looks like it might remotely be correct.
You talk as if we watch Star Wars for the visual effects and acting. No way. It's the musical score. George Lucas is not a composer. He can't muck it up. Episode II will rock.
Actually, it wouldn't be too difficult for alternative radio stations to come together (via the Internet) to share non-corporate music. I have a radio station in my area that plays approximately 70% non-corporate. I'm sure the local musicians would love having their stuff heard nationwide/worldwide without being forced to go corporate.
The wins far outnumber the losses. Sure, there are people who do nothing but download and rip music CDs. The much greater audience is people who dowload and get exposed to new music and then go out and buy a CD containing that music. Why? Because most people have better things to do with their time than to spend it in front of a computer. You are not typical. The average person doesn't enjoy spending hours in front of a PC for the mere purpose of collecting songs.
The price-point of CDs acts as a weeding mechanism so that people don't have a million CDs at home. They only have music they really really like. Naturally, paying for CDs also means exposure remains low - there is much music people would enjoy if they knew it existed. File sharing expanded peoples' horizons.
It is the music industry that "doesn't get it." They are seriously inhibiting their profits by criminalizing tens of millions of Americans.
Personal example: I spend 12+ hours in front of a computer each day (8 work, 4+ leisure). I recently had a need for TV show theme music to play at an event. TV music is one of the oldest forms of sound files to be shared via computer, (I remember doing it on BBSs and later FTP sites). I spent $110 at the mall instead of downloading files that are in abundant supply on web sites (not to mention P2P). I, of all people, have the time to download music, but it's more convenient to buy it. People who have $15-20 to spend on CDs instead of something vital (food, rent, etc.) will pay for that convenience. Yes, the CDs are overpriced, but that's just more evidence of the music industry's cluelessness.
Oh wait, that's silly math. Here's how the real world works:
W + Q = Z
W. Corporations charge net radio to play music. Net radio disappears.
Q. Corporations continue to rape musicians up-the-butt with a silver broomstick. Musicians walk kinda funny.
Z. Corporations whine when profits plummet, so they pull politico puppet strings to make tens of millions of Americans criminals and continue to consume corporate welfare and pass more laws to prop up their failed business models.
No Tron for me because I bought the DVD when it was first released. It's quite a racket to release a barebones edition, have all the diehard fans buy it up, then wait a few years and release a bigger version to sell to the same audience again.
we're going to see much more of this kind of mentality coming from our elected officials
Umm, so we need a super hero to seek out, identify and publicize the *real* e-mail addresses of politicians. Not the address they publicize. You know, the ones they and their staff use when they're conducting business.
Why haven't the other candidates seized on his exceedingly poor judgement? Surely a large portion of the voting population knows what spam is and deletes it with extreme prejudice.
Slashdot Mirror
How would you handle the following criticism? For the average web site, there are more users of version 4 browsers than there are disabled users needing the latest accessible code. A table-based site can be accessible, while still accommodating the larger abled audience. Now is not the time to pursue full compliance with W3C specs.
I'm getting "that special gamer in my life" a basketball, football, soccer ball and tub of Slim Fast.
I stopped shopping Safeway when they abandoned print coupons in favor of the trackable discounts that are only available via their ID card, er I mean "membership" card.
The benefit of the ID card is that, with testing, a store can raise its prices to just below the point where a majority of people stop buying. The bottom line is that if you use the card, you contribute to higher prices for everyone.
I remain capable of looking at the in-store sales tags that are placed next to, or on top of, the existing shelf price tags. I don't need or want a talking shopping cart, nor do I want everyone else's carts creating noise pollution.
I haven't gone to the movie theatre in more than six months and it's been over a year since I bought a corporate CD (only local artists now). Who needs 'em?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Galileo never studied or taught at Berkeley, did he? You're throwing away the historic instruments used *at* your institution. There's a huge difference between a relic and your institutional history.
Excuse my previous typo. Here's an index to the museum's instruments
UC Berkeley is clueless. They are selling a treasure!
In contract, check out this university's Scientific Instrument Museum.
OK, it's really just a few display cases, but the online exhibit is extensive.
I will *never* access /. in such situations again.
/. when Rob openly insulted his users. I guess I have to post one more time to say I won't be reading /. ever again because of this ridiculous spoiler. Thank's for ruining the show /. When a site admin loses sense of reality and becomes abusive, it's time to leave. Goodbye.
I swore off posting on
Angry and clueless? OK, now that I know what CmdrTaco thinks of me, I won't post anymore. This just goes to show how ignorant some web site operators can be. (Read the linked editorial. As a media organization, Slashdot undermines the trust it has worked to build.)
/. today: it is idiocy to place fake stories. They don't fool, at least not me, and they don't amuse. They just annoy and get in the way. Then CmdrTaco insulting his users, well, that takes the cake!)
(My take on
Nope. Been here several years. Idiocy remains idiocy. You never get used to it. (And judging by other user comments, I am not alone.)
