MySQL is not a database. A database is a collection of data.
Well, that means that Oracle or DB2 or MSSQL or PostGreSQL aren't databases if they have no data in them, and that my even asshole can be a database if I shove a small collection of data up it.
Say what you want about MySQL. Say it's not a real a DBMS, or impliments or follows SQL correctly. But it's still a god damn database in reality, and according to your own deffinition.
Oh yeah...Maybe some of us find it easler to start with something less complex. Maybe some of us don't need a fully-fledged DBMS either.
The the score Kuro5hin shows is representive of all the people who voted, and not the last person.
The slashdot system means that if 2 people think it's worth 5, someone else can make it a 4, even though more people think it's worth higher than a 4.
Slashdot's system relies on the last person making an honest choice or "being right" so to speak. We all know that not all moderators make a good judgment.
It does work of course. But I think Kuro5hin works a bit better, even thought it also has flaws (people voting to the extreme to change the average, and not just voting the score they think it deserves.
I think the best way would be some way where you vote +1, -1 (like slashdot), but it uses an average (like kuro5hin).
Now I understand that because it becomes difficult to make a larger vacuum tube as volume increases. The same thing does not apply to LCD's in terms of production costs.
I think you will find that is not the case.
Don't forget about dead pixels. If you have too many of them on a screen, it ain't going to pass quality control--Off to the scrap bin--That's a big waste of $.
Larger LCDs usualy have more pixels, this will directly affect how may dead pixels there are. Of course, they probably allow more dead pixels on a bigger screen, but I'm not sure exactly how they work the ratio.
People seem to be saying that XML is a silly bloated INI/config file replacment. XML can be that, but it can also be used as a 'database'.
Now. I know a lot of people are going to moan about how slow XML is compared to any DB, and they'd be righ--at the moment. But there is one thing that XML has that DBs don't, and that's fexibility. You can add new elements to XML as you go. You can't do that with a DB (well you can, but any DB admin/desiginer would shoot you for it, and it would be hard), DBs are designed to be strict and uniformed.
Some data types need fexibility, and this is where XML benifits.
You said that the tools for XML are great, don't you think that could be because of the way XML was designed?
This article is the result of 5 years of research? If they has used a computer I'm sure they could have obtained their statistics much faster. Seriously though, although the story may be interesting, it offers no alternatives, and is therefore pretty redundant.
Exactly how would a computer speed up the process? Where did it say they didn't use a computer anyway?
Why do you expect them to come up with suggestions? Maybe they don't have any suggestions becuse that may not be their area of experties. But surly it must be important to know just what the costs of the electronics industry are, so that other people can find better ways to reduce the costs to the environment.
Are you just trying to defend the electronics industry and justify the cost to the environment because you don't like the truth? Face it electronics are dirty, and the sooner people realise this, the sooner more research will be poored into developing better systems.
I don't get how Rip-Mix-Burn says "Fuck You Record Industry". Twenty years ago it was Cue-Mix-Tape and we never heard them complain.
Well, I'm pretty sure the RIAA did complain about tapes?
Anyway...This is different, not only because it's much better quality-as you said. But because it's so much easier. When was the last time you made a tape mix? Last time I did it was years ago, and I remember it was a pain in the ass, getting all the tapes at exactly the right spot etc. It's certianly not like draging a few files onto a playlist and clicking a "burn" button.
I don't like the RIAA. But it's important to keep the arguments clean. Maybe files-sharing even boosted sales a year or so ago. But I think we kidding ourselves if we continue to use that argument because one day (if not already) it will cease to be true.
The recording industry just has to face the fact that their current model is totally fucked, and that they have to do a complete re-write of the entire way they do business. They also have to get this new business model right, or it's going to fail. And even if it is a big success, it probably will never be as profitable at their current model used to be.
Hmmm.. I think I headed off the point in that last paragraph, but I'll leave it there for others.
Funny, I don't agree that the "electronic industry's" attitude can be summed up by Apple's slogan. Apple is one of the few that dares to encourage people to Rip/Mix/Burn.
