That is Raskin's point -- I just think he's wrong. After a few tries, single and double clicking come naturally, and the user seems to understand the difference intuitively. Labeling the buttons with the words would distract from that rather than help it. IMHO, of course:)
It is probably BS that the decision to name Apple Computers had anything to do with this, but the story about Turing is likely true, at least that is what is reported here, among other places.
I don't think "select" and "activate" would be easily understood by the kind of user the one button mouse was designed for. And the theory of simple, uncluttered design that Raskin cites here holds true -- writing on a mouse would not be helpful to anyone, I don't think. I personally use a 5 button mouse on my Mac but I understand and agree with the simple design philosophy that led to the one button mouse. For a power user, a 2+ button mouse makes sense, and they are cheap and they "just work" on a mac. But for the user who already has computer anxiety a one button mouse is perfect -- simple and clear; no confusion about what to push. Adding unclear words like "select" and "Activate" would not help at all, I think! Those who understand the difference don't need the writing on the mouse, and those who don't understand it will just find it more confusing.
Well, I tend to aim for a more rigorous test of theory than whether I "don't know that it isn't true"... But the reason I object to your point is that I don't think there is an "establishment" that specifically conspired to diminish the importance of Ben Franklin. I do think there's a "general reluctance" to not rock the boat, but I just don't see how it applies to Benjamin Franklin. Don't get me wrong, I like Franklin, but I just don't see anything so "dangerous" in his work that academics would knowingly try to shape the public discourse so he wasn't mentioned. There's certainly nothing more dangerous in Franklin than in Jefferson, for example, or Locke or Rousseau for that matter.
That's nonsense. It has nothing to do with "the establishment." It's because real human beings in government, education, and the media wrote about Marx more often than Franklin. It has nothing to do with how "dangerous" anyone perceived Franklin or Marx or anyone else. Most people choose their areas of expertise for reasons other than its perceived danger. And a lot of the people writing about Marx do not give a shit about talk of "revolution"; they are interested in Marx's arguments about economics, philosophy, sociology, etc. Same with the (much fewer) who read Franklin; many are interested in his practical wisdom and scientific knowledge.
I agree, and indeed I would go further and say that such companies should face criminal charges as well as lawsuit liability. They are essentially accomplices to the crime, as other posters mentioned. A company that keeps such records inappropriately and lets them get into the wrong hands should lose its corporate charter. I don't want to see this company pulling the same shit ten years from now with a different technology. We need real information privacy laws with teeth.
That was exactly my point. A checkbox on google would allow 14 year olds to include blog results while leaving the box unchecked would get you your unpolluted news content.
It's a simple solution to the problem, but I doubt it will ever happen, because it would require people to agree to use a new standard voluntarily.
You're right that there are filters, but you're full of shit that libraries are filtering out books favorable to the US founders. I can find them in any library. Franklin may have been "widely read and admired" by some, but Marx has been (and still is) read and commented upon (by both admirers and critics) far far more than Franklin. Search the library of congress, if you care to, and you'll see that people are just writing more books about Marx than about Franklin.
I'm not saying there are no political factors at work when libraries decide what books to buy, but the conspiracy to undermine American revolutionary thought that you see at work here is just your own self-serving paranoia.
Also, you're flat-out wrong about it being hard to find books on Hegel or Marx fifty years ago. Your friend's local public library may not have carried them, and I'm not denying that the McCarthy witch hunt era had a significant effect on universities and their libraries, the fact is that serious scholars read and commented on these works throughout the twentieth century, the 1950s included.
Not to mention that any anticommunist crusade in libraries would not have targeted Hegel, who was in fact read (and written about) by many conservative thinkers, including Allan Bloom and of course Leo Strauss, the father of today's neoconservatism.
i don't want to pollute the contents of the internet[s]. maybe my friends enjoy what i write, and that's fine- i just think it's more responsible to keep it out of the search engines.
