Well...I wouldn't quite say that. It's different - that's for sure. But, I have seen puke on a screen (my roommate, freshman year, came back and got sick in front of his computer) and the Google redesign doesn't look like that.
I'm not normally a person to care too much as long as I have an option
So...that means you must care quite frequently as most websites/software/etc don't give you that much of an option on how THEIR interface looks. And, to be fair, you do have an option - go to a different search engine. Or, don't even use the main Google interface. There are many ways to get the results you are looking for that doesn't actually involve hitting the home Google page.
Much like youtube, where their redesign is personally hated as a facebook rip-off.
I can understand not liking the new layout. Definitely entitled to your own opinion. I haven't particularly warmed up to the new Google look yet. However, you then go to say (and this is why I'm responding at all)...
It's seems that in both cases, the redesigns are universally disliked
"Universally disliked" is a very strong set of words. Do you have proof of this? You mean there is NOBODY who actually likes the changes?
but good ol' google is being evil by not responding to consumer complaints over it. Other than "screw, you."
Now that's just not being fair. Google has to make decisions at times about how THEIR product looks. If you read the blog posts (by Google, as well as by others), Google did quite a bit of acceptance testing and research to determine how to best layout their new site to provide better information, more information, and make it easier to read. You may not like what's up there now, but you should have seen the ones they rejected. Either way, Google is not being evil here...they are running a business and trying to make the views to their search results viable and on the cutting edge. They may even make mistakes while doing that (as I said - I'm not sure what I think about the new design yet), but they are most definitely not being evil here. And I never once heard them say, "screw you." Not once.
They do use them, but not as often as you might think. If you notice the trend in many applications (Office, Chrome, Firefox, and others) is to hide the menus. Menus take up screen real estate. Hiding them lets the REAL information (the web pages) be more visible and reduces scrolling of a web site. For how often people use menus, they are scrolling a lot more on web pages.
I really despise this line of thinking. I deal with it on a daily basis where people will say, "If we use this awesome new technology that can HELP people, we're ALL GOING TO BE OUT OF JOBS@!!!!11111!"
What many people don't realize is that, for each job a technology MIGHT take away, others are created. For example, computers has made the need for personal secretaries to be much less necessary. However, computers have also created millions of more jobs (programmers, hardware designers/builders, computer repair, sales, website designers, etc). Okay, so, yeah, secretaries are bummed out. In addition, usually a technology doesn't completely eradicate a position, but changes it. A secretary now-a-days can run an entire organization and is not "personal" anymore - but he or she should have a good, working knowledge of how to effectively move through a computer system.
With respect to your comment - alright, maybe doctors wouldn't be needed to diagnose illnesses. There is so much more for them to do - research, surgical doctors, radiologists, etc, etc. In addition, this new technology may create an entirely new market for those doctors to thrive in. All the while, this new technology is advancing our healthcare and improving the lives of people using the technology./rant mode off
Umm...quite the opposite. Most of those names you mention are: A. Easy to say, B. Easy to remember, and C. Easy to spell.
Diaspora is most definitely a poor name. It doesn't roll of the tongue nicely, it doesn't "sound" good. Names = Branding and Diaspora sounds like some sort of...well...let's just say it sounds like a combination of the words "die," "ass," and "spore." Not a good combo, IMO.
You are correct. Trade has probably been happening pretty since day one. And I didn't say that the economy is going to disappear anytime soon...so you're arguing against...well...nothing that I said.
All I'm saying is that an economy is really a non-entity. The only reason anything is worth anything is because people say that it is. People give the economy value, and that's about it*. If everybody agreed tomorrow that paper money was just paper, and nothing else, there would be a collapse of the economy as we know it today. Yes, trade would continue, but it would be far different than it is now.
* - Of course, some things have inherent value as they are required to live, such as food.
Hmmm...I think you're putting far too much thought into my response. I was not making a statement on what careers people should choose. I was making a statement (which is based on research, but, I won't be able to find it as I learned it back in the day in college which was quite awhile ago) about what drives people in their careers.
There is nothing within that statement that a career must improve the public good. My criteria isn't "why people SHOULD choose careers" it's "why DO people choose the careers they do." Improving the public good may be something that some people care about, but it's not one of the main three (at least not that I learned about back in the day).
And the criteria applies to what a reasonable person would consider a career choice in the first place.
And, like I said, I think you're putting WAY too much thought into my response.
