Those are two different groups of people you're referring to. The loud boastful Americans don't have a problem advertising where they're from when traveling overseas. And the rest of us pretend we don't share a country with them.
Just recently in Italy I witnessed another American get upset at a hotel desk clerk because he estimated a distance in kilometers. He actually replied "Whatever that means". I'm sure if the hotel employee had spoken less-than-perfect English this guy would have had something else to be upset about.
I cringed just hearing this conversation and moved down the counter a bit so no one would mistake me for part of his party. Ugh.
It all depends on the circles you travel in. For me, most people I know use AIM, but back when ICQ was around, that was the only thing anyone used. Even after it started sucking, most people I knew kept using the older clients rather than "upgrading" the slow, bloated, crappy versions.
I understand lots of people use MSN and Yahoo messengers, but I don't see it. I know exactly one person who uses the latter (presumably, he knows other people who do) and none that use the former.
Me, I'm trying to get everyone to use Jabber. Talk about your uphill battles. *sigh*
What does Rails have to do with Ajax? Yes, Rails includes the Prototype JavaScript library and makes Ajax easy, but there's no intrinsic connection.
And when Ajax is passe? No problem, you will still be able to take whatever the latest-and-greatest thing is and serve it up via a Rails app, just the way you can serve up an Ajax application using a Java app or old Perl CGIs or whatever.
That's not an ad hominem attack, that's just being careful to consider the source of any information you receive. If you don't understand the difference, I'm not surprised you're taken in by propaganda like this.
(Now that was an ad hominem attack. See how that works?)
Netscape had a customization application that did exactly this back in the '90s, and Microsoft still does. This was how ISPs and such were easily able to distribute their own branded browsers to their customers.
The market for stuff like this is much smaller now that ISPs aren't mailing out software CDs to their users anymore. Coporate networks, maybe, but IE is already solidly entrenched here. Still, if it could be done without using too many resources, it might be a good idea for the Mozilla group to get something like this out there.
Web development. Why keep a Windows machine around gathering dust just for the occasionally testing in IE? Virtualization (or emulation via VirtualPC on PPC Macs) solves this problem nicely.
Also, there needs to be an easier way to "drag and drop" files in and out of an iPod under iTunes.
Come again? By default iTunes will sync your entire library. No dragging and dropping onto an iPod needed.
If you're library is bigger than the iPod, or if you don't want the entire library loaded, you create a playlist to sync, at which point you add and remove music by... wait for it...
With the iPod, you are locked into the iTunes music store, but also the iPod itself.
I have an iPod and I have never purchased a single song from the iTunes Music Store. The MP3s on my iPod will play just fine on any music-playing device I can imagine. Sorry to disappoint you.
That's just iTunes following Windows asinine naming conventions: "My Documents", "My Pictures", "My Music" (which isn't exclusively an iTunes thing; I see that folder on Windows machines that have never had iTunes installed).
Telcos want more money but not from basic users, they want it from big commercial users who want to piggyback on Telco services and markets.
How much do you think Google and Yahoo are paying for the pipes to their datacenters? Are you working under the impression that they're not paying for it, but simply taking a free ride?
Regarding paying for shipping: If you have an Apple store nearby, take the iPod there instead of mailing it in. Just last night my SO brought her 3rd gen. iPod to the local store to have her battery replaced and they gave her a replacement iPod on the spot.
It sucks because it takes me a lot longer to right click every offsite link
That's strange, maybe you should check your browser settings. It takes me exactly as long to open links in a new tab with a middle-click (if I'm using my desktop) or a Cmd-click (if I'm using my laptop) as it does to left-click them.
instead of just having it open automatically in a new window like it should.
You keep using the word "should". What is this recommendation based on aside from your own opinion? Notice that the vast majority of web developers disagree with you and consider that there may be a good reason for this.
Besides if you hold to that behavior (that offsite links open in a new window) and do not apply new windows to anything else then people can tell fairly easily when they are leaving your website.
I usually know if I'm on a different site by the simple fact that the page looks different from the one I was just reading. I can honestly say that in all my years of using the web I have never been confused about whether the link I followed was to a different site or not.
Then they get tired of reading that page, close the tab, and viola your page is still there right where they left it to surf some more.
You're assuming people want to continue reading the original site, which is not necessarily true.
I believe in a) not doing unexpected things to my readers, and b) not messing with their UI by forcing new windows open against their wishes. I also trust that if they want to get back to my site after reading an off-site link they can find their back button or plan for it by opening their choice of a new window or tab.
I disagree. I'm annoyed when links open new windows unexpectedly.
Luckily for both of us there's an easy solution: Off-site links should not automatically open new windows. That way we both get a choice. I get links in the same window and, when I want a new window (which is actually fairly often, but it depends on the context), a new window or tab is just a right click away. And the same goes for you.
Understand why that's better? Without coding for new windows we get the option of doing it either way. When links are told to open windows it takes away that choice.
And yes, I'm aware of and use the Firefox setting to ignore link targets, but that isn't the point.
Which is why you should welcome a new browser war. I know I do.
IE and Firefox aren't even enough though. I want to see widespread adoption of Safari and Opera as well. With browsers using four different rendering engines, each with at least 15% market share, we'd see some real progress toward standardization. Real standardization, not "Everyone is using IE", de facto, standardization.
Most nightclubs are required to verify their customers age.
And there's a brisk business in fake IDs in the Los Angeles area. I've known a lot of people who were going to clubs at 15 and 16. I can't speak for these days, but not so long ago it wasn't unusual at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are two different groups of people you're referring to. The loud boastful Americans don't have a problem advertising where they're from when traveling overseas. And the rest of us pretend we don't share a country with them.
