Wow, I didn't know about the font size accessibility issue. I would say that's a pretty big mistake as well. Considering native and non-native resolutions, dropping the screen resolution and degrading the, reportedly, crisp experience of using a Mac for accessibility reasons seems to be a very poor solution.

I think Vuze/Azureus is a good comparison for Apple, but I'm not sure about how you went about making the comparison. Vuze started, as Azureus as mentioned, as a program for downloading using a new protocol. The use of said program usually required that a person first find a way to log into their router, find advanced port settings, open the port, and find a way to forward it. This is assuming the router properly supported these options. There was an entire website dedicated to documenting and archiving step by step instructions to do this for each model of router. Asking a user that could accomplish that to learn what settings do what and provide a full range of options to perform the most minute tweaks wasn't that heavy of a request. Most of their early users probably wanted to learn what those options did and were for (I know I did). Things changed. Routers got web interfaces, and even got the ability, with supporting software like Vuze, to auto-magically forward ports. Vuze changed and became simplified by default, not showing the advanced options and statistics that the average web surfer doesn't care about. I don't know if I would say that now the average computer user can comfortably use Vuze yet, but it is more accessible. But for the power users it started with that still want to perform those tiny networking tweaks still, there is the advanced options and classic views. I know lots of people dropped Vuze for other torrent programs over the years, but I don't think I've ever seen "too many options" cited as a reason (usually it was 'Java is too slow' or 'Java is too much of a hog').

How did Apple start? They made personal computer kits that were pre-assembled for hobbyists to make their own programs. You wanted your Apple to do something, you had to figure out how to make it do it. Personal computing got better through hardware and software improvements (a chuck of this progress credited to Apple). Apple adapted, and makes computers that "everyone" can use today. Where Apple differs is that if one of their users wants to do something now, Apple has to have figured out how to do it and made it an option.

I reiterate all this to show the other side of the coin. Alienation. I don't believe Vuze has alienated the power-user group of people. If Apple does indeed follow the side of the coin you described, they are and will continue to alienate power-users. Why couldn't Apple make an option to put OSX into 'Genius Mode' and make everything configurable? I theorize they could, but the second Grandma clicks the wrong thing and her easy computer becomes hard, Apple's reputation takes a hit they don't want.

Things are more clear if you take it from more of a business perspective. You see there is nothing wrong with either side of the coin. It isn't a fully black and white issue, so a coin is probably a bad analogy. When you start limiting options and functionality though, you are really choosing a market. I think Apple has chosen theirs, and they remain strong despite limiting themselves. It's actually one of their strengths to do something and do it well. However, to go more the other way and providing more options, functions, or flexibility isn't bad software engineering by any means. One is just broadening or choosing a different market.

When has sub-standard ever stopped Microsoft before? It's the policy of many not to touch a new Windows, the flagship of the company, for a service pack or two... Though quite a lot of companies seem to be of the 'release it now and patch it later' mindset.

... that around 90~95 I would be going to a new seniors' retreat that they call "Carrousel".

In response to your 'welfare' side of things sentence there, from what I saw they got the same "hot" lunch that everyone else got up till middle school, then it was just no ala-cart stuff. No kid now should be shamed by food stamps where I'm from. Ignoring the small population who are taught by their parents to be stupid baby makers so the government takes care of them, if you see two people in line at the store buying Doritos and mt. dew, and you see both of them swipe a card to pay, you'd have to look very close to know which of the two is using food stamps (and manage not to get punched for trying to steal debit card pins). They give out cards to swipe now, and there is no real restriction on what food items can be bought with the things.

+1 to you sir!

It's very true that one can obtain a Blu-ray for relatively cheap considering the benefit of it. The movies are also becoming much more reasonable (I have personally been buying the combo packs for movies I desire, as they are usually only another $3-$5 to get the Blu-ray and DVD). The deal breaker is that 800$ HDTV you need to grab for it to be worth it.

