Look, you don't need to read a damn page about Wikipedia's definition of vandalism to know you're doing it. If you're doing it to fuck up the page, you know you're vandalising it. Conversely, even replacing a blanking a page with COCK repeated eleventy times wouldn't be vandalism according to Wikipedia provided you honestly thought you were improving the encyclopaedia by doing so.
Now, you ask me what my point was that it take resources to control vandalism on the Wikipedia. I would have thought it was pretty obviously a rebuttal of you notion that no damage is done.
You say there is no damage because vandalism can be reverted. I say, sure, but a wall can be repainted, so is graffiti not vandalism? Yes, it it's harder to repaint a wall than revert a wikipedia article, but as I said, this is balanced by the rate with which the pages are vandalised.
I don't see why the fact that this is done by volunteers makes any difference. Let's say a charity builds a school, using volunteer labor--does that make it okay to smash the windows? Hell no!
You have failed to provide any argument as to why the resources spent reverting Wikipedia vandalism have lesser weight than resources spent fixing physical vandalism.
(Let me just say that the end here that I think vandalising the Wikipedia is not a terrible crime or anything, it akin to littering or something like that. A bit dickish, but most of us have done it, and we might expect to be called on it if caught.)
What is destructive to Wikipedia? What if they defined that as someone posting things that they did not like?
No, Wikipedia hasa page defining it, but the simplest definition would be edits made in bad faith. You don't have to know about their policies to know when you're doing it.
The ease of reversion is somewhat outweighed by the ease of vandalising in the first place. A significant portion of resources goes into vandalism-control on the Wikipedia. What this means we do do about it, I don't know, but I don't think "it's ion a computer, therefore it's completely different" is the right tack to take.
I know this is stupid nitpicking, but you shouldn't put a space before question marks (or, indeed any end punctuation). It reads like: sentence *pause* (that was a question!).
You know Safari on iOS has tabbed browsing don't you?
As for your N900 running everything just fine, that's not my experience, but maybe we have different thresholds of "just fine" (which is also fine, because we all have a choice here, right?).
My C2D slows when I have a bunch of Flash stuff open, and cannot play a flash video without blips. Adobe's shit implementation of Flash for Mac? Maybe. Possible scheduler issues in OS X? Maybe, I don't know, but I don't want my Mobile device trying to chug through all that.
The iPhone crippled browser experience? Look, I don't think people who bitch about this sort of thing have actually used the iOS Safari. Safari for iOS is not crippled, it's naturally somewhat limited by the sort of hardware it runs on, but it's still a fully functional browser of the open web.
It's clear that web pages are pushing the limits of what a mobile device can render. Allowing Flash and true multitasking in the web browser would lead to a barely functioning device. The web, with flash and multitasking, causes stutters and slowdowns on my C2D 2.8GHz, I do not want my iPod trying to render all that shit (especially if it's in the background where I can't see it anyway!).
There's no link visible right under the download button for me in Firefox, Safari, or Chrome. Viewing the source reveals that there is a link there, but it's set to style='display:none'. Nice!
(Yes, I have Javascript, Flash, and every other normal service turned on; I don't have adblock in Safari or Chrome.)
I am not objecting to having an introductory video. Sometimes they can be great, especially if I'm really unfamiliar with the type of software I'm considering. I was objecting to having a website so poorly laid out that it isn't even obvious that the introductory video is the introductory video (its title is "Over half a million views!"--WTF?), and no other means of getting a quick overview of features.
I don't go to "Support" to find this stuff, that's for when I'm already using it.
Look, I don't get what you're objecting to, except to be contrarian. Adding a "Learn More" link, straight after their "Built for Facebook and Twitter. Stay Connected." tagline wouldn't have hurt the design even a tiny bit.
The video's title is "Over half a million views!". Forgive me for not immediately clocking that was the main way of knowing what the hell Flock actually does. It's also in the footer, not the splash box or the main navigation. I can not imagine what's going through the heads of the designers of that site.
Introductory videos being your main introduction are a stupid idea, not because of esoteric technical/philosophical reasons (I have and use Flash! I even use Facebook, and Flash in Facebook). They're a stupid way of going about things because they expected to make noise. A lot of people are often already listening to music, or in a room with someone that is listening to music/watching television/having a conversation, and would rather not be interrupted by some stupid video that is done better with pictures and text.
