bonaldi

73 ms·

751.
by bonaldi 17y ago
I didn't say that nerds need completely different software: I implied that nerds were the only people who would put up with SO-style numbers games, because their need was so great and they can grok the system. Nor did I say the software
752.
by bonaldi 17y ago
Just to expand a bit -- when I talk about modelling the complexity of human relationships I don't mean making friends, I mean how they try to turn the complicated ways we have of judging and trusting other people into a number. You can do t
753.
by bonaldi 17y ago
They realised that StackExchange was failing, but because they don't realise the reasons why their attempted correction is only making it worse. Their software is a hideously complicated and over-engineered attempt to twist human relation
754.
by bonaldi 17y ago
A way to see what's new in a thread since I last visited it: with the threading it's impossible to see what's new on a big thread.
755.
by bonaldi 17y ago
Sinatra has that "secret weapon" feeling about it. While everyone else is bogged down trying to steer their massive lumbering frameworks around, you're whizzing past in a sporty two-seater that goes exactly where you want. To me, it feels e
756.
by bonaldi 17y ago
Plenty of people accept similar restrictions to live in gated communities or in exclusive apartments with tenant associations. That's what Apple's offering: A gated community. Businesses have to play by its rules to get in there. If you too
757.
by bonaldi 17y ago
What app are they using to read their mail? It's purty
758.
by bonaldi 17y ago
I loved LaTeX for a long time, but InDesign has now trumped it for me: equally good rendering and output, with usable GUI goodness. It even uses the same hyphenation engine!
759.
by bonaldi 17y ago
We like good technology, open technology, interoperable technology, accessible technology, technology based on standards, efficient technology, technology that pushes the state of the art, technology that expands what we can do. We don't li
760.
by bonaldi 17y ago
They asked for consent. (Multiple times, in my case). You can argue that they weren't clear enough about exactly what they were getting consent for -- and I agree they weren't -- but they asked for it all the same. The "storm" around this
761.
by bonaldi 17y ago
Yes, and I think Google was too cavalier in how they flagged that up -- the current revisions are much better. But nonetheless, it doesn't mean they forced people's data public, and it doesn't mean the NYT should have reported that as fac
762.
by bonaldi 17y ago
No, they didn't. People think that the "want to find out more?" screen was the opt-in point, but it wasn't. The opt-in point was when you made your first Buzz post, when you were told this meant creating a public Google profile. There are m
763.
by bonaldi 17y ago
As usual with Scripting News, the comments are of more value than the story. No, it's not a "fact" that they exposed the private data of millions ... At most, it's a fact that they casually handed a privacy-invading gun to people and invite
764.
by bonaldi 17y ago
Well, yes, but it's also meaningless: if you're not using buzz, there's nothing to follow . It's like they added you to a chat contacts list, when you never sign in to chat. Oh wait, that's exactly what it is like, because they did the e
765.
by bonaldi 17y ago
Ah, looks like the headline's been changed: it read "Google may remove Buzz from GMail" when I saw it.
766.
by bonaldi 17y ago
Headline here is completely wrong: the article stresses they'll keep it in GMail, they're just going to offer it to non-gmail accounts. This'll be GApps and is unsurprising, to me.
767.
by bonaldi 17y ago
"My son’s real first and last name, with a number of additional, probably location based infos just one click away." Facebook is exactly the same, and yet nobody is complaining that they've forced real names public. As for his problem here,
768.
by bonaldi 17y ago
Looks like they want RDFa, microformats and Canvas (2D) to be stripped: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0349... and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0002...
769.
by bonaldi 17y ago
See, it's stuff like this that makes me hope Buzz eclipses Facebook among people I know.
770.
by bonaldi 17y ago
It's not about the effort of saying "hello". If you don't know the language, it's reasonable not to try and begin a conversation in it -- what do you do when they reply with a rush of words you don't understand? What they should have done w
771.
by bonaldi 17y ago
Much more interesting to me than Apple vs Adobe is Macromedia vs Adobe. Adobe was once a seriously great company (Jobs apparently talked wistfully about those days in his Q&A), which together with Apple pretty much created desktop publi
772.
by bonaldi 17y ago
For the same reason you don't like WalMart putting such a low ceiling on prices that quality necessarily suffers. It depends whether you want a book, now, for $5 less, or better books for the years and decades to come. Publishing is already
773.
by bonaldi 17y ago
Unless the point is to stop you putting your iPhone SIM into the iPad.
774.
by bonaldi 17y ago
Sun had pretty great entry points on 1U servers around the $1-2k mark. The Fire X2xxx line was price-competitive and worked well with Solaris
775.
by bonaldi 17y ago
If only Apple would ban them from the UK so they could strike back by opening Google Voice up here, too.
776.
by bonaldi 17y ago
It's also a total canard: hardware decoding is virtually brand-new in Flash. I think it only came with 10.1, right? But the performance problem and disparities have been around for much, much longer. With things like version 9, Adobe were m
777.
by bonaldi 17y ago
From the article: It pushes the software freedom issues from the browser (where we have leverage to possibly change the codec situation) This is what it's all really about: trying to use Mozilla's leverage to foist an unpopular and inferi
778.
by bonaldi 17y ago
I'm expecting a post from their paid Flash commenter (I'm sorely tempted to say professional troll, given some of his recent posts) jon dowdell saying something mocking about Ogg, then adding that HTML 5 is purely for minority browsers, and
779.
by bonaldi 17y ago
I think the only reason this hasn't become a monster shitstorm is because the vast majority of users don't realise how their page looks to people who aren't their friends, and don't yet know how exposed they are. It's also hard to spot the
780.
by bonaldi 17y ago
The model of the wysiwyg word processor is pretty much broken; but that doesn't mean that LaTeX or separate content/presentation is the answer for this problem set. Instead, I think if more document processors took the approach of the ear

More ›