And you know, why *would* they jettison the US modules? I mean, if the problem is that we can't get there to do anything, how are we going to argue if they're using them without us? Stand on the ground and yell really loud?
That's because Gore was foolish, and only demanded a recount in counties where he expected to do well. That's a dubious strategy anyway, and as you say, it turns out Bush would have "won" counting that way too. (Never mind that it's really a statistical tie and we all pretty much lose.) But when a _real_ recount of all state ballots was conducted by a consortium of newspapers, the results came out with Gore winning by over 20,000 votes. Too bad the Supreme Court didn't order that!
They really can't do this until something like SRS is widely adopted. Otherwise, hard-enforced SPF breaks forwarding. (Soft-enforcing -- a warning message, which could be disabled by someone who knows they're forwarding their messages through a non-SRS-aware server -- is an interim step.)
I get what's going on. I'm clicking on hypertexted URL links in messages. You're clicking on gmail UI element "links". And you're absolutely right -- that sure doesn't work. But this isn't particular to gmail -- it's very common with many highly-scripted websites. The issue isn't just that the links aren't "real links", but that they actually refer to (and depend on) the state of things on the current page. Creating a new window and then changing the state of that window -- while leaving the original unaltered -- could cause weird results.
Yes, to open in new tabs. Works fine for me too. Firefox 0.8 is pretty old -- I'm using 0.10 (preview release). Perhaps it's something that was changed in there somewhere.
Creating truly usable software is a difficult task, and it makes sense that we'd want to apply the Power of Science! to the problem. So, we get Usability Testing.
Generally, the usability tests I've heard of work like this: you get a bunch of people and stick them in a lab (portable or not), and watch everything they do with the program for a while, as they complete a checklist of tasks. It seems to be prefered to get users who have no previous experience with the program, to prevent "bias".
Well, that's great, but it doesn't really address usability. It addresses short-term pickupability. Now, that's really important, and it _should_ be addressed -- but if it's the *only* thing you're concerned with, you'll miss other important issues relating to long term software use.
There's a unix-geek saying: "Unix *is* user-friendly -- it's just picky about its friends". Like all such jokes, there's a kernel of truth here. There's a very steep learning curve to the command line tools that are at the heart of the Unix environment, but once you've gotten up it, they *enable* you as a user to more easily do complicated tasks that would be very tedious in a GUI.
I don't mean that this is about the CLI vs. GUI thing, though -- that's just an example. I'd certainly be frustrated if my web browser were exclusively designed based on the reports of people who use it for a few hours to complete basic tasks. I'm concerned about the line of thinking that removes features which save huge amounts of time every day simply because they might confuse new users.
I won't name any names, but I will cough subtly in the direction of the GNOME project and at metacity.
Please, usablilty people, don't just think of first impressions. Think of the long-term relationship. Both have to be good.
Yeah, although if you want newer technology and better-quality stuff, check out Smarthome instead. (Plus, you're not directly giving money to the evil-pop-under-ad people.) Smarthome also has a decent What is X10? page.
I don't understand their decision not to include wireless into the device.
How about (assuming you mean 802.11*): desire to have battery life longer than fifteen minutes? There's just not enough room in the tiny little thing for a big enough battery to make wifi useful.
Not to mention Gnocatan. The AI is poor (I haven't tried the Java version you link to, so I can't compare) and the UI a bit clumsy, but it works pretty well as a networked game.
Re Stephenson books: Phenomenally large? Phenomenally self-indulgent? Phenomenally didactic?
I'll give you the first two, but I don't see them as particularly preachy. (Unless you mean the more literal but less interesting meaning of "designed to convey information as well as entertain". I assume you _don't_, because that's not a very interesting accusation....)
And he reminds the/. editor of a Neal Stephenson story because Wilkins actually features quite prominently in Cryptonomicon (Stephenson makes Wilkins the author of the fictional tome from which the book takes its title) and in Quicksilver (and therefore in the rest of the Baroque Cycle books). Daniel Waterhouse, one of the chief heros/protagonists, is a protege of Wilkins's.
You can find a lot more about the real (in addition to Stephenson's historical fiction version) Wilkins at Stephenson's metaweb.
