As I remember, the main difference between "attribution theory" and "dissonance theory" is that dissonance theory postulates a motivation or drive to reduce dissonance between different types of information...
Whereas AT just postulates different information - something to think about for IT-type folks...
Yes, the one problem I have with this MO is that it introduces more room for only vaguely parallel ways for browsers to implement it. Not what the browser-design world needs.
At risk of stating the obvious: sell the "vitamin" to the health-conscious market. Sell the pain-killer to the fun-loving, dare-devil, etc markets.
Yes, the second of those probably is the larger market, but there are thousands of companies doing quite well in the niche (literal) "health-conscious" markets".
You just have to know which market you are reaching (or need to reach): matching product to market.
Site of a web start-up that apparently wants to attract enough visits to be worthy of WiMax vendors' advertising dollars. ...which will take a little more (and more substantive) content.
Or at least to an immigrant-rights center. There's sure to be one in any major U.S.
I remember in grad school I went to testify for my advisor (Korean-born), and they wanted to know that he really was married to his wife, and related nonsense (she also immigrated from Korea and they'd been married for 10 years).
In any case, there's obviously a lot of power to U.S. citizenship: not the least being the ability not to be deported to a homeland that is subject to vagaries of the latest dictatorial "democratic" government (reference to Russia, not Ukraine).
He meant the "Spirituality Marketing Center..." But what the hey. Close enough for spiritual work ;)
And of course, by "San Francisco" he meant "Bay Area", which of course means "California." Again: the energy (spirituality) looks pretty much the same from Dakshineswar.
Does the OP believe we really need to have "database wars" to match the tired old "OS wars" and "browser wars"?
Careful analyses are useful (and I've seen some well-reasoned debates in HN) but what strikes me is that clear-cut cases for using one tool vs another are rare, for web-dev back ends at least. Witness: the large-scale sites that use various imperfect db solutions. Yes, they sometimes involve some "hacks" to the canned db solutions, but who's found the perfect swiss-army-knife that needs no modification for any project.
What does strike me as significant is the mastery level of the db developer (whatever the db on which they have the greatest mastery/comfort) ...because projects sometimes "go south" or end up getting late-stage additions of unforeseen complexity.
Conclusion: I'm a db agnostic. Or maybe "poly-theist." There are several good competitors. None is perfect. Several are powerful, especially in the hands of an insightful and experienced db hacker. ( IMHO )
On the upside: even if the "wars" are a tad artificial... it does provide db noobs (like me) a chance to see the issues (at least when processed in the analytical way they are here at HN).
At least the good news about the Bad Idea(tm) is that this should be a very small fix for 3.5.x.1 - as opposed to some competing browsers invested development that ignored/contradicted standards, requiring complete re-do's.
