Hmmm. Even the latest versions of Flash can read anything created even by the first versions of that app (circa '95), but upon opening it gives you a warning "document created by prior version will be updated for use with this version". Why couldn't MS do something like that?
This is bad for me because I still have many - very voluminous - research texts I had written with Word 6.0.1... and they don't even provide beforehand information on what versions (made by what applications) are or aren't supported? Forget "glee" at yet another MS failing - this will be just another pain in the ass for more than a few.
I suppose your answer is a way of asking "who's to decide?" I prefer everybody than just a few. I think once things get rational we won't be "offended" by our own fixed ideas... but we should be capable of deciding (ourselves) what is damaging for society. We are our own morals.
Okay, I get you. I do though still think usability as progress - sometimes we specialised geeks (perhaps speaking for myself here) do need a talented but objective hand to make our work accessible to the layman. This lacking is the very reason (IMHO) it took Linux desktops so long to get a workable share of the market.
But what is innovation then? As far as Linux is concerned, most distros out there overlap each other to some degree, and they're all aiming at bettering their own little "niche" of tasks... but I don't see innovation there either. Personally, I'm fairly content with the state of things now - everything (protocols, kernels) do what they are supposed to do in an efficient way. What would you call innovation then? A new language?
I'm a knee-jerk anti-censorship advocate, but if the "safe content" filter is only an option - think "disney channel" - than I'm not so sure I can disagree with the move. Set it up, make sure that it never becomes mandatory (always a "now that the foot's in the door" danger), and see how popular it becomes... and how effective it is. If indeed the filtering is sh*te then people will be obliged to return to the "unfiltered world" to find the content they seek.
I'm aghast at the general ignorance abounding in today's media about pornography, homosexuality and the like - usually in "new world" countries. Studies have been around since the 1970's and are available to all; for easy reading, Pease's "Why Men don't Listen and Women Can't read Maps", a layman-language book based on aforementioned psychiatric/electroencephalography research. There you'll see that not only is sexual orientation not "groomed", but you'll understand where our even "proper" urges come from.
I think most of pornography's "pull" comes from its interdiction. If we instead were educated to the fact that sex is a fact of life, most of us will also learn to act responsibly towards it. Today's sex education is akin to locking our children in a dark closet while we maintain a "bad things out there, bad things out there!" mantra until they reach a certain age when, the door finally thrown open (if they didn't manage to sneak out themselves before), they are obliged to discover all the "bad things" for their ignorant selves... I mean, grow up already. It's like pushing children into the forest to fend for themselves.
The kernel, no, but the GUI and ergonomic functionality, yes. All Apple did was to adopt an older, ultra-stable version of Unix for their "new" OS - simply because it did everything they needed it to do. The innovation isn't only in the programming - especially when the end result works arguably better than anything else that's out there. If that isn't innovation, what is?
Woah, wait a second. Did you forget Apple's "big switch" from their own proprietary system to Unix with OS X? Sure, much of mac's "innovation" is a simplistic human-friendly GUI, but today its guts is Unix/Darwin, a constantly-developed open-source software. Apple's scrapping its "old" system for another's entirely new one took guts, btw.
Let's not get into semantical "what the definition of 'is'" discussions -- you're discussing the form in forgetting the whole point of developing anything. Every project has a goal, and the choice if method is only second to that.
For example, if the goal of a project is to make a machine so to get as quickly as possible from point A to point B, the form or machine parts (or names they have) don't really matter to the end user -- the only thing they will judge is whether the end result works efficiently, as well as its cost. Software stays to the same rules -- if an X program says that it can make it possible to transfer X files from point A to point B with little hassle, it doesn't really matter what language or protocol the program uses, as long as it gets the job done at a reasonable cost. Each can have its own methods, as long as they get the job done, but it is only natural that the most efficient method will win out in the end. Technology will decide that for us -- we don't always have to be content with the wheel.