Actually, that's a really good loophole. Because: what is "expected to be obtained" by the user machine? If the clearly displayed policy of the network or hotspot or university or whatever is to reroute all unknown requestees to an authentication page, that's actually _exactly_ the content an unauthneticated user would expect to get -- and thus not covered.
Well, if *we* don't develop immensely expensive and nigh-impossible to store futuristic weapons in our
cutting-edge laboratories and gargantuan particle accelerators, what's to stop a bunch of terrorists in a cave in Afghanistan from doing it?
I am the top hit for my own name. Clearly Clusty is superior -- on Google, some lame journalist comes up first, but, c'mon, who cares about him? Clusty properly files him as the second choice. The better results on this very vital search prove that everyone should switch now. Thanks.
I don't see the problem here. It's fair. The word fair means that everyone plays by the same rules.
Errr, what part of "1.0% is different from 5.0%" is hard to understand? Phrasing the "same rules" in flat dollar values is "unfair". Using a percentage automatically scales to every situation, and is therefore the completely fair way.
Now _should_ things be fair in this way? I'll leave that for someone else.:)
Depends how you slice up the numbers. Check this very different chart based on basically the same data. Both sources are extremely biased, and it shows in both results.
I dunno -- I would like to think the basic qualifications for "President of the United States of America" would be slightly higher than those for "random Slashdot poster".
I downloaded the package from Slackware, and the tarball includes what appears to be essentially the same license (although with the truncated paragraphs complete). Unless there's some extra special dispensation (and I didn't find one), anyone redistributing this package (with or without Slackware 10.0) appears to me (IANAL) to be in violation.
Does anyone have any furhter information on this?
It's nice of Sun to turn a blind eye, but is that _really_ the attitude towards intellectual property we want Linux distributions to have? (Especially with Sun's dubious financial relationship with everyone's favorite company SCO?)
Slashdot Mirror
And you know, why *would* they jettison the US modules? I mean, if the problem is that we can't get there to do anything, how are we going to argue if they're using them without us? Stand on the ground and yell really loud?
That's because Gore was foolish, and only demanded a recount in counties where he expected to do well. That's a dubious strategy anyway, and as you say, it turns out Bush would have "won" counting that way too. (Never mind that it's really a statistical tie and we all pretty much lose.) But when a _real_ recount of all state ballots was conducted by a consortium of newspapers, the results came out with Gore winning by over 20,000 votes. Too bad the Supreme Court didn't order that!
..said of the findings. "Remember when cars came out, and people would say, 'Wow, we're going for a ride today!'" ...
What *I* want to know is: just how old are these researchers?
They really can't do this until something like SRS is widely adopted. Otherwise, hard-enforced SPF breaks forwarding. (Soft-enforcing -- a warning message, which could be disabled by someone who knows they're forwarding their messages through a non-SRS-aware server -- is an interim step.)
I get what's going on. I'm clicking on hypertexted URL links in messages. You're clicking on gmail UI element "links". And you're absolutely right -- that sure doesn't work. But this isn't particular to gmail -- it's very common with many highly-scripted websites. The issue isn't just that the links aren't "real links", but that they actually refer to (and depend on) the state of things on the current page. Creating a new window and then changing the state of that window -- while leaving the original unaltered -- could cause weird results.
Yes, to open in new tabs. Works fine for me too. Firefox 0.8 is pretty old -- I'm using 0.10 (preview release). Perhaps it's something that was changed in there somewhere.
Creating truly usable software is a difficult task, and it makes sense that we'd want to apply the Power of Science! to the problem. So, we get Usability Testing.
Generally, the usability tests I've heard of work like this: you get a bunch of people and stick them in a lab (portable or not), and watch everything they do with the program for a while, as they complete a checklist of tasks. It seems to be prefered to get users who have no previous experience with the program, to prevent "bias".
Well, that's great, but it doesn't really address usability. It addresses short-term pickupability. Now, that's really important, and it _should_ be addressed -- but if it's the *only* thing you're concerned with, you'll miss other important issues relating to long term software use.
There's a unix-geek saying: "Unix *is* user-friendly -- it's just picky about its friends". Like all such jokes, there's a kernel of truth here. There's a very steep learning curve to the command line tools that are at the heart of the Unix environment, but once you've gotten up it, they *enable* you as a user to more easily do complicated tasks that would be very tedious in a GUI.