You know, there are enough kiddie web sites playing "pranks" with fake redesigns or content today. I thought /. was above this idiocy. Oh well.
Contact your local blind support group. They will have computer resources/referrals for people with "low vision." You may not consider yourself visually impaired, but you are. They can help.
What, you expected a corporation to be ethical?
This will fail. I use Yahoo mail every day, and would have loved to use the service when it was free... but I never knew they even offered it!
Yahoo's site design is so utterly cluttered these days that I am unaware of most of their services. It's too much trouble to explore their site, much easier to just stick with the bare minimum you do now.
Then, *gasp*, maybe we should promote alternatives to Google.
You know, I like Dr. Pepper. It's the best. But I can live with drinking Mr. Pibb, or even Dr. Skipper. There must be reasonable alternatives to Google.
Look at the situation, in my opinion:
Today people don't much care about Scientology filing a lawsuit against this person or that person. "Who are those people and why do I care if they're fighting an organization I don't even understand? Scientology never hurt me."
I bet people would take notice if Google was sued. Three things could happen:
1. Google gains even more users.
2. Opponents mirror the offending material more now than ever, making it even easier to find in Google.
3. Scientology's public image could be ruined if it endangered Google's future.
People could begin asking, "What is Scientology and why did they make my favorite search engine go away? I can't find anything anymore."
Under the current situation I only see:
1. Google losing respect as an authoritative search engine, bowing to legal pressure at the expense of its core mission (helping people find web pages).
If Google would guarantee that Scientology appears as the first link in Google results when users search for the world "Scientology," I don't see why Scientology would care about anti-Scientology material. Only people interested in that material will spend the time to look at it. People read the first link, and if it sounds right, they click it. End of story.
In all my observations of user behavior, I've never seen a user read all of the search results and thoughtfully consider them before selecting which link is appropriate. They click the first link that looks like it might remotely be correct.
Who is bigger, Scientology or Google?
Google should take a stand and let Scientology sue away. Who would still like Scientology if it was responsible for Google's downfall?
You talk as if we watch Star Wars for the visual effects and acting. No way. It's the musical score. George Lucas is not a composer. He can't muck it up. Episode II will rock.
The RIAA controls what goes on the radio.
Actually, it wouldn't be too difficult for alternative radio stations to come together (via the Internet) to share non-corporate music. I have a radio station in my area that plays approximately 70% non-corporate. I'm sure the local musicians would love having their stuff heard nationwide/worldwide without being forced to go corporate.
The wins far outnumber the losses. Sure, there are people who do nothing but download and rip music CDs. The much greater audience is people who dowload and get exposed to new music and then go out and buy a CD containing that music. Why? Because most people have better things to do with their time than to spend it in front of a computer. You are not typical. The average person doesn't enjoy spending hours in front of a PC for the mere purpose of collecting songs.
The price-point of CDs acts as a weeding mechanism so that people don't have a million CDs at home. They only have music they really really like. Naturally, paying for CDs also means exposure remains low - there is much music people would enjoy if they knew it existed. File sharing expanded peoples' horizons.
It is the music industry that "doesn't get it." They are seriously inhibiting their profits by criminalizing tens of millions of Americans.
Personal example: I spend 12+ hours in front of a computer each day (8 work, 4+ leisure). I recently had a need for TV show theme music to play at an event. TV music is one of the oldest forms of sound files to be shared via computer, (I remember doing it on BBSs and later FTP sites). I spent $110 at the mall instead of downloading files that are in abundant supply on web sites (not to mention P2P). I, of all people, have the time to download music, but it's more convenient to buy it. People who have $15-20 to spend on CDs instead of something vital (food, rent, etc.) will pay for that convenience. Yes, the CDs are overpriced, but that's just more evidence of the music industry's cluelessness.
A + B = C
A. Net radio plays corporate music
B. People buy corporate music heard on net radio
C. Corporations make more money
Oh wait, that's silly math. Here's how the real world works:
W + Q = Z
W. Corporations charge net radio to play music. Net radio disappears.
Q. Corporations continue to rape musicians up-the-butt with a silver broomstick. Musicians walk kinda funny.
Z. Corporations whine when profits plummet, so they pull politico puppet strings to make tens of millions of Americans criminals and continue to consume corporate welfare and pass more laws to prop up their failed business models.
No Tron for me because I bought the DVD when it was first released. It's quite a racket to release a barebones edition, have all the diehard fans buy it up, then wait a few years and release a bigger version to sell to the same audience again.
No thanks.
Here is the PDF from Nielsen. It contains more data than the CNN story.
we're going to see much more of this kind of mentality coming from our elected officials
Umm, so we need a super hero to seek out, identify and publicize the *real* e-mail addresses of politicians. Not the address they publicize. You know, the ones they and their staff use when they're conducting business.
Why haven't the other candidates seized on his exceedingly poor judgement? Surely a large portion of the voting population knows what spam is and deletes it with extreme prejudice.