I had that same discussion with a colleque the other day... we concluded that you can still lose your keys, drop em in a swimmingpool (or whatever) or have them stolen... but with this proposed thin client OS, you just have to carry a weightless memory of a keyword in your head... This is an extremely seductive idea... in a way, I'm already using my gmail accounts as a kind of a personal "thin client" content server... I store anything from "funny attachements" to serious work related documents there (no, not passwords etc. and yes I'm sometimes skeptical and paranoid as your average nerd:) ).
I won't however go into the speculation business of wether this seductive concept will take place or not... let alone world domination...
I'm not convinced about your "norm"ness:)
I installed a machine recently for my father-in-law... after explaining to him that "explorer" isn't the same thing as "internet"... I had to search around to find the portal of his ISP so that he could "navigate the web". Unfortunately that's what I see as the norm:D
that's funny and all... but like I said, it's not funny when you get into heated arguments with clients (either before release, or after they've received complaints) over why cross-browser support costs extra time and money.
I'm not so easy to let them go... the issue being that your average user (or client in my case) is clueless about the existance of such a thing as CSS. They think all is fixed, and I just have to keep playing the broken record about "why there is an extra cost to make your site compatible with more browsers".
it's a dick move.
Slashdot Mirror
greedy managers who want it "done for tomorrow"
oh great, now my wife is gonna start nagging me about installing mysql??
irony? that's just what's missing from these virus authors today... if it was me, I'd use far cooler names like jessica simps0WN j00 n00b!!! ;)
har har.. ok ok... how 'bout .swf for sites with no content?
how about a .ZZZ for sites with boring content?
I for one look forwards my kids watching old MTV videos, and laughing at 50cent's and his homeys wearing worthless rocks around their necks :)
I had that same discussion with a colleque the other day... we concluded that you can still lose your keys, drop em in a swimmingpool (or whatever) or have them stolen... but with this proposed thin client OS, you just have to carry a weightless memory of a keyword in your head... This is an extremely seductive idea... in a way, I'm already using my gmail accounts as a kind of a personal "thin client" content server... I store anything from "funny attachements" to serious work related documents there (no, not passwords etc. and yes I'm sometimes skeptical and paranoid as your average nerd:) ).
I won't however go into the speculation business of wether this seductive concept will take place or not... let alone world domination...
I'm not convinced about your "norm"ness :)
I installed a machine recently for my father-in-law... after explaining to him that "explorer" isn't the same thing as "internet"... I had to search around to find the portal of his ISP so that he could "navigate the web". Unfortunately that's what I see as the norm :D
that's funny and all... but like I said, it's not funny when you get into heated arguments with clients (either before release, or after they've received complaints) over why cross-browser support costs extra time and money.
I'm not so easy to let them go... the issue being that your average user (or client in my case) is clueless about the existance of such a thing as CSS. They think all is fixed, and I just have to keep playing the broken record about "why there is an extra cost to make your site compatible with more browsers". it's a dick move.
I just hope all those people who "defected" to firefox wont go "back to daddy" because "they've fixed it all"...