Which is what I said when I acknowledged that you certainly couldn't let the users browse a list of 20k words to find their definitions.
But the idea that Yahoo has some huge usability inferiority to Google I think is false. On my broadband connection, the pages load nearly at the same time. Very minute difference. The presence of options on Yahoos page does not preclude me from keeping it simple. I can do the same thing that Google lets me do (at no disadvantage) plus I can do more. This is better.
I think the sparse google page made more sense during the dial-up days, but those are largely gone. The vast majority of people have broadband now (you like that?).
If you take the graphical ads off Yahoo.com, that page is more usable than Google.
I mean, if Google added DMOZ-ish directory below their current search box, would that somehow diminish the value of said box?
the "safety in numbers straw-man" claim. The vast majority of people would agree with me...Seriously, though: claiming something like the "vast majority..." is just idiotic. There is obviously no way you actually know what the vast majority of people think about anything. So why say it? The only reason is to add weight to what you're saying. You can avoid defending your point by dressing it up as a common, well known fact. It's a common technique here at Slashdot, but that doesn't make it any better.
If you're going to claim the vast majority of anything, you better have polling number from a random sample, margin of error, confidence levels, supplied demo multipliers, and, when possible, a linear regression analysis of the data.
You posted this comment recently in another thread:
"Actually you're wrong. After 20 years someone could _still_ take the once GPLed code, close it up, and restrict how people can use and copy it. How actually would the GPL _preserve_ freedom of the code, if it goes BSD after 20 years? Then what would be the point of starting as GPL in the first place?"... So right here you're defending the virtues of GPL. Where do you get-off picking and choosing which content owners you respect?
You feel entitled to "copy and share" other peoples property. This sense of entitlement is how you justify what you do. As I said, every person that breaks the law has a way to justify it. This is yours.
The issue here is that when you accept content you are implying agreement to a license. The only way for you to avoid commitment to that license is to NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENT. This license--this PROMISE between you and the person presenting the content to you--says 'I agree to follow the wishes of the person that created this.' If those wishes are 'Freeware' then so be it. But if they're not, then you're breaking your word.
I love how your post reverses the flow of information. Your argument is that the rights of people are "pruned" in order to give content owners the rights to control their work. Do you not realize that if it weren't for the content owner, the content wouldn't exist?
You're saying that a child should not have to listen to his parents because doing so is a violation of the childs rights. That the child doesn't believe he should be forced to give up his rights so his parent can have the right to control them.
This is a joke. It's like saying that I should not be able to keep trespassers out of my house because doing so is taking the rights from civilization to go where they please.
It goes like this: There would be no benefit to human civilization if people didn't do the hard work of actually creating something. Therefore, in exchange for creation, you are given the legal right to control your creation.
How arrogant are you to assume that you're entitled to content that someone else created? And who are you to say that doing so would be a benefit to human civilization?
I don't think your "human language" analogy was particularly apt. Humans have many ways of communicating. Computers have just two. This is another bad analogy, but it's of the same ilk so I think you'll get my meaning: The idea that it's easier to just type into a search box instead of clicking on an item is like me standing right in front of you, grabbing a pad of paper, and writing down "How do I get to the diner?" and then handing it to you and having you verbally tell me.
Obviously certain things MUST be kept covert. Like explicit-ORs in your query, the define functionality, and even the address you're looking for. There would be too many options to list.
But the idea that to get a map of the United States it's easier to type "Map of the united states" instead of clicking on a link that says "Maps" is silly to me. In fact, as I said, this is exactly the argument of Command Line V. Desktop. Sure, once I know it's there, it's not hard to type iexplore at a command prompt. But it's easier to click the iexplore icon, even when there are 40 other icons on my desktop.
