I just hope HTML5 lasts. If we go through a purge like this every few years, animation on the web may never fully recover.
It's hard to imagine a case where we lose support for HTML5. Besides the whole "supported by several completely different vendors" thing, there's also the fact that it's just minor extensions to a platform that everyone already has. Being worried about HTML5 not lasting is like worrying that email won't last -- maybe one day we'll have something better, but it's going to be a *long* time before we can't get email.
I think the problem with the Facebook "app" was that it didn't seem to store anything locally -- meaning every UI event involved a request over the internet, which does not make for a responsive UI.
You applaud them for their efforts in making DNT useless? You need to understand -- If they do this, it won't help privacy, it will just make DNT meaningless (since no one will support it).
No, they're right on this one. No on is required to implement Do Not Track (advertisers could choose to ignore it). Right now they're going along with it for PR reasons, because it doesn't really cost them anything (people who click "Do Not Track" wouldn't click their ads anyway). However, it everyone sends DNT headers, how make ad companies will willingly support that?
Like other people have mentioned -- if Congress wants DNT as the default, it needs to be required by law. Otherwise, making it the default means making it meaningless.
I think you're reading too much into my statement. I didn't mean to imply that there are no good scientists, or even that a large proportion of them are, I just disagree with the assumption that because reasoning skills are required for science, that all professional scientists have good reasoning skills. Scientists are also in an interesting position, because political pressure means that being extremely bad at science can help you get certain jobs (like say, studying climate change for The Heartland Institute, or studying geology for the Institute for Creation Research).
And you should note that I'm thinking in terms of "people who claim to be scientists" or "people who work professionally as scientists", because this thread was about measuring reasoning skills. If you define scientists as "people with good reasoning skills", then the test is kind of pointless.
Yes, I assumed that would be the case. However -- how many theaters will actually run 2D + 48fps when the same projectors can do 3D + 48fps (and they can charge more for the tickets because 3D is EXTREME).
Are the theaters really complaining that they'll have a new gimmick to sell? After the whole charging double for a headache and annoying effects thing (3D)?
Company A wants to do something environmentally destructive, there's a low-key bill for it, most people in the district don't vote, Company A encourages all of its employees to vote for it... they win. This will happen almost all the time.
Or in our current system: Company A wants to do something environmentally destructive, there's a low-key bill for it, Company A encourages all of its employees to call/email their representative for it... they win. This happens most of the time.
Alternate version: Company A just pays off said representative (in a legal way, like donating to their campaign).
This is obviously a problem, but I don't see direct democracy making it any worse.
There are a number of ways to overcome the abysmal turnout, but I think the easiest is being able to assign your vote to someone who's opinions you respect, or even multiple people depending on the issue.
Definitely agree. There's no reason a representative couldn't choose to use this system; maybe you should suggest it to him.
And what's worse about this plan than how we're already doing things? The main differences I see are that you can change bad decisions more quickly (instead of waiting 4-6 years) and he doesn't have to guess what his constituents wants.
In GNOME, you click "Activities" (which is in a giant start-menu shaped bar, where the start menu traditionally goes). I eventually learned the shortcut (windows key), but it wasn't necessary in the beginning.
Like I said though, I was comparing KDE to how I currently use GNOME. A more fair comparison would be KDE4 vs KDE3, where KDE3's start menu is significantly better. I feel like for KDE4's start menu, they tried to make it look cool vs making it work well.
Nice. I just tried this and it's definitely something I'd use now. I was actually aware of the shortcut, but didn't think to try it since it sucks on most DE's (on GNOME or XFCE, you need to know the exact name of the command to run).
Yes, I mistakenly compared how I currently use GNOME to how I used KDE at the time when I last tried it. I did just take a look at KDE again, and with help from other people's comments, and pretending the start menu doesn't exist, then it's definitely usable.
However, I responded to this thread to answer the question: Why don't you use KDE, and I think my answer is helpful. As a new user, I saw the start menu, it sucked, I wasn't aware of other options (alt+f2), so I stopped using it. Maybe I'm an idiot for not magically knowing that shortcut the first time I used KDE, but it's the reason I stopped using, and it's something that can be fixed, so I thought it was worth mentioning. There's nothing dishonest about this. I tried to use it and it didn't work. Sorry if you can't accept that, but usability is about understanding how other people use a piece of software.
The comments here reminded me of something -- I don't really use the start menu anymore. I'll be taking another look at KDE with that in mind (who cares how bad it is if I don't need to use it?).
I used it for a short time. Couldn't get over how poorly designed the start menu is. All I really want is (1) the ability to start programs and (2) the ability to switch between said programs. KDE does (2) well, but (1) sucks. Maybe this has been fixed by now, but GNOME's ctrl+space+"fi"+enter is significantly faster than KDE's click+click+click+click+...
Slashdot Mirror
if php is broken what is javascript?
Still better than PHP?
Hopefully something with better quality that supports hardware decoding and doesn't require me to install HAL.
I just hope HTML5 lasts. If we go through a purge like this every few years, animation on the web may never fully recover.
It's hard to imagine a case where we lose support for HTML5. Besides the whole "supported by several completely different vendors" thing, there's also the fact that it's just minor extensions to a platform that everyone already has. Being worried about HTML5 not lasting is like worrying that email won't last -- maybe one day we'll have something better, but it's going to be a *long* time before we can't get email.
iOS seems to have HTML5 local storage available, Facebook just chooses not to use it.