It's not like this is rocket science. Virtually all the major browsers make a damn feature of their features:
All these took literally split seconds to locate on the page. The Flock page is a mess.
P.S. I used to use Flock, so I was idly curious about what it does nowadays. I couldn't be bothered tracking that down on their convoluted so I left. Nice going designers!
Yeah, I saw that, dickwad. What does that mean? How do I find out what that means without downloading and installing software? Flock's web page is spectacularly unhelpful when it comes to these basic (and I would think very common) questions.
Seriously, their website doesn't seem to include an overview of the browser's features. That's just stupidity.
Well, maybe it's because Flock doesn't actually say what it fucking well does on its damn website. People, when making software, try to say what it does on the front page, or with a prominent link. Screenshots are a must. It flabbergasts me that the people at Flock could get this so colossally wrong.
Since the whole point seems to be Facebook and Twitter integration into the interface, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that they aren't targeting the tin-foil hat brigade.
Actually, I think you'll find the Slashdot resentment of the ISS is borne out dashed childhood dreams of star-trekking across the universe, and current dreams of being randian giants, if only the damn government would get off their backs--stupid government, stealing all their precious research money!
Yeah, it's the fact that they changed the interface completely, they did it well, and they did it at the right time (just as mobile processing was getting good enough and cheap enough). Microsoft's had several aborted attempts, with varying degrees of interface quality, and all at the wrong time.
Of course Apple did release the Newton, too early and with the wrong interface, but they didn't keep doing it like Microsoft did.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, you don't need to read a damn page about Wikipedia's definition of vandalism to know you're doing it. If you're doing it to fuck up the page, you know you're vandalising it. Conversely, even replacing a blanking a page with COCK repeated eleventy times wouldn't be vandalism according to Wikipedia provided you honestly thought you were improving the encyclopaedia by doing so.
Now, you ask me what my point was that it take resources to control vandalism on the Wikipedia. I would have thought it was pretty obviously a rebuttal of you notion that no damage is done.
You say there is no damage because vandalism can be reverted. I say, sure, but a wall can be repainted, so is graffiti not vandalism? Yes, it it's harder to repaint a wall than revert a wikipedia article, but as I said, this is balanced by the rate with which the pages are vandalised.
I don't see why the fact that this is done by volunteers makes any difference. Let's say a charity builds a school, using volunteer labor--does that make it okay to smash the windows? Hell no!
You have failed to provide any argument as to why the resources spent reverting Wikipedia vandalism have lesser weight than resources spent fixing physical vandalism.
(Let me just say that the end here that I think vandalising the Wikipedia is not a terrible crime or anything, it akin to littering or something like that. A bit dickish, but most of us have done it, and we might expect to be called on it if caught.)
What is destructive to Wikipedia? What if they defined that as someone posting things that they did not like?
No, Wikipedia hasa page defining it, but the simplest definition would be edits made in bad faith. You don't have to know about their policies to know when you're doing it.
The ease of reversion is somewhat outweighed by the ease of vandalising in the first place. A significant portion of resources goes into vandalism-control on the Wikipedia. What this means we do do about it, I don't know, but I don't think "it's ion a computer, therefore it's completely different" is the right tack to take.
...and .co.ck
(Cook Islands, really, look it up!)
I know this is stupid nitpicking, but you shouldn't put a space before question marks (or, indeed any end punctuation). It reads like: sentence *pause* (that was a question!).
What's a "Zune"?
You know Safari on iOS has tabbed browsing don't you?
As for your N900 running everything just fine, that's not my experience, but maybe we have different thresholds of "just fine" (which is also fine, because we all have a choice here, right?).
My C2D slows when I have a bunch of Flash stuff open, and cannot play a flash video without blips. Adobe's shit implementation of Flash for Mac? Maybe. Possible scheduler issues in OS X? Maybe, I don't know, but I don't want my Mobile device trying to chug through all that.
The iPhone crippled browser experience? Look, I don't think people who bitch about this sort of thing have actually used the iOS Safari. Safari for iOS is not crippled, it's naturally somewhat limited by the sort of hardware it runs on, but it's still a fully functional browser of the open web.
