Several non-english news sites. My annoyance was in large part caused by some dubious features of the said sites, I could very well live without. For instance, one of them carries resizing 'float over' adverts. Now, I could live very well without these ads, but I guess these people got to make thir dough somehow. Anyway, Safari's handling of that resizing would leave the page scrambled beyond reason or would cause the rest of the page not to load. The only option I had (or I was aware of) was to block all dynamic content. But I do want some dynamic content...
Now, it very well may be that these sites were lame and that Safari is handling all conceivable standards oh-so-well (as other commenters wrote). But I do not care about standards that much. I am Joe Sixpack and I: 1. Want my six-pack 2. Couldn't tell a standard if it came and whacked me on my head with a dead fish 3. Want my news sites to show properly
The point is - I am out there for the content, not for the browser. The 'we do the standards' defense just doesn't work for me. I do not write browsers nor make web pages.
First thing I downloaded onto my newly bought Mac Mini was Firefox. Safari was just plain unbearable. Speed doesn't count for much, when proper rendering is not there.
They didn't. But the recording industry in the US does not have to pay royalties on business methods they use. These business methods were invented in Italy and are enshrined in literature. Call it a debt of gratitude.
Ahh... the moderation! This is rather silly, not 'interesting'. We weren't talking about IT, but development, in the first place. I have been running a software R&D group for a long while. In the long run, all costs are marginal comparing to personnel expense. And besides - if you really must see me as an evil person - the power to refuse somebody something is not much of a thrill. Comparing to the simple fact I can just fire him...
It is a shame slashdot discussions age so quickly. And so badly. Some really insightful comments here. But...
You are bringing an interesting point here. My arguments probably don't hold that well in the case of businesses outsourcing the maintenance of their their e-mail service. Reason being that 'uninterrupted' and 'fault-free' (note quotation symbols) e-mail service is not priceless. It has monetary value that can be estimated. So, this would be a balancing act: what you would spent paying your own employees vs. what you would spent farming it out to somebody else (with placing some monetary value on risks in either case). But, as far as I understand, what google offers is not really a product aimed at businesses. Not yet, anyway.
I would not call it an 'illusion'. For one reason or another, enthusiasts of on-line services assume their detractors to be technologically inept bozos. That is short sighted. The matter is that I can (and I am forced) to take steps to ensure the security of my data. And I alone am to blame if I fail to do so. There is definitely something to what you wrote. I did realize that when I wrote my post. This is what 'perception of control' was supposed to mean.
Please realize that my arguments against the 'google desktop' are not technical. And not even relate to that company's level of service (even though there is something to be said about it; but this is a beta, so no matter). They are on the level of perception, not the net result (and on a large scale). In a way this is similar to the 'airplane effect'. Everybody knows that overall air travel is way safer then driving. Still, plane crashes are way more publicized then car accidents. And great many people (including seasoned travelers) get an uneasy feeling boarding a plane, while getting into their cars every morning without giving risks they are taking any thought. Why so? I believe the root cause to be the perception of control. Or, as you preferred to call it, an 'illusion'.
...whatever you mean by that. This is about control over my stuff. Or rather perception of control. I am a control freak. Almost. And I am not alone. I had an issue with using software like Outlook in the first place (file format and such) because I may lose access to my archive. Now someone is trying to convince me to give up yet more control. Thanks, but no, thanks. My willingness to trade this control for release from my responsibilities (for taking care of my stuff) only goes that far.
I hope and expect the on-line desktop to be as successful as Java-station (or whatever it was called).
I have admit I am not a fan of Joel S. All too often he seems to pass his personal tastes for the 'tried and true'. But maybe this is his right; JOS is a blog, after all. I would not dismiss Donald Norman that easily. He is a true guru. The local Apple & Google fandom seemed pretty upset over upsetting their idols. But they simply confuse minimalistic aesthetics for simplicity of use. In DOET (aka POET) book by Norman, there is an example with light switches. And another one with a bus console. These are worth considering when you weight your tastes agains the simplicity of use.
It is relatively easy to come out with a design that will appeal to tastes of many. It is probably also easy to design something easy to use. To combine the two - well, this is why some designers are paid so much. And, I would risk, so many a design disaster came from a failed effort to combine the two...
... can be an interesting place to work. Very much depends what you would get to work on, though. I guess presure on results out is almost always there in industral labs. But still, an interesting problem to pursue for few years can grant you the illusion you seek.
