I asked myself the same question (though probably in a different tone)... the device seems cool, but I have to wonder "why?"
Does anyone here see a future where every person has a PDA-type device, uses it for all kinds of communications, storage and features (entertainment)? I remember sci-fi stories that had these types of devices, but a lot of them were more like avatars or "digital companions."
With the slew of PDAs (I have an Axim) and "feature"-loaded cell phones, plus digital media players and whatnot... is this our future? All-in-one?
From the article: If you haven't yet heard of social networking, stay tuned because it's the Next Big Thing.
Really? Every time some site (MSN, in this case) or article tells you that such-and-such is the "Next Big Thing," ask yourself what they might have to gain...
No, you should never develop for only a single browser - you should develop for all browsers (using standards). Then, if the standards don't let you do something you want but IE does, you do that for the IE folks.
A good example is collapsible DIVs. Make a div hidden, and the DIVs below it will:
IE: Move up/down to account for the space difference
Standards: Stay there - the hidden div above it still takes up space even if it's hidden.
This is a pain - I have lots of applications that would benefit from the ability to collapse a page is a DIV is hidden. It's great - pseudo-dropdowns, hierarchical menus, etc. To get that to happen within the "standards" you have some screwy programming to mess with. In IE, it's quick and easy. That doesn't mean that non-IE folks can't use the page - they just get a little different functionality, interface, whatever.
If you're going to play to the lowest common denominator and sacrifice features, functionality, usability, etc. then maybe you're the only holding the Web back.
That's exactly the way to do it... in the event that your code doesn't work exactly right (or you want to do something that IE can but Mozilla can't) then you adjust accordingly.
BTW, I've had a lot of problems with IE and View Source.
You can develop for both.. my point is that sometimes you come down to a choice between having something (IE only) or not (everything else). In those cases, I do what I can to make sure that the "everything else" will work and display. Then, the IE version (usually Windows only) gets the full functionality. It's not right - but it's reality.
Your numbers add up to about 80% of all users. Are you saying that 20% of your visits are bots and scripts? Remove those scripts (they don't count - they're not browser visits) and recalculate.
No, they don't agree. I enjoy a good looking site. Not only do such sites (as you describe) usually look boring, but they tend to lack rich functionality. I want a site that is usable, rich in content, functionality and looks good. You can do that and still support other browsers, but if it's a choice between supporting some random browser or having a great site - then screw the random browser.
Mozilla makes a hell of an effort to meet W3C recommendations, and support the "standards." IE, however, does not follow these nearly as well. There are a lot of things that IE support but others don't (or vice-versa).
When was the last time Mozilla had a 90%+ market share.
I use Mozilla, Firefox, and Thunderbird too - they're my favorites. But I can't build for Mozilla. I have to build for IE. My clients use IE, the visitors use IE and that makes it the standard (even though it doesn't follow the "standards").
It's an uphill battle, I'm afraid. That said, I'll be downloading this new version ASAP.
Note the quotes around "generation" - because it's not a person-to-person generation, but an entire era of interests. Almost everyone I know that grew up in the fifties and sixties tells stories of "working on their car." I know very few people that still do this - partly because cars are much more difficult to work on yourself, and partly because people are spending that time working on their computers.
I know I used the word loosely... at least I know what I meant!:)
This has been around for years. Another fine example of the media being slow.
LivePerson is one such service - we use it on several of our sites, and I've seen similar programs being used on probably a hundred other sites.
For regular customer support (a healthcare company, for example) it's very useful. Customers are impressed and on one of those sites, almost every person that starts the conversation (via a "Live Help" link on the navigation) ends up being a customer.
I've never seen a "chatbot" used for this. I'm not surpised that some do, but our sites are 100% people. Expensive, but we've seen that it's worth it.
The problem with paper and pen is not the paper or the pen - it's the person that reads what you wrote (interpreting your choice if you didn't make it clear or legible enough) and then counts them up (also error-prone).
The human factor is the problem... from the design of the system (I couldn't tell how to vote for so and so) to the tallying of the results (were they picking Bush or Kerry... I dunno, I'll just pick for them). It's extreme, but it's also the major source of the problem.