Furthermore, I understand your point that you should be able to tell google anything and have it figure out your context and give you an answer. I agree that is a good thing. But to use your analogy again, think of it like this. If I go to some guy on the street and I say "I need my dry cleaning. Here's my ticket" I'll get a No Results Returned error. Or if I go to my boss and say "I'd like a large pizza with extra cheese" again, no results returned. First, I need to select "Dry Cleaners" from my interface, and then ask for my clothes. Or I need to select "Luigis Pizza" from the list and then place an order.
Do I like the idea of complexity on demand? Yes. I like that I can type in "Luigis Pizza on Adams" or I can get fancy and do a "Luigis|Ginos|Paulies * Adams" but I've hated that "More" thing on the google page since the first time I saw it. More Clicks = Bad. I think the goal should be "Give me what I want with as little human<->computer interaction as possible"
I'm not a Yahoo fan. I can't remember the last time I used it. But I am a fan of broad and shallow over narrow and deep.
I didn't say you were a linux zealot. I said that most people on Slashdot are. I believe this to be fact.
The Betamax ruling strictly forbid you to KEEP the recording. It also forbid you from distributing your recording. Furthermore, an important part of the ruling was that you recorded what was being broadcast into your home anyway.
1. By downloading a torrent, you are participating in its distribution. This is a No No. 2. The source of the torrent was not broadcast into your home. The fact that it could've been is incidental. The idea behind the betamax case is that these airwaves were being sent to your house. There is no difference between recording the airwaves with your eyes and recording the airwaves with a cassette. In the case of a torrent, those airwaves were being sent to somebody elses house. The difference is important: If your argument is that "I *could've* watched it as it was broadcast to me, therefore I have fair use rights" would essentially mean that you could legally make 20 copies and give them to the people on your block. After all, they got the same airwaves. But it doesn't work that way. Sorry if you think it should.
Are you suggesting that HIDDEN FUNCTIONALITY is more usable than OVERT FUNCTIONALITY? Your idea that all you have to do is type in the search box for something that *you might not even know google does* is simple is really a joke.
Once again, look at Apple. They're very fond of putting the little "grippers" on the corner of a window to let you know you can resize it. This is about making OVERT FUNCTIONALITY.
For that matter, look at the GUI. Your premise is that it's easier to type an open-ender into a box than it is to click from a predefiend set of options. That's akin to saying that a command prompt is more simple than a desktop. In fact, that's EXACTLY what you're saying.
Further, it's like saying that an essay question is easier than a multiple choice. Find me one student that will agree with that and I'll give them a gold star.
Users don't just divine what Google does. If a user is going to the page and wants a map, how do you assume that they just know to search for it?
You either are so desperate to support a poorly-thought claim, or you actually believe that typing an open ender is easer than selecting an item from a list of options. I'm not sure which would is worse.
Oh christ. Another Slashdot refute-a-post-syllable-by-syllable type.
First, number of clicks is a very important measure. Why do you think Amazon patented "One Click Buying?" An E-Commerce consultant will be quick to advise you to put your products no more than one click from the main page.
This is also important because, by and large, people aren't the best with the mouse. The more clicks, the more frustration. Please, don't take my word for it: Do a little usability research. There's a great Apple GUI Design Standards document out there that covers this (among many other things.)
Second, you're saying that "Simplicity == Time Spent." I don't know if you intentionally made that your argument, but that's what you're saying. Your logic: Google is Simple. The absence of links means nothing, most people type in the URL ("most people" as if you knew what most people do), and that's OK because even though its much easier to click on a link than type in a URL, it's the time that matters. Therefore, Google is simple because you can do things in less time. Am I missing something?
Third, the idea that simplicity is contingent upon the amount of time a task takes is silly.
Fourth, I know he's a jackass because he posted a comment and then replied to himself a half dozen times. Furthermore, he cherry-picked only the excerpts from an article that actually supported his premise and ignored the rest.
Fifth, I could care less about a mod point. I'm so far into excellent karma that I could be moderated -5 Troll for six months and still get 2 points when I post.