This was posted a month or two ago on slashdot, and it is worth sharing again. A chart for screen-size/viewing distance and when the resolutions become apparent.

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter

Another point to consider is also portables. My parents got a new big screen HDTV and blu-ray player. They enjoy the blu-ray and how crisp it is on the tv, but it doesn't dictate their movie buying habits really. It really comes down to the criteria of if the movie is something my Mom would watch on her portable dvd player. If no, then blu-ray usually wins. If yes, then they buy a combo pack (if available) or the DVD version. Portable DVD players are pretty cheap ($80-$120), but a portable blu-ray player is usually almost double the price of its DVD counter-part. I'm sure there are a lot of people that feel if they can't watch their new movie in every room and portable device in the house, then why bother to upgrade any of the devices. The other choice is to buy the movie twice (not consumer friendly), or rip the blu-ray movie, re-encode it, and burn it to dvd (not anybody friendly considering studios don't want you to be able to rip the movies at all). I'm sure most slashdotters could do the latter, but even to us it would get old.

No, we need them in the K-12 classrooms. My university decided that I needed to take two writing classes for my IS degree. They were nothing more than a re-hash of topics I learned in middle school and high school. At first, I thought the classes (every major has to take them) were a way to ensure that the writing department got to keep its feelings of self-importance, but discovered that I was quite wrong in that assumption. When we had to read each others' papers, I was shocked at how bad my classmates' writings were. I know that I am not the best writer (I'm sure a real grammar nazi could find a decent number of technical mistakes in my work), but most of my errors are subtle and get lost in the flow. These errors were obvious and occurred in great number. Reading the papers was painful.

Good writing doesn't seem to be a requirement for a high school diploma now. I personally don't think a college/university has any business teaching grammar, sentence structure, or the difference between they're, their, and there. In fact, I would say if you can't get they're, their, and there correct by middle school, you shouldn't be allowed to move on to high school.

We have a code of ethics... the ACM writes them. I suppose it isn't really mandatory that we belong and therefor adhere to them, but I was taught to fall back on them for ethical issues.

http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics

The code is pretty much common sense. If you want a funny and kinda sad read, find the real estate code of ethics. They have to outline every evil, dirty little trick ever pulled and explicitly say not to do it.

That really threw me, but very few people seemed to care about that one (lots of people actually rejoiced over it). I personally like being able to jump into overtype mode. I know for sure that my formatting is going to be uniform that way when I re-use a document for its formatting. Now if MS put in a 'Reveal Codes' function like WordPerfect, then they can throw insert right out the window if they want (Reveal Formatting isn't anywhere near as nice in my opinion).

Anyway, I have a feeling that the elimination of Caps Lock would go over about the same. The vast majority wouldn't care, and the loudest voices on the subject will probably be applauding.

From the concept reading/videos that I have looked at, it seems that Google is looking to boot this thing straight from ROM. They state they are bypassing a lot of standard startup procedures and skipping any boot-loader; instead they are going to a kernel load and letting their OS do all that lifting (not because they can do it better than the hardware manufactures, but because, I would think, they don't actually want all that hardware there that you could do something with that isn't on the cloud). This means that you pretty much have to have a board with the ability to flash in Chrome OS, or be buying a machine that can do it. If you are getting a new netbook with Chrome OS on it, then yes, you are going to be getting back to bare bones. It sounds like, however, that is then all you are getting.

A comment from the engadget article made a really good point. To quote Dave95 about a cloud OS on a netbook:

I think this is a very good point. If everything has to be done online, then don't you need constant, reliable connection to the internet?

Is a bare-bones, web only OS what people really want out of a netbook? I don't believe they do. I think people want an ultra-portable laptop that they can pull out and do a few things on at a moments notice. Yes, most (all with a few outliers) of those things are online. As Dave says though, how much of that can't be done on a smartphone or at least a tablet?