I think it's time for a "blog" meta-tag so search engines can filter blogs separately from results from accepted news sources. Blog software writers can put the meta tag in the default templates and search engines like news.google.com can have a "blog" checkbox so you can search for news with or without showing results from blogs.
A great example of this filtering can be seen at University Libraries. A researcher pointed out to me that my local universities had almost two full bookcases dedicated to studies of Marx, and not a full shelve concerned with Benjamin Franklin. The researcher thought this odd for a library in the United States.
Odd, perhaps, but this can't be blamed on librarians. The complete works of Ben Franklin fills 25 volumes. Those of Marx run 50 volumes. But that's just their own work in their original languages -- the fact is, Marx's works have been translated, republished, and commented on and discussed by other writers much more frequently in history than Ben Franklin's. And the fact is, entire nations and people's have embraced Marx's work as the guiding principle of their political culture (for better or worse). While one can say the same of some of Franklin's ideas, there are no revolutions or mass movements in history built on "Franklinism." Even in the U.S., the country most directly touched by Franklin's ideas, very few people actually read him and far fewer write books about him. Many more read and write about Marx.
If you feel there are too few books on Franklin at libraries, don't blame the librarians. They can only choose from what's available. You're right that part of a librarian's job is to filter information but they don't do it with such a blatant political ideology as you accuse them of here.
the first I hear of a greater majority of problems with OS X is when Apple releases an update, which suggests that maybe Apple has something beyond a simple stress-testing beta team.
You seem surprised. That's only because so many other companies have trained us not to expect this. We would not expect less than this from other products; operating systems should be the same. Imagine if cars were sold without crash tests. Security in a commercial OS should undergo constant (and pro-active) testing by the company (you can certainly bet its enemies are doing that). The fact that we don't expect that kind of work, and are surprised when we see it, speaks volumes about the practices of the current leaders of the commercial OS industry.
Does Mozilla even use Java 1.4? According to this page, you need a special plugin to even use Java 1.4.1 or later on OSX under Mozilla. It's not clear to me whether that still applies to Camino.8.2.
Slashdot Mirror
Ditto!
Don't be silly. This is not for the iPod. It's the controller for the Reality Distortion Field.
for children in some countries who want to make contacts in the US to help them smuggle millions of dollars out of their war-torn country
10th year of dying.
That is Raskin's point -- I just think he's wrong. After a few tries, single and double clicking come naturally, and the user seems to understand the difference intuitively. Labeling the buttons with the words would distract from that rather than help it. IMHO, of course :)
It is probably BS that the decision to name Apple Computers had anything to do with this, but the story about Turing is likely true, at least that is what is reported here, among other places.
I don't think "select" and "activate" would be easily understood by the kind of user the one button mouse was designed for. And the theory of simple, uncluttered design that Raskin cites here holds true -- writing on a mouse would not be helpful to anyone, I don't think. I personally use a 5 button mouse on my Mac but I understand and agree with the simple design philosophy that led to the one button mouse. For a power user, a 2+ button mouse makes sense, and they are cheap and they "just work" on a mac. But for the user who already has computer anxiety a one button mouse is perfect -- simple and clear; no confusion about what to push. Adding unclear words like "select" and "Activate" would not help at all, I think! Those who understand the difference don't need the writing on the mouse, and those who don't understand it will just find it more confusing.
Homer does not really exist. He's a cartoon character. But he is yellow!
Well, I tend to aim for a more rigorous test of theory than whether I "don't know that it isn't true"... But the reason I object to your point is that I don't think there is an "establishment" that specifically conspired to diminish the importance of Ben Franklin. I do think there's a "general reluctance" to not rock the boat, but I just don't see how it applies to Benjamin Franklin. Don't get me wrong, I like Franklin, but I just don't see anything so "dangerous" in his work that academics would knowingly try to shape the public discourse so he wasn't mentioned. There's certainly nothing more dangerous in Franklin than in Jefferson, for example, or Locke or Rousseau for that matter.
