Won't solve the problem of Iraq having WMD. Infact might cause them to be used
Innocent civilians will most certinaly die
Why should Iraq have to dissarm anyway? The US hasn't
I'm not sure what news sources you have been reading. But I've made a point to read from as many differnt ones as possable. And all I can say is that attacking Iraq, at this stage, is a silly thing to do. Of course, what is more silly is that fact that the US sold WMD to Iraq in the first place.
But in doing so, he's made it "official" if you like. It's hard to stop casual talk. Infact, I'm sure that must be protected by freedom of speech. But this guy is putting it down as a dictionary deffinition.
I'm not sure if he has to remove the entry anyway. Just make note that it's also a trademark of Google.
Besides, they trying to defend their trademark because it's being used as a generic term for searching the web, not a number--which you thought was the original meaning. You do have a clue about how trademarks work don't you?
A lot of them seem to be mainly American. The others like corn flakes, rasin bran, shredded wheat are too descriptive of the product. The only ones I'm familiar with are styrofoam, thermos, escalator, cellophane, yo-yo, pogo stick, Polaroid, Popsicle, linoleum, kerosene, trampoline, Jeep.
Anyway. Some people may have had their trademark diluted. But why should that prevent Google from trying to keep theirs?
1 : to copy on a photocopier (mainly in the USA)
2 : to make (a copy) on a photocopier (mainly in the USA
Hypothetical situation:
It's possable for Joe Manager to say "we need a new Xerox machine, the old one just craped out" and have a Canon photocopier sitting in it's place the next day.
Even if Joe Manager had acctualy ment to try and get a Xerox brand photocopier, the fact that someone got a differnt brand probably wouldn't suprise him, and he probably wouldn't care.
US citizens still enjoy more freedoms than anybody else on the planet IMO
No offence. But where do you get this idea from? There are quite a few other contries that have more freedom than the US. You the US doesn't even have a real democracy for starters.
And I do agree with you point, that the US is not like 1984. But I think the original poster's point was that's the way it's heading at the moment.
There are still people who think that it's easy to cure youself of a metal illness--like you can just snap out of it--flick a switch.
Then there are some who will say that it's hard work. But it's still possable, and will try to encourage you with words. And that they have been in that situation themselves.
Obvously, none of these people have had the feeling that no matter how hard you try to reach, if your arm is too short, you can't reach the switch.
Re:Small and fast targets are too hard to hit
on
Traffic Cops for Space
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, then I can't afford a car or a house either. Your forgetting about needs and wants (yeah, we don't need any of this shit in reality). Somebody might get a powerbook because it suits them the best, then it's more of a "need" than a "want", and they may be willing to travel coach for a while and cut costs elsewhere instead of getting a cheaper computer.
Like I said, why not just have a different button/widget for it?
If your software app has a bug in it, that needs fixing, do you create a new application and use the new onc when you don't want to encounter the bug? Or fix the current one?
This isn't supposed to be a new way of doing anything. It's fixing a flaw that shouldn't have been there in the first place.
You really need to re-read the artical poperly, because all your points make it seem as if they doing something totaly different.
They did mention a new way to navigate it aswell--Yes--But the main idea is to fix the way it works behind the GUI.
As for "why bother if it isn't truly an improvement?" go ask Marketing.
This was done in a university, and they're not selling browsers or even the idea for that matter. It's in the public domain, as the artical says.
OK, you're sitting here reading my reply right now. Lets say you have come here from your/. user profile.
Now, click the back button, and choose a different link. How do you get back to my post? You can't. It was erased from the history list, because it is stacked based. Once you go back down the stack, and choose something different, everything above the stack is cleared. This is the flaw in the back button.
What are they proposing? I'm not sure of the exact implimentaion, but it is more liner, so you would probably just hit back twice, and you'd be at my post again.
Forget the phone anologies, they hold some bearing, but the keypad isn't flawed, and it's more simple and universal to begin with.
The whole point is to make it better for users, because it behaves more how they would expect the back button to work. So that's why it's worth chaning it. They not trying to make it more different, they trying to match it even better to the users expectations, so your argument about not chaning the UI acctualy supports this improved back button if anything.
it just seemed really lame to be judging by research so very very old in Internet time.
