Both word-based and picture-based languages have their benefits, as do GUI-based and command-line-based interfaces. Understanding the strengths of the both are often critical in choosing the right tool.
Eidola seems be nothing more than use a picture-based (mathematical) language to represent what other programmers might use English to represent. if you already understand the mathematical language involved, you'll be more productive. I can't make heads or tails of it, and would prefer to use an English-based language.
Okay, this will sound like a ridiculous analogy, but as I was reading this, I kept thinking of the supermarket.
I walk into a supermarket, and I can go select a bunch of food. I can bring it back to my kitchen at home, cook it up and eat it.
Obviously, it would be a lot faster if I could walk into the supermarket, prepare it on the spot, and eat it there. My supermarket (internet or data source, take your pick) and my kitchen (operating system) wouldn't get in the way of processing the food (application) and eating it (document).
(I said this analogy would sound stupid)
It's not really practical. I could replicate the experience by going to a restaurant (information kiosk) or get something to go (Palm Pilot). Sometimes though I want to cook at home.
What's superfluous is all of the extra time I
"travel" between tasks (the OS). At some point, I still have to decide on what food I want, what process I'll use, and how I'll eat it. I can see the point of a minimalistic OS, which would be ideal. Today's OSs however seem to be leaning toward maximalistic(?) approaches, sort of the equivalent or having a supermarket the size of Newark (Windows), a supermarket where everything is scattered (the internet), a kitchen with a lot of individual appliciances (sorry, nothing for this), or appliances that can't do the job I need.
The point is: the 'travel' time is necessary. But it should be as small as it can be. Cause otherwise I'll go hungry.
After seeing your comment, I went back to the article, which read odd to begin with. I hadn't noticed where the link had taken (had my stupid hat on and all) and hadn't realized the site was osOpinion.
But I assumed that it was Raskin's editorializing, and was surprised to see it was somebody quoting Raskin and ranting the rest.
I look forward to watching the arguments between folks who think OS X is better because of it's ease of use vs. those who love it because it is BSD underneath.
I imagine it will sound like a beer commercial: "Less muck", "More GUI!", "Less muck", "More GUI!".
Or worse..."you got your pre-emptive multitasking in my graphic interface", "well you got your graphic interface in my pre-emptive multitasking!"
I understand the rationale you're presenting, but a hyperlink doesn't by default make the content appear inside the same application.
Take for example the link from Slashdot to the Wired news article. The link takes you from Slashdot to Wired, without leaving any trace of Slashdot. The content appears as a Wired news article, with a Wired banner.
This differs in how About.com works (which I really detest). About.com features hundred of links, but they open inside the About.com frameset. This is more comparable to quoting: About.com still has a presence on screen when the new content appears, and worse, appears to own the content the way it's laid out.
There are instances where a link could go to a page without any identifying information, but this I would consider to be the responsibility of the owner to properly brand their own material. I feel what's relevant is the presence of the previous site and any attempt the previous site is making to appear to be the content's owner.
Electronic vs. hard-copy isn't the point. Directing vs. copying is.
A link isn't the same as taking a magazine down to Kinko's and making copies. A link is the same as recommending a magazine and telling someone where they can find it.
Thats like Sears charging an entrance fee to into there store.
Sears doesn't charge, but aren't there large warehouse clubs like BJ's and Sam's where you have to be a paid member? (Or Radio Shack, where they ask you for an address for any purchase - yick.)
Sites should be able to charge entrance fees (or require a membership), but iCopyright's services would seem pretty useless at that point. I doubt NY Times or WSJ would be signing up any time soon.
I would disagree that a link is similar to a quote. A link is directions to content (e.g., "Hey, the latest issue of Esquire has a great quote from David Letterman on page 49"), not content itself (e.g., "But I'm not in the latest issue of Esquire", David Letterman).
I do believe that if I make the content appear like my own, then I'm committing copyright infringement. This can include actual copying of the materail, or cocooning the content in a frameset of my own. (Admittedly, other factors also play into it.)
The only instance of linking that would make this statement
When you put up a link, it's as if you are including part of their web site in yours
true is a certain type of deep linking, where you grab someone else's content, put it your frameset, and make it seem as if it's coming from your website (about.com is like this). The Wired news article links to Gigalaw, but clearly is not trying to make Gigalaw's site appear as if it's part of Wired's site.
Saying that someone is "freeloading" when they follow a link to a story is ridiculous. How on earth would a site gain regular readers if they refused to allow occasional readers to discover the site?