That's nonsense. It has nothing to do with "the establishment." It's because real human beings in government, education, and the media wrote about Marx more often than Franklin. It has nothing to do with how "dangerous" anyone perceived Franklin or Marx or anyone else. Most people choose their areas of expertise for reasons other than its perceived danger. And a lot of the people writing about Marx do not give a shit about talk of "revolution"; they are interested in Marx's arguments about economics, philosophy, sociology, etc. Same with the (much fewer) who read Franklin; many are interested in his practical wisdom and scientific knowledge.
I agree, and indeed I would go further and say that such companies should face criminal charges as well as lawsuit liability. They are essentially accomplices to the crime, as other posters mentioned. A company that keeps such records inappropriately and lets them get into the wrong hands should lose its corporate charter. I don't want to see this company pulling the same shit ten years from now with a different technology. We need real information privacy laws with teeth.
It's a simple solution to the problem, but I doubt it will ever happen, because it would require people to agree to use a new standard voluntarily.
I'm not saying there are no political factors at work when libraries decide what books to buy, but the conspiracy to undermine American revolutionary thought that you see at work here is just your own self-serving paranoia.
Also, you're flat-out wrong about it being hard to find books on Hegel or Marx fifty years ago. Your friend's local public library may not have carried them, and I'm not denying that the McCarthy witch hunt era had a significant effect on universities and their libraries, the fact is that serious scholars read and commented on these works throughout the twentieth century, the 1950s included.
Not to mention that any anticommunist crusade in libraries would not have targeted Hegel, who was in fact read (and written about) by many conservative thinkers, including Allan Bloom and of course Leo Strauss, the father of today's neoconservatism.
I think it's time for a "blog" meta-tag so search engines can filter blogs separately from results from accepted news sources. Blog software writers can put the meta tag in the default templates and search engines like news.google.com can have a "blog" checkbox so you can search for news with or without showing results from blogs.
Odd, perhaps, but this can't be blamed on librarians. The complete works of Ben Franklin fills 25 volumes. Those of Marx run 50 volumes. But that's just their own work in their original languages -- the fact is, Marx's works have been translated, republished, and commented on and discussed by other writers much more frequently in history than Ben Franklin's. And the fact is, entire nations and people's have embraced Marx's work as the guiding principle of their political culture (for better or worse). While one can say the same of some of Franklin's ideas, there are no revolutions or mass movements in history built on "Franklinism." Even in the U.S., the country most directly touched by Franklin's ideas, very few people actually read him and far fewer write books about him. Many more read and write about Marx.
If you feel there are too few books on Franklin at libraries, don't blame the librarians. They can only choose from what's available. You're right that part of a librarian's job is to filter information but they don't do it with such a blatant political ideology as you accuse them of here.
It runs on hot air, which scientists have found is constantly being channelled through cell phones.
You'll never get first post with that kind of attitude!
;)
Damn - now I've got that tune stuck in my head.
You seem surprised. That's only because so many other companies have trained us not to expect this. We would not expect less than this from other products; operating systems should be the same. Imagine if cars were sold without crash tests. Security in a commercial OS should undergo constant (and pro-active) testing by the company (you can certainly bet its enemies are doing that). The fact that we don't expect that kind of work, and are surprised when we see it, speaks volumes about the practices of the current leaders of the commercial OS industry.
Does Mozilla even use Java 1.4? According to this page, you need a special plugin to even use Java 1.4.1 or later on OSX under Mozilla. It's not clear to me whether that still applies to Camino .8.2.
"Therefore does Allofmp3 MP3-Dateien drive out, without the daf?notwendigen rights with the owners gekl? to have."
Well, since most people are still using mp3 to encode music files, the mp4 site probably won't do too well.
...with iCann of course.
Dude, your user id is "I be hatin'."