Right, but there's a difference between the pages I've searched for from Google and clicked out on vs. all pages I've seen before, period.
My first comment in this thread was about being uneasy with Google tracking all out-clicks to your user name. I was then reminded that for ultimate efficacy, this system would have to record all pages you've visited, to which I responded that it was scarier still.
But I guess expected an AC to go back through parent comments is far too much, so I'll just pat you on the head and send you on your way.
Yeah, there is some Google thing you can do that tracks your search history and promotes links you frequent.
Personally, that freaks the shit out of me, so I don't have it enabled -- but you're right, the basics of that technology are at least partially implemented by at least one major search engine.
Think long and hard before you give up the guaranteer of your liberty.
Let's be good and damn clear on this: The ballot box is a far more secure guarantor of liberty than the gun. This story is a second-rate issue until I have the right to look at my ballot and see who I voted for. (Unless, of course, this gun-right-revoking thing is the second tier in the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy to entrench Bush administration policy in power -- which doesn't make the least bit of sense, but then again, when do you ever expect people to think things through like that?)
"Have these expletives been adopted widely outside of French Canada ?"
To my knowledge, no (IANAFrench-speaker, but IAALinguist, sorta). Friends of mine who've learned French from France don't seem to know the Quebecois French expletives. I haven't checked with a native Parisian French speaker to find out if there's an actual difference, but as I understand it, the religious terms are uniquely Quebecois.
CBC ran an interesting story about how some church in Montreal was actually sponsoring billboards to run the dirty word in large letters, with an explanation of the etymology below it. The newscasters were like "We can't believe we're allowed to say the following..."
--------------
Sorry if my lack of accents offends anyone. I have no desire to adjust my keyboard settings for one or two slashdot posts:)
The first thing I thought of when I saw Meebo in action was "coolness."
The second thing I thought was "Holy crap, an emulated windowing environment within a web browser."
Presumably the backend to run IM clients was straightforward enough; there are several open implementations. The reason, I think, they took the time to set this up is to show that you can actually run a GUI within a browser window and have it be convincingly responsive. They've gotta be hoping Google and some other corporations are attracted to this decentralized, client-naive way of computing.
In the right hands, this stands to be a boon for computing in general, as the OS becomes largely just another abstraction layer between the browser and the hardware. It would also be a boon for Linux as a viable desktop platform, because all you'd have to do is boot up into a web browser in kiosk mode to have functional (and cheap!) workstations, which are essentially OS-agnostic. Brilliant.
What does that even mean? If you mean anti-monopolistic, pro-consumer-rights, pro-free-speech-because-that's-what-the-Constituti on-fucking-says, technodork slant, then I think you've got a little misconception about what constitutes "Leftist".
Oh believe me, the Envision Center doesn't really do all that much that's truly "useful". Cool as hell, and even some stuff my work is tangentially related to, but not "useful".
(Ex: immersive, interactive 3-d environment to teach math skills in American Sign Language. Really neat stuff. But until deaf schools get $10 million projection studios, um. Not "useful".)
Still, what possible marketing model says that the way to get votes is to repeatedly harass potential voters by phone?.
Bzzzt! The tactic isn't being used to *get* votes, it's being used to harass / annoy voters for the other party's candidate so much that those voters stay home. Mathematically, it's generally just as good to have your voters turn out as it is to have the other party stay home. Republicans aren't motivating anyone to go to the polls tomorrow, so they're going to plan B: Try and get as many Democrat voters as possible to stay home in districts with close races.
This is useful for a number of reasons. Especially if it's done in a close race, which has been shown to be a major turnout motivator, that may keep throw-the-bums-out voters at home, and prevent votes for the other party / viewpoint in other races and ballot initiatives.
As far as widespread impact... Eh. If you have a blog, post on it. If you have some friends you think might be influenced by this, send them relevant snippets of the article(s) you find, *with a personal summary at the top* so they know it's not just BS you're forwarding.
And don't forget to vote, and encourage your friends to vote, against the motherfuckers who're doing this.
(Posted w/o karma bonus because even I think this is kinda trollish, but seriously, people... If *any* party pulls shit like this and gets rewarded with (re)election, that just encourages the thinking that this is an appropriate / acceptable / beneficial thing to be doing.)
Seems that what Ubuntu really needs is a reality distortion field.
