hey marcello_dl, apparently you cannot make a point
calling me a troll isnt a point...you didn't highlight any example...b/c i wasnt trolling, you're dodging the logical conclusion, which is that my ideas about how users are treated are right
M$ made screwing users SOP and now people like you, an actual idiot btw, cannot tell the difference between good design and shit
these regular users, these people cook your food at restaurants, police your neighborhood, file your taxes, etc etc...they aren't all 'idiots' and that attitude is ruining our design principles
if your system is so poorly designed that a high-school educated adult cannot use your system to do what it was designed to do, then it is **YOUR FAULT**
of course they seem 'dumb' to us...we are experts...you're a fucking idiot at plumbing, or car repair, or analog electronics, cooking...something
when a competent laymen user cannot use your system it is **YOUR FAULT**
doesn't appear to denigrate Microsoft enough for me
I don't know what would be enough **for you** but TFA is shameful admission
Shameful if you are in the design part of the tech industry.
This is M$ fully admitting that Metro (and many of their design decisions) was nothing more than **DUMBING DOWN THE INTERFACE**
I know coders don't get this as easily b/c you dont think of the user...but look...
Metro's awfulness is an expression of what M$ thinks of its users. Its 'easy' version of the OS is so mind-numbingly stilted that in attempting to be usable by the stupidest person on earth, it has instead been rendered useless to *everyone*
This article is proof that Microsoft really does act as if it **hates its users**
Asking if Metro was the good kind of market segmentation is sort of like asking if your wife cheating on you is the 'good' kind of having 'time to ourselves'
Metro was a bullshit, Clippy, Chicken McNugget version of the iOS design.
That's *all* it's ever been, and everyone knows this...posting pointless articles about the 'U/X' of Metro is silly. Metro and all Windows products tack on 'U/X' as an afterthought.
To try to understand good design principles from looking at M$ design process is like learning how to cook by watching a trucker take a shit.
i'm promoting **reality** not some parental PR to boost the kids resume
look at the source of the article, its a blog post by **the kids father**
reality
i'm happy to give respect to a young person who makes an engineering breakthrough or invents a way to do something or cracks DRM...Dvd John is a good example
that's real
you are defending this guy b/c you probably benefit from the same thing somehow...either yourself or your kid
Mr. Sanger, thanks for taking the time. I was a fan of yours and didn't know it until now ha.
My question: Did you find the limitations of 8-bit computing sound to be a fun creative challenge or was it more of a slog of process and reduction to make it work within limitations of the sound system?
Tiger moms/dads are the least likely to give their kids an expensive
Tiger moms/dads are *most* likely to bribe your professor or require contractors to hire you b/c it would be bad "face" if their kid was a failure at life.
Take that 'tiger' superiority and cram it up your...
whatever...
GP's post is acrimonious but it is **totally fucking true**
This kid didn't do this...the kid's parent gave him step by step directions. I had an awesome dad who was a cryptographer in the Navy in the 70s and he taught me **all kinds** of awesome shit. That's awesome and I'm thankful. He sure as shit didn't help me write an Orthogonal Time-Division Multiplexing algorythm for my science fair projects though...because that would have been **cheating**...he helped me make a few things but obviously this kid had all kinds of help and most importantly, the article seems to purposely not mention how the kid made all this happen just his step by step.
It's about accuracy in reporting **WHAT IT TAKES TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN THE TECH WORLD**
if we present this mindless crap as examples of young people doing science...well, we're cheating **them** and **ourselves**
there are **real** kids out there doing stuff at this level with only basic guidance & procurement help
yeah I enjoyed Primer immensely, Upstream Color almost as much (but it isnt as good on repeat viewings like Primer)
there are other examples...i'm always down to hear a film recommendation, but there arent as many as there should be
District 9 broke the mold in my mind...the special effects are off the chain & the storyline has the bite of real sci-fi...its not Blade Runner but its a hell of a lot of fun
Thing is, there are *tons* of scifi being made right now...Elysium, the Will Smith one w/ his kid, the dystopian one w/ Tom Cruise, Adjustment Bureau, the huge expansion of the Marvel franchises, gah so many more...all have good parts...all **total shit** in the end...100 C- movies is an abject failure
I'm not saying we won't see (crappy) sci-fi movies or TV show pilots funded by kickstarter. We might even have some kind of sci-fi scene champ that starts as a web series, gets a kickstarter, makes a pilot, gets picked up for a season, etc.