Google isn't exactly breaking into new territory here either. ASUS has played with this in the past, and Splashtop (http://www.splashtop.com/) is a popular product that ASUS and other board manufactures have bought into on some of their models. You have an instant on OS that gets you some internet goodies, and when you are ready you boot into a full-blown (arguable I suppose) OS if necessary.

Chrome OS, as I understand it, is not useful for netbooks in my mind. I don't even see netbooks being useful in the next few years. Small and ultra-portable... get a tablet. If you really need that keyboard, should be a nice market for a tablet with a kickstand and a pull out keyboard or detachable keyboard built into the back of the device (may already be one... haven't looked). I see Chrome OS being a much nicer fit for laptops and even desktops. I actually think that on a laptop or desktop, if Chrome OS had the ability to boot into Windows or Linux out of it, the platform would fair much better. Quick boot into your web-surfing -slash- half-production environment, and then when/if you need to, go to your full-production environment. Google, however, will probably not do this as they want all your internet needs through their services and their web-enable OS.

Therefor, I don't see Chrome OS going anywhere till we have cheap motherboards with that new BIOS-replacement flashable ROM running it (or BIOS that are extended to use *flashable* ROMs like Splashtop or Chrome OS) and with built in Type-1 hypervisors for local virtualization. That way you can choose to have one or both of your quick, web-only OS load and your full production environment OS load at the same time. You do your morning coffee ritual reading on Chrome OS (or whatever) and when it is time to do actual work for the day, you flash over to the production OS that is all loaded up and waiting (secure logins may need some work to get this running smoothly, but that is a minor glitch to work out). Then I can see Chrome OS really taking off, especially in the consumer market (big business, maybe not so much).

That's my 2 for you.

I suppose that one would have to look at hiring and retention rates out of your school to really get a good idea, but from the initial "knee-jerk" reaction to your post, I would think that UCF is not a good institution to get your education from, nor is it a good institution to hire from (I am a student myself, but putting myself in an employer's shoes I instantly put up a red flag). If this is the feeling of the majority of the student body, as you claim, then no defense or sweet talk of the university would convince me that their graduates are worth my time. Point is further proven by a 500+ person capstone course. I understand that the lecture itself is the 500+ part, and the class is split into labs for a percentage of their class time, but it still unfathomable to me that such a setup even exists. The level of personal attention from instructor to student must be terrible.

For the textbooks, you may be correct. From what I understand from speaking with my own professors though, each professor chooses their own books and makes their own deals. If it is really too overwhelming to make up your own tests (which if the team of professors here can put a new one together in short order like this, I think they could put one together at a less insane pace over 2 or 3 months before midterm/final), then the prof should tell the publisher that he is happy to do exclusive business with them, but on a larger timetable. Skip a version once in a while. At a high level like this course, should they really be using books with versions anyway? Isn't a theory based oneshot book for the times more appropriate? I fully admit I am not educated in this area, and there are most likely factors I am not even thinking of that make this decision impossible for faculty, but these are my initial thoughts.

Overall, I am leaning towards a lot of the other posters in my opinion on this professor. He is using a lazier method of teaching. If he is like you have heard, and is one of the professors with a real passion for what he is teaching, then I applaud him. On the other hand, I think he should leave the university for one with a much more personalized education system where he can really interact with every one of his students. Teaching at a university that treats their students as a number doesn't sound like a philosophy that is in keeping with his principals. He may want to evaluate if those tens of thousands of students lives he touched are better than the fewer number of students he could have really impacted at a different university.

500+ capstone... I'm still having trouble with that.

The girlfriend is classified as learning disabled (despite being a semester off of a bachelors degree now) and has a hard time reading. She uses a screen reading program that I know has internet reading capabilities, but I never checked it out for myself. I was a bit surprised by this topic (from what I remember of working with Dreamweaver a few years back, you could set it up to yell at you if you weren't complying with some accessibility standards) so I asked her how her experience goes in using it on the internet. She told me that sometimes she gets all of the website, sometimes all she gets is the title, and other times somewhere in between. When she asked me why I wanted to know, I briefly described what I was reading here.

