I didn't read the details about this one too carefully, but I was under the impression that the Goner virus had a great thing going for it: just by _previewing_ the message, the virus would launch. I also believe (i.e. foot in mouth comment forthcoming) that there was another virus previously that worked just by previewing. This means that not even opening the message, but just by clicking on it, so that it would go to the preview pane was sufficient.
If this were all the case, then I think we're in for a whole new round of education. Think about it -- not only can you not open attachments, but you can't even preview the message! Seriously, I think I'm a pretty email-virus savvy kind of guy -- I don't open attachments (period), but if it means that I can't even read the message, then things are going to be bad for me.
I agree with this post. The utility of the webring was quite low, and has been made even less useful of late.
One of the reasons may be that "back in the day", the ratio of "good sites on a topic" to "how easy it is to find them" was quite low. Today, the ratio is a lot higher -- it's easier to find more sites on a given topic both because there's more of them (chaos breeds goodness), and because there's a lot more investment into things on the web (consider news sites, for example).
I was involved in a few webrings back in the day, but like the original poster said, it was more of a "belonging" thing than anything else. Being in a webring meant being in a community. One of the big ones of the day was diary-l (I don't know what happened to it). The webring also had a mailing-list -- and it was folks in the mailing-list that probably had the best time -- after all, that encouraged more interaction than anything else, and made people feel part of a group.
It was an interesting social phenomenon, I think. In a place where there was considerably less social interaction, webrings came to be to try to bring some order to the chaos, and make people feel like they were part of a community. It was, of course, essentially an illusion (or a clickable link, at best), and I think webrings were one illusion that became evident by virtue of their being useless.
Remember how hard it was to get into that damned cave in later levels? Or how sweaty your hands got b/c you were nervous you'd hit the walls of the cave?
XP offers a lot of cool "under the hood" changes from Win2k.
A bigger deal though is a lot of added functionality. One of the things I've been very excited about is the bridge capabilities of WinXP. At home I've got a WinXP box acting as the "hub" to two internal networks -- one that runs over a HomePNA (phoneline network cards), and one that uses regular NIC's. On top of this, my WinXP box is the little guy hooked straight up to the cable modem. The network bridge capability allows the boxes on the HomePNA network to see the regular NIC network as a unified network (and vice versa). This is REALLY COOL. No special routing necessary.
In addition, the personal firewalling is amazing! It's a stateful firewall, which means that the end-user doesn't need to plug in new modules for ICQ, CuSeeMe, etc., etc. as we need to do right now with ipchains (and its replacement I think??)...
I have to say that at the very least, this is pretty damned sweet.
The TI-99 was a SUH-WEET machine! I remember the blue and white book you're talking about, coding away in the basement and learning to draw the little man on the screen.;) BASIC was damned sweet.
The TI-99 was really neat because I also had a tape recorder that came along with it, so my programs were transformed into sounds and stuff. haha
The WinCE SDK, Embedded Visual Toolkit has a PocketPC x86 emulator that runs on Win2k. The kit comes with VC and VB made just for PocketPC ready to go.
Before you try it, be aware that there are some issues -- I haven't played with it for a while, so I'm not certain what those are (something like you can't have a VC6 + updates and EVT residing on the same box).
technology point of view. For instance, suppose
I am Some Band. Suppose I make Some Song.
Suppose I opt-out for my Some Song. How are we
to check whether my song is actually not being
traded?
There are a couple of options here. One is that
you could do some sort of interesting form of diff-for-mp3's where your app would be able to check wave forms and such. After all, rips of songs from CD's are different: file size, encoder-used produces different files, different sampling rates, etc., etc.
Are there apps out there that can take two sound files, compare them (even at different sampling rates and "bit" (192, 168, etc.)), and determine whether they are the same?
It would be cool to see something like this happen.