Books or comics might happen too...but again it will mostly be a space in the industry that is of less quality.
That all **might** happen...but my point is, crowdfunding is not the "future" of sci-fi.
We need to get real sci-fi fans producing sci-fi films!
Hollywood has fucked up sci-fi in the last decade or so...the JJ Abrams Star Trek, the new 'Alien' movie, the new 'Predator' movie....they all have dumb fucking titles...the list goes on...heh...Avatar...the only really awesome sci-fi has been from Independent Hollywood...ex: Moon
Cheap Computer Effects (thanks to ppl like/. readers) are what helped make sci-fi financially viable for Hollywood...go tech industry!
However, shitty producers & executivces...the guys with the money to make these films happen....**we have been giving them our money for far too long**
The argument used to be, "We have to go see the [beloved sci-fi franchise] even though they have [idiot hollywood directory] making it...I know it looks like they butchered [fan favorite storyline] but the special effects look great & we need to prove that [scifi franchise] can make money so they'll make another better one"
It's a feedback loop of shitty sci-fi
We need to stop going to see these films, and support indpendent films, including crowd-funded ones...but not as an end, but a means to access better factors of production and more capital
It is like the girl at the beach in a string bikini who gets angry because the wrong guy sees her body. She obviously gave everyone the right to look at her by simply being in public in a bikini.
wrong analogy by a mile
facebook.com is not publicly owned like the beach!!!!
facebook.com is a **private business** located on 1s & 0s on privately owned servers and they sure as hell can be regulated by law
your whole 'privacy myth' idea is a total cop out....you're thinking like a passive consumer in a dictatorship....fucking stop it!
**we** run this country...**we** elect its leaders...**we** can demand commerce be regulated how **we** see fit, including basic protections for how **private companies** use our data!
Where does "our" data end end "theirs" begin? The question has no clear answer.
I have to differ for several reasons.
First, the 'data' is 1's and 0's stored on any number of servers. It completely technically possible to isolate where exactly your digital data is stored.
2nd, it's easy to define and protect a person's personal information by law. It's called 'unreasonable search and seizure' of 'personal papers, etc' in the Bill of Rights. The problem is that people make false distinctions between digital & non-digital information!!!
Third, If I do something in public, do I own everyone else's knowledge of what I did? Is it a violation of my privacy if someone sees me in the street and tells a friend about it?
facebook.com is not public space!!! it is a private company with privately owned servers that hold your 1s & 0s that operates under the ***LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES***
private companies are subject to regulation
end of story
we can define & have the legal authority to limit how companies use our information
IMHO, you're giving facebook.com and others a pass.
They have the **factors of production**...facebook wasn't ONLY some kids in a dorm room. They were from rich families who could support them for years before they made any profit directly. They had family connections to high level attorneys. They had the protection of our laws paid by all of our taxes.
You can't be consistent and just cross your arms and say, "Hey, its their system, you agreed to it...if you dont like it dont use it"....that's only half an argument. It's a complaint masked as an argument. Anyone who says this is thinking like a slave.
It's inconsistent because its not a free market. Any facebook.com competitor faces ***SEVERE*** barriers to entry that are by facebook.com's design.