Sixth, I didn't attack him. I was just being honest.
Even NORML's website doesn't reference pain-killing as a reason for it's use. It talks about it's benefits as an anti-inflammatory, anti-convulsant, appetite-stimulant, etc.
Even people that support medicinal marijuana don't do so for it's pain killing abilities. It only fights pain in so much as people scarfing down oreos aren't focused on their bad back.
The "beta max ruling" that cemented fair use for home videos does not magically apply to television.
First of all, the backbone of Fair Use is that you have certain rights as a purchaser of content. When you are subscribing to Cable you are not purchasing content. You are purchasing DELIVERY.
Second, the standards for Fair Use very considerably from broadcast TV to cable TV.
Third, this is a question of FACT not a question of LAW. Therefore, any lawyer you talked to cannot simply give you a black and white answer. It's like saying "If I'm with a person and they get hurt am I liable." Well, maybe yes, maybe no. Questions of fact can only be resolved in a court.
But the idea that you're somehow entitled to all the programming broadcast thru your cablesystem just because you pay the subsriber fee is, *really*, laughable.
If you take these issues so seriously, I reccomend you check again. The "Beta Max Ruling" doesn't apply to TV. Don't take my word for it, call one of your lawyer friends.
....Because you agree to a copyright. Because the person that CREATED the content gets to say how YOU can use it. It's their RIGHT. Maybe you feel that somehow you're "owed" content but you're not. I don't, of course, mean you in particular.
Call me what you want. Maybe I'm a moral zealot or a "straight edge" or if you're really old a "Square." But here's how I see it: I want to be able to control my environment. I want to be able to do what I want with my PC, my DVD Player, and my Tivo. I want to be able to develop a software program and license it how I see fit. I want to control what I feel is in my rights to control. Well, I have to give that same respect to other content owners and producers.
The Slashdot linux zealots (that is, most of slashdot) would be furious if somebody violated the GPL on linux source code, for example. There's so much reverence given to GPL, BSD Style Licensing, etc, but ZERO respect given to copyrights. How do you reconcile this in your head?
If the content owner says "I don't want you downloading my content" then it's wrong to do so. And as I teenager, I broke those rules. I did a lot of dumb things when I was that age. Everybody does. But as you grow up, it's time to eschew those childish ways and start acting like a responsible adult. A responsible adult respects other peoples rights.
So forcing a user to click twice to get a map or, alternatively, type the URL into the address bar is an excercise in simplicity.
I have to say, I didn't agree with the article 100%, but the attempts to refute it here on Slashdot have been hilariously bad. The only point of the jackass that posted 5 (or whatever) excerpts from the article was that Spolskys definition of simple isn't what the "Vast Majority" of people consider the definition of simple to be.
Personally, I'm glad he appointed himself qualified to share the opinion of a "Vast Majority."
Well you're certainly good at cherry-picking things to make your point. Do you have any remarks on the, you know, middle 2/3 of the article?
--- Snip ---
Why are Yahoo! and MSN such complex-looking places? Because their systems are easier to use. Not because they are complex, but because they simplify the life of their users by letting them see their choices on the home page: news, alternative searches, other items of interest. Yahoo! even has an excellent personalization page, so you can choose what you wish to see on that first page.
Take another careful look at Google's front page. Want a map? You have to click once to be offered the choice, then a second additional time to get to the map page. Want to use Google Scholar to check references? Um, well, is that "Advanced Search" or "more." What about their newly announced blog search? Why is Google maps separate from Google Earth? (Oh, those were purchased from different companies. Yes, but why should I, the user, care about the history of Google's acquisitions?)
All of these things require you to click on "more" which gets you to the options page where there are 32 alternatives, plus links to "About Google," "Help Center" (if Google is really so simple, why does one need help?), "Downloads" and then a special section on "web search features," which has another 24 links of web features, a book search toolbar, and then another 23 sections of text -- not links, text descriptions and an entire meta-language you can learn to improve the searches.