Where open-source and closed-source software differ is in the type/level of competition: open-source software project contributors can be totally up-to date whenever they please about the competition's latest developments, whereas closed-source projects are inaccessible to all save those working within (for this I don't see how an earlier commentator could state that it is open-source software that gets its ideas from closed-source projects, when entirely the opposite is true). When the entire development process is open to public view from start to end, there really is no final "end product" -- the project remains in constant development until it does the job intended as perfectly as its method will allow. Closed-software programs, on the other hand, with their limited staff and budgets, must plan a "project end", and if the end product is buggy, they will have to correct it at an extended additional cost -- that will be felt by both themselves and their end users.
I agree that comparing one "monopoly" to another is rather non-sequitur. And I don't even consider either company's market share to be a monopoly per se, although MS is doing its damnedest to retain its market lead at all (conniving, even borderline illegal) costs.
The difference is in the origin of the market lead: Microsoft is successful today only because of one act - indoctrination: it was conniving enough to wean an entire generation of first-time computer users by making damn sure that, whoever bought a computer, windows would be the first thing they saw. Google, on the other hand, was just one search engine like another in its beginnings, and even today it doesn't come pre-installed (as a default page) with any browser; it became famous because people ~chose~ to use it. It's only the after-effects of fame that are similar: it's only natural that developers chose to "make for the majority". This still does not a monopoly make.
Microsoft should be scared shitless, as although it has 90% of the OS market indoctrinated, it still has a sub-rate product. Google, on the other hand, is arguably the best search engine out there, and its ad-distribution system is acclaimed and even sworn by everywhere. Of course Google can still shoot itself in the foot with its rapid expansion to other markets, but this is yet still speculation, and its base trade is still thriving and able to support any failure by its company in its endeavours elsewhere.
Both companies today have been popular long enough to have a well-trained client base; as habituated users are loathe to change, it would take a long series of screw-ups to motivate them to take another product. Google, if anything, is on even more fragile ground: For fickle end users, toolbars and search engines are many and free.
Ah, yes - yet another reason why things already are slow - even with questions of bandwidth nonwithstanding. Machine fatuigue - one ad server can only do so much. Pages don't finish loading until the content does too... grrr.
I think that 90% of all 'prediction' articles are actually the author's hopes/ideas summed up into an essay backed with only facts/sources supporting those ideas. I'd like to see more ~objective~ predictions, please.
Linux is running the web, as far as I'm concerned. As for the web "slowing down", I think there may be a fundament for the idea that this might happen, but there are still many millions of computer users not yet using broadband services, and few of those who are using them only occasionally reach their capacity for any extent of time, yet the net is nowhere near saturated. What "slows things down" most today are virtually-hosted heavy websites that is sharing one IP (and one hard disk) with thirty other websites.
I think that the number of Flash sites has actually gone ~down~ in recent years - clients are finally beginning to realise that these don't have the "find and feedback" potential html has - but this I get from personal experience, not from any statistical source. I really would like to concretely know where things are going in that field, so if anyone has a reliable source, please do tell.
Only a huge up-shift in video streaming and p2p exchanges could saturate bandwidth, but for the former, I don't think we're anywhere near there yet. As for the second, if the RIAA gets its way, this will be going down as well.
Paris had one of those pneumatic systems - that ran until the late 1980's. Much of the system is still intact (save the portals), and can still be accessed through the city's underground network of abandoned mines... possible re-utilisation? Could be practical for sending your animal to the cat-sitter...
Well, the fact that they've finally decided to speak the browser language that the rest of the world is (working towards) using is an obvious sign that they've given up on the "make it for our browser and it will become the standard" tactic - "MS hacks" aren't called that for nothing, as standards for webmasters obviously lie elswhere than a cowed acceptance of the "majority browser". Even the majority (of those using IE) can be wrong - especially when they don't know a thing about standards or the behaviour of the browser they're using. Users only know if a website works; it's the role of webmasters to know/decide/apply standards, and to go through all the hell required because of browsers that refuse to follow them.
I'm glad that they've given up - yes, now to see what other tactic they will take, but no need to speculate. i can only be glad that they're finally making life easier for webmasters/designers.
Woooooo indeeed. I'm damn happy for Microsoft if they finally got it right for one of their products -- great move! If it works, how can one bash it? I'm a bit tired of biased bashing, so where credit is due, please give it fairly -- objectively, rather.