Y'all who are complaining about the MS involvement here are missing the point. This is a very cool development. Despite everyone's complaining about MS's.NET and how it's all "vapourware" and how it's not a new idea, blah blah blah, MS is really stepping up to the plate, and ready to put its money where its mouth is. They're going to at least try to make it happen.
Frankly, I'm all for other firms doing this type of thing, but I haven't seen anything from Sun or Netscape, or other "/. friendly firms" come up with something this neat before.
If you're worried that because it's MS-tech, we won't see it working with your Linux laptop, then clearly, you've lost a little faith in your Linux compatriots. I've seen some of the wackiest stuff from you Linux folks. And I'm certain that we'll see a Linux hack of this sooner than later.
I spend a lot of time in coffee shops -- having an Internet connection there would be a dream.
Be happy. If this works, it will be very cool, and other firms will be more willing to do this kind of thing. If it doesn't, then MS loses some money.
In fact, MIT has a whole lab devoted to this kind of thing--i.e. using other senses to deliver mildly relevant information to the user without diverting all of his/her attention.
This stuff is really interesting in this age of info overload. Being able to convey more information to the user immediately and effectively will become even more useful.
The article is great insofar as it provides an objective perspective about Netscape 7's performance in comparison to other browsers. I suspect, however, that there's something missing in this article, and that is subjectivity.
The web is not all about objectivity. It is a user experience. That's why pages are laid out the way they are, and why so many people get paid such huge amounts of money just to make nice, aesthetically pleasing websites. Because of this, the web browser is also not all about objectivity.
The article focuses on startup times and memory usage of the browsers. While this is a great measure for doing an objective comparison, it misses the point of the browser, which is really to deliver a full, W3C-compliant web experience.
Before people go ranting off on me, I just want to point out that I do understand the importance of these two measures, and the fact that they're objective makes them even more cool. The fact of the matter is, however, that reviewers of browsers need to keep in mind that it is the experience of the web that should come first and formost.
As such, I think some of the things that the reviewer missed in his review (which was good, by the way): how well do pages render, how quickly do pages render, do existing pages cause problems for the new browser. These are important for the average web surfer (I know, I cringed too, but if I put "browser" there, it would have confused the point).
My mom doesn't care how long it takes the web browser loads up (though admittedly, 15 seconds to 3 seconds is a very big deal). My mom doesn't care how much memory it takes up on her box. She's more concerned with whether she can see everything on the page. She's more concerned with "What the heck is this stupid little box that keeps popping up and asking me if I want to `debug'?" She's more concerned when "Why is this stupid page screwed up?"
Just my thoughts.
Of course, I'm sure if you're reading this, you're probably like me and really do care about these sorts of benchmarks. Not all of us are running '133t-455 boxes with lots of RAM that can handle running the Netscape 7 beast--a lot of us still prefer the text-browsers.;)
The article does have some good points. Some of those issues and bugs are very, VERY basic ones that could cause all sorts of things to blow up. Granted, there aren't a lot of them (that are stated in the article), but those are significant enough to cause web developers some serious headaches.
You see, by releasing it as a 6.0 (not beta, but just as a version), people will download it, and not download anything for a while (people don't like downloading new stuff -- it tends to be slower and clunkier). As a result, developers will have to start (learning) how to develop for 6.0 -- programming for its quirks ON TOP of what they already have to do right now (we have to separate IE/NS, then by major version number, and if we're doing really funky stuff, by minor version number).
That's a WHOLE LOT OF CRAP. The article makes some good points.
I guess it comes down to: is it better for NS to release a buggy browser that people are pissed off about? Or is it better that they not release another (yet again) for a while and risk losing even MORE market share.
So not to rain on everyone's parade here, but just a thought: if this whole boycott caught on with the general population, doesn't it add ammo for the RIAA? If CD sales dropped, they could truly say, "Hey! CD sales have dropped!" To boot, they could say that mp3's have become a viable substitute for CD's, and thus, since they were being traded w/o payment to the artists, could be considered as stealing...