First thing she responds with is "Oh please no." Somewhat long rant made short, her prediction is that if they put these stronger regulations and compliance dates into play, those ads will be read, and she will end up having to hear them in the middle of the stuff she wants to actually hear. The example she gave me was of a website she was looking at with a advertisement in the content of the page: "...out door recreation tummy tuck" would be produced from her headphones.

So I'm thinking that things could be made better, or so much worse depending on the website designer with this regulation in play... and occasionally entertaining.

I don't think someone has ever heard the term "Slippery Slope" before.

In any case, discussion is one of the things you are kinda required to have in a democracy. You're argument is silly and is bordering on having an almost dictatorship-like approach. Just because you are nice about shutting someone down (which cutting a news agency out of the biggest political coverage around is crippling them in a pretty big way) doesn't mean you are not, in fact, shutting someone down. So previous poster's comments were right on. Sorry.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. The President's job is to accomplish his agenda that he was elected to accomplish. To do that he needs to explain his program and counter the objections of his opponents.

Umm... it would seem to me that all it would take to counter the objections of his opponents is a COUNTER ARGUMENT! A fact, a scenario depicting the failings of the opposition argument, or even a damn 'think of the children' speech is better than just saying "No, I don't want to hear it, lalalalalalal!" Really?! You're serious about this?! News Flash: (hehehehe pun) If a President can't counter an opposing argument with facts of his own, either he/she isn't worth a damn, the idea isn't worth a damn, or both. This had better be a troll, or I am just going to succeed from humanity.

Lastly, as far as I know, right of association protects people from the government, not the other way around. I can't really comment further than that.

Then you still need to say on your website, "Note that you must have Python installed to obtain this software."

Even after reading the author's defense, it still sounds like this is useful for providing support in niche application situations (one webserver for many client types, or amazing boot disks and installers), or to prevent DUMMY_MODE-ON from the less tech savvy users (then there are other reasons given, but they don't sound too impressive to me). In the latter case, you still have these users seeing the website and getting wide-eyed at the idea of having to find some mysterious language library. For that senario, I think the fatELF binary would be a decent idea.

Click, run, detect arch, download proper binaries/source, install.

It would seem to me this would save some decent bandwidth cost on large programs. The author says it would save on disk space for developers, but I kinda wonder if it would be negated by the bandwidth increase.

Hey, that's one of my favorite pass times. There isn't many things I enjoy more in the mall than walking into RadioShack, being approached by an employee offering to help me find something, and telling him exactly what it is that I want. The look of confusion, horror, and dulling of the eyes as DUMMY MODE moves to the ON position makes me smile on the inside.

You lost me.*

You say most of the time, the publicist wants exclusive control of the image. Isn't that to say that you sign over the copyright to them as well, for all intents and purposes? I understand why the photographer can't do anything with the photos, but what's wrong with the publicist now?

I'm assuming that you don't ever get paid for that photo session again. You don't get a cut of what the publicist does with it, as you have them pay for everything up front, from what I understand of your post. Despite that, you say "If the publicist wants the picture under the CC, I am going to charge more for it." To me, that says your contract with the publicist would state "While I sign over all rights to this image to you, I forbid you from putting the image into the CC, public domain, etc."

If this is correct, I don't understand why you, or any photographer, would care especially what the publicist does with the photographs past their intended purpose? Publicist sells photos to magazine for untold thousands or millions of dollars, obviously the photographer needs to be compensated accordingly. But one of the unused photos or a photo that has already served it's indented purpose is put into the CC or public domain, why is additional compensation and restriction needed for what equates out to a donation in the photographer (as a bonus) and publisher's names?

In other words, once it's the publicist's problem, is it really, and shouldn't it be, all the publicist's problem? Clarification please? :)


*I admit to full ignorance in photography contracts and business practices.