Dynamically driven sites can become so dynamic, they become inefficient to either run, or maintain. Putting all your content in seperate files/in the database and then being hit but thousands of hits a minute has a huge cost. Either in stat()'s, or database calls. So to some degree, you do have to let go the dynamicness.
Going the opposite way, putting things all in html pages is of course, the fastest way, but is least dynamic.
But let's assume you know something I don't and can keep your efficiency up somehow. What about images? Alt tags become a bear to maintain and write business level descriptions for.
For designers, it does become a linear problem, where money doesn't get thrown at to make more possible. That money wouldn't add that many customers to their profits.
I dont' think it's easy to just categorize them into two groups, those who can and can't, but those who are easily supportable and those who are not.
But you see, the companies gave their OS to selecet people. I'm sure Xan. had a closed beta. I can't download OSX. It was me, going to someone who decided to try it out, reading the articles about it, that got me to try it.
So you see, downloading for free is only one venue out of many that can be tried.
Ok, that's just an extreem view of things. Mind you, alt tags aren't going to save the world, so that will NOT be the end all solution.
Designing a page for the visually impared isn't easy. We have those with no sight, a text only page? Designed no less?
Plus a site that consideres the colourblind.
Plus a site that accomodates N other factors.
So now we don't have one site to maintain... but N sites. Now the business world have to turn a visusal device for most into one for all.
With TV, it is easy, just have the script printed on screen. The web isn't so easy. If the blind want to know what is going on the news, they cannot use the conventional news paper. I'm sure the same can accomodate the blind -- provide another medium for them to use to reach business, such as customer service, etc etc...
Big, big mistake. In fact, if they don't provide some kind of live-cd, ala SuSE, they'll completely flop. It's that simple. No one will pay for an OS that they haven't used at a friends house or can freely try it out on their own, especially when the packages are so out-of-date (all these "Windows-killers" seem to use that same outdated version of KDE). Check out the Xandros page at distrowatch [distrowatch.com] and see for yourself.
Hm.. well.. what about MacOSX and all the new developers, admins and 'high end people' going to it? No, not all of them are, all of the ones who have:P
So are you implying that if you made a copy of yourself, you, as a person, would have dual consciousness? Or would you have your own consciousness right next to a person who is exactly like you? Or is that not how twins work:)
I don't think that's very fair to say. Note, that this bug has at least 8 bugs that are dependencies for this to be fixed. It's called a missed goal. It happens from time to time.
I just had a thought about the same thing not too long ago, minus the glove.. I could use a touch screen and manipulate my environment directly, as if everything was paper.
You do realize, that in some applications, risc and cisc can kick the others ass just by the way and types of things that are done.
As for the common title bar thing.. it's a matter of preference, right? I like the single titlebar thing. Leaves more room for my apps to be rendered in.
Mozilla just becomes a toolkit and VM to run applications. Think of it like Java. Can you run a java app w/o the JVM? No. It's not executable without it.
It seems Mozilla is working closer and closer to being an OS than just a browser. Kinda funny if you think about it, where MS has windows which was supposed to be an OS and is now including a browser.
You just argued against it in absurdity: a case of some encryption vs none. Not fair:P
What he brings up, is a point that if the encryption method he uses is broken without fore-knowledge on the algorithm, then it's like not using encryption at all. Trivially broken encryption is quite similar to having none at all. All it'd mean is that anyone who has some knowledge and/or the right tools can see what's really there.
His argument becomes valid.. it's no longer a useful form encyrption, but a weak form, or just obscurity. Obscurity isn't a strong form of security.
Also, the motors in these cars do not have munch go. Me and a few friends tried to make the car go up a small ramp (very slow incline), and the car would not go. Upon trying it farther out, the car would still stop on this ramp.
Two words: bottle rocket. You know you wanted to try it:)
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, but what about images?
Plus, it doesn't solve the problem of having so many includes to make everything completely dynamic that it doesn't slow down.
Dynamically driven sites can become so dynamic, they become inefficient to either run, or maintain. Putting all your content in seperate files/in the database and then being hit but thousands of hits a minute has a huge cost. Either in stat()'s, or database calls. So to some degree, you do have to let go the dynamicness.
Going the opposite way, putting things all in html pages is of course, the fastest way, but is least dynamic.
But let's assume you know something I don't and can keep your efficiency up somehow. What about images? Alt tags become a bear to maintain and write business level descriptions for.
For designers, it does become a linear problem, where money doesn't get thrown at to make more possible. That money wouldn't add that many customers to their profits.
I dont' think it's easy to just categorize them into two groups, those who can and can't, but those who are easily supportable and those who are not.