There is an artificial scarcity of competition with facebook.com.
someone on here probably *invented* the term 'beta' for tech usage...
alot of us are web coders...we know these problems because we deal with them every day...the problems in current web site design I mentioned are legit problems that hurt our industry & make people stupider for having visited a website (at times yes this happens)
we've done redesigns...we've had clients listen to us & clients who want the worst...now we see what is essentially our worst nightmare played out before our very eyes and commenting is the only way we can possibly stop it
Ok slashdot...I love y'all and I am always in favor of improving things...
but look: making something "more accessible" to a "wider audience" to "share" absolutely does NOT mean dumbing down the UI, hiding menus, removing sidebars, and reducing content!
thanks so much for what you do, I genuinely love/.
but you *must* understand...****less complexity does not mean more accessible****
people come to/. because it is not dumbed down and over-marketed to 'the average reader'!!!
Wozniak needs to remain visible and he delivers his usual controversial quotes
maybe Woz does this...idk...but on the merits this is an awesome idea. this is what actual "innovation" in business looks like
the iphone running Android would make Google into Apple's bitch...
strategically, you get them on your hardware with the option of using Android software...fine...if Google gets testy, **users can switch to iOS easily**
Android users on iPhone would always be *one click* away from iOS...that would let Apple dictate development terms to Android
fanboi disclaimer: I use devices with both Android and iOS so im not pimping one over the other..
Slashdot Mirror
sock puppet alert
I'm stoked for this news & I'm relieved that the new FCC chairman is not a bitch like Julius Janikowski
hey marcello_dl, apparently you cannot make a point
calling me a troll isnt a point...you didn't highlight any example...b/c i wasnt trolling, you're dodging the logical conclusion, which is that my ideas about how users are treated are right
M$ made screwing users SOP and now people like you, an actual idiot btw, cannot tell the difference between good design and shit
regular users are "dumb" eh?
these regular users, these people cook your food at restaurants, police your neighborhood, file your taxes, etc etc...they aren't all 'idiots' and that attitude is ruining our design principles
if your system is so poorly designed that a high-school educated adult cannot use your system to do what it was designed to do, then it is **YOUR FAULT**
of course they seem 'dumb' to us...we are experts...you're a fucking idiot at plumbing, or car repair, or analog electronics, cooking...something
when a competent laymen user cannot use your system it is **YOUR FAULT**
I don't know what would be enough **for you** but TFA is shameful admission
Shameful if you are in the design part of the tech industry.
This is M$ fully admitting that Metro (and many of their design decisions) was nothing more than **DUMBING DOWN THE INTERFACE**
I know coders don't get this as easily b/c you dont think of the user...but look...
Metro's awfulness is an expression of what M$ thinks of its users. Its 'easy' version of the OS is so mind-numbingly stilted that in attempting to be usable by the stupidest person on earth, it has instead been rendered useless to *everyone*
This article is proof that Microsoft really does act as if it **hates its users**
Asking if Metro was the good kind of market segmentation is sort of like asking if your wife cheating on you is the 'good' kind of having 'time to ourselves'
Metro was a bullshit, Clippy, Chicken McNugget version of the iOS design.
That's *all* it's ever been, and everyone knows this...posting pointless articles about the 'U/X' of Metro is silly. Metro and all Windows products tack on 'U/X' as an afterthought.
To try to understand good design principles from looking at M$ design process is like learning how to cook by watching a trucker take a shit.
this whole argument is total bullshit
streaming video is just like any other traffic....the capacity exists and works fine
This is about ****ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY****
that's all the cable companies are ever doing....artificial scarcity
the whole 'video streaming' argument is a total smokescreen
i'm promoting **reality** not some parental PR to boost the kids resume
look at the source of the article, its a blog post by **the kids father**
reality
i'm happy to give respect to a young person who makes an engineering breakthrough or invents a way to do something or cracks DRM...Dvd John is a good example
that's real
you are defending this guy b/c you probably benefit from the same thing somehow...either yourself or your kid
it's bullshit and you know it
see, it's actually pretty easy to discern the real thing from a cheap, fake Asian knock-off
sorry you can't tell the difference
I used to be a High School teacher so I know all about what young people are capable of doing.
Mr. Sanger, thanks for taking the time. I was a fan of yours and didn't know it until now ha.
