Re:Ah. You tried to get into mensa....
on
MSN Sponsors Mensa
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I guess some people just can't win or even draw with some other people. The guy's explaining that he doesn't give a shit about what he listed for clarity - if he hadn't listed it, someone else would have questioned him and called him a fraud instead. He didn't go on and on about it in several sentences, he put it aside in a parenthesis *because it wasn't the point* and because he had a real point to make.
Stop being so goddamned cynical, nit-picking and condemning and try to nail people for the smallest thing. I'm ashamed that people reckon this is Insightful.
Overly grim, and perhaps overly true to the extent that the press will see it as a giant step forward for IE - which it is - but also a giant step forward for web browsers - which it ain't.
Furthermore, the "open source community" simply can't patent "their stuff" because it isn't their stuff. Tabbed browsing, for all I know (there are millions of variants of these stories), started out in NetCaptor, an IE shell (do I smell irony?) before Opera made the move from just plain MDI to something looking like a tab bar. Extensions are a nice idea, but there's lots of prior art. Type-ahead? Maybe barely invention-worthy as it's not been applied to links specifically before, but I didn't see anything about it in IE7 either.
Actually, IE's box model will *currently* - in IE6 - change when put into standards mode, meaning you have one of a few (hardcoded?) doctypes at the top of your page (omitting any xml prologues). It doesn't even have to validate, just carry the correct doctype. Sadly, I agree with the rest of your comment, including the * html bug, which I hope they leave in. That or invent conditional comments for CSS.
Fluxbox is kickass. I'm not debating that for a second. But I'm wondering if making stuff customizable doesn't scare people away, too? Windows and OS X can both host external window managers, both have built-in skins (if you can call the OS X choice of Aqua and Graphite a skin, that is; I agree that this is a bit weak) and both have extra programs that can help you skin the existing interface. The options are there for the people who do need or want it, and if Apple ends up aping those tools, the odds are high we'll have another Dashboard-Konfabulator thing on our hands.
Even if OS X was more customizable than Windows out of the box, I don't think it'll make up the biggest inherent flaw - the people coming from Windows, OS 9 and Linux to take a peek at OS X for the first time all feel a bit lost. I think that's what scares people off primary. (This is true for any OS, of course. I've seen Windows aficionados struggle with the red hat menu in Fedora.)
I don't think more than half of the people using computers have an interest in customizing anything - getting to know the computer and the interface makes a good challenge for a sizable chunk of computer users new to any OS. As Apple since at least the iMac has partially profiled themselves as selling computers to those who didn't use to have any at all (which they did back in '84, too, of course), they *proportionally* receive more of those people than others, and I think it affects the general design of their products too.
Shit, that's true. I forgot about that. Thanks. (I got caught up in thinking about if iLife '05 would be bundled with Tiger the retail version - when Panther started selling, iLife the retail package that you actually have to buy hadn't been created yet, and so this is the first time they'll have to make that decision.)
My whole point was that they were not the same, which is also why I linked to Gruber.:) Maybe I should have used the word "comparison" as opposed to "parallell", but I'm right with you, and I couldn't agree with Gruber more either.
Yes. True. I said in my original comment that it deals almost exclusively with rumors - which no news site does, nor any site whose de facto purpose is to keep the reader informed of what happens to his cat.
Is it this sentence that confuses you? I refer you to the excellent "If The New York Times Jumped Off a Bridge [daringfireball.net]" for good parallells between journalism and Think Secret's material. I didn't say that Think Secret's material was journalism, I said that the piece contains parallells between what the NYT might have done and what Think Secret did, both having the same information and all other things being equal. None of this conflicts with what you're saying unless I'm missing something painfully obvious.
Most people like this want to buy a new machine anyway, but seeming as how *most* Apple computers are far from cheap in general (mostly good value, but still expensive) they are willing to postpone it by a month or two if that means they'll save $129. Hell, they might even save another $79 if Apple decides to bundle iLife '05 with Tiger.
Specify in which Think Secret article Nick talked about "what his cat did today". You're right - it's about rumors. You're wrong - it's not a weblog just because it's published serially.
Can you say "I would see it as less annoying being advertised at with relevant and interesting ads while seeing personally relevant and interesting news"?
XMLHTTPRequest support took an even longer time to come to Opera. I forgive them, since it's not a de jure standard but a de facto one, but you might want to consider that. It's true that Maps used iframe loading from the beginning, though, and I have no idea why it wasn't supported from the beginning.
As a developer, I know that Javascript support in Opera can be finicky. I can catch up arrow presses in a text field with onkeyup but not down arrow, for example, and I think even Google Suggest has to work around this with global key event handlers. I think Opera's extensive key shortcut system is to blame for this in one way or another.
I think he was referring to the drag and drop reordering aspect - which didn't debute in Google News at all, by the way. I've seen it as early as TypePad, which will soon be two years old, and I'll be very, very surprised if it didn't exist before that in other incarnations.