It's clear that web pages are pushing the limits of what a mobile device can render. Allowing Flash and true multitasking in the web browser would lead to a barely functioning device. The web, with flash and multitasking, causes stutters and slowdowns on my C2D 2.8GHz, I do not want my iPod trying to render all that shit (especially if it's in the background where I can't see it anyway!).
There's no link visible right under the download button for me in Firefox, Safari, or Chrome. Viewing the source reveals that there is a link there, but it's set to style='display:none'. Nice!
(Yes, I have Javascript, Flash, and every other normal service turned on; I don't have adblock in Safari or Chrome.)
I am not objecting to having an introductory video. Sometimes they can be great, especially if I'm really unfamiliar with the type of software I'm considering. I was objecting to having a website so poorly laid out that it isn't even obvious that the introductory video is the introductory video (its title is "Over half a million views!"--WTF?), and no other means of getting a quick overview of features.
I don't go to "Support" to find this stuff, that's for when I'm already using it.
Look, I don't get what you're objecting to, except to be contrarian. Adding a "Learn More" link, straight after their "Built for Facebook and Twitter. Stay Connected." tagline wouldn't have hurt the design even a tiny bit.
The video's title is "Over half a million views!". Forgive me for not immediately clocking that was the main way of knowing what the hell Flock actually does. It's also in the footer, not the splash box or the main navigation. I can not imagine what's going through the heads of the designers of that site.
Introductory videos being your main introduction are a stupid idea, not because of esoteric technical/philosophical reasons (I have and use Flash! I even use Facebook, and Flash in Facebook). They're a stupid way of going about things because they expected to make noise. A lot of people are often already listening to music, or in a room with someone that is listening to music/watching television/having a conversation, and would rather not be interrupted by some stupid video that is done better with pictures and text.
It's not like this is rocket science. Virtually all the major browsers make a damn feature of their features:
Opera has a link to this right in its splash box:
http://www.opera.com/browser/
and Firefox this:
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/features/
Chrome has this:
http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en-GB/more/index.html
Even IE has this:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/features/faster.aspx
All these took literally split seconds to locate on the page. The Flock page is a mess.
P.S. I used to use Flock, so I was idly curious about what it does nowadays. I couldn't be bothered tracking that down on their convoluted so I left. Nice going designers!
No man that's not even close to the sort of thing I'm talking about. The clue is in the name: "User Guide". I'm not a user, should I be?
Why are you defending this obviously stupid design decision? Do you make websites like this? If you do, please stop.
Yeah, I saw that, dickwad. What does that mean? How do I find out what that means without downloading and installing software? Flock's web page is spectacularly unhelpful when it comes to these basic (and I would think very common) questions.
Seriously, their website doesn't seem to include an overview of the browser's features. That's just stupidity.
Well, maybe it's because Flock doesn't actually say what it fucking well does on its damn website. People, when making software, try to say what it does on the front page, or with a prominent link. Screenshots are a must. It flabbergasts me that the people at Flock could get this so colossally wrong.
OMG I have some great social web 3.0 synergies you can leverage with Rate My Poo integration! I call the patent!
Since the whole point seems to be Facebook and Twitter integration into the interface, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that they aren't targeting the tin-foil hat brigade.
Thanks Captain Obvious!
Statistics motherfucker, do you understand them?
You mean like this?
Actually, I think you'll find the Slashdot resentment of the ISS is borne out dashed childhood dreams of star-trekking across the universe, and current dreams of being randian giants, if only the damn government would get off their backs--stupid government, stealing all their precious research money!
It's a BETA dude. If you want something stable without killer bugs, use a release version.
Yeah, it's the fact that they changed the interface completely, they did it well, and they did it at the right time (just as mobile processing was getting good enough and cheap enough). Microsoft's had several aborted attempts, with varying degrees of interface quality, and all at the wrong time.
Of course Apple did release the Newton, too early and with the wrong interface, but they didn't keep doing it like Microsoft did.
In before everyone else: there is no such word as 'virii'.
... purple monkey dishwasher.
I sure would like to see something like a 28 inch screen with a resolution of 2880x1620 or 2880x1800.
Err, you aim too low! 27" LCDs from Dell, Apple, NEC all have a resolution of 2560x1440, which isn't far off the DPI of a 28" 2880x1620...