They might not have the money to that kind of testing. Good testing costs a lot of money, you have to pay the users, and set it all up etc. Maybe they'll do some more testing later on if nessesary.
and the laptop? maybe MS don't give much away for free but the way it was written in the article, the author sounded as though it was a big deal when to me it sounds like a pathetic crumb from a multi-billion dollar corporation
Keep in mind that this is in New Zealand. So it was probably MS's NZ office that gave them the laptop. They probably don't have the same amount of resources as MS's big USA HQ office.
Maybe they don't need anything more than a laptop anyway, they might just needed one so they can take it round for demonstrations etc.
that this is indeed the bottom of the barrel, I'm having a hard time imagining a worse article.
No, the bottom of the barrel comes after valentines day, when you find out than no one even gave you a smile: A geeks guide to fatal, self-inficted shotgun wounds.
This artical is not about removing the option to erase the users' history, which is already in most browsers. I didn't see anywhere in the artical them suggesting that history could not be deleted if the user wished to do so. So what is you point?
You do realise that you can view the history in most browsers anyway? This is just a way of getting at it better, I'm sure most users would like this.
The matter of disposing of a users history is a totaly seperate matter and should have no relivance on this artical.
Kinda obvious, but the users who won't understand probably need things simple and less powerful. Making more choices blatantly available would just confuse them.
And exactly how is erasing part of the history list making the back button more powerfull?
This "better back button" is simpiler and more powerful. It should have been like this in the first place. But it wasn't for some reason. And since the difference is so suble, nobody ever though to try and correct it until now.
This post ladies and gentlemen, is why Linux will have along, hard road to get onto the desktop of Joe Users' PC.
Out of interest, which of the browsers you listed already do what the artical says? I've used most of them, and they all have the same say of using the back button.
BTW, multi-button mice and gestures are irelivant here, they don't change the way the back button works, they provide an easier way to access the command to use it.
Please put down you crack pipe and re-read the artical. The main point is not getting out of a deeply nested site. But to revise the way the history is recoreded, so that you never get pages that vanish out of the history list, which happens in all major browsers that I know of because they are stack based. The point is they should not be. It's a subtle difference, but it's one that will make things clearer/easier/more logical to the user.
It's a percentage, so the number of people is irelivant. You could arguee that browsing habits have changed over the years. But that figure sounds right to me. I don't use it that much myself. It's a very handy feature when you need it. But I don't think many people use it to it's full extent. That could be partly they way it's been implimented, or that people just don't need to use it that oftern.
And the laptop? It shows that MS obviously think these guys are on to something. MS doesn't just give out laptops to anyone you know.
Slashdot Mirror
Free as in oil ;)
- Casue general dissruption to world peace
- Cause general dissruption to the global economy
- Breed more terrorists
- Won't solve the problem of Iraq having WMD. Infact might cause them to be used
- Innocent civilians will most certinaly die
- Why should Iraq have to dissarm anyway? The US hasn't
I'm not sure what news sources you have been reading. But I've made a point to read from as many differnt ones as possable. And all I can say is that attacking Iraq, at this stage, is a silly thing to do. Of course, what is more silly is that fact that the US sold WMD to Iraq in the first place.Perhaps you can give some reasons to attack?
I'm not sure if he has to remove the entry anyway. Just make note that it's also a trademark of Google.
Really? I though that was googol, not google.
It's even right there on their site.
Besides, they trying to defend their trademark because it's being used as a generic term for searching the web, not a number--which you thought was the original meaning. You do have a clue about how trademarks work don't you?
Anyway. Some people may have had their trademark diluted. But why should that prevent Google from trying to keep theirs?
1 : to copy on a photocopier (mainly in the USA)
2 : to make (a copy) on a photocopier (mainly in the USA
Hypothetical situation:
It's possable for Joe Manager to say "we need a new Xerox machine, the old one just craped out" and have a Canon photocopier sitting in it's place the next day.
Even if Joe Manager had acctualy ment to try and get a Xerox brand photocopier, the fact that someone got a differnt brand probably wouldn't suprise him, and he probably wouldn't care.
var i = 0;
var profit = 0;
while (i == 0) {
window.open('x10add_loop.html', '', '', '');
profit++;
}
1) Build very expensive motor-scooter with auto-balance
2) Get banned from places
3) Bankruptcy!
No offence. But where do you get this idea from? There are quite a few other contries that have more freedom than the US. You the US doesn't even have a real democracy for starters.
And I do agree with you point, that the US is not like 1984. But I think the original poster's point was that's the way it's heading at the moment.
Then there are some who will say that it's hard work. But it's still possable, and will try to encourage you with words. And that they have been in that situation themselves.