You may have a point here. It is simply that in my particular experience mapquest worked better. Well, it may be a New Jersey thing. And in both cases optimizing criterion (for the route choice) leaves something to be desired.
Actually, I found Google Maps rather deficient, too. I mean - the app looks cool and the sat images are just awesome. But for me the driving directions is what this is all about. And google sent me into sticks twice already. I returned to Mapquest. Not nearly as neat, but - in my experience - superior accuracy.
If your point is that all Apple does are fashion gadgets - I wholeheartedly agree. This is what the company derives most the revenue from. Admittedly, with an official launch of a leather case Jobs probably went too far. Let's hope he comes back some day.
Well, you apparently did. Albeit in the meta-mode. C'mon, people buy all these magazines. In a way, nobody is above all this celeb stuff. Except for me, that is. I am very special.
There used to be one reading 'business'. More appropriate here, methinks. Not every piece of news related to courts is about my rights. Especially when it is related to business litigation.
Project Gutenberg of Australia ( http://gutenberg.net.au/ ), as I understand, would also be affected by the new law. In particular, this notable ans useful page: http://gutenberg.net.au/plusfifty.html could be no more.
I have got a PocketPC 'thing' and, I have to admit, I am enjoying the experience. Not that I bought the device myself, with my own money - my love for all things Microsoft doesn't go quite that far. It was a freebie. The system appears to be stable (as stable, as a Palm I used before) and rather useful. I guess it could be quite fitting a system for fringe-items in cars.
Just gotta love this: advocacy disguised as so called 'objective journalism'. Firstly, the point if moot: 'what ifs' are not a valid line of reasoning. Perhaps Linux would be less vulnerable - but we will never know, because it is not as popular a desktop system, as MS stuffy thingee is. Secondly, maybe the very aspects of Linux that would prove it more secure render it less popular. Actually, I am quite certain that this is the case.
Besides, I do not think anyone in his/her/its right mind considers Linux superior just because its concept is so dated.
Slashdot Mirror
Several non-english news sites. My annoyance was in large part caused by some dubious features of the said sites, I could very well live without. For instance, one of them carries resizing 'float over' adverts. Now, I could live very well without these ads, but I guess these people got to make thir dough somehow.
Anyway, Safari's handling of that resizing would leave the page scrambled beyond reason or would cause the rest of the page not to load. The only option I had (or I was aware of) was to block all dynamic content. But I do want some dynamic content...
Now, it very well may be that these sites were lame and that Safari is handling all conceivable standards oh-so-well (as other commenters wrote). But I do not care about standards that much. I am Joe Sixpack and I:
1. Want my six-pack
2. Couldn't tell a standard if it came and whacked me on my head with a dead fish
3. Want my news sites to show properly
The point is - I am out there for the content, not for the browser. The 'we do the standards' defense just doesn't work for me. I do not write browsers nor make web pages.
First thing I downloaded onto my newly bought Mac Mini was Firefox. Safari was just plain unbearable. Speed doesn't count for much, when proper rendering is not there.
They didn't. But the recording industry in the US does not have to pay royalties on business methods they use. These business methods were invented in Italy and are enshrined in literature. Call it a debt of gratitude.
-m-
Ahh... the moderation! This is rather silly, not 'interesting'. We weren't talking about IT, but development, in the first place. I have been running a software R&D group for a long while. In the long run, all costs are marginal comparing to personnel expense.
And besides - if you really must see me as an evil person - the power to refuse somebody something is not much of a thrill. Comparing to the simple fact I can just fire him...
It is a shame slashdot discussions age so quickly. And so badly. Some really insightful comments here. But...
You are bringing an interesting point here. My arguments probably don't hold that well in the case of businesses outsourcing the maintenance of their their e-mail service. Reason being that 'uninterrupted' and 'fault-free' (note quotation symbols) e-mail service is not priceless. It has monetary value that can be estimated. So, this would be a balancing act: what you would spent paying your own employees vs. what you would spent farming it out to somebody else (with placing some monetary value on risks in either case). But, as far as I understand, what google offers is not really a product aimed at businesses. Not yet, anyway.
-m-
Thank you for enlightening me. I really appreciate your insight.
-m-
I would not call it an 'illusion'. For one reason or another, enthusiasts of on-line services assume their detractors to be technologically inept bozos. That is short sighted. The matter is that I can (and I am forced) to take steps to ensure the security of my data. And I alone am to blame if I fail to do so. There is definitely something to what you wrote. I did realize that when I wrote my post. This is what 'perception of control' was supposed to mean.