I don't mean that this is about the CLI vs. GUI thing, though -- that's just an example. I'd certainly be frustrated if my web browser were exclusively designed based on the reports of people who use it for a few hours to complete basic tasks. I'm concerned about the line of thinking that removes features which save huge amounts of time every day simply because they might confuse new users.
I won't name any names, but I will cough subtly in the direction of the GNOME project and at metacity.
Please, usablilty people, don't just think of first impressions. Think of the long-term relationship. Both have to be good.
Yeah, although if you want newer technology and better-quality stuff, check out Smarthome instead. (Plus, you're not directly giving money to the evil-pop-under-ad people.) Smarthome also has a decent What is X10? page.
I don't understand their decision not to include wireless into the device.
How about (assuming you mean 802.11*): desire to have battery life longer than fifteen minutes? There's just not enough room in the tiny little thing for a big enough battery to make wifi useful.
Um, that's not funny. That's _obvious_.
Not to mention Gnocatan. The AI is poor (I haven't tried the Java version you link to, so I can't compare) and the UI a bit clumsy, but it works pretty well as a networked game.
Although, don't start there -- the whole Baroque Cycle story begins with Quicksilver.
Yeah, but before that, it was suggested that space was largely vacuum -- ruining the plan before gravity is even considered.
Re Stephenson books: Phenomenally large? Phenomenally self-indulgent? Phenomenally didactic?
I'll give you the first two, but I don't see them as particularly preachy. (Unless you mean the more literal but less interesting meaning of "designed to convey information as well as entertain". I assume you _don't_, because that's not a very interesting accusation....)
And he reminds the /. editor of a Neal Stephenson story because Wilkins actually features quite prominently in Cryptonomicon (Stephenson makes Wilkins the author of the fictional tome from which the book takes its title) and in Quicksilver (and therefore in the rest of the Baroque Cycle books). Daniel Waterhouse, one of the chief heros/protagonists, is a protege of Wilkins's.
You can find a lot more about the real (in addition to Stephenson's historical fiction version) Wilkins at Stephenson's metaweb.
I know -- we really need an "uninsightful" moderation.
Actually, that's a really good loophole. Because: what is "expected to be obtained" by the user machine? If the clearly displayed policy of the network or hotspot or university or whatever is to reroute all unknown requestees to an authentication page, that's actually _exactly_ the content an unauthneticated user would expect to get -- and thus not covered.
Well, if *we* don't develop immensely expensive and nigh-impossible to store futuristic weapons in our cutting-edge laboratories and gargantuan particle accelerators, what's to stop a bunch of terrorists in a cave in Afghanistan from doing it?
I am the top hit for my own name. Clearly Clusty is superior -- on Google, some lame journalist comes up first, but, c'mon, who cares about him? Clusty properly files him as the second choice. The better results on this very vital search prove that everyone should switch now. Thanks.
Therefore, Corn Syrup is definitely to blame, because coincidence is equal to causality. Cool.
I don't see the problem here. It's fair. The word fair means that everyone plays by the same rules.
:)
Errr, what part of "1.0% is different from 5.0%" is hard to understand? Phrasing the "same rules" in flat dollar values is "unfair". Using a percentage automatically scales to every situation, and is therefore the completely fair way.
Now _should_ things be fair in this way? I'll leave that for someone else.
Depends how you slice up the numbers. Check this very different chart based on basically the same data. Both sources are extremely biased, and it shows in both results.
I don't know much about that. But even if it all amounts to nothing in the end, that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
So, why not just try to make the best of being who we are? What's the _point_ of the whole super-robot-replacements-thing?
I dunno -- I would like to think the basic qualifications for "President of the United States of America" would be slightly higher than those for "random Slashdot poster".
I downloaded the package from Slackware, and the tarball includes what appears to be essentially the same license (although with the truncated paragraphs complete). Unless there's some extra special dispensation (and I didn't find one), anyone redistributing this package (with or without Slackware 10.0) appears to me (IANAL) to be in violation.
Does anyone have any furhter information on this?
It's nice of Sun to turn a blind eye, but is that _really_ the attitude towards intellectual property we want Linux distributions to have? (Especially with Sun's dubious financial relationship with everyone's favorite company SCO?)