Obvously, none of these people have had the feeling that no matter how hard you try to reach, if your arm is too short, you can't reach the switch.
Sound like a good way to add to the problem.
It's still mixing 2 different ideas, that appear too similar for the user's good already.
Well, then I can't afford a car or a house either. Your forgetting about needs and wants (yeah, we don't need any of this shit in reality). Somebody might get a powerbook because it suits them the best, then it's more of a "need" than a "want", and they may be willing to travel coach for a while and cut costs elsewhere instead of getting a cheaper computer.
If your software app has a bug in it, that needs fixing, do you create a new application and use the new onc when you don't want to encounter the bug? Or fix the current one?
This isn't supposed to be a new way of doing anything. It's fixing a flaw that shouldn't have been there in the first place.
You really need to re-read the artical poperly, because all your points make it seem as if they doing something totaly different.
They did mention a new way to navigate it aswell--Yes--But the main idea is to fix the way it works behind the GUI.
As for "why bother if it isn't truly an improvement?" go ask Marketing.
This was done in a university, and they're not selling browsers or even the idea for that matter. It's in the public domain, as the artical says.
Now, click the back button, and choose a different link. How do you get back to my post? You can't. It was erased from the history list, because it is stacked based. Once you go back down the stack, and choose something different, everything above the stack is cleared. This is the flaw in the back button.
What are they proposing? I'm not sure of the exact implimentaion, but it is more liner, so you would probably just hit back twice, and you'd be at my post again.
Forget the phone anologies, they hold some bearing, but the keypad isn't flawed, and it's more simple and universal to begin with.
The whole point is to make it better for users, because it behaves more how they would expect the back button to work. So that's why it's worth chaning it. They not trying to make it more different, they trying to match it even better to the users expectations, so your argument about not chaning the UI acctualy supports this improved back button if anything.
They might not have the money to that kind of testing. Good testing costs a lot of money, you have to pay the users, and set it all up etc. Maybe they'll do some more testing later on if nessesary.
and the laptop? maybe MS don't give much away for free but the way it was written in the article, the author sounded as though it was a big deal when to me it sounds like a pathetic crumb from a multi-billion dollar corporation
Keep in mind that this is in New Zealand. So it was probably MS's NZ office that gave them the laptop. They probably don't have the same amount of resources as MS's big USA HQ office.
Maybe they don't need anything more than a laptop anyway, they might just needed one so they can take it round for demonstrations etc.
No, the bottom of the barrel comes after valentines day, when you find out than no one even gave you a smile: A geeks guide to fatal, self-inficted shotgun wounds.
Acctualy, I think it means that if you attach an external device like an iPod or a USB mouse, it will shrink after a while.
I've always thought it would be more like: Once you get a 17" PowerBook, you'll have to fly coach the rest of your life. :P
Just because you by something expensive, doesn't mean you're rich.
But it is broken. And they probably have done lots of user testing. Else why bother even making a subtle change if it isn't truely an improment?
You do realise that you can view the history in most browsers anyway? This is just a way of getting at it better, I'm sure most users would like this.
The matter of disposing of a users history is a totaly seperate matter and should have no relivance on this artical.
And exactly how is erasing part of the history list making the back button more powerfull?
This "better back button" is simpiler and more powerful. It should have been like this in the first place. But it wasn't for some reason. And since the difference is so suble, nobody ever though to try and correct it until now.
Out of interest, which of the browsers you listed already do what the artical says? I've used most of them, and they all have the same say of using the back button.
BTW, multi-button mice and gestures are irelivant here, they don't change the way the back button works, they provide an easier way to access the command to use it.
Please put down you crack pipe and re-read the artical. The main point is not getting out of a deeply nested site. But to revise the way the history is recoreded, so that you never get pages that vanish out of the history list, which happens in all major browsers that I know of because they are stack based. The point is they should not be. It's a subtle difference, but it's one that will make things clearer/easier/more logical to the user.
It's a percentage, so the number of people is irelivant. You could arguee that browsing habits have changed over the years. But that figure sounds right to me. I don't use it that much myself. It's a very handy feature when you need it. But I don't think many people use it to it's full extent. That could be partly they way it's been implimented, or that people just don't need to use it that oftern.
And the laptop? It shows that MS obviously think these guys are on to something. MS doesn't just give out laptops to anyone you know.
-1 flambait, troll, redundant I say.