Please realize that my arguments against the 'google desktop' are not technical. And not even relate to that company's level of service (even though there is something to be said about it; but this is a beta, so no matter). They are on the level of perception, not the net result (and on a large scale). In a way this is similar to the 'airplane effect'. Everybody knows that overall air travel is way safer then driving. Still, plane crashes are way more publicized then car accidents. And great many people (including seasoned travelers) get an uneasy feeling boarding a plane, while getting into their cars every morning without giving risks they are taking any thought. Why so? I believe the root cause to be the perception of control. Or, as you preferred to call it, an 'illusion'.
-m-
...whatever you mean by that. This is about control over my stuff. Or rather perception of control. I am a control freak. Almost. And I am not alone. I had an issue with using software like Outlook in the first place (file format and such) because I may lose access to my archive. Now someone is trying to convince me to give up yet more control. Thanks, but no, thanks. My willingness to trade this control for release from my responsibilities (for taking care of my stuff) only goes that far.
I hope and expect the on-line desktop to be as successful as Java-station (or whatever it was called).
-m-
I have admit I am not a fan of Joel S. All too often he seems to pass his personal tastes for the 'tried and true'. But maybe this is his right; JOS is a blog, after all.
I would not dismiss Donald Norman that easily. He is a true guru. The local Apple & Google fandom seemed pretty upset over upsetting their idols. But they simply confuse minimalistic aesthetics for simplicity of use.
In DOET (aka POET) book by Norman, there is an example with light switches. And another one with a bus console. These are worth considering when you weight your tastes agains the simplicity of use.
It is relatively easy to come out with a design that will appeal to tastes of many. It is probably also easy to design something easy to use. To combine the two - well, this is why some designers are paid so much. And, I would risk, so many a design disaster came from a failed effort to combine the two...
-m-
... can be an interesting place to work. Very much depends what you would get to work on, though. I guess presure on results out is almost always there in industral labs. But still, an interesting problem to pursue for few years can grant you the illusion you seek.
http://ge.com/research/
Just cheaper.
You may have a point here. It is simply that in my particular experience mapquest worked better. Well, it may be a New Jersey thing. And in both cases optimizing criterion (for the route choice) leaves something to be desired.
Actually, I found Google Maps rather deficient, too. I mean - the app looks cool and the sat images are just awesome. But for me the driving directions is what this is all about. And google sent me into sticks twice already. I returned to Mapquest. Not nearly as neat, but - in my experience - superior accuracy.
If your google query returns more then 3 pages of hits, you don't know how to verse your question.
If your point is that all Apple does are fashion gadgets - I wholeheartedly agree. This is what the company derives most the revenue from. Admittedly, with an official launch of a leather case Jobs probably went too far. Let's hope he comes back some day.
Well, you apparently did. Albeit in the meta-mode. C'mon, people buy all these magazines. In a way, nobody is above all this celeb stuff. Except for me, that is. I am very special.
-m-
Being a geek (especially on the squad) is certainly underrated.
There used to be one reading 'business'. More appropriate here, methinks. Not every piece of news related to courts is about my rights. Especially when it is related to business litigation.
How Microsoft's payout to another big company relates to my rights? I mean - this is not an admission of wrongdoing, it is just a money transfer.
Actually, it was the other way around. The junkyard guy was suing CIBC to make the stop faxing the stuff!
-m-
...that you are selling your dignity for illusion of security. Cheap.
-m-
Project Gutenberg of Australia ( http://gutenberg.net.au/ ), as I understand, would also be affected by the new law. In particular, this notable ans useful page: http://gutenberg.net.au/plusfifty.html could be no more.
-m-
I have got a PocketPC 'thing' and, I have to admit, I am enjoying the experience. Not that I bought the device myself, with my own money - my love for all things Microsoft doesn't go quite that far. It was a freebie.
The system appears to be stable (as stable, as a Palm I used before) and rather useful. I guess it could be quite fitting a system for fringe-items in cars.
--
Are foreign nationals allowed to make purchase like that, too?
--
Just gotta love this: advocacy disguised as so called 'objective journalism'. Firstly, the point if moot: 'what ifs' are not a valid line of reasoning. Perhaps Linux would be less vulnerable - but we will never know, because it is not as popular a desktop system, as MS stuffy thingee is.
Secondly, maybe the very aspects of Linux that would prove it more secure render it less popular. Actually, I am quite certain that this is the case.
Besides, I do not think anyone in his/her/its right mind considers Linux superior just because its concept is so dated.
-m-