If these guys are even serious to begin with, they should stop demanding people's heads for things like *one broken HTML tag* in a story by CmdrTaco. He's posted how many hundreds of stories here now? Unless the creators of that site never *once* misspelled something during development and maintenance of their site, it's not only completely irrelevant badmouthing but downright hypocrisy.
"Blogging" has developed into a beast. I'm not talking about "weblogging", but "blogging". Everyone's trying to put the stamp "blogging" on anything that's serially published and has an author. What's left? Pretty much static pages and company web sites. Weblogging, at its core, is little more than del.icio.us-like rundowns of nifty links and commentary around them. "Blogging" used to mean "weblogging". As the term "blogging" grew more popular, it seemed to lead to "blogs" having more and more material unrelated to actual "weblogging". "Blogging" is now just a buzzword that can be applied to everything published serially.
What Think Secret are doing is editorial reporting. I qualify editorial reporting as journalism. I don't qualify weblogging as being journalism. And as I've already said, "blogging" is just a label of a certain way to run a web site. Asking if that's journalism is like asking if publishing on paper is journalism.
And these ways to prevent stuff like AutoLink are also dumb.
How many of you use bookmarklets/favelets? Mozilla/Firefox extensions? Opera's web designer things? User-defined stylesheets? Would you like them to cease functioning just because the author didn't want you to be able to muck with the content or the presentation locally? Doing that is the stupidest thing since the scripts that go out of their way to prohibit me from viewing source - if I'm viewing it, I have it saved as a file in cache (or at least in a location in memory). I can get at it.
I'm doing absolutely nothing wrong when I'm trying to view source, or manipulate the temporary image of the downloaded copy of your original web site, because it's my right as a user to make sure I can read the content I have access to comfortably. It's when I'm trying to change your content at the server that you should be worried.
The people who were doing good radio shows on the web were doing them before anyway, and far more people have web browsers than have any sort of RSS vehicles. Everything Podcasting does is make it easier to download and automatically send it to your portable music player so that you might actually stumble upon it for a while. It's important to not downplay that it's a lot more convenient, but the medium was already far enough along to have relatively stable users - you will get very few absolute newbies who on a whim download an RSS vehicle tailored for podcasting and starts listening to random people on the web.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess some people just can't win or even draw with some other people. The guy's explaining that he doesn't give a shit about what he listed for clarity - if he hadn't listed it, someone else would have questioned him and called him a fraud instead. He didn't go on and on about it in several sentences, he put it aside in a parenthesis *because it wasn't the point* and because he had a real point to make.
Stop being so goddamned cynical, nit-picking and condemning and try to nail people for the smallest thing. I'm ashamed that people reckon this is Insightful.
One MEEEELLEYON ZOMBIE PCs!
*Real* standard nazis use HTML4 as well as XHTML. I think the phrase you're looking for is *pretentious* standard nazis. ;)
Overly grim, and perhaps overly true to the extent that the press will see it as a giant step forward for IE - which it is - but also a giant step forward for web browsers - which it ain't.
Furthermore, the "open source community" simply can't patent "their stuff" because it isn't their stuff. Tabbed browsing, for all I know (there are millions of variants of these stories), started out in NetCaptor, an IE shell (do I smell irony?) before Opera made the move from just plain MDI to something looking like a tab bar. Extensions are a nice idea, but there's lots of prior art. Type-ahead? Maybe barely invention-worthy as it's not been applied to links specifically before, but I didn't see anything about it in IE7 either.
Actually, IE's box model will *currently* - in IE6 - change when put into standards mode, meaning you have one of a few (hardcoded?) doctypes at the top of your page (omitting any xml prologues). It doesn't even have to validate, just carry the correct doctype. Sadly, I agree with the rest of your comment, including the * html bug, which I hope they leave in. That or invent conditional comments for CSS.
Now, I'm not a doctor, but I'm not sure a patch will suffice...
I realize this was a joke, but it wasn't hacked either - it looks like a hole in Sun's JVM.
Fluxbox is kickass. I'm not debating that for a second. But I'm wondering if making stuff customizable doesn't scare people away, too? Windows and OS X can both host external window managers, both have built-in skins (if you can call the OS X choice of Aqua and Graphite a skin, that is; I agree that this is a bit weak) and both have extra programs that can help you skin the existing interface. The options are there for the people who do need or want it, and if Apple ends up aping those tools, the odds are high we'll have another Dashboard-Konfabulator thing on our hands.
Even if OS X was more customizable than Windows out of the box, I don't think it'll make up the biggest inherent flaw - the people coming from Windows, OS 9 and Linux to take a peek at OS X for the first time all feel a bit lost. I think that's what scares people off primary. (This is true for any OS, of course. I've seen Windows aficionados struggle with the red hat menu in Fedora.)
I don't think more than half of the people using computers have an interest in customizing anything - getting to know the computer and the interface makes a good challenge for a sizable chunk of computer users new to any OS. As Apple since at least the iMac has partially profiled themselves as selling computers to those who didn't use to have any at all (which they did back in '84, too, of course), they *proportionally* receive more of those people than others, and I think it affects the general design of their products too.