Your whole argument is boiled down to this one phrase: "the vast majority of people"
TFA acknowledges the different definitions one might give to the word "simplicity." You took it upon yourself to determine what the "vast majority of people" think simplicity is.
So really, you're sharing an opinion that you dressed-up to look like fact.
First, unless you're the AC that posted the GP, I wasn't accusing you of anything. So before you start "pedestal knocking" you should think a little first.
Second, please, enlighten me: What facts do I need to get straight? You claim to 'know your rights' which I find laughable. First of all, Fair Use for TV is very complicated. The rules differ between broadcast and cable. Cable companies and content providers have a lot of leeway in setting the terms of their copyrights. Broadcast is more clearly defined by the law but it's still ambiguous enough to be a question of fact, not a question of law. And while it's still a question of fact, if you were sued for downloading Torrents of television programs and your defense was "I pay for cable," I have a lot of confidence that you would lose.
And if you're going to accuse someone of arrogance, please, for your sake, try not to be so arrogant in return. It just makes you look like a hypocrite.
What did I say that made you think I was, for even a moment, talking about a DVR? I was replying directly to a person who was using Bit Torrent to download television. Unless *YOU* equate your DVR with illegal downloading, which would be pretty funny. I certainly didn't make such an analogy.
Why is it better to pay $250 for a separate system that you probably don't need than to pay microsoft $100/yr to license your games for playing/distro on the xBox?...Nevermind, now I realize why it's better: The $250 doesn't go to Microsoft! Duh! I shoulda figured that out!
Really, though, I could spend 2 years developing a game with ZERO DOLLARS out of pocket. I can compile and play it on Windows, with ZERO DOLLARS OUT OF POCKET. I can then, if I choose, suscribe to their service and share my game.
That means I can dabble if I want to. I can try my hand at it with NO COMMITMENT. You can't do that with the PS2 Kit. I have to pony-up $250 upfront and if I lose interest or whatever, oh well.
I swear to god, if Microsoft announced they cured Aids or world hunger or cancer you'd still find a reason to bitch. "By curing cancer patients, Microsoft is clearly just trying to re-enforce their monopoly."
That was officially the WORST ANALOGY in this entire post. Congratulations!
As your grand prize, you get 3 free months of Software Assurance!
But that's not all: You're going to get a PERSONAL VISIT from an inconspicuous looking fellow. Don't worry, he won't be there for our benefit. He'll be there to serve YOU with a FREE, PERSONAL INVITE to a time-honored ceremony held JUST FOR YOU. And if you're lucky, you might just walk away with $10,000 BILL. No, I'm not kidding. We here at the RIAA/MPAA hand out $10,000 bills EVERY DAY.
If you're a teenager, working 15 hours a week after school, then by all means, pirate your music. I did it. Oh well.
But if you're, you know, an adult, and if you have an income, then I believe it's irresponsible not to pay for the things that you want. I spend $50 a month or so at ITMS and another $50 on the shrink-wrapped variety.
If you have enough money to buy a new TV, but still steal your content, then you're just being an irresponsible child. Why don't you just stop paying rent and squat? You'll have 3-4 months before you get evicted, then you can do it all over again.
I find real humor in the people that want things but think that they just should not have to pay for them. You're basically on Television Welfare. You feel that it's the responsibility of others to pay for the things that you want.
Slashdot Mirror
Presenting options but not too many options.
Which is what I said when I acknowledged that you certainly couldn't let the users browse a list of 20k words to find their definitions.
But the idea that Yahoo has some huge usability inferiority to Google I think is false. On my broadband connection, the pages load nearly at the same time. Very minute difference. The presence of options on Yahoos page does not preclude me from keeping it simple. I can do the same thing that Google lets me do (at no disadvantage) plus I can do more. This is better.