That's not an argument. I selected four of Apple's own, homegrown applications that look and feel strikingly different. Thus, I argued it's unreasonable to hold Apple up as the gold standard if they don't really implement good universal look and feel as it is.
You could make the case, then, that Apple should be regarded as the high-water mark for UI design and integration -- which would necessitate looking critically at some of OS X's flaws, so people may or may not be able to actually do it in a constructive fashion.
Your concept of a "reality distortion field" suggests that Ubuntu has no plans and has taken no steps toward creating a more unified Linux desktop. This is patently incorrect based on their changelogs and roadmaps, specifically their attention to L&F.
As I said in an earlier post in this thread, I'm a user of OS X and Linux, and would agree that, most generally, OS X is the better OS. I think it's ridiculous, though, to suggest that Linux distros can't or won't make progress in UI cohesiveness.
In general, though, Linux has been usable for the average person for years now.
Agreed, wholeheartedly. I didn't believe it myself; I started using Linux several years ago, when its install-and-use-ability was just turning the corner. If you count SuSE 8 as particularly usable, I guess. However, just the other day, a roomie of mine who is as close to computer-naive as 20-somethings come got some nasty viral whatever on Windows. Another roomie of mine who's a computer geek suggested she install the new version of Ubuntu, and she's been working with it happily ever since. Not even so much as a tech support request or anything.
I don't understand why you'd need to toss X, per se.
And I would also point out that Ubuntu does make a concerted effort to ensure the GUIs it uses operate off the same toolkit, and they do push for strong unified look & feel.
Apple needs HIG police, too, so says iTunes vs. Safari vs. Preview vs. Mail, for example. You're telling me that's the gold standard in uniform look-and-feel? My, we all have a long way to go, don't we? And that's just their in-house development, let alone goodies like MS Office and RealPlayer.
Hell, RealPlayer for Linux is way more GNOME-HIG compliant than RP for OS X is to Apple's HIG.
And I know, I know, I'm playing the old "gotcha" game, pointing out the relatively rare exception here and there. But the point remains that to default to these "Oh, Apple has done it so well and everyone should try to be as good as Apple" really overlooks some striking details. I think with some work, Ubuntu can be competitive in regular-user look, feel, and experience (perhaps not overall underlying polish, true!) with OS X without a major change of system architecture.
FULL DISCLAIMER: Wrote this post on my iBook running OS X. Will read follow-ups at home on my Ubuntu Edgy box.
I say this because, ultimately, the difference between commercials and "content" is entirely made up of the information they present. As advertisers and broadcaster get better at removing the "flag" type of marker (blank frames, scene cuts, predictable timing) from commercials, there will be incentive to develop more intelligent ad-blocking mechanisms.
Based on the way television is transmitted (at least in the US), I doubt the ability of the broadcasters to subvert fine-tuning of automated commercial detection mechanisms will improve all that much.
Take, for example, blank frame detection: Local affiliates (cable and broadcast, both) get so many spots per hour they can fill. If those *don't* have a slight hesitation in blank frames before and after the local break, things go all kinds of bonkers with cutting off the end of a spot (pissing off the advertiser) or cutting off the rejoin to a show (pissing off the viewers). I would note, though, that Food Network seems to be adding a network bump out of the break at least once an hour during Iron Chef: America. My mythtv install doesn't detect it because for all intents and purposes, the bump *is* the start of the show. So maybe we'll start to see more pre-produced network bumps?
As for predictable timing, that may change some algorithms, but probably not much. For example, Clear Channel is running one-second logo spots (think "the Intel sound", or McDonald's "ba ba ba baah ba") with really ambiguous results. While that may play well in a medium that's audio-only, it's unclear if 1- or 5-second spots could ever really take off on TV. I guess we'll have to wait to the end of the CC radio experiment to find out.
I do think you're right in predicting the ultimate failure of these detection mechanisms, only I suspect it will come through regulatory means rather than technological ones.
Slashdot Mirror
I find that sex also happens to warm the bedroom nicely; winter, summer, or somewhere in between.
Not that I'm knocking the computer, either. Computer + BOINC (Fight AIDS@Home, et al) also does a nice job, it's just a good deal less fun.
Right, but there's a difference between the pages I've searched for from Google and clicked out on vs. all pages I've seen before, period.
My first comment in this thread was about being uneasy with Google tracking all out-clicks to your user name. I was then reminded that for ultimate efficacy, this system would have to record all pages you've visited, to which I responded that it was scarier still.