(Thinking Sony, etc.)
I used to think the same untill I saw the a blurb on Wired's site and realised that with Sony (and the likes), you only ever see their final, combined product.
The Civil War Inside Sony [Coming Jan. 24]
Sony Music wants to entertain you. Sony Electronics wants to equip you. The problem is that when it comes to digital media, their interests are diametrically opposed.
After all, if you can RIP the music, you obviously bought the CD to begin with.
Yes, of course, it's not like anyone ever borrows CDs anymore.
It's still a "fuck you" to the music industry. Your still thinking in geek mode, and also taking the motto to literaly an dnot reading between the lines. Apples' motto still implies that the users have a lot of freedom with their music.
Uh, with multiple browser windows all the windows can be seen at once (in the dock), the user can see exactly what they want (an image of the page, even, in the dock), and they can reach for it with a single click on the dock.
Uh, I been using OS X for a while, all major versions, and on different computers, not once have I seen windows of an application visible in the dock, except when they are minimised.
Well, Microsoft did just that. But not out of the goodness of their heart or anything, mainly because they needed a set of screen fonts (Verdana, Georgia, Trebuchet MS).
I guess your average company has no need to do so, or feel it's not worth it. And not many typographers will do it for free, since it's such a time investment. There aren't that many typographers around in the first place, and even less really good ones. You're left with a very small group to answer the question "Work for a year on something and give it away for free, or atleast make a few bucks off it?".
Yes, you too can own a life+70 year (or 90-year corporate) monopoly, compliments of your bought-and-paid for congress critters and a cowardly Supreme Court that chooses quarterly economic expediency over constitutionality. You too can own a government entitlement to a very long-term monopoly on the very shape of the letters of the Roman alphabet.
How is a font any differnt to any other work of art or design? If obviously have no idea how much work goes into creating a font. People can spend years creating a good font.
Besides, I thought fonts were the exception, in that you can't copyright fonts. There is even a site about it: www.typeright.org.
What is involved in making a font program anyway?
Aren't fonts basically a bunch of bezier curves, optionally with some anti-alias'ing hinting?
What other features do font creation programs need, other than a preview and bezier curve creation?
Kerning pairs for one, unless it's a monospace font. Not being an expert in this area, I'm not sure what else, except I know there's more to it than it seems.
The people of Iraq are already suffering - a few may be accidentally killed during the liberation
Ha ha ha. Yes, that is the answer! Bush wants to liberate the civilians of Iraq! And all this time I though Bush was preparing to go to war with Iraq becuase he wants their oil. Silly me.
Liberation my ass. And if that does happen, it will only be for show.
Good for you. Open some more. Can you still read them? Open some more. Sooner rather than later you're going to find that the labels on your tabs are truncated to the point of being unusable. The question of where that point is depends merely on your window width. A reasonable window width-- 700 pixels or so-- means you can get about four tabs with average-length labels without truncation.
I have my window set at 1024 wide. I don't usaly have more than 6 at a time open, and although they do get trucated a wee bit if they have long title, I have always found them distinguishable, partly do to memory muscle. If I ever do have too many tabs, I'll just create a new window;)
The OS provides you with four completely independent ways of navigating from one window to another, not counting pointing-and-clicking. If you don't like the keyboard cycle shortcut, use the Window menu, or the dock menu, or use minimized windows. Or, as I said, just point and click.
Window menu: Move, click, move, click.
Dock menu: Move, pause (I have mine hidden), move, click and hold, move, release.
Minimizing other windows means that they will be hidden, that's annoying. it could also be a lot of clicking if it's deep down.
I've already explaind my dislike for the keyboard shortcut.
Windows have 'move, click', but only if they are not covered up by other windows.
The tabs are simple: Move, click.
How do you "flick between them?" Surely not by using the (gasp!) keyboard shortcut, hmm? The very one-- well, one identical to the very one-- that you said "is a pain, it's not something that I can do fast?" And that you went on to say is, "easy to make a mistake, and it requires extra effort to correct it?" That keyboard shortcut?