I don't think the HTML5 or XHTML2 worries are anywhere near in coming... they're but concepts for the time being. We're not even sure what direction the "project" will take: new or revamped old plus new? Even then, I don't think there's much reason to fear, as if a company gets it right after decades of wrong, I think they will continue -- for the very reason that moved them to (finally) "get it right" in the first place.
LOL! I have yet to "clean up" that website - stripping all the styles from the html to put them in css - that I did in two months. If you would rather see a cleaner "pure div" xhtml-strict layout, look at the link under my sig. Describing what the div does is only (my) way to keep organised - there is only one floater, and it contains several different types of content. Your comment about the design was reassuring, as I am an 'ergonomics' designer before all - thanks for your kind attention.
Yet I maintain that, until all the css-behaviour browser quirks are ironed out, tables are better (for me) in some cases. Sure, once we learn about all the tricks and hacks needed to make div's work everywhere, the designing gets easier - but in my books, learning compromises is lost time. It's a personal choice, but rather than spend the time maintaining an up-to-date knowledge base on browser limitations, I'd rather rely (to a point) on a system that I know works for all.
Amen. I've also gone the "pure div" route, but found that it took too much time and "hacks" to implement correctly for all browsers. It's all a question of balance: headache vs. time, technique vs. functionality. After learning pretty well everything there is to know about the existing technology vs browser quirkiness, I've ended up going back to tables for basic page structure, but I still use div's within. Div's are great, but the technology is not quite "there" yet IMHO - there's still issues with vertical alignment, floating, etc, and every browser's way of treating them. I can see how being a "purist" can help to forward the newer technology, but speaking for myself, I frankly just don't have the time and patience.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm. Even the latest versions of Flash can read anything created even by the first versions of that app (circa '95), but upon opening it gives you a warning "document created by prior version will be updated for use with this version". Why couldn't MS do something like that?
This is bad for me because I still have many - very voluminous - research texts I had written with Word 6.0.1... and they don't even provide beforehand information on what versions (made by what applications) are or aren't supported? Forget "glee" at yet another MS failing - this will be just another pain in the ass for more than a few.
"Liberal Retards" is a self-contradictory term: Liberals think; Fox-watchers won't.
I bet it was that &%^$&%^ talking paper clip that screwed things up. Or perhaps the "search dog" chose an untimely moment to go for a piss...
I suppose your answer is a way of asking "who's to decide?" I prefer everybody than just a few. I think once things get rational we won't be "offended" by our own fixed ideas... but we should be capable of deciding (ourselves) what is damaging for society. We are our own morals.
Okay, I get you. I do though still think usability as progress - sometimes we specialised geeks (perhaps speaking for myself here) do need a talented but objective hand to make our work accessible to the layman. This lacking is the very reason (IMHO) it took Linux desktops so long to get a workable share of the market.
But what is innovation then? As far as Linux is concerned, most distros out there overlap each other to some degree, and they're all aiming at bettering their own little "niche" of tasks... but I don't see innovation there either. Personally, I'm fairly content with the state of things now - everything (protocols, kernels) do what they are supposed to do in an efficient way. What would you call innovation then? A new language?
I'm a knee-jerk anti-censorship advocate, but if the "safe content" filter is only an option - think "disney channel" - than I'm not so sure I can disagree with the move. Set it up, make sure that it never becomes mandatory (always a "now that the foot's in the door" danger), and see how popular it becomes... and how effective it is. If indeed the filtering is sh*te then people will be obliged to return to the "unfiltered world" to find the content they seek.
I'm aghast at the general ignorance abounding in today's media about pornography, homosexuality and the like - usually in "new world" countries. Studies have been around since the 1970's and are available to all; for easy reading, Pease's "Why Men don't Listen and Women Can't read Maps", a layman-language book based on aforementioned psychiatric/electroencephalography research. There you'll see that not only is sexual orientation not "groomed", but you'll understand where our even "proper" urges come from.
I think most of pornography's "pull" comes from its interdiction. If we instead were educated to the fact that sex is a fact of life, most of us will also learn to act responsibly towards it. Today's sex education is akin to locking our children in a dark closet while we maintain a "bad things out there, bad things out there!" mantra until they reach a certain age when, the door finally thrown open (if they didn't manage to sneak out themselves before), they are obliged to discover all the "bad things" for their ignorant selves... I mean, grow up already. It's like pushing children into the forest to fend for themselves.