My question: Did you find the limitations of 8-bit computing sound to be a fun creative challenge or was it more of a slog of process and reduction to make it work within limitations of the sound system?
Tiger moms/dads are *most* likely to bribe your professor or require contractors to hire you b/c it would be bad "face" if their kid was a failure at life.
Take that 'tiger' superiority and cram it up your...
whatever...
GP's post is acrimonious but it is **totally fucking true**
This kid didn't do this...the kid's parent gave him step by step directions. I had an awesome dad who was a cryptographer in the Navy in the 70s and he taught me **all kinds** of awesome shit. That's awesome and I'm thankful. He sure as shit didn't help me write an Orthogonal Time-Division Multiplexing algorythm for my science fair projects though...because that would have been **cheating**...he helped me make a few things but obviously this kid had all kinds of help and most importantly, the article seems to purposely not mention how the kid made all this happen just his step by step.
It's about accuracy in reporting **WHAT IT TAKES TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN THE TECH WORLD**
if we present this mindless crap as examples of young people doing science...well, we're cheating **them** and **ourselves**
there are **real** kids out there doing stuff at this level with only basic guidance & procurement help
yeah I enjoyed Primer immensely, Upstream Color almost as much (but it isnt as good on repeat viewings like Primer)
there are other examples...i'm always down to hear a film recommendation, but there arent as many as there should be
District 9 broke the mold in my mind...the special effects are off the chain & the storyline has the bite of real sci-fi...its not Blade Runner but its a hell of a lot of fun
Thing is, there are *tons* of scifi being made right now...Elysium, the Will Smith one w/ his kid, the dystopian one w/ Tom Cruise, Adjustment Bureau, the huge expansion of the Marvel franchises, gah so many more...all have good parts...all **total shit** in the end...100 C- movies is an abject failure
"No"
I'm not saying we won't see (crappy) sci-fi movies or TV show pilots funded by kickstarter. We might even have some kind of sci-fi scene champ that starts as a web series, gets a kickstarter, makes a pilot, gets picked up for a season, etc.
Books or comics might happen too...but again it will mostly be a space in the industry that is of less quality.
That all **might** happen...but my point is, crowdfunding is not the "future" of sci-fi.
We need to get real sci-fi fans producing sci-fi films!
Hollywood has fucked up sci-fi in the last decade or so...the JJ Abrams Star Trek, the new 'Alien' movie, the new 'Predator' movie....they all have dumb fucking titles...the list goes on...heh...Avatar...the only really awesome sci-fi has been from Independent Hollywood...ex: Moon
Cheap Computer Effects (thanks to ppl like /. readers) are what helped make sci-fi financially viable for Hollywood...go tech industry!
However, shitty producers & executivces...the guys with the money to make these films happen....**we have been giving them our money for far too long**
The argument used to be, "We have to go see the [beloved sci-fi franchise] even though they have [idiot hollywood directory] making it...I know it looks like they butchered [fan favorite storyline] but the special effects look great & we need to prove that [scifi franchise] can make money so they'll make another better one"
It's a feedback loop of shitty sci-fi
We need to stop going to see these films, and support indpendent films, including crowd-funded ones...but not as an end, but a means to access better factors of production and more capital
'Solutions Provider'
the term offends me...it's stupid marketing-style bullshit
do they sell hardware? then they're a damn hardware vendor
do they write software? then the're an OS vendor
do you make stupid distinctions with marketing words that make no sense to the conversation? yes
please, i know i'm spouting vitriol here but you must consider what i'm saying....you need to adjust your view of how the tech industry works
hype is always bullshit...always...
people like Steve Jobs talk alot of hype & that's what they're known for, but its not what made them successful
wrong analogy by a mile
facebook.com is not publicly owned like the beach!!!!
facebook.com is a **private business** located on 1s & 0s on privately owned servers and they sure as hell can be regulated by law
your whole 'privacy myth' idea is a total cop out....you're thinking like a passive consumer in a dictatorship....fucking stop it!