Shit, that's true. I forgot about that. Thanks. (I got caught up in thinking about if iLife '05 would be bundled with Tiger the retail version - when Panther started selling, iLife the retail package that you actually have to buy hadn't been created yet, and so this is the first time they'll have to make that decision.)
I wanted to illustrate both, but mainly differences.
My whole point was that they were not the same, which is also why I linked to Gruber. :) Maybe I should have used the word "comparison" as opposed to "parallell", but I'm right with you, and I couldn't agree with Gruber more either.
Yes. True. I said in my original comment that it deals almost exclusively with rumors - which no news site does, nor any site whose de facto purpose is to keep the reader informed of what happens to his cat.
Is it this sentence that confuses you? I refer you to the excellent "If The New York Times Jumped Off a Bridge [daringfireball.net]" for good parallells between journalism and Think Secret's material. I didn't say that Think Secret's material was journalism, I said that the piece contains parallells between what the NYT might have done and what Think Secret did, both having the same information and all other things being equal. None of this conflicts with what you're saying unless I'm missing something painfully obvious.
It's not a matter of if it's free or not. It's a matter of if it's good or not.
Most people like this want to buy a new machine anyway, but seeming as how *most* Apple computers are far from cheap in general (mostly good value, but still expensive) they are willing to postpone it by a month or two if that means they'll save $129. Hell, they might even save another $79 if Apple decides to bundle iLife '05 with Tiger.
Specify in which Think Secret article Nick talked about "what his cat did today". You're right - it's about rumors. You're wrong - it's not a weblog just because it's published serially.
I refer you to the excellent "If The New York Times Jumped Off a Bridge" for good parallells between journalism and Think Secret's material.
Well, *yes* the rumors have been around for a while. The big whoop is that there's relatively conclusive proof *in Apple's own software* this time.
It would burn *through* your lap. I hope you like watching your bones in exploded view.
Can you say "I would see it as less annoying being advertised at with relevant and interesting ads while seeing personally relevant and interesting news"?
XMLHTTPRequest support took an even longer time to come to Opera. I forgive them, since it's not a de jure standard but a de facto one, but you might want to consider that. It's true that Maps used iframe loading from the beginning, though, and I have no idea why it wasn't supported from the beginning. As a developer, I know that Javascript support in Opera can be finicky. I can catch up arrow presses in a text field with onkeyup but not down arrow, for example, and I think even Google Suggest has to work around this with global key event handlers. I think Opera's extensive key shortcut system is to blame for this in one way or another.
I think he was referring to the drag and drop reordering aspect - which didn't debute in Google News at all, by the way. I've seen it as early as TypePad, which will soon be two years old, and I'll be very, very surprised if it didn't exist before that in other incarnations.
If these guys are even serious to begin with, they should stop demanding people's heads for things like *one broken HTML tag* in a story by CmdrTaco. He's posted how many hundreds of stories here now? Unless the creators of that site never *once* misspelled something during development and maintenance of their site, it's not only completely irrelevant badmouthing but downright hypocrisy.
Is publishing on paper journalism?
"Blogging" has developed into a beast. I'm not talking about "weblogging", but "blogging". Everyone's trying to put the stamp "blogging" on anything that's serially published and has an author. What's left? Pretty much static pages and company web sites. Weblogging, at its core, is little more than del.icio.us-like rundowns of nifty links and commentary around them. "Blogging" used to mean "weblogging". As the term "blogging" grew more popular, it seemed to lead to "blogs" having more and more material unrelated to actual "weblogging". "Blogging" is now just a buzzword that can be applied to everything published serially.
What Think Secret are doing is editorial reporting. I qualify editorial reporting as journalism. I don't qualify weblogging as being journalism. And as I've already said, "blogging" is just a label of a certain way to run a web site. Asking if that's journalism is like asking if publishing on paper is journalism.
And these ways to prevent stuff like AutoLink are also dumb.
How many of you use bookmarklets/favelets? Mozilla/Firefox extensions? Opera's web designer things? User-defined stylesheets? Would you like them to cease functioning just because the author didn't want you to be able to muck with the content or the presentation locally? Doing that is the stupidest thing since the scripts that go out of their way to prohibit me from viewing source - if I'm viewing it, I have it saved as a file in cache (or at least in a location in memory). I can get at it.
I'm doing absolutely nothing wrong when I'm trying to view source, or manipulate the temporary image of the downloaded copy of your original web site, because it's my right as a user to make sure I can read the content I have access to comfortably. It's when I'm trying to change your content at the server that you should be worried.
Who asked for your shit-encrusted opinion, you egocentric and conceited cunt? :P
The people who were doing good radio shows on the web were doing them before anyway, and far more people have web browsers than have any sort of RSS vehicles. Everything Podcasting does is make it easier to download and automatically send it to your portable music player so that you might actually stumble upon it for a while. It's important to not downplay that it's a lot more convenient, but the medium was already far enough along to have relatively stable users - you will get very few absolute newbies who on a whim download an RSS vehicle tailored for podcasting and starts listening to random people on the web.