RIAA wouldn't say, "it's because of a boycott"... they would gladly overlook that "by accident"... Lawyers are like that.;)
I think some of you are missing the point by considering only the classic computer-use paradigm. That is, sitting in front of the computer and typing away and using the computer in that way.
This attention-based computing business probably has more to do with MS's vision of "pervasive computing"--that is, computers everywhere, and interaction with all sorts of computers without realizing it.
For example, imagine the simple scenario where there are 10 or 12 different monitors in your house, and you're watching TV, for example.. If the computer REALLY NEEDED your attention (e.g. Little Bobby broke his nose), it could figure out where you were, what you were doing, and notify, for example, the stove that it should flash "YO! BOBBY'S BEEN SMACK-DOWN'D!" or something...
--
Lynx: I don't get the "best experience possible"
on
Web Site "Lock-In"
·
· Score: 1
Access homedepot with lynx, and you get this message:
You are receiving this message because you need to upgrade your browser, or need to enable your browsers JavaScript. Without JavaScript, you will be unable to view portions of homedepot.com.
Because we want you to have the best experience possible, please upgrade to Netscape Communicator 4.0 or higher, or Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or higher, or follow your browsers instructions to enable JavaScript. We look forward to seeing you often at homedepot.com!
Continue
I guess getting locked into the site is part of the "best possible experience"... hehe.
--
Re:Calulators in math class
on
Laptop Exams?
·
· Score: 1
FREAK! Sorry folks -- I should have used a couple of those
's, eh?:)
--
Re:Calulators in math class
on
Laptop Exams?
·
· Score: 1
I agree with the position that a solid understanding of a problem involves not only arriving at the correct solution, but a solid understanding of the processes involved in getting there. What we must distinguish between, however, is understanding the process and doing the grunt work. It becomes clear at one point or another that a large number of people come to know how to add, subtract, multiply and divide. At this point, it's clear that they understand the processes involved in doing it; it's just that they don't want to go through the grunt work anymore -- it makes more sense, instead, to have a calculator go through the mechanical processes so that the "brain power" can be spent on thinking about deeper, perhaps more abstract things to arrive at the solution. For instance, in solving those dreaded linear algebra problems, much of arriving at the correct solution is arriving at "what needs to be done to get there," not "doing it to get there." The latter part, the mechanical stuff, is better left to a calculator IMHO: lower probability of giving a wrong answer. Those of us in higher level linear alg classes know how to add -- we just make mistakes sometimes.:) Calculators are a useful tool. On a subtly unrelated note, we should consider what goes into arriving at a typical solution in an upper-division undergraduate computing science course. A lot of the time (for me anyway), no amount of class material can help me... The solutions that they are asking for are essentially asking for a coallation of different realms of knowledge: investigating how different concepts relate with one another. If this is true of the questions that are being asked, then the students with a better memory are at an advantage! Moreover, if solutions to similar problems were given in class, then again, these students are at an advantage. Does that demonstrate better understanding/grasp of what's going on? I hesitate to answer either a yes or a no, because (a) it's often easier to remember things we understand, but (b) you can still memorize things that you don't understand. To this end, allowing laptops in class is somewhat similar to an open book exam in that what you'll usually find out there is knowledge -- though not knowledge pertaining to the exact question at hand. All the cost and unfair hardware issues aside, it becomes clear that indeed, those with solid understanding of search engines will be at an advantage. Yet -- when has this never been the case? When has it been considered unusual that a student who could use the library might come to have a more in-depth knowledge of a subject area? Searching for relevant information is a key part of learning, and there doesn't seem to be anything really wrong with forcing students to learn how to do it -- after all, it is the "Information Age," isn't it? We should be encouraging students to learn to sift through the vast stores of the Internet as opposed to the limited capacity (and sometimes incorrect knowledge) stored within their own brains. Having waxed eloquent about why it's good, we should also consider that sometimes, complete solutions are available on the Internet to generic questions. In this case, however, it is up to the professor to come up with questions that don't have this characteristic -- after all, if a solution is available, it's likely a question that requires little understanding of the material. In these "higher institutions of learning," we should be encouraging understanding -- not memorization of facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey! The links on this parent don't work!
