Git is actually the opposite of useful.
Git is actually the opposite of useful.
I'm not sure I get the problem. If you click on the post title, you get exactly the same as you always did, that is the post and comments. I'm using
(Aside: Full noscript here too, though I don't think there's a
The problem in part is that many people probably click on that spot due to muscle memory - I have for over a decade. Suddenly that link has been replaced by a button that does something totally different and not universally desirable. For no good reason. The paranoid cynics might think that the placement of the social media button there is deliberate to draw accidental clicks or entice people to share more, precisely because of the aforementioned muscle memory. I'm not paranoid, but I'm becoming a cynic when it comes to this site, so I could believe that. From a user interface perspective, there's no good reason for the share button to go there, replacing "Read More". The latter does belong there, because after reading the summary, that's where your eyes are looking when reading - the next line of text. Other than a mouse click, there's no break of flow in order to 'read more'.
The other problem is also UI and usability related. The "Read More" link was immediately obvious as the place to click if you wanted to
The post title links to the full story, yes, but there's no visual cue whatsoever that it's a link unless you happen to mouse over it. Once you experimentally click there, you can discover that it shares the same behaviour as the read more link, but experimental clicking is bad UI design.
The same goes for the dark blob that's supposed to be a word balloon, I guess. If you understand the symbolism derived from comics (which many probably do, I'll grant you) you know it means something about talking and dialog, so an intuitive leap would lead the user to think that it's a link to comments, or a link to make a comment. But what if the user doesn't want to comment? That's not the first choice for clicking either. It's of course also not visually a link, so the user has to discover it with the mouse like an old 'find the hotspot pixel' point-and-click adventure game. As it turns out, it also does the same thing as the former "Read More" link, so it's not even a shortcut way to jump to the comments, or make one. AND, it's grouped with a set of icons that take the user to a list of stories by topic. Cue the Sesame Street song: "One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn't belong
A link with the text "Read More" - immediately graspable and discoverable. Good UI design.
Awkwardly placed hidden links with no obvious purpose that have to be discovered via mouse over - poorly graspable and discoverable. Bad UI design.
*That's* the problem.
Well your honor, not only did the defendant purchase "How to murder your spouse", he read the page on poison techniques 37 times and only read the rest of the book twice. Since the autopsy indicates death by poison as described by the page in question, I rest my case.
And frankly, if that DID happen, then he probably DID kill his wife... and he should go to prison...
I fail to see the problem...
The problem is this: he could have been reading that section while doing research on a mystery novel, acting as editor for that section of Wikipedia article on that book or just got interrupted a lot and had to go back. Or any number of other innocent actions. And because the data/metadata is likely not secure, anyone with access to it could have chosen death by poison as a way to frame him. Or the poisoning was accidental (particularly if the poison was a common household chemical). It could imply intent, but it's not evidence or proof. But people like you will see it as such because it's easy and convenient to assign blame based on flimsy evidence. And you might end up on the jury. That's why it's a problem.
Back in the olden days (pre-google), when one interacted with a search engine it was with a carefully crafted query that returned results based on the data available. I'm not necessarily talking about internet searching. Chemical Abstracts was a treasure trove of information if you knew how to write a good query. There was a logic to it. If you didn't get the results you were looking for, you refined your query until satisfied that you'd exhausted the possibilities. What the OP is saying is that this is no longer possible because the search results have been injected with ads, and helpful results based on what they think you might be looking for, even though it's not. All of this "helpfullness" is adding an element of randomness to querying for information that defies all logic. When you know what you are looking for, all the extraneous "helpful" results are annoying.
The "we" I speak of is the geek movement in the large. It's obviously not all-inclusive.
Then don't speak as if it is. There is no "geek movement in the large" (unless they have all had Taco Bell burritos recently). Geekness (whatever that is) doesn't automatically translate to a unified sociopolitical mindset. The unified "geek movement" is all in your head. We are all individuals and have our own beliefs and ideas, regardless of whether we like to play with computers and similar technical things.
We've asked, lobbied, and begged for actions taken on a computer or across a network to be taken the same way by law enforcement and the courts as if they were taken offline with non-virtual items. This is a double-edged sword. It's okay to shred paper documents, but not if you're doing so with intent to destroy evidence of a crime. Well, now, they're just treating computer users the same as paper users. We asked. They answered.
Who is this "we" you speak of? I, for one, have never asked, lobbied or begged for what you describe. I understand that virtual and non-virtual items aren't the same in nature and have always thought that any laws or rules that try to make them the same are profoundly ignorant. I suspect many others that are not part of the "we" you speak of think similarly.
Is is time for Freshmeat.net to make a return?
Why? As far as I recall, Freshmeat never hosted projects (with full support for VCS, mailing lists, website, downloads etc.), just provided an updated directory of interesting projects. It was good for keeping up with changes for the various projects scattered around the web, but it's not a substitute for SourceForge.
Yeah, it would only be "poaching" if the CMU and Uber were competitors in the same commercial market.
Not even then. "Poaching" is a term coined by employers to refer to competitors in a free market who thwart their efforts to keep employees locked into their job for the sole benefit of said employers and to the detriment of the employees. It's a term born of irritation because it thwarts their efforts to control their employees and exploit them. In a free market, employers would monitor conditions and know what their employees were worth and compensate them accordingly so they weren't willing to entertain better offers. On the downside, when the value of the employee decreases, the employer should feel free to reduce salary as well. The sword cuts both ways.
Or hawking video collections about introductory astronomy.
Do you mean these? http://www.hawking.org.uk/vide...
They are quite good, I must say.
Well, thanks for elevating the level of discourse in this thread. I now regret I participated.
Pro tip: If you are going to argue on behalf of science, don't sprinkle your dialogue with expletives and ad hominem attacks. It doesn't cause people to think you're cool, they just dismiss you out of hand as a juvenile crank (and that's an insult to juveniles and cranks).
Raise the level of your game and try again. You seem to have potential, at least.
You didn't look very hard, did you?
I count 13 papers.
Would you care to share your publication record for comparison? It might help your credibility since your level of troll is at grade schooler levels at the moment.
No, but if the researcher the article cites published his findings in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 09/2009; 106(37):15583-7. DOI:10.1073/pnas.0903620106 9.81 Impact Factor) it's very likely to have some merit. I did do my research before finding a good article summarizing the work.
As to watching live streaming. Why do you assume you can do just one at a time, watch or do? I stream to about 100 people nightly, and many of those people are actually working on their own project(s) with me on in the background as a support/comfort/buddy layer.
Because multitasking doesn't work. http://lifehacker.com/5922453/...
1. I watched a live coding session a month or so ago and lasted about 10 minutes (the first 5 I ignored because the streamer forgot to turn on audio) before I stopped. This is only useful for those who have enough time on their hands to watch someone code for hours at a time and can't find anything more interesting to watch. I just can't imagine sitting through this all the time.
2. For the developer who is streaming: You can get the same benefit (articulating your thoughts out loud) by using your cat, dog, infant or some inanimate object you can talk to (a Wilson volleyball, perhaps). You'll save tremendous amounts of bandwidth, storage space etc. and won't temp someone who should be making better use of their time to watch you so they can pretend they are doing something productive.
Biology grows on you.