Sometimes I use the taskbar, other times...yes, the keyboard. But when I use that, I'm only ever switching between 2 programs, so I never find it a problem. I hardly ever need to flick between only 2 sites, else the keyboard shortcut would be perfect.
I'll repeat myself just one more time: learn how to use the computer. Do not sit down at a Mac and try to use it like you would use Windows. They are not the same. The Mac is different. Learn to use a Mac.
I have been using Macs for a while. I know how to use them, I know their flaws, and I know windows' flaws. This is not a case of me needing to learning to use my mac properly. This is simply a case of me finding certian aspects of windows easier to use in some situations that Mac. Don't kid youself into thinking that Mac OS has a perfect GUI, there is no such thing. Yes, they put more though into it that MS does, but they still have to comprimise between certain things because they have to cater to novice, and "power" users.
The spatial organization argument is bogus, and it's incompatible with another major pro-tabs argument: logical organization. Windows can be put anywhere on the screen you like, so it's easy to remember that this was over here and that was over there. That's one of the main benefits of moveable windows in a UI.
But as mentioned before, moving windows around is a pain. Tabs order themselves in a predictable manor.
This is the crux of my point. If you want to keep track, in your head, of which window is which, then by all means keep using tabs. Myself, I don't like having to do that.
I'm talking about spatial orientation and memory muscle here. You don't have to actively remember where the tabs are/what order they are in, you brain does this automaticly. Yes, windows have the same advantages, like you said at the top, but like I said in my reply to that, windows are a pain because they don't order themselves clearly, it's very easy for a window to be hidden. Tabs may get truckated, but they are never hidden behind other tabs.
On an OS like Windows or Solaris, not having tabs may suck worse than having them. But on an OS like OS X, where the OS provides you with all the window juggling services you require, tabs are at best redundant and at worst a huge waste of time and resources on the part of the developers.
To the contrary my dear. In Windows, Tabs just keep the task-bar less cluttered. In OS X, there is no task-bar, and all the other alternatives aren't as fast or as easy as the task-bar. If it takes more than one mouse-move and a click, then it's too slow for me to be used as a system to switch between windows.
If you're so enamoured with tabs, find one thing-- just one thing!-- that you can do with them that you can't do better without them. Just one!
Switch between sites I'm browsing very quicky. And that's the most important one for me.
I'll admit that tabs are a GUI hack. They are providing a solution to a problem that Mac OS has had. Hopefully Apple will be adressing the issue, then we can banish tabs from things like Chimera, but until then, I suspect they will become quite popular (and by judging from posts on various web-sites, they already are).
Well, now that I've had a chance to compare them at the same time, they're pretty much even. Except for the fact that it takes me a few seconds to move the window up so that the bottom isn't covered behind the screen. Don't have to do that with tabs. Tabs win for me.
The first problem that I can see with this system is that my iPAQ and P800 spend about half their time docked in cradles. A UI that relies on being able to swing them around can't be the only solution.
And were in the artical did it say it was a replacment for the touch screen?
Different tools for different jobs. Hell, a lot of people may never need this, but there are a few people for which it would seem more innovative than the mouse (or sliced bread).
If they understand the tab concept and they're using it, they're also well aware of which pages they've visited, and in roughly what order they opened new tabs.
Then what's the point of representing different views as tabs? The point of tabs is to show you all the window titles at once. If you don't need to see the titles, then you're better off using windows
The point in tabs is not to show you all the titles at once, it to show you all the sites you have open at once. Titles are not always nessesary, Infact, I don't even read the most of the time. I go by were they are.
Quick! Which one of those tabs refers to the NSTextField documentation page, which one refers to the NSTableView page, and which one refers to NSToolbarItem?
My bet is on the 2nd to 4th ones. Of course. I would have a more accurate guess if I had knowen when that window was opened. In other words, you example doesn't work because we didn't know what you did. We don't have you short-term memory to examine.