Oh. That's the point. ooooooh. I get it.
Didn't we just do this a day or two ago? Like here?
I didn't read the details about this one too carefully, but I was under the impression that the Goner virus had a great thing going for it: just by _previewing_ the message, the virus would launch. I also believe (i.e. foot in mouth comment forthcoming) that there was another virus previously that worked just by previewing. This means that not even opening the message, but just by clicking on it, so that it would go to the preview pane was sufficient.
If this were all the case, then I think we're in for a whole new round of education. Think about it -- not only can you not open attachments, but you can't even preview the message! Seriously, I think I'm a pretty email-virus savvy kind of guy -- I don't open attachments (period), but if it means that I can't even read the message, then things are going to be bad for me.
Is this the case, or am I just smoking dope?
I agree with this post. The utility of the webring was quite low, and has been made even less useful of late.
One of the reasons may be that "back in the day", the ratio of "good sites on a topic" to "how easy it is to find them" was quite low. Today, the ratio is a lot higher -- it's easier to find more sites on a given topic both because there's more of them (chaos breeds goodness), and because there's a lot more investment into things on the web (consider news sites, for example).
I was involved in a few webrings back in the day, but like the original poster said, it was more of a "belonging" thing than anything else. Being in a webring meant being in a community. One of the big ones of the day was diary-l (I don't know what happened to it). The webring also had a mailing-list -- and it was folks in the mailing-list that probably had the best time -- after all, that encouraged more interaction than anything else, and made people feel part of a group.
It was an interesting social phenomenon, I think. In a place where there was considerably less social interaction, webrings came to be to try to bring some order to the chaos, and make people feel like they were part of a community. It was, of course, essentially an illusion (or a clickable link, at best), and I think webrings were one illusion that became evident by virtue of their being useless.
Dude. Parsec was the be-all end all of games.
Remember how hard it was to get into that damned cave in later levels? Or how sweaty your hands got b/c you were nervous you'd hit the walls of the cave?
;)
XP offers a lot of cool "under the hood" changes from Win2k.
A bigger deal though is a lot of added functionality. One of the things I've been very excited about is the bridge capabilities of WinXP. At home I've got a WinXP box acting as the "hub" to two internal networks -- one that runs over a HomePNA (phoneline network cards), and one that uses regular NIC's. On top of this, my WinXP box is the little guy hooked straight up to the cable modem. The network bridge capability allows the boxes on the HomePNA network to see the regular NIC network as a unified network (and vice versa). This is REALLY COOL. No special routing necessary.
In addition, the personal firewalling is amazing! It's a stateful firewall, which means that the end-user doesn't need to plug in new modules for ICQ, CuSeeMe, etc., etc. as we need to do right now with ipchains (and its replacement I think??)...
I have to say that at the very least, this is pretty damned sweet.
The TI-99 was a SUH-WEET machine! I remember the blue and white book you're talking about, coding away in the basement and learning to draw the little man on the screen. ;) BASIC was damned sweet.
The TI-99 was really neat because I also had a tape recorder that came along with it, so my programs were transformed into sounds and stuff. haha
Before you try it, be aware that there are some issues -- I haven't played with it for a while, so I'm not certain what those are (something like you can't have a VC6 + updates and EVT residing on the same box).
--
The original post was a question about design & the necessity for two toolkits that (apparently) do the same thing. His question is essentially this:
The question he poses to the community is: Maybe we should throw these two toolkits at a standards body to get the best of both worlds.