Which is exactly the point. You tried out Suse only 'cause it seemed great in articles/on the site and may have tried it somewhere else.
But you see, the companies gave their OS to selecet people. I'm sure Xan. had a closed beta. I can't download OSX. It was me, going to someone who decided to try it out, reading the articles about it, that got me to try it.
So you see, downloading for free is only one venue out of many that can be tried.
Ok, that's just an extreem view of things. Mind you, alt tags aren't going to save the world, so that will NOT be the end all solution.
Designing a page for the visually impared isn't easy. We have those with no sight, a text only page? Designed no less?
Plus a site that consideres the colourblind.
Plus a site that accomodates N other factors.
So now we don't have one site to maintain... but N sites. Now the business world have to turn a visusal device for most into one for all.
With TV, it is easy, just have the script printed on screen. The web isn't so easy. If the blind want to know what is going on the news, they cannot use the conventional news paper. I'm sure the same can accomodate the blind -- provide another medium for them to use to reach business, such as customer service, etc etc...
Big, big mistake. In fact, if they don't provide some kind of live-cd, ala SuSE, they'll completely flop. It's that simple. No one will pay for an OS that they haven't used at a friends house or can freely try it out on their own, especially when the packages are so out-of-date (all these "Windows-killers" seem to use that same outdated version of KDE). Check out the Xandros page at distrowatch [distrowatch.com] and see for yourself.
:P
Hm.. well.. what about MacOSX and all the new developers, admins and 'high end people' going to it? No, not all of them are, all of the ones who have
Why would you wanna put a pig in human jeans?
:)
Sorry
But you do acknowledge, if you make a copy of yourself, and kill "yourself", your unique consciousness..your pid won't exist anymore :)
So are you implying that if you made a copy of yourself, you, as a person, would have dual consciousness? Or would you have your own consciousness right next to a person who is exactly like you? Or is that not how twins work :)
If you can't hold it in for 2 hours, i think you might wanna see a doctor :)
My resolution is too high. The icons look like smuges. But what doesn't work for me would work for someone else :)
I don't think that's very fair to say. Note, that this bug has at least 8 bugs that are dependencies for this to be fixed. It's called a missed goal. It happens from time to time.
-s
It's something mozilla is missing, blocking based off of filters. It'd be nice if I can say, fine, take everything on this server except .swf files.
bugzilla.mozilla.org - you go now!
What about the XUL support that mozilla provides? I like my neat little google bar, the dom inspector and thigns like that, which mozilla has.
Plus, those apps aren't built in, they are added on. If you don't like iChat, drag it to the trash. We dont' need no steekin' uninstallers.
SO maybe instead of ignoring our options, how about we dismiss them as we please. That's the point of having a choice, nuh?
I just had a thought about the same thing not too long ago, minus the glove.. I could use a touch screen and manipulate my environment directly, as if everything was paper.
You do realize, that in some applications, risc and cisc can kick the others ass just by the way and types of things that are done.
As for the common title bar thing.. it's a matter of preference, right? I like the single titlebar thing. Leaves more room for my apps to be rendered in.
I'm a vi lover through and through, but I gotta say this much.
"Better it become like emacs than vi? We don't wanna go back to lynx!"
Sorry... had to say it, it wouldn't be prudent if I didn't.
Hah! Until you have objects on your desktop that begin with o. :)
Mozilla just becomes a toolkit and VM to run applications. Think of it like Java. Can you run a java app w/o the JVM? No. It's not executable without it.
It seems Mozilla is working closer and closer to being an OS than just a browser. Kinda funny if you think about it, where MS has windows which was supposed to be an OS and is now including a browser.
Heh, I didn't think jamming a cell phone up someones ass was legal else where :)
It's icq UIN's! And I know that guy!
You just argued against it in absurdity: a case of some encryption vs none. Not fair :P
What he brings up, is a point that if the encryption method he uses is broken without fore-knowledge on the algorithm, then it's like not using encryption at all. Trivially broken encryption is quite similar to having none at all. All it'd mean is that anyone who has some knowledge and/or the right tools can see what's really there.
His argument becomes valid.. it's no longer a useful form encyrption, but a weak form, or just obscurity. Obscurity isn't a strong form of security.
Gah, I hate it when people call the engines in a car a motor, but that is technically correct...
:)
So you hate people for being right? Did I miss something?
Also, the motors in these cars do not have munch go. Me and a few friends tried to make the car go up a small ramp (very slow incline), and the car would not go. Upon trying it farther out, the car would still stop on this ramp.
:)
Two words: bottle rocket. You know you wanted to try it