This is not a contrived example. This is fairly typical for me. Tabs, in a word, suck.
Ah, yet another shining example of your ignorance. Maybe tabs suck for YOU, but they obviously don't suck for everyone. So just give it a rest ay?
These are not the days of Netscape 4. Opening new Safari windows is not a time-consuming operation. Switching between them is not a time-consuming operation. As I've said, like, a billion times now, tabs are a bad solution to a problem that we don't have.
but please, whatever other arguments you may make about the abstract shortcomings of tabbed browsing, please try to remember that millions of people find them a useful method of organizing their webpages.
I absolutely do not believe you. I think if you took everybody who has ever even heard of tabbed browsing and put them in the Rose Bowl, you'd have room left over for a medium-sized football game. You've got to remember that there are 5 million OS X users today, and that the number is increasing very quickly. So the fraction of OS X users who would benefit from Chimera-style tabs is tiny.
I think he is refering to the web-sites themselves. Take a look at amazon.com or google.com or any other site that has been designed around users, most of them have tabs, because of the advantages they offer over things like menus. (menus are generally used for commands, not for navigation).
Even so, I also don't understand your logic behide; that if a lot of users have never head of tabs, than they would not benifit from them. Most people I know have never hear of linux, does that mean linux is useless?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that means that Oracle or DB2 or MSSQL or PostGreSQL aren't databases if they have no data in them, and that my even asshole can be a database if I shove a small collection of data up it.
Say what you want about MySQL. Say it's not a real a DBMS, or impliments or follows SQL correctly. But it's still a god damn database in reality, and according to your own deffinition.
Oh yeah...Maybe some of us find it easler to start with something less complex. Maybe some of us don't need a fully-fledged DBMS either.
Sorry for feeding the troll.
The slashdot system means that if 2 people think it's worth 5, someone else can make it a 4, even though more people think it's worth higher than a 4.
Slashdot's system relies on the last person making an honest choice or "being right" so to speak. We all know that not all moderators make a good judgment.
It does work of course. But I think Kuro5hin works a bit better, even thought it also has flaws (people voting to the extreme to change the average, and not just voting the score they think it deserves.
I think the best way would be some way where you vote +1, -1 (like slashdot), but it uses an average (like kuro5hin).
Kuro5hin does it better: You choose from 1-5, and the score is an average of all the votes.
I think you will find that is not the case.
Don't forget about dead pixels. If you have too many of them on a screen, it ain't going to pass quality control--Off to the scrap bin--That's a big waste of $.
Larger LCDs usualy have more pixels, this will directly affect how may dead pixels there are. Of course, they probably allow more dead pixels on a bigger screen, but I'm not sure exactly how they work the ratio.
Now. I know a lot of people are going to moan about how slow XML is compared to any DB, and they'd be righ--at the moment. But there is one thing that XML has that DBs don't, and that's fexibility. You can add new elements to XML as you go. You can't do that with a DB (well you can, but any DB admin/desiginer would shoot you for it, and it would be hard), DBs are designed to be strict and uniformed.
Some data types need fexibility, and this is where XML benifits.
You said that the tools for XML are great, don't you think that could be because of the way XML was designed?
Exactly how would a computer speed up the process? Where did it say they didn't use a computer anyway?
Why do you expect them to come up with suggestions? Maybe they don't have any suggestions becuse that may not be their area of experties. But surly it must be important to know just what the costs of the electronics industry are, so that other people can find better ways to reduce the costs to the environment.
Are you just trying to defend the electronics industry and justify the cost to the environment because you don't like the truth? Face it electronics are dirty, and the sooner people realise this, the sooner more research will be poored into developing better systems.
Well, I'm pretty sure the RIAA did complain about tapes?
Anyway...This is different, not only because it's much better quality-as you said. But because it's so much easier. When was the last time you made a tape mix? Last time I did it was years ago, and I remember it was a pain in the ass, getting all the tapes at exactly the right spot etc. It's certianly not like draging a few files onto a playlist and clicking a "burn" button.