--
There are a couple of options here. One is that you could do some sort of interesting form of diff-for-mp3's where your app would be able to check wave forms and such. After all, rips of songs from CD's are different: file size, encoder-used produces different files, different sampling rates, etc., etc.
Are there apps out there that can take two sound files, compare them (even at different sampling rates and "bit" (192, 168, etc.)), and determine whether they are the same?
It would be cool to see something like this happen.
--
Frankly, I'm all for other firms doing this type of thing, but I haven't seen anything from Sun or Netscape, or other "/. friendly firms" come up with something this neat before.
If you're worried that because it's MS-tech, we won't see it working with your Linux laptop, then clearly, you've lost a little faith in your Linux compatriots. I've seen some of the wackiest stuff from you Linux folks. And I'm certain that we'll see a Linux hack of this sooner than later.
I spend a lot of time in coffee shops -- having an Internet connection there would be a dream.
Be happy. If this works, it will be very cool, and other firms will be more willing to do this kind of thing. If it doesn't, then MS loses some money.
--
Here's a cool link to the Tangible Media Lab.
This stuff is really interesting in this age of info overload. Being able to convey more information to the user immediately and effectively will become even more useful.
--
The web is not all about objectivity. It is a user experience. That's why pages are laid out the way they are, and why so many people get paid such huge amounts of money just to make nice, aesthetically pleasing websites. Because of this, the web browser is also not all about objectivity.
The article focuses on startup times and memory usage of the browsers. While this is a great measure for doing an objective comparison, it misses the point of the browser, which is really to deliver a full, W3C-compliant web experience.
Before people go ranting off on me, I just want to point out that I do understand the importance of these two measures, and the fact that they're objective makes them even more cool. The fact of the matter is, however, that reviewers of browsers need to keep in mind that it is the experience of the web that should come first and formost.
As such, I think some of the things that the reviewer missed in his review (which was good, by the way): how well do pages render, how quickly do pages render, do existing pages cause problems for the new browser. These are important for the average web surfer (I know, I cringed too, but if I put "browser" there, it would have confused the point).
My mom doesn't care how long it takes the web browser loads up (though admittedly, 15 seconds to 3 seconds is a very big deal). My mom doesn't care how much memory it takes up on her box. She's more concerned with whether she can see everything on the page. She's more concerned with "What the heck is this stupid little box that keeps popping up and asking me if I want to `debug'?" She's more concerned when "Why is this stupid page screwed up?"
Just my thoughts.
Of course, I'm sure if you're reading this, you're probably like me and really do care about these sorts of benchmarks. Not all of us are running '133t-455 boxes with lots of RAM that can handle running the Netscape 7 beast--a lot of us still prefer the text-browsers. ;)
--
You see, by releasing it as a 6.0 (not beta, but just as a version), people will download it, and not download anything for a while (people don't like downloading new stuff -- it tends to be slower and clunkier). As a result, developers will have to start (learning) how to develop for 6.0 -- programming for its quirks ON TOP of what they already have to do right now (we have to separate IE/NS, then by major version number, and if we're doing really funky stuff, by minor version number).
That's a WHOLE LOT OF CRAP. The article makes some good points.
I guess it comes down to: is it better for NS to release a buggy browser that people are pissed off about? Or is it better that they not release another (yet again) for a while and risk losing even MORE market share.
--
--
RIAA wouldn't say, "it's because of a boycott"... they would gladly overlook that "by accident"... Lawyers are like that. ;)
--
This attention-based computing business probably has more to do with MS's vision of "pervasive computing"--that is, computers everywhere, and interaction with all sorts of computers without realizing it.
For example, imagine the simple scenario where there are 10 or 12 different monitors in your house, and you're watching TV, for example.. If the computer REALLY NEEDED your attention (e.g. Little Bobby broke his nose), it could figure out where you were, what you were doing, and notify, for example, the stove that it should flash "YO! BOBBY'S BEEN SMACK-DOWN'D!" or something...
--
--
's, eh? :)
--
--