Evernote has a pretty slick web interface that is built with the Google Web Toolkit. I was positively surprised by its snappiness. Finding out it was GWT was sort of an "ah, but of course" experience.
Yahoo! accounts haven't been OpenIDs for very long, yet. It's all just getting started and OpenID is slowly gaining traction, so my point remains that it will become (note the future tense) an issue.
You can find out more here: http://openid.yahoo.com/
What's more, Yahoo! threatened Feldman with the termination of all of his Yahoo! services including the revocation of his Yahoo ID.
That's a slightly larger problem than it may seem at first. A Yahoo ID as at the same time an OpenID. People using that account as an OpenID are subject to the whims of Yahoo. I'm not yet sure of the implications this bears, but it will become a problem when people become more reliant on OpenID.
Please do not confuse your own apparent inability to think outside of your numbers and "test results" with a holistic conclusion on art.
One man's trash is another man's treasure. Just because it does not fit your world view does not make it "rubbish". A little humility would come a long way; I'm afraid like this you just come off as arrogant and ignorant.
We all heard about the MySpace vulnerability that allowed everyone to access pictures that have been set to private at MySpace. That vulnerability got closed down pretty fast.
No it didn't. MySpace let this thing go on for months. From TFA:
The MySpace hole surfaced last fall, and it was quickly seized upon by the self-described pedophiles and ordinary voyeurs who used it, among other things, to target 14- and 15-year-old users who'd caught their eye online. A YouTube video showed how to use the bug to retrieve private profile photos. The bug also spawned a number of ad-supported sites that made it easy to retrieve photos. One such site reported more than 77,000 queries before MySpace closed the hole last Friday following Wired News' report.
The irony (and scandal) is that they not only failed to uphold their privacy policy despite being in the public spotlight over the last 2 years precisely for privacy issues, but that they didn't bother to acknowledge or fix this bug until a high traffic site reported on it.
The "standards accepted by the Web-authoring communities" today are pretty much "Code everything for IE6. If there's free time after that's done and the pub isn't open yet, test in Firefox"...
That's not true. Common good practice is "code a solid base for standards compliant browsers and add unobtrusive IE fixes later". I've been working like that for the past 4 years and I can't recall meeting any other web designers that do otherwise. Maybe I am just lucky to work in a web agency that cares, though my general impression is that this has (finally) become a standard, and some of our clients (especially the large corporations) have started to request that full Firefox compatibility be part of the project plan -- just 2-3 years ago we had to convince them of the necessity.
That said, yes, Microsoft needs to clean up its act concerning W3C standards. IE7 was a step in that direction (as it also helped phase out quite a bit of old quirky IE5.5 installations), but far from done (hasLayout problems still persist). According to Bill Gates "there will be disclosure by MIX08" concerning IE8.
I already do that to test in multiple Firefox versions simultaneously. But yeah, you're right, I will definitely set up multiple profiles on my default Firefox and see how that goes. I just wish it weren't necessary.
That's quite a lot of assumptions you got there based on my post. I write websites based on clean XHTML and CSS that use semantic markup and relative font sizes that scale in every browser. I avoid Javascript and Flash as much as I can. I don't have any "crap on my websites" as you put it, but thanks for asking.
I installed the Firefox 3 beta today as well and was positively surprised to see everything react much snappier than my current Firefox. AJAX-laden sites like GMail, Netvibes and Digg comments didn't have the usual effect of slowing down the browser to a creeping halt as they do to Firefox 2. If this holds up then I can't wait for the final release.
But, and there's always a but: every fresh Firefox installation feels snappy. 2.0 did, and 1.0 did as well. It's always been like that, sort of like a fresh install of Windows. It's when you start installing extensions that it goes downhill, and as a web designer I need quite a few extensions. What I am waiting to see is how Firefox 3 will play along with those. I don't think the author of TFA considered that factor.
From the engadget article mentioned in the summary:
The unlock process took only a couple of minutes. From our end it was totally painless.
Remember it's a simple software patch. That doesn't sound like much inconvenience. Put a nice, simple UI on it and there's nothing left preventing the "simple folk" from "hacking" their iPhones.
Actually, from what I understand, AT&T themselves did a terrible job at activating iPhones during the launch. Still no problems selling, apparently.
If you need more than 20 levels of undo, and I'm not denying that you do, but if you find yourself in that position, it is a red flag that you may be misusing the software. You should be asking yourself, "Why do I need so many levels of undo? What am I doing wrong?"
Actually, I come across this problem every time I have a freshly installed Photoshop and forget to up the undos. The moment you're doing anything with a brush of sorts (clone brush, paint brush, whatever), every little click produces an undo step. And as I mentioned above, simple things like "select" and "deselect" are saved in the history palette as well. E.g. if I select something and realize my selection is wrong, I don't do an undo, I just click some random spot to deselect and then make a new selection. No "red flag" going up there, just a quicker workflow. So yeah, 20 is far from enough.
