They do that now as you admit. And they do it because everybody is not on the same application level. So isn't that an argument for rental. They would have no incentive to do it if everyone was on the automatic upgrade path with periodic licences.
All that on top of spiders and the dark. Do you ever leave your room.
Seriously, do you think they are going to watch everything each of their clients do and at a whim stop them using the software. Do you seriously think even MS could get away with a contract like that.
There are already plenty of software products which have annual licence costs and which require new keys at licence time. The world hasn't ground to a halt yet.
You must be able to think of some better reasons to fear this than that big brother crap.
Get over ownership. If it's ever been really necessary it's certainly no longer that big a deal. As long as you have use and sufficient control of that use ownership is not a big deal.
The article says that one of the two main problems with the way things are now is the inadequacy of current models to achieve software flexibility
And that in an environment where any business is able to choose between different Operating Systems, different middleware structures, different applications with sometimes radically different ways of providing a solution and lots of competition between vendors of various sizes who will do anything for you to get your work. That all might be hard to manage and is too difficult for most clueless managers to manage but do we really expect all that being replaced by one vendor and/or their basic structure to be more flexible.
Gee, by definition is can't be can it?
Maybe if you restate the problem as the inadequacy of current general business management models to achieve software flexibility then at least one other solution becomes obvious.
And whatthehell is Aquateenhunger. BTW my wife is a physiotherapist and i get to hear all the pseudo-scientific crap that patients tell her after visits to alternative practitioners and sometimes i just loose it when i see stuff like that. My irony filter acting up yesteday
Every society has had the brains to develop some way to clean food scraps out of their teeth after eating. Go to SE Asia and they do it with toothpicks right there at the table. But Westerners get queasy watching people do that so they wait till they get home. By then of course the crap isn't so much stuck between the teeth but is a thin smear across the teeth; sort of like napalm only slower. Especially with the highly processed food we eat these days.
If you don't believe in tooth decay you should visit the hospital and see the babies whose mothers have bottle-fed them on juice rather than milk or water and look at their teeth if there is anything left.
I havn't seen any evidence to support the need to brush your teeth ever.
and of course you wouldn't believe any that you did see.
This guy keeps saying the same things over and over again
Yeah it's amazing how stupid some people are.
Someone in the organizaton who is perhaps not a technical wiz has looked at the companys website and feels that something is not quite right. But his designers all tell him that 'no everything is fine, it's all state of the art and it looks beautiful on their workstations, just look at this live presentation at your desk over the network'
So he has two choices
Spend $10,000 on a usability review or
Launch the new allsinging alldancing Allmusic.com website on an unsuspecting public
Ensure that the user is uncertain of what is happening after they click on a button titled Process. Make sure that the button changes to Process but don't change anything else or warn the user not to click Process more than once. On that same screen don't have an Exit or Finish button or a menu item that allows the user to close the screen but force them to click on the x in the right hand top corner.
Consistency and standards
Create Wizards so that users can step through complex processes easily. But ensure that the user must use the mouse to select every value to be input. If you use dropdown boxes its alway a good idea to mix and match so that some require the down arrow to move down the list and some use the right arrow to move down the list.
On the screen where manual data must be entered proudly inform the user that the Enter key can be used to move between input fields but ensure that the initial focus on that screen is the Back button and that entering will actually take you to the previous screen (unlike every other screen in the Wizard where Enter on this button does absolutely nothing). And if they think that Tabing forward will get them to the top of the screen set it so that it will actually clear the client details labouriously entered on the previous three screens.
And then include one section of the input screen where focus disappears from the screen altogether and you actually have to Tab to get to the next field.
Seriously these are all in an application my emplouyer pays serious money for. What usability guidelines do you adhere to.
Such features you advise against using were added to HTML/XHTML for a good reason - they allow better (more efficient) learning and task completion through greater human computer interaction
Except when implemented by bozos who don't understand how people use computers. Which I think is Jacob's point rather than the inherent evil of any particular technology.
Are you kidding. Its the top left of the page. The first thing you read after the headings is Alertbox Jacob's column on Web usability. And fifth link down the page is to all his previous Alertbox articles.
As for the previous posters always the question of why there are two colums in the first place well one column is for the new stuff (it's headed News) and the other is for the old stuff (its headed Permanent Content).
As Jacob comments in a few of his articles, users come to his site a lot of the time to find old stuff. So he puts it where they can find it easily.
This sort of stuff can be pretty subjective but putting the most commonly accessed stuff at the top left of a text oriented site is about as intuitive as it gets in interface design.
Personally I found his site a pleasure to visit. Compare the information content and accessability of that site to say the new AllMusic site. Apart from the speed issues (ie there isn't any) you just have to keep clicking to find anything.