They're hanging chads? Good thing my name's not Chad.
"Using a good pair of binoculars, the object will be bright enough to be seen during this close approach from areas of Europe, Asia and most of the Southern Hemisphere."
I remember reading about NASA's (and others') ability to detect these in advance... apparently this science has improved immensely over the last ten years.
But you do bring up a good point - if this object would have hit Earth, would it have burnt up, or would something dangerous remain?
Much smaller items hit Earth all the time - they don't get burnt up completely. Of course, many end up the size of maybe pebbles or baseballs...
Michael must have come from the future, with his Windows XP 2004 and currently non-existant hardware! I bet you could haggle with him and get next year's Super Bowl winner, too.
If we're going to look at Mars, leave no questions or doubts. Spend the money, answer the questions and come back satisfied that there IS/WAS life or that there ISN'T/WASN'T. Don't leave it up for debate. We'll only end up sending more missions and spending more money.
Is there good evidence for Europa? Maybe. The article doesn't really describe any. It sounds like a hunch, and that's not a good investment. How much money are you willing to toss at a moon of Jupiter in order to answer the question of life on other planets? Is there another way of examining that question before we send a probe?
Slashdot Mirror
I asked myself the same question (though probably in a different tone)... the device seems cool, but I have to wonder "why?"
Does anyone here see a future where every person has a PDA-type device, uses it for all kinds of communications, storage and features (entertainment)? I remember sci-fi stories that had these types of devices, but a lot of them were more like avatars or "digital companions."
With the slew of PDAs (I have an Axim) and "feature"-loaded cell phones, plus digital media players and whatnot... is this our future? All-in-one?
From the article: If you haven't yet heard of social networking, stay tuned because it's the Next Big Thing.
Really? Every time some site (MSN, in this case) or article tells you that such-and-such is the "Next Big Thing," ask yourself what they might have to gain...
No, you should never develop for only a single browser - you should develop for all browsers (using standards). Then, if the standards don't let you do something you want but IE does, you do that for the IE folks.
A good example is collapsible DIVs. Make a div hidden, and the DIVs below it will:
IE: Move up/down to account for the space difference
Standards: Stay there - the hidden div above it still takes up space even if it's hidden.
This is a pain - I have lots of applications that would benefit from the ability to collapse a page is a DIV is hidden. It's great - pseudo-dropdowns, hierarchical menus, etc. To get that to happen within the "standards" you have some screwy programming to mess with. In IE, it's quick and easy. That doesn't mean that non-IE folks can't use the page - they just get a little different functionality, interface, whatever.
If you're going to play to the lowest common denominator and sacrifice features, functionality, usability, etc. then maybe you're the only holding the Web back.
That's exactly the way to do it... in the event that your code doesn't work exactly right (or you want to do something that IE can but Mozilla can't) then you adjust accordingly.
BTW, I've had a lot of problems with IE and View Source.
You can develop for both.. my point is that sometimes you come down to a choice between having something (IE only) or not (everything else). In those cases, I do what I can to make sure that the "everything else" will work and display. Then, the IE version (usually Windows only) gets the full functionality. It's not right - but it's reality.
Your numbers add up to about 80% of all users. Are you saying that 20% of your visits are bots and scripts? Remove those scripts (they don't count - they're not browser visits) and recalculate.
For most of our sites, IE has a 99% share.
No, they don't agree. I enjoy a good looking site. Not only do such sites (as you describe) usually look boring, but they tend to lack rich functionality. I want a site that is usable, rich in content, functionality and looks good. You can do that and still support other browsers, but if it's a choice between supporting some random browser or having a great site - then screw the random browser.
Mozilla makes a hell of an effort to meet W3C recommendations, and support the "standards." IE, however, does not follow these nearly as well. There are a lot of things that IE support but others don't (or vice-versa).
The Mozilla Forums are full of these examples.
When was the last time Mozilla had a 90%+ market share.