But I guess expected an AC to go back through parent comments is far too much, so I'll just pat you on the head and send you on your way.
That's even scarier.
Yeah, there is some Google thing you can do that tracks your search history and promotes links you frequent.
Personally, that freaks the shit out of me, so I don't have it enabled -- but you're right, the basics of that technology are at least partially implemented by at least one major search engine.
Pop that sucker in the OED, kids, because "to gripe" is now attested as a transitive verb.
Let's be good and damn clear on this: The ballot box is a far more secure guarantor of liberty than the gun. This story is a second-rate issue until I have the right to look at my ballot and see who I voted for. (Unless, of course, this gun-right-revoking thing is the second tier in the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy to entrench Bush administration policy in power -- which doesn't make the least bit of sense, but then again, when do you ever expect people to think things through like that?)
"Have these expletives been adopted widely outside of French Canada ?"
:)
To my knowledge, no (IANAFrench-speaker, but IAALinguist, sorta). Friends of mine who've learned French from France don't seem to know the Quebecois French expletives. I haven't checked with a native Parisian French speaker to find out if there's an actual difference, but as I understand it, the religious terms are uniquely Quebecois.
CBC ran an interesting story about how some church in Montreal was actually sponsoring billboards to run the dirty word in large letters, with an explanation of the etymology below it. The newscasters were like "We can't believe we're allowed to say the following..."
--------------
Sorry if my lack of accents offends anyone. I have no desire to adjust my keyboard settings for one or two slashdot posts
Ubuntu has Esperanto localization.
That's very, very localized.
And besides, the church is a really rich source of expletives in Quebec -- one definitive contribution to the Franocophonie.
The first thing I thought of when I saw Meebo in action was "coolness."
The second thing I thought was "Holy crap, an emulated windowing environment within a web browser."
Presumably the backend to run IM clients was straightforward enough; there are several open implementations. The reason, I think, they took the time to set this up is to show that you can actually run a GUI within a browser window and have it be convincingly responsive. They've gotta be hoping Google and some other corporations are attracted to this decentralized, client-naive way of computing.
In the right hands, this stands to be a boon for computing in general, as the OS becomes largely just another abstraction layer between the browser and the hardware. It would also be a boon for Linux as a viable desktop platform, because all you'd have to do is boot up into a web browser in kiosk mode to have functional (and cheap!) workstations, which are essentially OS-agnostic. Brilliant.
"Leftist slant"?
i on-fucking-says, technodork slant, then I think you've got a little misconception about what constitutes "Leftist".
What does that even mean? If you mean anti-monopolistic, pro-consumer-rights, pro-free-speech-because-that's-what-the-Constitut
Oh believe me, the Envision Center doesn't really do all that much that's truly "useful". Cool as hell, and even some stuff my work is tangentially related to, but not "useful".
(Ex: immersive, interactive 3-d environment to teach math skills in American Sign Language. Really neat stuff. But until deaf schools get $10 million projection studios, um. Not "useful".)
QED, bitch!
Well at least now we know to pair human flesh with a darker, spicier red like Zinfandel or Shiraz / Syrah.
Phew.
Lucky bastard. I asked for one just to force the election monitors to tell me I couldn't have one.
I apologize for not being clear in parent. I was kidding.
I use Ubuntu and Synaptic and apt-get and Aptitude, having foregone SuSE in in 2004 when Ubuntu Warty (4.10) came out.
YaST is sucky by comparison, and I find RPMs abhorrent now.
I was being snarky, not serious. I use Ubuntu and Synaptic and apt-get and Aptitude. I have not used SuSE in years.
To repeat, in grandparent, I was kidding. Sorry if the extensively flamboyant punctuation didn't make that clear.
Are you out of your mind?! What about YaST?!?!
Bzzzt! The tactic isn't being used to *get* votes, it's being used to harass / annoy voters for the other party's candidate so much that those voters stay home. Mathematically, it's generally just as good to have your voters turn out as it is to have the other party stay home. Republicans aren't motivating anyone to go to the polls tomorrow, so they're going to plan B: Try and get as many Democrat voters as possible to stay home in districts with close races.
This is useful for a number of reasons. Especially if it's done in a close race, which has been shown to be a major turnout motivator, that may keep throw-the-bums-out voters at home, and prevent votes for the other party / viewpoint in other races and ballot initiatives.