Just recently in Italy I witnessed another American get upset at a hotel desk clerk because he estimated a distance in kilometers. He actually replied "Whatever that means". I'm sure if the hotel employee had spoken less-than-perfect English this guy would have had something else to be upset about.
I cringed just hearing this conversation and moved down the counter a bit so no one would mistake me for part of his party. Ugh.
That's far too easy to guess.
It all depends on the circles you travel in. For me, most people I know use AIM, but back when ICQ was around, that was the only thing anyone used. Even after it started sucking, most people I knew kept using the older clients rather than "upgrading" the slow, bloated, crappy versions.
I understand lots of people use MSN and Yahoo messengers, but I don't see it. I know exactly one person who uses the latter (presumably, he knows other people who do) and none that use the former.
Me, I'm trying to get everyone to use Jabber. Talk about your uphill battles. *sigh*
What does Rails have to do with Ajax? Yes, Rails includes the Prototype JavaScript library and makes Ajax easy, but there's no intrinsic connection.
And when Ajax is passe? No problem, you will still be able to take whatever the latest-and-greatest thing is and serve it up via a Rails app, just the way you can serve up an Ajax application using a Java app or old Perl CGIs or whatever.
That's not an ad hominem attack, that's just being careful to consider the source of any information you receive. If you don't understand the difference, I'm not surprised you're taken in by propaganda like this.
(Now that was an ad hominem attack. See how that works?)
Netscape had a customization application that did exactly this back in the '90s, and Microsoft still does. This was how ISPs and such were easily able to distribute their own branded browsers to their customers.
The market for stuff like this is much smaller now that ISPs aren't mailing out software CDs to their users anymore. Coporate networks, maybe, but IE is already solidly entrenched here. Still, if it could be done without using too many resources, it might be a good idea for the Mozilla group to get something like this out there.
Web development. Why keep a Windows machine around gathering dust just for the occasionally testing in IE? Virtualization (or emulation via VirtualPC on PPC Macs) solves this problem nicely.
See also: Prostitution v. adult films. You can take money for sex as long as you're not having sex with the same person that's giving you the money.
Do you really think that terrorist organizations are not already operating under the assumption that their communications are being watched?
I think (hope!) the previous poster actually meant that San Francisco and the surrounding area is beautiful, not Silicon Valley itself.
I live here (but not in SV, thankfully) and I agree with you 100%.
Thus slowing it right back down again, at least when any of these three are in use.
Come again? By default iTunes will sync your entire library. No dragging and dropping onto an iPod needed.
If you're library is bigger than the iPod, or if you don't want the entire library loaded, you create a playlist to sync, at which point you add and remove music by... wait for it...
Dragging and dropping.
I have an iPod and I have never purchased a single song from the iTunes Music Store. The MP3s on my iPod will play just fine on any music-playing device I can imagine. Sorry to disappoint you.
That's just iTunes following Windows asinine naming conventions: "My Documents", "My Pictures", "My Music" (which isn't exclusively an iTunes thing; I see that folder on Windows machines that have never had iTunes installed).
How much do you think Google and Yahoo are paying for the pipes to their datacenters? Are you working under the impression that they're not paying for it, but simply taking a free ride?
Regarding paying for shipping: If you have an Apple store nearby, take the iPod there instead of mailing it in. Just last night my SO brought her 3rd gen. iPod to the local store to have her battery replaced and they gave her a replacement iPod on the spot.
That's strange, maybe you should check your browser settings. It takes me exactly as long to open links in a new tab with a middle-click (if I'm using my desktop) or a Cmd-click (if I'm using my laptop) as it does to left-click them.
You keep using the word "should". What is this recommendation based on aside from your own opinion? Notice that the vast majority of web developers disagree with you and consider that there may be a good reason for this.
I usually know if I'm on a different site by the simple fact that the page looks different from the one I was just reading. I can honestly say that in all my years of using the web I have never been confused about whether the link I followed was to a different site or not.
You're assuming people want to continue reading the original site, which is not necessarily true.
I believe in a) not doing unexpected things to my readers, and b) not messing with their UI by forcing new windows open against their wishes. I also trust that if they want to get back to my site after reading an off-site link they can find their back button or plan for it by opening their choice of a new window or tab.
I disagree. I'm annoyed when links open new windows unexpectedly.
Luckily for both of us there's an easy solution: Off-site links should not automatically open new windows. That way we both get a choice. I get links in the same window and, when I want a new window (which is actually fairly often, but it depends on the context), a new window or tab is just a right click away. And the same goes for you.
Understand why that's better? Without coding for new windows we get the option of doing it either way. When links are told to open windows it takes away that choice.
And yes, I'm aware of and use the Firefox setting to ignore link targets, but that isn't the point.
Which is why you should welcome a new browser war. I know I do.
IE and Firefox aren't even enough though. I want to see widespread adoption of Safari and Opera as well. With browsers using four different rendering engines, each with at least 15% market share, we'd see some real progress toward standardization. Real standardization, not "Everyone is using IE", de facto, standardization.
Well, there's your problem. You get what you pay for. Choose a designer based on price alone and you're practically guaranteed to get shoddy work.
And there's a brisk business in fake IDs in the Los Angeles area. I've known a lot of people who were going to clubs at 15 and 16. I can't speak for these days, but not so long ago it wasn't unusual at all.
Much like Slashdot, then.
I don't know, I'd expect some stiff competition from Hurd!
I think the question is actually, "Does AOL have anything other than a marketing department?"
See also: "brand necrophilia"