I think the problem with the Facebook "app" was that it didn't seem to store anything locally -- meaning every UI event involved a request over the internet, which does not make for a responsive UI.
You applaud them for their efforts in making DNT useless? You need to understand -- If they do this, it won't help privacy, it will just make DNT meaningless (since no one will support it).
Because their job is to help standardize browser features?
No, they're right on this one. No on is required to implement Do Not Track (advertisers could choose to ignore it). Right now they're going along with it for PR reasons, because it doesn't really cost them anything (people who click "Do Not Track" wouldn't click their ads anyway). However, it everyone sends DNT headers, how make ad companies will willingly support that?
Like other people have mentioned -- if Congress wants DNT as the default, it needs to be required by law. Otherwise, making it the default means making it meaningless.
I think you're reading too much into my statement. I didn't mean to imply that there are no good scientists, or even that a large proportion of them are, I just disagree with the assumption that because reasoning skills are required for science, that all professional scientists have good reasoning skills. Scientists are also in an interesting position, because political pressure means that being extremely bad at science can help you get certain jobs (like say, studying climate change for The Heartland Institute, or studying geology for the Institute for Creation Research).
And you should note that I'm thinking in terms of "people who claim to be scientists" or "people who work professionally as scientists", because this thread was about measuring reasoning skills. If you define scientists as "people with good reasoning skills", then the test is kind of pointless.
Reasoning is required to be a scientist.
It may be required to be a good scientist, but not to get a job as one.
Yes, I assumed that would be the case. However -- how many theaters will actually run 2D + 48fps when the same projectors can do 3D + 48fps (and they can charge more for the tickets because 3D is EXTREME).
This brings up an interesting point -- will I be able to see this in 48 fps *without* gimmicky 3D?
Are the theaters really complaining that they'll have a new gimmick to sell? After the whole charging double for a headache and annoying effects thing (3D)?
Company A wants to do something environmentally destructive, there's a low-key bill for it, most people in the district don't vote, Company A encourages all of its employees to vote for it... they win. This will happen almost all the time.
Or in our current system: Company A wants to do something environmentally destructive, there's a low-key bill for it, Company A encourages all of its employees to call/email their representative for it... they win. This happens most of the time.
Alternate version: Company A just pays off said representative (in a legal way, like donating to their campaign).
This is obviously a problem, but I don't see direct democracy making it any worse.
There are a number of ways to overcome the abysmal turnout, but I think the easiest is being able to assign your vote to someone who's opinions you respect, or even multiple people depending on the issue.
Definitely agree. There's no reason a representative couldn't choose to use this system; maybe you should suggest it to him.
And what's worse about this plan than how we're already doing things? The main differences I see are that you can change bad decisions more quickly (instead of waiting 4-6 years) and he doesn't have to guess what his constituents wants.
... APPLE device ...
... APPLE unit ...
Apple isn't an acronym.
Also, you seem to be assuming Apple users are the only ones who are willing to trade features for a smaller laptop. This is not the case.
Atlas Shrugged -- How middle/upper class white men convince themselves that doing anything for other people is morally wrong.
Server resource and network bandwidth isn't exactly free.
Chat bandwidth is so minor, it might as well be. There's plenty of people willing to run IRC servers for free.
In GNOME, you click "Activities" (which is in a giant start-menu shaped bar, where the start menu traditionally goes). I eventually learned the shortcut (windows key), but it wasn't necessary in the beginning.
Like I said though, I was comparing KDE to how I currently use GNOME. A more fair comparison would be KDE4 vs KDE3, where KDE3's start menu is significantly better. I feel like for KDE4's start menu, they tried to make it look cool vs making it work well.
Thinner => Lighter / Smaller => More portable
Seems like a reasonable thing to want in a laptop. If I wanted a machine that did everything at any cost.. I'd get a desktop.
Nice. I just tried this and it's definitely something I'd use now. I was actually aware of the shortcut, but didn't think to try it since it sucks on most DE's (on GNOME or XFCE, you need to know the exact name of the command to run).
Yes, I mistakenly compared how I currently use GNOME to how I used KDE at the time when I last tried it. I did just take a look at KDE again, and with help from other people's comments, and pretending the start menu doesn't exist, then it's definitely usable.
However, I responded to this thread to answer the question: Why don't you use KDE, and I think my answer is helpful. As a new user, I saw the start menu, it sucked, I wasn't aware of other options (alt+f2), so I stopped using it. Maybe I'm an idiot for not magically knowing that shortcut the first time I used KDE, but it's the reason I stopped using, and it's something that can be fixed, so I thought it was worth mentioning. There's nothing dishonest about this. I tried to use it and it didn't work. Sorry if you can't accept that, but usability is about understanding how other people use a piece of software.
The comments here reminded me of something -- I don't really use the start menu anymore. I'll be taking another look at KDE with that in mind (who cares how bad it is if I don't need to use it?).
I actually wasn't aware that that exists. In GNOME, clicking the "Activities" button brings up this menu, so I found it almost immediately.
your argument seems dishonest.
Or you know, it's possible to use a system and not suddenly know everything about it..
I used it for a short time. Couldn't get over how poorly designed the start menu is. All I really want is (1) the ability to start programs and (2) the ability to switch between said programs. KDE does (2) well, but (1) sucks. Maybe this has been fixed by now, but GNOME's ctrl+space+"fi"+enter is significantly faster than KDE's click+click+click+click+...