I don't like the RIAA. But it's important to keep the arguments clean. Maybe files-sharing even boosted sales a year or so ago. But I think we kidding ourselves if we continue to use that argument because one day (if not already) it will cease to be true.
The recording industry just has to face the fact that their current model is totally fucked, and that they have to do a complete re-write of the entire way they do business. They also have to get this new business model right, or it's going to fail. And even if it is a big success, it probably will never be as profitable at their current model used to be.
Hmmm.. I think I headed off the point in that last paragraph, but I'll leave it there for others.
(Thinking Sony, etc.)
I used to think the same untill I saw the a blurb on Wired's site and realised that with Sony (and the likes), you only ever see their final, combined product.
Blurb from Wired's site:
Yes, of course, it's not like anyone ever borrows CDs anymore.
It's still a "fuck you" to the music industry. Your still thinking in geek mode, and also taking the motto to literaly an dnot reading between the lines. Apples' motto still implies that the users have a lot of freedom with their music.
Uh, I been using OS X for a while, all major versions, and on different computers, not once have I seen windows of an application visible in the dock, except when they are minimised.
I guess your average company has no need to do so, or feel it's not worth it. And not many typographers will do it for free, since it's such a time investment. There aren't that many typographers around in the first place, and even less really good ones. You're left with a very small group to answer the question "Work for a year on something and give it away for free, or atleast make a few bucks off it?".
They're about the only decent things MS did (I'm not sure if they're for download anymore).
Yes, you too can own a life+70 year (or 90-year corporate) monopoly, compliments of your bought-and-paid for congress critters and a cowardly Supreme Court that chooses quarterly economic expediency over constitutionality. You too can own a government entitlement to a very long-term monopoly on the very shape of the letters of the Roman alphabet.
How is a font any differnt to any other work of art or design? If obviously have no idea how much work goes into creating a font. People can spend years creating a good font.
Besides, I thought fonts were the exception, in that you can't copyright fonts. There is even a site about it: www.typeright.org.
Kerning pairs for one, unless it's a monospace font. Not being an expert in this area, I'm not sure what else, except I know there's more to it than it seems.
Well, Bush was a drunken, crackhead jock. Surely this must be an imporvemnt even if you do believe everything you read or see in a movie about Jobs?
Ha ha ha. Yes, that is the answer! Bush wants to liberate the civilians of Iraq! And all this time I though Bush was preparing to go to war with Iraq becuase he wants their oil. Silly me.
Liberation my ass. And if that does happen, it will only be for show.
I have my window set at 1024 wide. I don't usaly have more than 6 at a time open, and although they do get trucated a wee bit if they have long title, I have always found them distinguishable, partly do to memory muscle. If I ever do have too many tabs, I'll just create a new window ;)
The OS provides you with four completely independent ways of navigating from one window to another, not counting pointing-and-clicking. If you don't like the keyboard cycle shortcut, use the Window menu, or the dock menu, or use minimized windows. Or, as I said, just point and click.
Window menu: Move, click, move, click.
Dock menu: Move, pause (I have mine hidden), move, click and hold, move, release.
Minimizing other windows means that they will be hidden, that's annoying. it could also be a lot of clicking if it's deep down.
I've already explaind my dislike for the keyboard shortcut.
Windows have 'move, click', but only if they are not covered up by other windows. The tabs are simple: Move, click.
How do you "flick between them?" Surely not by using the (gasp!) keyboard shortcut, hmm? The very one-- well, one identical to the very one-- that you said "is a pain, it's not something that I can do fast?" And that you went on to say is, "easy to make a mistake, and it requires extra effort to correct it?" That keyboard shortcut?
Sometimes I use the taskbar, other times...yes, the keyboard. But when I use that, I'm only ever switching between 2 programs, so I never find it a problem. I hardly ever need to flick between only 2 sites, else the keyboard shortcut would be perfect.