**we** run this country...**we** elect its leaders...**we** can demand commerce be regulated how **we** see fit, including basic protections for how **private companies** use our data!
I have to differ for several reasons.
First, the 'data' is 1's and 0's stored on any number of servers. It completely technically possible to isolate where exactly your digital data is stored.
2nd, it's easy to define and protect a person's personal information by law. It's called 'unreasonable search and seizure' of 'personal papers, etc' in the Bill of Rights. The problem is that people make false distinctions between digital & non-digital information!!!
Third, If I do something in public, do I own everyone else's knowledge of what I did? Is it a violation of my privacy if someone sees me in the street and tells a friend about it?
facebook.com is not public space!!! it is a private company with privately owned servers that hold your 1s & 0s that operates under the ***LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES***
private companies are subject to regulation
end of story
we can define & have the legal authority to limit how companies use our information
IMHO, you're giving facebook.com and others a pass.
They have the **factors of production**...facebook wasn't ONLY some kids in a dorm room. They were from rich families who could support them for years before they made any profit directly. They had family connections to high level attorneys. They had the protection of our laws paid by all of our taxes.
You can't be consistent and just cross your arms and say, "Hey, its their system, you agreed to it...if you dont like it dont use it"....that's only half an argument. It's a complaint masked as an argument. Anyone who says this is thinking like a slave.
It's inconsistent because its not a free market. Any facebook.com competitor faces ***SEVERE*** barriers to entry that are by facebook.com's design.
There is an artificial scarcity of competition with facebook.com.
Yes.
IMHO, it's better said, "Why do we **let them** take our privacy"
Here in America, we still have a democracy. It can function theoretically. We need to ***elect better leaders***.
The people who wrote the Digital Millenium Copyright Act could barely check their own email....think about that.
body language, pheremones, other smells, vocal cues....these are all symbols & no different essentially from words
oh yeah, throw choice of clothing and hair style in there as well
all of these are ways of communicating meaning, none being more 'essential' than the other b/c they all evolved together
there is no 'OTOH' kind of school...just Kurzweil-style AI fanbois
no. Watson is a program made to take speech or text input and scan large databases to provide speech or text based answers
it is programmed with, ultimately, 1's and 0's just like every other computer
code will always be 'text based' because ****human to human**** communication is 'text based' in the sense that symbols represent logic.
you can change the language rules, use numbers, whatever you want, but all coding uses symbolic logic
you know this is /. right?
someone on here probably *invented* the term 'beta' for tech usage...
alot of us are web coders...we know these problems because we deal with them every day...the problems in current web site design I mentioned are legit problems that hurt our industry & make people stupider for having visited a website (at times yes this happens)
we've done redesigns...we've had clients listen to us & clients who want the worst...now we see what is essentially our worst nightmare played out before our very eyes and commenting is the only way we can possibly stop it
and here we have it...you've shown us the source of 10^10 fanboi message board arguments...
iOS & Android are **operating systems**
iPhone, etc. are **devices**
if Apple let users run Android on their Apple devices, they would indeed be **one click** away from switching
they wouldn't **have to buy a new phone** because they are already using an Apple **device**
Ok slashdot...I love y'all and I am always in favor of improving things...
but look: making something "more accessible" to a "wider audience" to "share" absolutely does NOT mean dumbing down the UI, hiding menus, removing sidebars, and reducing content!
thanks so much for what you do, I genuinely love /.
but you *must* understand...****less complexity does not mean more accessible****
people come to /. because it is not dumbed down and over-marketed to 'the average reader'!!!
maybe Woz does this...idk...but on the merits this is an awesome idea. this is what actual "innovation" in business looks like
the iphone running Android would make Google into Apple's bitch...
strategically, you get them on your hardware with the option of using Android software...fine...if Google gets testy, **users can switch to iOS easily**
Android users on iPhone would always be *one click* away from iOS...that would let Apple dictate development terms to Android
fanboi disclaimer: I use devices with both Android and iOS so im not pimping one over the other..