If you only game for 5 hours a week buy a console and save $270 next year. ( minus $30 for an XBL or PS Plus subscription for online play and free games ) Also it's locally rendered thus no input lag and you don't need to tie up your entire internet pipe when you want to game.
I get poor service, crummy old modems, and glacial support from my commercial internet provider. If those are your concerns for socialized broadband, then you should already be concerned.
No one is mandating municipal ISPs. The claim is simply that there should be competition in markets, and in many cities (like mine) there is no competition by law.
My city does a great job with providing me with cheap electricity, clean water, and emergency services. Just because a group of people work for local government rather than a giant corporation doesn't make them any more or less lazy or evil.
Perhaps if my city starts investigating a municipal ISP, my one and only commercial broadband provider will finally get of their asses and upgrade my bandwidth, my uptime, and the terrible modem they made me pay for.
This website is even difficult to read on a regular desktop browser (too wide, downvoted comments increasingly impossible to read causing eye strain). I recommend using your own content script with Chrome. This may not help on your iPad but on Android you can use Firefox with your own userscript. It's the only way I can tolerate it.
It would probably take a competent someone a few hours to fix the readability issues of this site but they just never get around to it.
Here's a link to what all comments look like for me, even if they're downvoted:
Sarcastic, yes, but mostly relating to Opera 12.x’s UserCSS features; I didn’t actually know about userContent.css. Thanks for the pointer, although it seems to be impossible to only apply it to certain sites?
The Original article seems to mis-quote browser marketshare. They have IE10 listed as 3% of the market and "Other" as 36%? And all the IE's combined for 19% market share? Everything I've seen (except the original article) list the IE's at a combined market share somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-70%., with IE8 still having a dominant 15-20%.
> Regarding HN being too wide, why don't you narrow your browser window?
Narrow my browser window because this one site makes it difficult to read? I could do that, or I could just use a content script and leave my browser at the width I prefer. I maximize my browser for distraction free reading.
Eight,I'm sure I'm going to resize my browser just to read HN and then maximize it again when I navigate away to a site which uses a sane content width. No need to be an apologist. I like the content here,but the design in many respects,is awful (expired links anyone?).
Oftentimes, narrowing HN below 1280px is still not enough as the content then scrolls sideways, so there is a very good argument for putting a width on content that doesn't adjust to the window size properly.
StatCounter attempts to measure browsing volume, not people using a particular browser.
Net Applications attempts to measure people using a browser, so IE9's reported share is three times higher, around 9%.
As an analogy, take the toothpaste market with only two players. Lets say 30% of people use Colgate and 70% use Crest. But for some reason the first group uses more toothpaste, so 60% of toothpaste sold in the market is Colgate and 40% is Crest.
Now, which one has a higher "marketshare"? Crest or Colgate?
It's funny how everyone gets so confused about this.
Anyway, Net Applications is the more apt comparison here because she's attempting to compare people having a disability, not the amount of browsing done by such people.
> Now, which one has a higher "marketshare"? Crest or Colgate?
I can't answer that question until I've decided whether I want to be a Crest fan or a Colgate fan. Sort of like how I can't decide whether to measure smartphone market size by units shipped or dollars spent without first deciding whether I want to promote Android or iOS.
I think that in this case, it's fair to compare the number of people who have a disability instead of the amount of browsing they do, because it speaks to the potential market.
Suppose that there was no technology to help blind people use computers. Then blind people would have 0% of browsing, but they're not 0% of the population -- should we create technology to help them even though they do no browsing? (Yes.)
Regardless of if IE9 use is 3% or 9%, the point still stands. It's still an at least higher or comparable number of internet users that are ignored and marginalized by the workflows and decision-making of most internet app projects.
Exactly, it sort of re-inforces my point that when I was designing that site I didn't really think about it.
I don't have to be an accessibility expert to discuss the fact that developers don't tend to create accessible sites!
I really liked the first font from a design standpoint and found it quite readable! It's ridiculous you're being attacked for voicing a very valid concern on your own blog, because of your preferred font choice. A lot of the comments both on your blog and on here seem to almost be mocking the idea that sites should be accessible, by making an unwarranted personal attack against you, when you clearly state you were never even introduced to accessibility programming through formal education, like lots and lots of developers weren't ( myself included ).
Forcing programmers to jump through extra hoops (trying /em to learn on their own, and making well-intentioned changes but not knowing if its right or enough or effective) is not the way to increase knowledge and uptake of accessibility-minded-design as the standard.
It would be nice if designers were still able to make stylistic choices with regards to fonts and website colors, that may be less readable for some, but have it degrade easily to something more readable with a simple command or click of a button. Besides some roundabout ways i can think of, or using readability, im not sure how to do that easily though.
That's an unfair criticism. The author (and I, and the rest of us) are not focussing our efforts logically. We can see browser stats in server logs, but measuring disabled or impaired visitors' traffic is easy to overlook - servers don't collect this data point.
She's now raised the issue for a wider audience and this could only be hypocrisy if she held herself up as an example of how to do things correctly. She isn't, and says so right at the top of the article.
Did you read the article? There is no irony here, she immediately points out her lack of understanding of fundamental accessibility principles. That is why she wrote about how we as an industry allow that to happen (senior engineers who know nothing about catering to disability).
sure there is. it's like an investigative journalist learning nothing (or failing to apply lessons learned) about good investigative journalism while writing about it.
another comparison would be like a professional driver admitting he knows nothing about hand brakes, writing an essay about why he knows nothing about them, how he can learn and be more knowledgeable about them...and then proceeding to drive 1,000 miles with the hand brake engaged.
i wouldn't expect her to learn or apply all of WAI-ARIA, but you'd think after doing so much research on the subject, she could change a simple font-family tag to help her case.
There are no gold plated connectors in a typical studio (exceptions for amateur home studios purchased from Guitar Center).
Most cabling in a studio is bulk copper wire from a giant spool, permanently soldered in place for reliability.
The only plugging happens at dedicated patch panels, which in my experience are old repurposed analog telephone patch bays that look as old and corroded as they are.
Gold connectors are for home enthusiasts with money to burn. The practical effect of the platings are so far below the noise floor (vs ground loops, EMF, amp noise) that it's irrelevant for audio work.
I've never seen a gold-plated XLR cable, which is usually the first link in every studio recording chain.
However, the US seems very aggressive about replacing worn bills. This may be related to the fact that so much of our currency goes in and out of automated machinery these days, and people don't hang on to cash very long.
Anecdotally, bills today seem much tidier than they did when I was a kid. Of the dozen bills in my pocket right now, none is older than 2006, and none are crumpled.
100 RMB bills get replaced pretty quickly also; its rare to see an old one. 50 RMB bills can be more worn, and its kind of a pain because the DPRK counterfeiters usually go after these notes. Recently, they've caught on to this and have been replacing 50 RMB bills more often.
They only mint 1RMB coins in the south (e.g. Shanghai). Beijing and the north have mainly paper bills, we do get coins for the subway, however. Coins are annoying if clean, since we aren't used to them.