I think the sparse google page made more sense during the dial-up days, but those are largely gone. The vast majority of people have broadband now (you like that?).
If you take the graphical ads off Yahoo.com, that page is more usable than Google.
I mean, if Google added DMOZ-ish directory below their current search box, would that somehow diminish the value of said box?
"when you intentionally misconstrue an argument in order to make it more vulnerable to attack"
Is this not what you did with the link to the comic strip?
That was a very long-winded and nonsensical answer.
... , ergo it's shared by the vast majority" is just bullshit my friend.
Whether something is simple or not is not at all a matter of it's definition.
It's a matter of OPINION.
It's subjective.
So to say "this is my definition of simplicity,
the "safety in numbers straw-man" claim. The vast majority of people would agree with me. ..Seriously, though: claiming something like the "vast majority..." is just idiotic. There is obviously no way you actually know what the vast majority of people think about anything. So why say it? The only reason is to add weight to what you're saying. You can avoid defending your point by dressing it up as a common, well known fact. It's a common technique here at Slashdot, but that doesn't make it any better.
If you're going to claim the vast majority of anything, you better have polling number from a random sample, margin of error, confidence levels, supplied demo multipliers, and, when possible, a linear regression analysis of the data.
Otherwise, stick to speaking for yourself.
You posted this comment recently in another thread:
... So right here you're defending the virtues of GPL. Where do you get-off picking and choosing which content owners you respect?
"Actually you're wrong. After 20 years someone could _still_ take the once GPLed code, close it up, and restrict how people can use and copy it. How actually would the GPL _preserve_ freedom of the code, if it goes BSD after 20 years? Then what would be the point of starting as GPL in the first place?"
You feel entitled to "copy and share" other peoples property. This sense of entitlement is how you justify what you do. As I said, every person that breaks the law has a way to justify it. This is yours.
The issue here is that when you accept content you are implying agreement to a license. The only way for you to avoid commitment to that license is to NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENT. This license--this PROMISE between you and the person presenting the content to you--says 'I agree to follow the wishes of the person that created this.' If those wishes are 'Freeware' then so be it. But if they're not, then you're breaking your word.
I love how your post reverses the flow of information. Your argument is that the rights of people are "pruned" in order to give content owners the rights to control their work. Do you not realize that if it weren't for the content owner, the content wouldn't exist?
You're saying that a child should not have to listen to his parents because doing so is a violation of the childs rights. That the child doesn't believe he should be forced to give up his rights so his parent can have the right to control them.
This is a joke. It's like saying that I should not be able to keep trespassers out of my house because doing so is taking the rights from civilization to go where they please.
It goes like this: There would be no benefit to human civilization if people didn't do the hard work of actually creating something. Therefore, in exchange for creation, you are given the legal right to control your creation.
How arrogant are you to assume that you're entitled to content that someone else created? And who are you to say that doing so would be a benefit to human civilization?
I don't think your "human language" analogy was particularly apt. Humans have many ways of communicating. Computers have just two. This is another bad analogy, but it's of the same ilk so I think you'll get my meaning: The idea that it's easier to just type into a search box instead of clicking on an item is like me standing right in front of you, grabbing a pad of paper, and writing down "How do I get to the diner?" and then handing it to you and having you verbally tell me.
Obviously certain things MUST be kept covert. Like explicit-ORs in your query, the define functionality, and even the address you're looking for. There would be too many options to list.
But the idea that to get a map of the United States it's easier to type "Map of the united states" instead of clicking on a link that says "Maps" is silly to me. In fact, as I said, this is exactly the argument of Command Line V. Desktop. Sure, once I know it's there, it's not hard to type iexplore at a command prompt. But it's easier to click the iexplore icon, even when there are 40 other icons on my desktop.