It may not make sense to you, but you're not everybody else. I agree with you in that I don't think it's worth working at a job that you don't enjoy just for some extra cash. I would rather do what I love. However, not everybody thinks this way and no amount of arguing with me is going to change that. This world is fascinated by money, glamour, and fame. If we weren't, we wouldn't get so excited by people who didn't accomplish much more than be in the right place at the right time. For whatever reason, this is how many people are.
Of course, there are outliers, but you can't argue with the fact that there are millions of people doing jobs that they don't love just because they THINK money will make them happy. It won't, as you and I both know, but that doesn't matter. Perception is reality, and they see rich people as being happier. As you pointed out, that's not the case, but that won't be discovered until it's too late.
What's interesting is that the online boards (websites) weren't able to keep up with the market due to so many people hitting their servers. Even Yahoo and Google Finance couldn't keep up.
Think of what these brilliant people could have done if their abilities were harnessed in the right fields and with the right motivation.
Well, there's your problem right there. There are really three drivers for people to do what they do as a career:
1. Because they love to do it - These individuals will achieve satisfaction from the fact that they have an exciting job in a field that they care about. Passion drives them. Studies have shown (sorry, no citations) that this is the most rewarding reason for a career. 2. Because they are made to do it - These individuals have no choice but to do the job they do. They are forced into it and will only do the most minimal amount of work necessary because they have to. Many menial jobs are like this because the individual has no choice but to get a job to survive. 3. Because they are being rewarded for it - While it's nice to think that everybody would do things for reason #1, most people's jobs do not drive them. It's the idea of being rewarded (namely by money) so they can enjoy other aspects of their life (hobbies, family, travel, etc) that drives them. And, leisure time and "fun" is a powerful driver. Because many of the fields you mention do not provide a great deal of reward (with respect to money) and require a lot of hard work (meaning the achievements are far and few between) many people opt for the path of least resistance. It makes sense, although I don't like it either.
Anyway, this isn't going to change. These problems have been inherent in societies since time began. The Romans dealt with it. The Greeks dealt with it. We're dealing with it. The only, current, difference is - those other two empires eventually fell...
You make it sound like Planet Earth invented the idea of economy. Money, economy, etc. is just human inventions and creations. If everybody decided money was worthless tomorrow, it would collapse in a second.
If the average retirement account has a million bucks for someone to live on for the next 20+ years, you are now down to 900k to live on for the next 20 years. That's a HUGE drop in your style of living that you planned for.
Of course, anybody who is nearing retirement and is still that heavily invested in stocks should have their brain checked anyway. But, that's beside the point.
While I agree with you that substance is very important, it is definitely not always the most important thing (or, at the very least, cannot be separate from how you present). While the content is ultimately what will survive, the presentation of something is what captures the attention, makes people take a second to listen a bit more. Heck, even Apple takes advantage of this with the beautiful designs of their hardware. Usability and presentation matters. And, of course, as Jeff Atwood points out: "Pretty things work better." (Not-so-much as they actually work better, but people give them more leeway and are more prone to their ideas.)
Let me ask you - why do you capitalize, use punctuation, and utilize HTML tags in your Slashdot post? That stuff shouldn't matter if the content is there (at least based on your argument). To some extent, you do the same thing.
That's exactly my point. YouTube *won't* switch to HTML5 completely - at least not yet. Too much of the world is still using browsers that don't support HTML5. While I'm sure Google engineers would love to have to not support Flash, it doesn't make sense for them to just dump it. They want as many eyes as possible on their websites - particularly YouTube. This is, in my opinion, exactly why Flash was integrated in with the Chrome browser. It ensures that every person who uses Chrome will be able to see Flash websites, thus improving the overall web-browsing experience of its users. As Google is a company who is investing heavily into the web (understatement of the year), it is only smart for them to support as many users as possible.
In addition, the integration of Flash also allows Chrome developers to do some neat tricks to better sandbox Flash (as it is a primary source of security issues, followed by Javascript) which further increases the security of the Chrome browser. Of course, one could argue that they could not include Flash at all and really increase the security of their browser, but, see my previous point. Therefore, they are taking a proactive approach and including Flash, but doing it so that security is heightened around it.
Hmmm...I think saying that Flash is "about to die" and that "nobody uses Flash for anything serious" is...well...wrong.
As it stands now, Flash is, by far, the most popular and ubiquitous plug-in in use on the internet. It is used in many different places and can be relied on more than trying to rely on the fact that users will have new, up-to-date browsers. Yes, Apple won't be supporting Flash, and, yes, I hope HTML5 replaces a great deal of Flash (as I can't stand plug-ins). But, in no way is Flash going the way of the dodo anytime soon. Heck, even to get everybody to switch to HTML5 is going to take at least a few years, and probably more.