And I'm actually afraid to click on a song title that appears as you mouseover the album name in a list because its not clear what will happen. Will I buy it, will I hear it, will I go to the album details or just more info on the song. There is no cue presented like a URL to indicate what will happen. And I've grown wary of sites that don't let me know what clicking will do.
I agree. The whole idea of expensing options is to make explicit the dilution of capital that the exercise of the options has on ordinary shareholders. They have no cash effect in the company itself.
Are ordinary options issued to shareholders expensed currently?
Any analyst worth their salt will already be taking the dilution effect into their valuation estimates. Even if a company puts the expense in the analyst will make their own estimate anyway. Who's going to believe the company.
They might exist but there is no reason why they would have existed at the same time. If Turing hadn't done his work, relying on 'parallel evolution' would have that work done by someone else at some time later, eventually. Possibly after Hitler had won the war etc. but it's possible that it may not have been done even by now. And so you might in fact be reading this in German or on paper. Well you wouldn't really because the point is that in that reality no-one would have heard of Turing.
As another poster says, in retrospect everything is inevitable but that's only true of what actually happens. In prospect most things are possible. That is true of many more things.
Indeed the issue of patent "merit" appears to be treated independently of the issue of patent enforcement.
Well of course. Any granted patent is as valid or meritorious as any other so enforcement can only rely on whether the other party is infringing the patent. If the patent has no merit then it shouldn't be granted.
'Patent trolls' would be quite happy to acquire the patent for some earth-shattering new technology if they get it cheap. But if they do then they would be perfectly entitled to enforce that patent against someone who spent millions developing the technology. After all the target could as easily have got a licence off the inventor if they had done the appropriate patent searchs.
If the 'trolls' can work out that Co X technology infringes Patent Y then why can't Co X.
This ignores the hidden patent problem and patents that really shouldn
't have been issued (including AFAIC all business method patents)
I don't think so otherwise everyone who plays a radio is in violation. In reality only those who play a radio in a work or commercial setting are subject to performance royalties.
So individuals who have the track or part of it on their phone would not be subject to that payment.
there are no good generally-available methods of avoiding such trojans.
But even the bad ones are better than 'Gee, the Icon looks pretty. Virus writers are nortoriously bad artists so this program I downloaded from some unknown person that claims to be a secret beta of a Microsoft product should be fine to run'
Hows this for a logical jump.
Hey, that isn't a good method to use to check the legitimacy of something
so
I'll ring my aged grandmother and ask her should I run it and she'll say "Don't be stupid, running software like that you could catch one of those virus thingys that are running around these days" (She has a 50% chance of being right)
and that would be better than looking at the freaking ICON.
since you can see the code for yourself and fix the problems
Speaking as an average user can I just say that I don't wanna play with my kernel. I just wanna type my letters and go home. I don't wanna know what happens behind my desktop.
It's a tool, like my car. I wouldn't have a clue how the engine management system in my car works. Hell, I don't even know if it has one apart from Joe down the garage. So I pay Joe or Microsoft to know that stuff. And it gets updated every now and then and with a little effort and a decent AV package I've never been hit by any worm or destructive virus.
I use a fairly vanilla hardwear setup and when the ease of installation, and use of the OS and applications (and the range of applications) reaches the same level as Windows let me know. I and millions like me just don't have the training, time, or inclination to fiddle with the box.
I appreciate that many do and it is those people who will eventually move Linux up to a position where it can replace Windows. But I object to being ridiculed as a mindless automaton because I don't share your passion for fixing operating systems. Because from a users perspective, it isn't as broken as you claim.
Unless of course the 'you' referred to is the 0.0001% of the computer using population that does eliminate their own bugs or see code and fix it.
In no jurisdiction that I know of is it a crime to be a sex offender. You have to do something. In this case AFAICT he is being charged for possessing photos. The evidence is the photos in the cache. The list of sites visited is evidence that shows how he got them.
He failed (or was convinced he would fail) to show a jury that there was the required level of doubt that he in fact did it or that it could be explained by an alternative eg. the work of browser hijackers.
That might have been the wrong phrase for him to use as it does leave him open to riposts such as yours. But is it true that that vigourous defence of a position is not acceptable in the scientific method. This is after all only a discussion forum. Other posts have already suggested reasons why the data referred to may not destroy the GR/Gravity links.
Others have given you examples of why GR may be incorrect as it relates to gravity
But that doesn't mean their interpretation of the data is correct. If the accumulated evidence against GR as it relates to gravity was so clear this would be a discussion between scientists and the GR equivalent of the flat earth fringe who keep pushing the old GR/gravity line. But it hasn't come to that yet so discussion is still valid.