Furthermore, I understand your point that you should be able to tell google anything and have it figure out your context and give you an answer. I agree that is a good thing. But to use your analogy again, think of it like this. If I go to some guy on the street and I say "I need my dry cleaning. Here's my ticket" I'll get a No Results Returned error. Or if I go to my boss and say "I'd like a large pizza with extra cheese" again, no results returned. First, I need to select "Dry Cleaners" from my interface, and then ask for my clothes. Or I need to select "Luigis Pizza" from the list and then place an order.
Do I like the idea of complexity on demand? Yes. I like that I can type in "Luigis Pizza on Adams" or I can get fancy and do a "Luigis|Ginos|Paulies * Adams" but I've hated that "More" thing on the google page since the first time I saw it. More Clicks = Bad. I think the goal should be "Give me what I want with as little human<->computer interaction as possible"
I'm not a Yahoo fan. I can't remember the last time I used it. But I am a fan of broad and shallow over narrow and deep.
I didn't say you were a linux zealot. I said that most people on Slashdot are. I believe this to be fact.
The Betamax ruling strictly forbid you to KEEP the recording. It also forbid you from distributing your recording. Furthermore, an important part of the ruling was that you recorded what was being broadcast into your home anyway.
1. By downloading a torrent, you are participating in its distribution. This is a No No.
2. The source of the torrent was not broadcast into your home. The fact that it could've been is incidental. The idea behind the betamax case is that these airwaves were being sent to your house. There is no difference between recording the airwaves with your eyes and recording the airwaves with a cassette. In the case of a torrent, those airwaves were being sent to somebody elses house. The difference is important: If your argument is that "I *could've* watched it as it was broadcast to me, therefore I have fair use rights" would essentially mean that you could legally make 20 copies and give them to the people on your block. After all, they got the same airwaves. But it doesn't work that way. Sorry if you think it should.
This is going to be fun.
Are you suggesting that HIDDEN FUNCTIONALITY is more usable than OVERT FUNCTIONALITY? Your idea that all you have to do is type in the search box for something that *you might not even know google does* is simple is really a joke.
Once again, look at Apple. They're very fond of putting the little "grippers" on the corner of a window to let you know you can resize it. This is about making OVERT FUNCTIONALITY.
For that matter, look at the GUI. Your premise is that it's easier to type an open-ender into a box than it is to click from a predefiend set of options. That's akin to saying that a command prompt is more simple than a desktop. In fact, that's EXACTLY what you're saying.
Further, it's like saying that an essay question is easier than a multiple choice. Find me one student that will agree with that and I'll give them a gold star.
Users don't just divine what Google does. If a user is going to the page and wants a map, how do you assume that they just know to search for it?
You either are so desperate to support a poorly-thought claim, or you actually believe that typing an open ender is easer than selecting an item from a list of options. I'm not sure which would is worse.
Oh christ. Another Slashdot refute-a-post-syllable-by-syllable type.
First, number of clicks is a very important measure. Why do you think Amazon patented "One Click Buying?" An E-Commerce consultant will be quick to advise you to put your products no more than one click from the main page.
This is also important because, by and large, people aren't the best with the mouse. The more clicks, the more frustration. Please, don't take my word for it: Do a little usability research. There's a great Apple GUI Design Standards document out there that covers this (among many other things.)
Second, you're saying that "Simplicity == Time Spent." I don't know if you intentionally made that your argument, but that's what you're saying. Your logic: Google is Simple. The absence of links means nothing, most people type in the URL ("most people" as if you knew what most people do), and that's OK because even though its much easier to click on a link than type in a URL, it's the time that matters. Therefore, Google is simple because you can do things in less time. Am I missing something?
Third, the idea that simplicity is contingent upon the amount of time a task takes is silly.
Fourth, I know he's a jackass because he posted a comment and then replied to himself a half dozen times. Furthermore, he cherry-picked only the excerpts from an article that actually supported his premise and ignored the rest.
Fifth, I could care less about a mod point. I'm so far into excellent karma that I could be moderated -5 Troll for six months and still get 2 points when I post.