Once you lose your sight you would crawl through broken glass if it meant you could get your eyesight back.
Maybe. Maybe not. If you are used to your whole life with sight and then lose it, that is probably a true statement. If you lose your sight when you are young, you may find the world to be a very harsh place and may not appreciate or enjoy having your sight. (I'm guessing that's what the article is about that is linked in the summary.)
let me say you must truly be the most bitter, irredeemable, self-righteous, scum-sucking, ignorant, foolish, truculent, and repugnant bastards I have ever had the misfortune of wasting my time reading
That is a venerable dinner plate of adjectives. +1 Internet point for you, sir!
This is how I hear the meetings at various conference happening now:
Defense Contractor: "Why hello! My name is John and I work for Big Defense Contractor. Who might you be?" CECST Employee: "My name is Mike." Defense Contractor: "Sorry, Mike, I didn't catch where you work..." CECST Employee: "In CECST"
I absolutely agree with you regarding the momentum of Android. I know the iPhone still has a significant part of the market share, but, I was at a conference this weekend in which I saw a large portion of the crowd using Android phones. Much of that crowd was made up of college students and young professionals, many who were very technically competent. I know that people who have been asking me which smartphone to get have been getting recommendations to go with the Android platform. I can only assume that other tech-savvy folks are making the same recommendation to their friends and family.
Very good and well-thought out post. However, there is one point I disagree with:
There will never be another Alexander, another Caesar, another Genghis Khan, another Napoleon, another Hitler, and this is also a good thing.
You can never say never. While the world has become a much smaller place thanks to technology, that does not mean some future person won't attempt (and succeed) in utilizing that technology. In addition, the real challenge is to get people to follow you - if you can build up people, everything else just falls into your hands. (For example, look at Hitler. In any "normal" environment, that would not have happened. But the people of Germany were discontent and he played to that and, as such, received FAR more power than he ever would have otherwise.)
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like someone puked down half the screen.
Well...I wouldn't quite say that. It's different - that's for sure. But, I have seen puke on a screen (my roommate, freshman year, came back and got sick in front of his computer) and the Google redesign doesn't look like that.
I'm not normally a person to care too much as long as I have an option
So...that means you must care quite frequently as most websites/software/etc don't give you that much of an option on how THEIR interface looks. And, to be fair, you do have an option - go to a different search engine. Or, don't even use the main Google interface. There are many ways to get the results you are looking for that doesn't actually involve hitting the home Google page.
Much like youtube, where their redesign is personally hated as a facebook rip-off.
I can understand not liking the new layout. Definitely entitled to your own opinion. I haven't particularly warmed up to the new Google look yet. However, you then go to say (and this is why I'm responding at all)...
It's seems that in both cases, the redesigns are universally disliked
"Universally disliked" is a very strong set of words. Do you have proof of this? You mean there is NOBODY who actually likes the changes?
but good ol' google is being evil by not responding to consumer complaints over it. Other than "screw, you."
Now that's just not being fair. Google has to make decisions at times about how THEIR product looks. If you read the blog posts (by Google, as well as by others), Google did quite a bit of acceptance testing and research to determine how to best layout their new site to provide better information, more information, and make it easier to read. You may not like what's up there now, but you should have seen the ones they rejected. Either way, Google is not being evil here...they are running a business and trying to make the views to their search results viable and on the cutting edge. They may even make mistakes while doing that (as I said - I'm not sure what I think about the new design yet), but they are most definitely not being evil here. And I never once heard them say, "screw you." Not once.
They do use them, but not as often as you might think. If you notice the trend in many applications (Office, Chrome, Firefox, and others) is to hide the menus. Menus take up screen real estate. Hiding them lets the REAL information (the web pages) be more visible and reduces scrolling of a web site. For how often people use menus, they are scrolling a lot more on web pages.
I really despise this line of thinking. I deal with it on a daily basis where people will say, "If we use this awesome new technology that can HELP people, we're ALL GOING TO BE OUT OF JOBS@!!!!11111!"
What many people don't realize is that, for each job a technology MIGHT take away, others are created. For example, computers has made the need for personal secretaries to be much less necessary. However, computers have also created millions of more jobs (programmers, hardware designers/builders, computer repair, sales, website designers, etc). Okay, so, yeah, secretaries are bummed out. In addition, usually a technology doesn't completely eradicate a position, but changes it. A secretary now-a-days can run an entire organization and is not "personal" anymore - but he or she should have a good, working knowledge of how to effectively move through a computer system.