The kernel, no, but the GUI and ergonomic functionality, yes. All Apple did was to adopt an older, ultra-stable version of Unix for their "new" OS - simply because it did everything they needed it to do. The innovation isn't only in the programming - especially when the end result works arguably better than anything else that's out there. If that isn't innovation, what is?
Woah, wait a second. Did you forget Apple's "big switch" from their own proprietary system to Unix with OS X? Sure, much of mac's "innovation" is a simplistic human-friendly GUI, but today its guts is Unix/Darwin, a constantly-developed open-source software. Apple's scrapping its "old" system for another's entirely new one took guts, btw.
Let's not get into semantical "what the definition of 'is'" discussions -- you're discussing the form in forgetting the whole point of developing anything. Every project has a goal, and the choice if method is only second to that.
For example, if the goal of a project is to make a machine so to get as quickly as possible from point A to point B, the form or machine parts (or names they have) don't really matter to the end user -- the only thing they will judge is whether the end result works efficiently, as well as its cost. Software stays to the same rules -- if an X program says that it can make it possible to transfer X files from point A to point B with little hassle, it doesn't really matter what language or protocol the program uses, as long as it gets the job done at a reasonable cost. Each can have its own methods, as long as they get the job done, but it is only natural that the most efficient method will win out in the end. Technology will decide that for us -- we don't always have to be content with the wheel.
Where open-source and closed-source software differ is in the type/level of competition: open-source software project contributors can be totally up-to date whenever they please about the competition's latest developments, whereas closed-source projects are inaccessible to all save those working within (for this I don't see how an earlier commentator could state that it is open-source software that gets its ideas from closed-source projects, when entirely the opposite is true). When the entire development process is open to public view from start to end, there really is no final "end product" -- the project remains in constant development until it does the job intended as perfectly as its method will allow. Closed-software programs, on the other hand, with their limited staff and budgets, must plan a "project end", and if the end product is buggy, they will have to correct it at an extended additional cost -- that will be felt by both themselves and their end users.
"I see solid indications that Fedora could dethrown Ubuntu with its latest release."
Well, that choice of *cough* vocabulary does describe a rather enthusiastic dethroning...
I wouldn't consider one open-source project to be a danger to another...
Really? My bad then. If Google adopts the same tactics as MS, they're just as guilty of the same conniving crime.
I agree that comparing one "monopoly" to another is rather non-sequitur. And I don't even consider either company's market share to be a monopoly per se, although MS is doing its damnedest to retain its market lead at all (conniving, even borderline illegal) costs.
The difference is in the origin of the market lead: Microsoft is successful today only because of one act - indoctrination: it was conniving enough to wean an entire generation of first-time computer users by making damn sure that, whoever bought a computer, windows would be the first thing they saw. Google, on the other hand, was just one search engine like another in its beginnings, and even today it doesn't come pre-installed (as a default page) with any browser; it became famous because people ~chose~ to use it. It's only the after-effects of fame that are similar: it's only natural that developers chose to "make for the majority". This still does not a monopoly make.
Microsoft should be scared shitless, as although it has 90% of the OS market indoctrinated, it still has a sub-rate product. Google, on the other hand, is arguably the best search engine out there, and its ad-distribution system is acclaimed and even sworn by everywhere. Of course Google can still shoot itself in the foot with its rapid expansion to other markets, but this is yet still speculation, and its base trade is still thriving and able to support any failure by its company in its endeavours elsewhere.
Both companies today have been popular long enough to have a well-trained client base; as habituated users are loathe to change, it would take a long series of screw-ups to motivate them to take another product. Google, if anything, is on even more fragile ground: For fickle end users, toolbars and search engines are many and free.
Dang, in-a-rush first-poster: RTFA! Happy holidays. ; )
...installing Windows Vista on the aforementioned stethescope. Would there be room enough for McAffee?
Ah, yes - yet another reason why things already are slow - even with questions of bandwidth nonwithstanding. Machine fatuigue - one ad server can only do so much. Pages don't finish loading until the content does too... grrr.