As far as widespread impact... Eh. If you have a blog, post on it. If you have some friends you think might be influenced by this, send them relevant snippets of the article(s) you find, *with a personal summary at the top* so they know it's not just BS you're forwarding.
And don't forget to vote, and encourage your friends to vote, against the motherfuckers who're doing this.
(Posted w/o karma bonus because even I think this is kinda trollish, but seriously, people... If *any* party pulls shit like this and gets rewarded with (re)election, that just encourages the thinking that this is an appropriate / acceptable / beneficial thing to be doing.)
...which is why I run a relatively low-priority server for my research lab.
Like lots of other bad sysadmins, I saw that headline and said under my breath "Well, I wonder what this is gonna break."
That's not an argument. I selected four of Apple's own, homegrown applications that look and feel strikingly different. Thus, I argued it's unreasonable to hold Apple up as the gold standard if they don't really implement good universal look and feel as it is.
You could make the case, then, that Apple should be regarded as the high-water mark for UI design and integration -- which would necessitate looking critically at some of OS X's flaws, so people may or may not be able to actually do it in a constructive fashion.
Your concept of a "reality distortion field" suggests that Ubuntu has no plans and has taken no steps toward creating a more unified Linux desktop. This is patently incorrect based on their changelogs and roadmaps, specifically their attention to L&F.
As I said in an earlier post in this thread, I'm a user of OS X and Linux, and would agree that, most generally, OS X is the better OS. I think it's ridiculous, though, to suggest that Linux distros can't or won't make progress in UI cohesiveness.
Agreed, wholeheartedly. I didn't believe it myself; I started using Linux several years ago, when its install-and-use-ability was just turning the corner. If you count SuSE 8 as particularly usable, I guess. However, just the other day, a roomie of mine who is as close to computer-naive as 20-somethings come got some nasty viral whatever on Windows. Another roomie of mine who's a computer geek suggested she install the new version of Ubuntu, and she's been working with it happily ever since. Not even so much as a tech support request or anything.
Convincing enough for me.
I don't understand why you'd need to toss X, per se.
And I would also point out that Ubuntu does make a concerted effort to ensure the GUIs it uses operate off the same toolkit, and they do push for strong unified look & feel.
Apple needs HIG police, too, so says iTunes vs. Safari vs. Preview vs. Mail, for example. You're telling me that's the gold standard in uniform look-and-feel? My, we all have a long way to go, don't we? And that's just their in-house development, let alone goodies like MS Office and RealPlayer.
Hell, RealPlayer for Linux is way more GNOME-HIG compliant than RP for OS X is to Apple's HIG.
And I know, I know, I'm playing the old "gotcha" game, pointing out the relatively rare exception here and there. But the point remains that to default to these "Oh, Apple has done it so well and everyone should try to be as good as Apple" really overlooks some striking details. I think with some work, Ubuntu can be competitive in regular-user look, feel, and experience (perhaps not overall underlying polish, true!) with OS X without a major change of system architecture.
FULL DISCLAIMER: Wrote this post on my iBook running OS X. Will read follow-ups at home on my Ubuntu Edgy box.
Based on the way television is transmitted (at least in the US), I doubt the ability of the broadcasters to subvert fine-tuning of automated commercial detection mechanisms will improve all that much.
Take, for example, blank frame detection: Local affiliates (cable and broadcast, both) get so many spots per hour they can fill. If those *don't* have a slight hesitation in blank frames before and after the local break, things go all kinds of bonkers with cutting off the end of a spot (pissing off the advertiser) or cutting off the rejoin to a show (pissing off the viewers). I would note, though, that Food Network seems to be adding a network bump out of the break at least once an hour during Iron Chef: America. My mythtv install doesn't detect it because for all intents and purposes, the bump *is* the start of the show. So maybe we'll start to see more pre-produced network bumps?
As for predictable timing, that may change some algorithms, but probably not much. For example, Clear Channel is running one-second logo spots (think "the Intel sound", or McDonald's "ba ba ba baah ba") with really ambiguous results. While that may play well in a medium that's audio-only, it's unclear if 1- or 5-second spots could ever really take off on TV. I guess we'll have to wait to the end of the CC radio experiment to find out.
I do think you're right in predicting the ultimate failure of these detection mechanisms, only I suspect it will come through regulatory means rather than technological ones.