With respect to your comment - alright, maybe doctors wouldn't be needed to diagnose illnesses. There is so much more for them to do - research, surgical doctors, radiologists, etc, etc. In addition, this new technology may create an entirely new market for those doctors to thrive in. All the while, this new technology is advancing our healthcare and improving the lives of people using the technology. /rant mode off
Umm...quite the opposite. Most of those names you mention are: A. Easy to say, B. Easy to remember, and C. Easy to spell.
Diaspora is most definitely a poor name. It doesn't roll of the tongue nicely, it doesn't "sound" good. Names = Branding and Diaspora sounds like some sort of...well...let's just say it sounds like a combination of the words "die," "ass," and "spore." Not a good combo, IMO.
You are correct. Trade has probably been happening pretty since day one. And I didn't say that the economy is going to disappear anytime soon...so you're arguing against...well...nothing that I said.
All I'm saying is that an economy is really a non-entity. The only reason anything is worth anything is because people say that it is. People give the economy value, and that's about it*. If everybody agreed tomorrow that paper money was just paper, and nothing else, there would be a collapse of the economy as we know it today. Yes, trade would continue, but it would be far different than it is now.
* - Of course, some things have inherent value as they are required to live, such as food.
Hmmm...I think you're putting far too much thought into my response. I was not making a statement on what careers people should choose. I was making a statement (which is based on research, but, I won't be able to find it as I learned it back in the day in college which was quite awhile ago) about what drives people in their careers.
There is nothing within that statement that a career must improve the public good. My criteria isn't "why people SHOULD choose careers" it's "why DO people choose the careers they do." Improving the public good may be something that some people care about, but it's not one of the main three (at least not that I learned about back in the day).
And the criteria applies to what a reasonable person would consider a career choice in the first place.
And, like I said, I think you're putting WAY too much thought into my response.
It may not make sense to you, but you're not everybody else. I agree with you in that I don't think it's worth working at a job that you don't enjoy just for some extra cash. I would rather do what I love. However, not everybody thinks this way and no amount of arguing with me is going to change that. This world is fascinated by money, glamour, and fame. If we weren't, we wouldn't get so excited by people who didn't accomplish much more than be in the right place at the right time. For whatever reason, this is how many people are.
Of course, there are outliers, but you can't argue with the fact that there are millions of people doing jobs that they don't love just because they THINK money will make them happy. It won't, as you and I both know, but that doesn't matter. Perception is reality, and they see rich people as being happier. As you pointed out, that's not the case, but that won't be discovered until it's too late.
What's interesting is that the online boards (websites) weren't able to keep up with the market due to so many people hitting their servers. Even Yahoo and Google Finance couldn't keep up.
The Web Struggling to Keep Up with the Market
Think of what these brilliant people could have done if their abilities were harnessed in the right fields and with the right motivation.
Well, there's your problem right there. There are really three drivers for people to do what they do as a career:
1. Because they love to do it - These individuals will achieve satisfaction from the fact that they have an exciting job in a field that they care about. Passion drives them. Studies have shown (sorry, no citations) that this is the most rewarding reason for a career.
2. Because they are made to do it - These individuals have no choice but to do the job they do. They are forced into it and will only do the most minimal amount of work necessary because they have to. Many menial jobs are like this because the individual has no choice but to get a job to survive.
3. Because they are being rewarded for it - While it's nice to think that everybody would do things for reason #1, most people's jobs do not drive them. It's the idea of being rewarded (namely by money) so they can enjoy other aspects of their life (hobbies, family, travel, etc) that drives them. And, leisure time and "fun" is a powerful driver. Because many of the fields you mention do not provide a great deal of reward (with respect to money) and require a lot of hard work (meaning the achievements are far and few between) many people opt for the path of least resistance. It makes sense, although I don't like it either.
Anyway, this isn't going to change. These problems have been inherent in societies since time began. The Romans dealt with it. The Greeks dealt with it. We're dealing with it. The only, current, difference is - those other two empires eventually fell...
we are playing dice with the planet's economy.
You make it sound like Planet Earth invented the idea of economy. Money, economy, etc. is just human inventions and creations. If everybody decided money was worthless tomorrow, it would collapse in a second.
If the average retirement account has a million bucks for someone to live on for the next 20+ years, you are now down to 900k to live on for the next 20 years. That's a HUGE drop in your style of living that you planned for.
Of course, anybody who is nearing retirement and is still that heavily invested in stocks should have their brain checked anyway. But, that's beside the point.
We do? ...or are you trying to tell us that you were one of the school district IT guys, so you know for sure?