I think that 90% of all 'prediction' articles are actually the author's hopes/ideas summed up into an essay backed with only facts/sources supporting those ideas. I'd like to see more ~objective~ predictions, please.
Linux is running the web, as far as I'm concerned. As for the web "slowing down", I think there may be a fundament for the idea that this might happen, but there are still many millions of computer users not yet using broadband services, and few of those who are using them only occasionally reach their capacity for any extent of time, yet the net is nowhere near saturated. What "slows things down" most today are virtually-hosted heavy websites that is sharing one IP (and one hard disk) with thirty other websites.
I think that the number of Flash sites has actually gone ~down~ in recent years - clients are finally beginning to realise that these don't have the "find and feedback" potential html has - but this I get from personal experience, not from any statistical source. I really would like to concretely know where things are going in that field, so if anyone has a reliable source, please do tell.
Only a huge up-shift in video streaming and p2p exchanges could saturate bandwidth, but for the former, I don't think we're anywhere near there yet. As for the second, if the RIAA gets its way, this will be going down as well.
Paris had one of those pneumatic systems - that ran until the late 1980's. Much of the system is still intact (save the portals), and can still be accessed through the city's underground network of abandoned mines... possible re-utilisation? Could be practical for sending your animal to the cat-sitter...
No, he was referring to what Redmond is finally "giving" us. Which is nice, as with them, we usually get it from the other end.
Well, the fact that they've finally decided to speak the browser language that the rest of the world is (working towards) using is an obvious sign that they've given up on the "make it for our browser and it will become the standard" tactic - "MS hacks" aren't called that for nothing, as standards for webmasters obviously lie elswhere than a cowed acceptance of the "majority browser". Even the majority (of those using IE) can be wrong - especially when they don't know a thing about standards or the behaviour of the browser they're using. Users only know if a website works; it's the role of webmasters to know/decide/apply standards, and to go through all the hell required because of browsers that refuse to follow them.
I'm glad that they've given up - yes, now to see what other tactic they will take, but no need to speculate. i can only be glad that they're finally making life easier for webmasters/designers.
Bingo. Mod parent up - an obvious dot-on.
Confirmed: Safari 3 (for mac Leopard) fails.
Woooooo indeeed. I'm damn happy for Microsoft if they finally got it right for one of their products -- great move! If it works, how can one bash it? I'm a bit tired of biased bashing, so where credit is due, please give it fairly -- objectively, rather.
I don't think the HTML5 or XHTML2 worries are anywhere near in coming... they're but concepts for the time being. We're not even sure what direction the "project" will take: new or revamped old plus new? Even then, I don't think there's much reason to fear, as if a company gets it right after decades of wrong, I think they will continue -- for the very reason that moved them to (finally) "get it right" in the first place.
LOL! I have yet to "clean up" that website - stripping all the styles from the html to put them in css - that I did in two months. If you would rather see a cleaner "pure div" xhtml-strict layout, look at the link under my sig. Describing what the div does is only (my) way to keep organised - there is only one floater, and it contains several different types of content. Your comment about the design was reassuring, as I am an 'ergonomics' designer before all - thanks for your kind attention.
Yet I maintain that, until all the css-behaviour browser quirks are ironed out, tables are better (for me) in some cases. Sure, once we learn about all the tricks and hacks needed to make div's work everywhere, the designing gets easier - but in my books, learning compromises is lost time. It's a personal choice, but rather than spend the time maintaining an up-to-date knowledge base on browser limitations, I'd rather rely (to a point) on a system that I know works for all.
Amen. I've also gone the "pure div" route, but found that it took too much time and "hacks" to implement correctly for all browsers. It's all a question of balance: headache vs. time, technique vs. functionality. After learning pretty well everything there is to know about the existing technology vs browser quirkiness, I've ended up going back to tables for basic page structure, but I still use div's within. Div's are great, but the technology is not quite "there" yet IMHO - there's still issues with vertical alignment, floating, etc, and every browser's way of treating them. I can see how being a "purist" can help to forward the newer technology, but speaking for myself, I frankly just don't have the time and patience.