I disagree. While a base-10 counting system makes sense for distances, it makes less sense for months of the year, since a year repeats itself over and over. A 13-month, 52-week calendar works with the period given, whereas a 10-month calendar would results in a fractional week.
In the study fact sheet on ACT's site, it claims the breakup will lead to an inferior Windows product.
Later they claim temperatures will be lower than absolute Kelvin.
Slashdot Mirror
Both word-based and picture-based languages have their benefits, as do GUI-based and command-line-based interfaces. Understanding the strengths of the both are often critical in choosing the right tool. Eidola seems be nothing more than use a picture-based (mathematical) language to represent what other programmers might use English to represent. if you already understand the mathematical language involved, you'll be more productive. I can't make heads or tails of it, and would prefer to use an English-based language.
Okay, this will sound like a ridiculous analogy, but as I was reading this, I kept thinking of the supermarket.
I walk into a supermarket, and I can go select a bunch of food. I can bring it back to my kitchen at home, cook it up and eat it.
Obviously, it would be a lot faster if I could walk into the supermarket, prepare it on the spot, and eat it there. My supermarket (internet or data source, take your pick) and my kitchen (operating system) wouldn't get in the way of processing the food (application) and eating it (document).
(I said this analogy would sound stupid)
It's not really practical. I could replicate the experience by going to a restaurant (information kiosk) or get something to go (Palm Pilot). Sometimes though I want to cook at home.
What's superfluous is all of the extra time I "travel" between tasks (the OS). At some point, I still have to decide on what food I want, what process I'll use, and how I'll eat it. I can see the point of a minimalistic OS, which would be ideal. Today's OSs however seem to be leaning toward maximalistic(?) approaches, sort of the equivalent or having a supermarket the size of Newark (Windows), a supermarket where everything is scattered (the internet), a kitchen with a lot of individual appliciances (sorry, nothing for this), or appliances that can't do the job I need.
The point is: the 'travel' time is necessary. But it should be as small as it can be. Cause otherwise I'll go hungry.
Foggy, who really needs to go on a diet.
I've got an abacus lying around. No fiddling with column widths and freezing window panes.
Just don't drop it in the water when doing fractions, or you'll have floating point error.
After seeing your comment, I went back to the article, which read odd to begin with. I hadn't noticed where the link had taken (had my stupid hat on and all) and hadn't realized the site was osOpinion.
But I assumed that it was Raskin's editorializing, and was surprised to see it was somebody quoting Raskin and ranting the rest.
I imagine it will sound like a beer commercial: "Less muck", "More GUI!", "Less muck", "More GUI!".
Or worse..."you got your pre-emptive multitasking in my graphic interface", "well you got your graphic interface in my pre-emptive multitasking!"
Foggy, who watches way too much TV!
Take for example the link from Slashdot to the Wired news article. The link takes you from Slashdot to Wired, without leaving any trace of Slashdot. The content appears as a Wired news article, with a Wired banner.
This differs in how About.com works (which I really detest). About.com features hundred of links, but they open inside the About.com frameset. This is more comparable to quoting: About.com still has a presence on screen when the new content appears, and worse, appears to own the content the way it's laid out.
There are instances where a link could go to a page without any identifying information, but this I would consider to be the responsibility of the owner to properly brand their own material. I feel what's relevant is the presence of the previous site and any attempt the previous site is making to appear to be the content's owner.
A link isn't the same as taking a magazine down to Kinko's and making copies. A link is the same as recommending a magazine and telling someone where they can find it.
Sears doesn't charge, but aren't there large warehouse clubs like BJ's and Sam's where you have to be a paid member? (Or Radio Shack, where they ask you for an address for any purchase - yick.)
Sites should be able to charge entrance fees (or require a membership), but iCopyright's services would seem pretty useless at that point. I doubt NY Times or WSJ would be signing up any time soon.
I do believe that if I make the content appear like my own, then I'm committing copyright infringement. This can include actual copying of the materail, or cocooning the content in a frameset of my own. (Admittedly, other factors also play into it.)
Saying that someone is "freeloading" when they follow a link to a story is ridiculous. How on earth would a site gain regular readers if they refused to allow occasional readers to discover the site?
I disagree. While a base-10 counting system makes sense for distances, it makes less sense for months of the year, since a year repeats itself over and over. A 13-month, 52-week calendar works with the period given, whereas a 10-month calendar would results in a fractional week.
In the study fact sheet on ACT's site, it claims the breakup will lead to an inferior Windows product. Later they claim temperatures will be lower than absolute Kelvin.