I'll repeat myself just one more time: learn how to use the computer. Do not sit down at a Mac and try to use it like you would use Windows. They are not the same. The Mac is different. Learn to use a Mac.
I have been using Macs for a while. I know how to use them, I know their flaws, and I know windows' flaws. This is not a case of me needing to learning to use my mac properly. This is simply a case of me finding certian aspects of windows easier to use in some situations that Mac. Don't kid youself into thinking that Mac OS has a perfect GUI, there is no such thing. Yes, they put more though into it that MS does, but they still have to comprimise between certain things because they have to cater to novice, and "power" users.
But as mentioned before, moving windows around is a pain. Tabs order themselves in a predictable manor.
This is the crux of my point. If you want to keep track, in your head, of which window is which, then by all means keep using tabs. Myself, I don't like having to do that.
I'm talking about spatial orientation and memory muscle here. You don't have to actively remember where the tabs are/what order they are in, you brain does this automaticly. Yes, windows have the same advantages, like you said at the top, but like I said in my reply to that, windows are a pain because they don't order themselves clearly, it's very easy for a window to be hidden. Tabs may get truckated, but they are never hidden behind other tabs.
On an OS like Windows or Solaris, not having tabs may suck worse than having them. But on an OS like OS X, where the OS provides you with all the window juggling services you require, tabs are at best redundant and at worst a huge waste of time and resources on the part of the developers.
To the contrary my dear. In Windows, Tabs just keep the task-bar less cluttered. In OS X, there is no task-bar, and all the other alternatives aren't as fast or as easy as the task-bar. If it takes more than one mouse-move and a click, then it's too slow for me to be used as a system to switch between windows.
If you're so enamoured with tabs, find one thing-- just one thing!-- that you can do with them that you can't do better without them. Just one!
Switch between sites I'm browsing very quicky. And that's the most important one for me.
I'll admit that tabs are a GUI hack. They are providing a solution to a problem that Mac OS has had. Hopefully Apple will be adressing the issue, then we can banish tabs from things like Chimera, but until then, I suspect they will become quite popular (and by judging from posts on various web-sites, they already are).
Well, now that I've had a chance to compare them at the same time, they're pretty much even. Except for the fact that it takes me a few seconds to move the window up so that the bottom isn't covered behind the screen. Don't have to do that with tabs. Tabs win for me.
6. Can they be easy destroyed or jammed?
And were in the artical did it say it was a replacment for the touch screen?
Different tools for different jobs. Hell, a lot of people may never need this, but there are a few people for which it would seem more innovative than the mouse (or sliced bread).
But what on earth has zoom/magnifing tool got to do with this artical exactly? Unless you didn't read the artical.
The point in tabs is not to show you all the titles at once, it to show you all the sites you have open at once. Titles are not always nessesary, Infact, I don't even read the most of the time. I go by were they are.
App...
NST...
NST...
NST...
NSP...
NSS...
NSS...
App...
Slas...
Goo...
Surf..
Quick! Which one of those tabs refers to the NSTextField documentation page, which one refers to the NSTableView page, and which one refers to NSToolbarItem?
My bet is on the 2nd to 4th ones. Of course. I would have a more accurate guess if I had knowen when that window was opened. In other words, you example doesn't work because we didn't know what you did. We don't have you short-term memory to examine.
This is not a contrived example. This is fairly typical for me. Tabs, in a word, suck.
Ah, yet another shining example of your ignorance. Maybe tabs suck for YOU, but they obviously don't suck for everyone. So just give it a rest ay?
You obviously don't own a 600Mhz iBook.
I think he is refering to the web-sites themselves. Take a look at amazon.com or google.com or any other site that has been designed around users, most of them have tabs, because of the advantages they offer over things like menus. (menus are generally used for commands, not for navigation).
Even so, I also don't understand your logic behide; that if a lot of users have never head of tabs, than they would not benifit from them. Most people I know have never hear of linux, does that mean linux is useless?