Is this the first time ever that data has suggested that GR may be incorrect as it relates to gravity. If not, what was the outcome.
prove your point with evidence
I thought the scientific method was to disprove your point with evidence. If you fail to do that you strengthen your view that the point you have is less likely to be incorrect than any alternative. As far as I can tell he merely suggests that the state of current observations are insufficient to show GR AIRT gravity to be unsustainable.
.I'm not a scientist either but this isn't a scientific forum. So it's onl a laymans view of how it works.
Yes you should assume that. But many security men are not fully up to speedon this very important legal point. So if asked not to take your tape machine into the venue you should just explain tis loudly and forcefully but not agressively to the nice tattooed man about your rights as a taper and I'm sure you will have no problems.
He is after all trained especially to handle customer complaints such as yours especially such reasonable ones.
Slashdot Mirror
They do that now as you admit. And they do it because everybody is not on the same application level. So isn't that an argument for rental. They would have no incentive to do it if everyone was on the automatic upgrade path with periodic licences.
Seriously, do you think they are going to watch everything each of their clients do and at a whim stop them using the software. Do you seriously think even MS could get away with a contract like that.
There are already plenty of software products which have annual licence costs and which require new keys at licence time. The world hasn't ground to a halt yet.
You must be able to think of some better reasons to fear this than that big brother crap.
Get over ownership. If it's ever been really necessary it's certainly no longer that big a deal. As long as you have use and sufficient control of that use ownership is not a big deal.
And that in an environment where any business is able to choose between different Operating Systems, different middleware structures, different applications with sometimes radically different ways of providing a solution and lots of competition between vendors of various sizes who will do anything for you to get your work. That all might be hard to manage and is too difficult for most clueless managers to manage but do we really expect all that being replaced by one vendor and/or their basic structure to be more flexible.
Gee, by definition is can't be can it?
Maybe if you restate the problem as the inadequacy of current general business management models to achieve software flexibility then at least one other solution becomes obvious.
And whatthehell is Aquateenhunger. BTW my wife is a physiotherapist and i get to hear all the pseudo-scientific crap that patients tell her after visits to alternative practitioners and sometimes i just loose it when i see stuff like that. My irony filter acting up yesteday
Just practicing man. Didn't mean to frighten you.
If you don't believe in tooth decay you should visit the hospital and see the babies whose mothers have bottle-fed them on juice rather than milk or water and look at their teeth if there is anything left.
I havn't seen any evidence to support the need to brush your teeth ever. and of course you wouldn't believe any that you did see.
Yeah it's amazing how stupid some people are.
Someone in the organizaton who is perhaps not a technical wiz has looked at the companys website and feels that something is not quite right. But his designers all tell him that 'no everything is fine, it's all state of the art and it looks beautiful on their workstations, just look at this live presentation at your desk over the network'
So he has two choices
Spend $10,000 on a usability review or
Launch the new allsinging alldancing Allmusic.com website on an unsuspecting public
I know which I'd have preferred he do.
Allmusic
What the hell I'll say some more.
Here's some revised heuristics
Visibility of system status
Ensure that the user is uncertain of what is happening after they click on a button titled Process. Make sure that the button changes to Process but don't change anything else or warn the user not to click Process more than once. On that same screen don't have an Exit or Finish button or a menu item that allows the user to close the screen but force them to click on the x in the right hand top corner.
Consistency and standards
Create Wizards so that users can step through complex processes easily. But ensure that the user must use the mouse to select every value to be input. If you use dropdown boxes its alway a good idea to mix and match so that some require the down arrow to move down the list and some use the right arrow to move down the list.
On the screen where manual data must be entered proudly inform the user that the Enter key can be used to move between input fields but ensure that the initial focus on that screen is the Back button and that entering will actually take you to the previous screen (unlike every other screen in the Wizard where Enter on this button does absolutely nothing). And if they think that Tabing forward will get them to the top of the screen set it so that it will actually clear the client details labouriously entered on the previous three screens.
And then include one section of the input screen where focus disappears from the screen altogether and you actually have to Tab to get to the next field.
Seriously these are all in an application my emplouyer pays serious money for. What usability guidelines do you adhere to.
Such features you advise against using were added to HTML/XHTML for a good reason - they allow better (more efficient) learning and task completion through greater human computer interaction
Except when implemented by bozos who don't understand how people use computers. Which I think is Jacob's point rather than the inherent evil of any particular technology.
As for the previous posters always the question of why there are two colums in the first place well one column is for the new stuff (it's headed News) and the other is for the old stuff (its headed Permanent Content).
As Jacob comments in a few of his articles, users come to his site a lot of the time to find old stuff. So he puts it where they can find it easily.
