Solitaire and Minesweeper were actually there to help users get used to using a mouse (Minesweeper was about click and Solitaire was about drag-and-drop). They became dedicated time-wasters later, but they did actually serve a purpose at one time.
How is it even possible to come to that conclusion? The web was about document and hyperlinks and nothing else when it began. There was no scripting. Tables and inline images were later additions. Some of us were actually using and creating content for the web in '93; you can't ret-con us out of the picture.
some of us like me, and the goal was always to get beyond "a document". If you want to just exchange documents, go back to transferring .txt files via ftp.
Hypertext links was simply the first step, but those existed for us for years before the web: gopher, specialty systems, etc.
A desire to move beyond those systems was part of what made the web work, and the first step was moving the web to graphical systems capable of displaying more than formatted fixed-width text on a VT100 terminal like some of the parents above think it was about. That's what gopher was for, that's not what the web was for.
> and the goal was always to get beyond "a document".
No it wasn't. The goal was to get documents that could be read by users no matter what software or computer they were using.
> read by users no matter what software or computer they were using.
again, where is this notion coming from? even if we scope to just text and no images, we already broken on this idea once we move beyond non-latin scripts and unicode.
But that's not the web, the web is not intended for lynx, it's intended for a browser, and all the foibles that browsers bring along with them.
Go rethink your position a bit, because maybe I'm old, but I remember the way the internet worked before the web and after the web, and "displaying documents suitable for a vt100 terminal" was not what the web was ever about.
From W3C and the like. I dunno, they built WWW, I guess they have some idea what their intentions were.
> even if we scope to just text and no images, we already broken on this idea once we move beyond non-latin scripts and unicode.
But since you brought it up a web dev has to be some kind of clueless cunt if they can't display a bit of text with image placeholders on a text mode display.
Of course I meant a graphical browser. Lynx was always a stopgap for people without graphical displays. It's always showed a poor terminal equivalent of the web, but back in the 90s, not everybody had access to the internet via graphical browser.
Lynx was never meant to be an example of what the web was supposed to be.
> Lynx was never meant to be an example of what the web was supposed to be.
You're very bossy. Lynx was a perfectly functional browser, not just a 'stopgap'; nor is it 'poor.' With Lynx it was always possible to download a referenced image and print it or view it in a specialised image viewer.
The web is about documents composed almost entirely of text (yes, with tags referring to images), linked to other documents composed entirely of text. When you break that, you break the web.
When you require me to execute untrusted code in order to read text you break the web, and my security.
You describe a whole bunch of mechanisms that don't work on a VT100 terminal. From the start the web was trying to make use of and display everything its original system could do (NeXT systems in this case).
What you and I suspect most of the parents here who keep annihilating my karma is what the Internet was before the web, gopher, ftp, etc. All of the things you guys want to do was already invented and working decades ago, and guess what, it still works.
My original post way up still stands, nobody is going to take seriously a proposal to stop moving the web forward. You might not like it, but that's the world you live in. Fork your efforts off somewhere else instead of punching at ocean waves.
> What you and I suspect most of the parents here who keep annihilating my karma is what the Internet was before the web, gopher, ftp, etc.
I want all that, and the web, the web that I grew up reading, the web that was composed of (wait for it) documents composed primarily of text, linking to other documents composed primarily of text. I want to read news articles which actually link to primary sources; I want to read personal blogs; I want the web.
> All of the things you guys want to do was already invented and working decades ago, and guess what, it still works.
> My original post way up still stands, nobody is going to take seriously a proposal to stop moving the web forward.
> Fork your efforts off somewhere else instead of punching at ocean waves.
Have you ever read any Norse mythology? They were convinced that they knew how the world would end, with the overthrow of the gods (representing order) by the giants (representing elemental chaos). And despite believing this, they stood with the gods: 'the gods are doomed, but I'm on their side.'
Well, the web is doomed, but I stand with the web. Better to fight for a good and beautiful idea than to live with mediocrity.
"Dark dust" would, in many circumstances, have at least an infrared signature (or, rather, a signature that originates in the infrared, even if it has shifted considerably downward by the time we see it). This stuff is "dark" in the sense that the only effects we can see at all (so far, at least) are gravitational. In terms of what we think we do know, that implies mass - but mass that doesn't interact with light except insofar as it distorts spacetime.
Interesting, does that mean there is not enough microwave or radio emission out there to signal a significant amount of dust/gas? The original article mentions this a bit, but I don't understand completely what he is saying since the graphs aren't given much explanation.
The photographer generally has rights to their own work except under "work for hire" arrangements (which doesn't just mean "got paid"). (That varies by jurisdiction, of course; until recently, copyright law in Canada held that the commisioner of a work of photography or a portrait held copyright. That section of the Copyright Act was repealed, and the law is now more-or-less consistent with US law.) What the photographer does not automatically hold is the rights to use a person's image for commercial purposes (advertising and the like). That requires a model release, and a model release, like any contract, requires consideration. Like, say, a discount or prints/files.
...and that breaks down so utterly when you consider inertia. Specifically, "bodies in motion tend to remain in motion". The math works, but the mental model doesn't. Almost nothing at the scales that need a quantum explanation can be adequately represented by monkeys who evolved to understand bananas. We can pretend to. We can give names to phenomena; call them particles and fields and so forth. We can make sense of the math. We can make accurate predictions. But when we really consider the implications of those things we claim to understand, we're forced to admit that we really don't understand them at all. It's turtles all the way down, and it turns out that the turtles aren't really there at all (for any reasonable definition of really).
My introduction was through model rocketry. Somewhere along the line, Al-Biruni's method for finding the radius of the earth was brought up. That was in the early '70s, in what would be "junior high" in the US (elementary school in my part of Canada). It was always about right triangles, not periodic functions, at the beginning, which makes a whole lot of sense - trigonometry was both useful and used for a whole lot of years before calculus was invented. And like logarithms in the pre-scientific-calculator days, there was a point where one turned to tables for practical reasons without thinking of the table values as "magicical" - we were taught how to calculate intermediate values to the limits of practicality. Is there any practical sense (a sense that would be useful for people who would be entering the trades track) in being able to calculate much more accurately than you can measure angles?
Harry, though, is a diminutive of Henry, which means something along the lines of "lord of the manor". Seems to me there'd be a Greek name beginning with "ari" that would be a closer fit. I'm not sure whether you could work in the aspiration, though; to say my Greek is weak would be understating the case significantly.