I use Mozilla, Firefox, and Thunderbird too - they're my favorites. But I can't build for Mozilla. I have to build for IE. My clients use IE, the visitors use IE and that makes it the standard (even though it doesn't follow the "standards").
It's an uphill battle, I'm afraid. That said, I'll be downloading this new version ASAP.
Note the quotes around "generation" - because it's not a person-to-person generation, but an entire era of interests. Almost everyone I know that grew up in the fifties and sixties tells stories of "working on their car." I know very few people that still do this - partly because cars are much more difficult to work on yourself, and partly because people are spending that time working on their computers.
:)
I know I used the word loosely... at least I know what I meant!
My dad and I were talking with some friends, and I realized a huge "generation" gap.
They were telling a story about the struggle to drop an engine into a classic muscle car without a lot of room.
My dad and I countered with a story about the problems with seating some RAM in a motherboard without a lot of room.
Computer Geeks - the gearheads of the future.
This has been around for years. Another fine example of the media being slow.
LivePerson is one such service - we use it on several of our sites, and I've seen similar programs being used on probably a hundred other sites.
For regular customer support (a healthcare company, for example) it's very useful. Customers are impressed and on one of those sites, almost every person that starts the conversation (via a "Live Help" link on the navigation) ends up being a customer.
I've never seen a "chatbot" used for this. I'm not surpised that some do, but our sites are 100% people. Expensive, but we've seen that it's worth it.
16,183 or 1,028,000?
I should probably RTFA. Maybe that will make sense.
My post was in response to the parent's suggestion that paper and pen may be the best choices.
A paper and pen system obviously has flaws - as this story and as my points demonstrate.
Do you know anyone who falls into just one of those categories?
If you're not at least a little tinfoil-hat, you're naive and probably not worth doing business with.
Just like I won't buy gas from the station down the street that prints my credit card number, expiration date, and my name on the receipt.
The problem with paper and pen is not the paper or the pen - it's the person that reads what you wrote (interpreting your choice if you didn't make it clear or legible enough) and then counts them up (also error-prone).
The human factor is the problem... from the design of the system (I couldn't tell how to vote for so and so) to the tallying of the results (were they picking Bush or Kerry... I dunno, I'll just pick for them). It's extreme, but it's also the major source of the problem.
They're hanging chads? Good thing my name's not Chad.
Headline in Slashdot 2012:
"More E-voting Problems Everywhere"
I don't see these e-voting problems going away until geeks start running these kinds of companies.
Do these kinds of "asteroid misses Earth" stories make anyone else feel like this is just one big "dunk tank?"
"Using a good pair of binoculars, the object will be bright enough to be seen during this close approach from areas of Europe, Asia and most of the Southern Hemisphere."
Great. Now even the Universe hates America.
I remember reading about NASA's (and others') ability to detect these in advance... apparently this science has improved immensely over the last ten years.
But you do bring up a good point - if this object would have hit Earth, would it have burnt up, or would something dangerous remain?
Much smaller items hit Earth all the time - they don't get burnt up completely. Of course, many end up the size of maybe pebbles or baseballs...
"Have you wondered about how the magic of wireless networks for PC's happens?"
Duh, it's magic...
Wow. There were quite a few search engines before Google, too. There's obviously no way they could do searching any better, so why try?
Do you want to assume that Google can't compete or improve on an existing service or product?
Michael must have come from the future, with his Windows XP 2004 and currently non-existant hardware! I bet you could haggle with him and get next year's Super Bowl winner, too.
Explains why my email account is overloaded with these little bastards.
Your account is overloaded because your mail server sucks. Don't you have a virus scan?
I don't get any virus emails at all. Hmm.
For example:
If we're going to look at Mars, leave no questions or doubts. Spend the money, answer the questions and come back satisfied that there IS/WAS life or that there ISN'T/WASN'T. Don't leave it up for debate. We'll only end up sending more missions and spending more money.
Is there good evidence for Europa? Maybe. The article doesn't really describe any. It sounds like a hunch, and that's not a good investment. How much money are you willing to toss at a moon of Jupiter in order to answer the question of life on other planets? Is there another way of examining that question before we send a probe?