Sixth, I didn't attack him. I was just being honest.
By you?
Well, that puts the issue to rest!
Even NORML's website doesn't reference pain-killing as a reason for it's use. It talks about it's benefits as an anti-inflammatory, anti-convulsant, appetite-stimulant, etc.
So please, put down the doobage.
Even people that support medicinal marijuana don't do so for it's pain killing abilities. It only fights pain in so much as people scarfing down oreos aren't focused on their bad back.
The "beta max ruling" that cemented fair use for home videos does not magically apply to television.
First of all, the backbone of Fair Use is that you have certain rights as a purchaser of content. When you are subscribing to Cable you are not purchasing content. You are purchasing DELIVERY.
Second, the standards for Fair Use very considerably from broadcast TV to cable TV.
Third, this is a question of FACT not a question of LAW. Therefore, any lawyer you talked to cannot simply give you a black and white answer. It's like saying "If I'm with a person and they get hurt am I liable." Well, maybe yes, maybe no. Questions of fact can only be resolved in a court.
But the idea that you're somehow entitled to all the programming broadcast thru your cablesystem just because you pay the subsriber fee is, *really*, laughable.
If you take these issues so seriously, I reccomend you check again. The "Beta Max Ruling" doesn't apply to TV. Don't take my word for it, call one of your lawyer friends.
....Because you agree to a copyright. Because the person that CREATED the content gets to say how YOU can use it. It's their RIGHT. Maybe you feel that somehow you're "owed" content but you're not. I don't, of course, mean you in particular.
Call me what you want. Maybe I'm a moral zealot or a "straight edge" or if you're really old a "Square." But here's how I see it: I want to be able to control my environment. I want to be able to do what I want with my PC, my DVD Player, and my Tivo. I want to be able to develop a software program and license it how I see fit. I want to control what I feel is in my rights to control. Well, I have to give that same respect to other content owners and producers.
The Slashdot linux zealots (that is, most of slashdot) would be furious if somebody violated the GPL on linux source code, for example. There's so much reverence given to GPL, BSD Style Licensing, etc, but ZERO respect given to copyrights. How do you reconcile this in your head?
If the content owner says "I don't want you downloading my content" then it's wrong to do so. And as I teenager, I broke those rules. I did a lot of dumb things when I was that age. Everybody does. But as you grow up, it's time to eschew those childish ways and start acting like a responsible adult. A responsible adult respects other peoples rights.
So forcing a user to click twice to get a map or, alternatively, type the URL into the address bar is an excercise in simplicity.
I have to say, I didn't agree with the article 100%, but the attempts to refute it here on Slashdot have been hilariously bad. The only point of the jackass that posted 5 (or whatever) excerpts from the article was that Spolskys definition of simple isn't what the "Vast Majority" of people consider the definition of simple to be.
Personally, I'm glad he appointed himself qualified to share the opinion of a "Vast Majority."
I love that the GP couldn't actually defend himself. Instead, it took some other moron with mod points.
Not that I mind: The whole thing made my point for me.
Well you're certainly good at cherry-picking things to make your point. Do you have any remarks on the, you know, middle 2/3 of the article?
/Snip ---
--- Snip ---
Why are Yahoo! and MSN such complex-looking places? Because their systems are easier to use. Not because they are complex, but because they simplify the life of their users by letting them see their choices on the home page: news, alternative searches, other items of interest. Yahoo! even has an excellent personalization page, so you can choose what you wish to see on that first page.
Take another careful look at Google's front page. Want a map? You have to click once to be offered the choice, then a second additional time to get to the map page. Want to use Google Scholar to check references? Um, well, is that "Advanced Search" or "more." What about their newly announced blog search? Why is Google maps separate from Google Earth? (Oh, those were purchased from different companies. Yes, but why should I, the user, care about the history of Google's acquisitions?)