While I agree with you that substance is very important, it is definitely not always the most important thing (or, at the very least, cannot be separate from how you present). While the content is ultimately what will survive, the presentation of something is what captures the attention, makes people take a second to listen a bit more. Heck, even Apple takes advantage of this with the beautiful designs of their hardware. Usability and presentation matters. And, of course, as Jeff Atwood points out: "Pretty things work better." (Not-so-much as they actually work better, but people give them more leeway and are more prone to their ideas.)
Let me ask you - why do you capitalize, use punctuation, and utilize HTML tags in your Slashdot post? That stuff shouldn't matter if the content is there (at least based on your argument). To some extent, you do the same thing.
That's exactly my point. YouTube *won't* switch to HTML5 completely - at least not yet. Too much of the world is still using browsers that don't support HTML5. While I'm sure Google engineers would love to have to not support Flash, it doesn't make sense for them to just dump it. They want as many eyes as possible on their websites - particularly YouTube. This is, in my opinion, exactly why Flash was integrated in with the Chrome browser. It ensures that every person who uses Chrome will be able to see Flash websites, thus improving the overall web-browsing experience of its users. As Google is a company who is investing heavily into the web (understatement of the year), it is only smart for them to support as many users as possible.
In addition, the integration of Flash also allows Chrome developers to do some neat tricks to better sandbox Flash (as it is a primary source of security issues, followed by Javascript) which further increases the security of the Chrome browser. Of course, one could argue that they could not include Flash at all and really increase the security of their browser, but, see my previous point. Therefore, they are taking a proactive approach and including Flash, but doing it so that security is heightened around it.
Hmmm...I think saying that Flash is "about to die" and that "nobody uses Flash for anything serious" is...well...wrong.
As it stands now, Flash is, by far, the most popular and ubiquitous plug-in in use on the internet. It is used in many different places and can be relied on more than trying to rely on the fact that users will have new, up-to-date browsers. Yes, Apple won't be supporting Flash, and, yes, I hope HTML5 replaces a great deal of Flash (as I can't stand plug-ins). But, in no way is Flash going the way of the dodo anytime soon. Heck, even to get everybody to switch to HTML5 is going to take at least a few years, and probably more.
They were able to think outside the box
I think you mean, "They were able to think outside the salad spinner."
Once you lose your sight you would crawl through broken glass if it meant you could get your eyesight back.
Maybe. Maybe not. If you are used to your whole life with sight and then lose it, that is probably a true statement. If you lose your sight when you are young, you may find the world to be a very harsh place and may not appreciate or enjoy having your sight. (I'm guessing that's what the article is about that is linked in the summary.)
The spill's smell now rivals that of New Jersey.
And the amount of oil in the water rivals the amount of oil in the hair of the cast from Jersey Shore.
What you suggest is like Paul McCartney outsourcing a new Beatles album.
Well...he did let George write SOME songs...
let me say you must truly be the most bitter, irredeemable, self-righteous, scum-sucking, ignorant, foolish, truculent, and repugnant bastards I have ever had the misfortune of wasting my time reading
That is a venerable dinner plate of adjectives. +1 Internet point for you, sir!
This is how I hear the meetings at various conference happening now:
Defense Contractor: "Why hello! My name is John and I work for Big Defense Contractor. Who might you be?"
CECST Employee: "My name is Mike."
Defense Contractor: "Sorry, Mike, I didn't catch where you work..."
CECST Employee: "In CECST"
At least if one of them's banging the steward/ess, it means that the other one's free to fly the plane.
You obviously don't have a good enough imagination...
Should that have been caught when going through security at the airport? I mean, at a minimum, we're talking 10 bombs here...
I absolutely agree with you regarding the momentum of Android. I know the iPhone still has a significant part of the market share, but, I was at a conference this weekend in which I saw a large portion of the crowd using Android phones. Much of that crowd was made up of college students and young professionals, many who were very technically competent. I know that people who have been asking me which smartphone to get have been getting recommendations to go with the Android platform. I can only assume that other tech-savvy folks are making the same recommendation to their friends and family.
Very good and well-thought out post. However, there is one point I disagree with:
There will never be another Alexander, another Caesar, another Genghis Khan, another Napoleon, another Hitler, and this is also a good thing.
You can never say never. While the world has become a much smaller place thanks to technology, that does not mean some future person won't attempt (and succeed) in utilizing that technology. In addition, the real challenge is to get people to follow you - if you can build up people, everything else just falls into your hands. (For example, look at Hitler. In any "normal" environment, that would not have happened. But the people of Germany were discontent and he played to that and, as such, received FAR more power than he ever would have otherwise.)