This sort of stuff can be pretty subjective but putting the most commonly accessed stuff at the top left of a text oriented site is about as intuitive as it gets in interface design.
Personally I found his site a pleasure to visit. Compare the information content and accessability of that site to say the new AllMusic site. Apart from the speed issues (ie there isn't any) you just have to keep clicking to find anything.
And I'm actually afraid to click on a song title that appears as you mouseover the album name in a list because its not clear what will happen. Will I buy it, will I hear it, will I go to the album details or just more info on the song. There is no cue presented like a URL to indicate what will happen. And I've grown wary of sites that don't let me know what clicking will do.
but its less swell if one side only has say one and there are no clear targets for the big guy to retaliate on.
if osama gets one and smokes new york how many of yours will you shoot at who.
being a superpower ain't all it's cracked up to be.
No. Because no-one else will.
Are ordinary options issued to shareholders expensed currently?
Any analyst worth their salt will already be taking the dilution effect into their valuation estimates. Even if a company puts the expense in the analyst will make their own estimate anyway. Who's going to believe the company.
As another poster says, in retrospect everything is inevitable but that's only true of what actually happens. In prospect most things are possible. That is true of many more things.
This view is no longer widely held as far as I know. Google on estrogen homosexual and there are links discussing the whole issue.
I heard this this morning from an astronomer interviewed about the transit.
Well of course. Any granted patent is as valid or meritorious as any other so enforcement can only rely on whether the other party is infringing the patent. If the patent has no merit then it shouldn't be granted.
'Patent trolls' would be quite happy to acquire the patent for some earth-shattering new technology if they get it cheap. But if they do then they would be perfectly entitled to enforce that patent against someone who spent millions developing the technology. After all the target could as easily have got a licence off the inventor if they had done the appropriate patent searchs.
If the 'trolls' can work out that Co X technology infringes Patent Y then why can't Co X.
This ignores the hidden patent problem and patents that really shouldn 't have been issued (including AFAIC all business method patents)
So individuals who have the track or part of it on their phone would not be subject to that payment.
That's easy for you to say.
gee, i wonder why someone else didn't think of that.
But even the bad ones are better than 'Gee, the Icon looks pretty. Virus writers are nortoriously bad artists so this program I downloaded from some unknown person that claims to be a secret beta of a Microsoft product should be fine to run'
Hows this for a logical jump.
Hey, that isn't a good method to use to check the legitimacy of something
so
I'll ring my aged grandmother and ask her should I run it and she'll say "Don't be stupid, running software like that you could catch one of those virus thingys that are running around these days" (She has a 50% chance of being right)
and that would be better than looking at the freaking ICON.
Speaking as an average user can I just say that I don't wanna play with my kernel. I just wanna type my letters and go home. I don't wanna know what happens behind my desktop.
It's a tool, like my car. I wouldn't have a clue how the engine management system in my car works. Hell, I don't even know if it has one apart from Joe down the garage. So I pay Joe or Microsoft to know that stuff. And it gets updated every now and then and with a little effort and a decent AV package I've never been hit by any worm or destructive virus.
I use a fairly vanilla hardwear setup and when the ease of installation, and use of the OS and applications (and the range of applications) reaches the same level as Windows let me know. I and millions like me just don't have the training, time, or inclination to fiddle with the box.
I appreciate that many do and it is those people who will eventually move Linux up to a position where it can replace Windows. But I object to being ridiculed as a mindless automaton because I don't share your passion for fixing operating systems. Because from a users perspective, it isn't as broken as you claim.
Unless of course the 'you' referred to is the 0.0001% of the computer using population that does eliminate their own bugs or see code and fix it.
He failed (or was convinced he would fail) to show a jury that there was the required level of doubt that he in fact did it or that it could be explained by an alternative eg. the work of browser hijackers.
isn't it?
Others have given you examples of why GR may be incorrect as it relates to gravity
But that doesn't mean their interpretation of the data is correct. If the accumulated evidence against GR as it relates to gravity was so clear this would be a discussion between scientists and the GR equivalent of the flat earth fringe who keep pushing the old GR/gravity line. But it hasn't come to that yet so discussion is still valid.
Is this the first time ever that data has suggested that GR may be incorrect as it relates to gravity. If not, what was the outcome.
prove your point with evidence
I thought the scientific method was to disprove your point with evidence. If you fail to do that you strengthen your view that the point you have is less likely to be incorrect than any alternative. As far as I can tell he merely suggests that the state of current observations are insufficient to show GR AIRT gravity to be unsustainable.
.I'm not a scientist either but this isn't a scientific forum. So it's onl a laymans view of how it works.
He is after all trained especially to handle customer complaints such as yours especially such reasonable ones.