All of these things require you to click on "more" which gets you to the options page where there are 32 alternatives, plus links to "About Google," "Help Center" (if Google is really so simple, why does one need help?), "Downloads" and then a special section on "web search features," which has another 24 links of web features, a book search toolbar, and then another 23 sections of text -- not links, text descriptions and an entire meta-language you can learn to improve the searches.
---
Your whole argument is boiled down to this one phrase: "the vast majority of people"
TFA acknowledges the different definitions one might give to the word "simplicity." You took it upon yourself to determine what the "vast majority of people" think simplicity is.
So really, you're sharing an opinion that you dressed-up to look like fact.
First, unless you're the AC that posted the GP, I wasn't accusing you of anything. So before you start "pedestal knocking" you should think a little first.
Second, please, enlighten me: What facts do I need to get straight? You claim to 'know your rights' which I find laughable. First of all, Fair Use for TV is very complicated. The rules differ between broadcast and cable. Cable companies and content providers have a lot of leeway in setting the terms of their copyrights. Broadcast is more clearly defined by the law but it's still ambiguous enough to be a question of fact, not a question of law. And while it's still a question of fact, if you were sued for downloading Torrents of television programs and your defense was "I pay for cable," I have a lot of confidence that you would lose.
And if you're going to accuse someone of arrogance, please, for your sake, try not to be so arrogant in return. It just makes you look like a hypocrite.
What did I say that made you think I was, for even a moment, talking about a DVR? I was replying directly to a person who was using Bit Torrent to download television. Unless *YOU* equate your DVR with illegal downloading, which would be pretty funny. I certainly didn't make such an analogy.
Did you actually read my post?
If you did, you would clearly see that I'm not talking about a DVR. It was, what, 100 words? Was that beyond the ken of your comprehension?
Why is it better to pay $250 for a separate system that you probably don't need than to pay microsoft $100/yr to license your games for playing/distro on the xBox? ...Nevermind, now I realize why it's better: The $250 doesn't go to Microsoft! Duh! I shoulda figured that out!
Really, though, I could spend 2 years developing a game with ZERO DOLLARS out of pocket. I can compile and play it on Windows, with ZERO DOLLARS OUT OF POCKET. I can then, if I choose, suscribe to their service and share my game.
That means I can dabble if I want to. I can try my hand at it with NO COMMITMENT. You can't do that with the PS2 Kit. I have to pony-up $250 upfront and if I lose interest or whatever, oh well.
I swear to god, if Microsoft announced they cured Aids or world hunger or cancer you'd still find a reason to bitch. "By curing cancer patients, Microsoft is clearly just trying to re-enforce their monopoly."
That was officially the WORST ANALOGY in this entire post. Congratulations!
As your grand prize, you get 3 free months of Software Assurance!
But that's not all: You're going to get a PERSONAL VISIT from an inconspicuous looking fellow. Don't worry, he won't be there for our benefit. He'll be there to serve YOU with a FREE, PERSONAL INVITE to a time-honored ceremony held JUST FOR YOU. And if you're lucky, you might just walk away with $10,000 BILL. No, I'm not kidding. We here at the RIAA/MPAA hand out $10,000 bills EVERY DAY.
How does it feel to be a winner?
What do you expect? The guy compared the printing press to the CD press.
Seriously.
If you're a teenager, working 15 hours a week after school, then by all means, pirate your music. I did it. Oh well.
But if you're, you know, an adult, and if you have an income, then I believe it's irresponsible not to pay for the things that you want. I spend $50 a month or so at ITMS and another $50 on the shrink-wrapped variety.
If you have enough money to buy a new TV, but still steal your content, then you're just being an irresponsible child. Why don't you just stop paying rent and squat? You'll have 3-4 months before you get evicted, then you can do it all over again.
I find real humor in the people that want things but think that they just should not have to pay for them. You're basically on Television Welfare. You feel that it's the responsibility of others to pay for the things that you want.
Grow up.