Not entirely. Photoshop not only adds pixel state changes to the history palette, but also simple things like "select" and "deselect", guide positions, as well as text edits (which are vector based changes). Caching pixels would be pointless and unnecessarily memory-intensive at these points. They're so simple and quick there is no reason not to redo these steps in realtime instead of caching pixels. This information is relevant as any of these steps take away from the default 20 history states.
When Photoshop saves pixel changes, I presume it only caches those portions of the image that actually change, and for each new step it "patches" together a final image. I can't confirm this, however, as I didn't find any info. Sounds sensible however, and AFAIK Apple is planning to introduce exactly this concept to their new "time machine" feature in the next OSX.
If anyone has a link on Photoshop history handling, would be great if you could pass that on.
Undo is limited to ridiculously low number of operations
For everything CS2 and previous: Edit -> Preferences -> Set "History States" up to 1000.
For CS3: Edit -> Preferences -> Performace -> Set "History States" up to 1000.
That enough undos for you?
Why the default setting is only 20, I don't know; I guess for performance reasons.
As for your other objections, I can't relate. I'm not a programmer, I'm a designer. As with every professional application there is a learning curve. Once you have that out of the way, Photoshop is excellent and the industry standard for a very good reason.
From a practical standpoint: The OS was designed with ease of use in mind. From the demos I've seen, it does exactly what it's supposed to. Windows and all the other major operating systems are intended for general use, with loads of hardware and software to support, and as such have a huge array of things the OLPC devices will rarely need.
From an idealistic standpoint: I think it's great to provide the kids with a neutral OSS system tailored to the laptop, where they can decide for themselves later on which OS they will use. The point of the project is to provide EVERY child with a laptop. Hooking every child to a certain, commercial OS from the youngest years onward is not something a government should be doing. The kids will learn Windows, OSX and whatnot soon enough, as you did too. Not necessary at this stage, which is about giving children access to technology, not preparing them for cubicles.
Vendors have time to submit their machines including documentation and source code until July 1st or face severe restrictions, including decertification, for the 2008 elections.
How will the state ensure that these machines will be identical to those used on election day? Will random voting machines be checked with similar precision during the elections, or what guarantee do we have that these machines will not have been tampered with through "enhanced" source code? I had a glimpse at the FAQ but could not find any information on this, perhaps someone has some pointers?
For this same reason, Consumer Reports and other reviewers buy products anonymously from stores instead of receiving them from vendors, due to previous cases in which the process (such as that intended with the voting machine review) has been taken advantage of.
People may want to stop and think for a moment. It's not all black and white.
A user on YouTube has created some commentary that has to be the most intelligent thing I've heard on the situation up until now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnz7lwh0pCM
Re:I've Seen Worse Than that Even....
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
That's some heavy porn you're into.
Evernote has a pretty slick web interface that is built with the Google Web Toolkit. I was positively surprised by its snappiness. Finding out it was GWT was sort of an "ah, but of course" experience.
Yahoo! accounts haven't been OpenIDs for very long, yet. It's all just getting started and OpenID is slowly gaining traction, so my point remains that it will become (note the future tense) an issue. You can find out more here: http://openid.yahoo.com/
That's a slightly larger problem than it may seem at first. A Yahoo ID as at the same time an OpenID. People using that account as an OpenID are subject to the whims of Yahoo. I'm not yet sure of the implications this bears, but it will become a problem when people become more reliant on OpenID.
Please do not confuse your own apparent inability to think outside of your numbers and "test results" with a holistic conclusion on art.
One man's trash is another man's treasure. Just because it does not fit your world view does not make it "rubbish". A little humility would come a long way; I'm afraid like this you just come off as arrogant and ignorant.
No it didn't. MySpace let this thing go on for months. From TFA:
The irony (and scandal) is that they not only failed to uphold their privacy policy despite being in the public spotlight over the last 2 years precisely for privacy issues, but that they didn't bother to acknowledge or fix this bug until a high traffic site reported on it.
That's not true. Common good practice is "code a solid base for standards compliant browsers and add unobtrusive IE fixes later". I've been working like that for the past 4 years and I can't recall meeting any other web designers that do otherwise. Maybe I am just lucky to work in a web agency that cares, though my general impression is that this has (finally) become a standard, and some of our clients (especially the large corporations) have started to request that full Firefox compatibility be part of the project plan -- just 2-3 years ago we had to convince them of the necessity.
That said, yes, Microsoft needs to clean up its act concerning W3C standards. IE7 was a step in that direction (as it also helped phase out quite a bit of old quirky IE5.5 installations), but far from done (hasLayout problems still persist). According to Bill Gates "there will be disclosure by MIX08" concerning IE8.
I already do that to test in multiple Firefox versions simultaneously. But yeah, you're right, I will definitely set up multiple profiles on my default Firefox and see how that goes. I just wish it weren't necessary.
That's quite a lot of assumptions you got there based on my post. I write websites based on clean XHTML and CSS that use semantic markup and relative font sizes that scale in every browser. I avoid Javascript and Flash as much as I can. I don't have any "crap on my websites" as you put it, but thanks for asking.
I installed the Firefox 3 beta today as well and was positively surprised to see everything react much snappier than my current Firefox. AJAX-laden sites like GMail, Netvibes and Digg comments didn't have the usual effect of slowing down the browser to a creeping halt as they do to Firefox 2. If this holds up then I can't wait for the final release.
But, and there's always a but: every fresh Firefox installation feels snappy. 2.0 did, and 1.0 did as well. It's always been like that, sort of like a fresh install of Windows. It's when you start installing extensions that it goes downhill, and as a web designer I need quite a few extensions. What I am waiting to see is how Firefox 3 will play along with those. I don't think the author of TFA considered that factor.
I can see it now... a big, fat heatsink sticking out of the side of my head, with a frikkin' laser attached to it!
Oh, glee!
That wouldn't remedy anything, it would just make the user database bloat up with fake accounts.
From the engadget article mentioned in the summary:
Remember it's a simple software patch. That doesn't sound like much inconvenience. Put a nice, simple UI on it and there's nothing left preventing the "simple folk" from "hacking" their iPhones.
Actually, from what I understand, AT&T themselves did a terrible job at activating iPhones during the launch. Still no problems selling, apparently.
I, for one, welcome our new mutant bacteria soap overlords.
CTRL+W works fine for me when trying it in IE. In Firefox, the popup doesn't even initialize.
Nobody except for Fake Steve Jobs, that is.
;)
I guess that's why he never said:
You could have read the whole paragraph instead, you know.
If you're against censorship and propaganda, at least have the decency not to perform it yourself by twisting the words.
Not entirely. Photoshop not only adds pixel state changes to the history palette, but also simple things like "select" and "deselect", guide positions, as well as text edits (which are vector based changes). Caching pixels would be pointless and unnecessarily memory-intensive at these points. They're so simple and quick there is no reason not to redo these steps in realtime instead of caching pixels. This information is relevant as any of these steps take away from the default 20 history states.
When Photoshop saves pixel changes, I presume it only caches those portions of the image that actually change, and for each new step it "patches" together a final image. I can't confirm this, however, as I didn't find any info. Sounds sensible however, and AFAIK Apple is planning to introduce exactly this concept to their new "time machine" feature in the next OSX.
If anyone has a link on Photoshop history handling, would be great if you could pass that on.
For everything CS2 and previous:
Edit -> Preferences -> Set "History States" up to 1000.
For CS3:
Edit -> Preferences -> Performace -> Set "History States" up to 1000.
That enough undos for you?
Why the default setting is only 20, I don't know; I guess for performance reasons.
As for your other objections, I can't relate. I'm not a programmer, I'm a designer.
As with every professional application there is a learning curve. Once you have that out of the way, Photoshop is excellent and the industry standard for a very good reason.
From a practical standpoint: The OS was designed with ease of use in mind. From the demos I've seen, it does exactly what it's supposed to. Windows and all the other major operating systems are intended for general use, with loads of hardware and software to support, and as such have a huge array of things the OLPC devices will rarely need.
From an idealistic standpoint: I think it's great to provide the kids with a neutral OSS system tailored to the laptop, where they can decide for themselves later on which OS they will use. The point of the project is to provide EVERY child with a laptop. Hooking every child to a certain, commercial OS from the youngest years onward is not something a government should be doing. The kids will learn Windows, OSX and whatnot soon enough, as you did too. Not necessary at this stage, which is about giving children access to technology, not preparing them for cubicles.
How will the state ensure that these machines will be identical to those used on election day? Will random voting machines be checked with similar precision during the elections, or what guarantee do we have that these machines will not have been tampered with through "enhanced" source code? I had a glimpse at the FAQ but could not find any information on this, perhaps someone has some pointers?
For this same reason, Consumer Reports and other reviewers buy products anonymously from stores instead of receiving them from vendors, due to previous cases in which the process (such as that intended with the voting machine review) has been taken advantage of.
People may want to stop and think for a moment. It's not all black and white.
A user on YouTube has created some commentary that has to be the most intelligent thing I've heard on the situation up until now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnz7lwh0pCM
Exactly what I was thinking. :)