Someone built a tool. And someone else used that tool to do an unethical thing. I doubt a software language exists that can control the choices of its users.
354 karma · joined February 4, 2013
Someone built a tool. And someone else used that tool to do an unethical thing. I doubt a software language exists that can control the choices of its users.
http://imgur.com/ghYKH7K shows my results. I can't reproduce the ones you describe.
Regional variations might account for the differences. Do you live in a place where people don't eat ribs? (If so, please accept my sincere condolences)
Always makes me smile.
He replied "Eight hours."
"Eight hours?"
"Yep, eight hours, every day. It's pretty much just like driving a bus. The hard part is keeping your ass in the seat."
Fifteen years and a master's degree later, his advice remains remarkably accurate.
There's no concept of "line 4 of chapter 3 of book X" in the web, at least not down at its core. You have to shim it in with anchor tags or something similar, and as a result we don't have ubiquitous browser apps that let me highlight a snippet of text in a book, write some notes in the margin (example: "this is a reference to Hamlet's soliloquy"), and then on a whim search for all of Noam Chomsky's (or whoever's) notes on Hamlet, or perhaps search for all public notes on this book in the context of Hamlet. The lack of structure means that everything's this haphazard soup of markup, with the focus being so much on how it looks that structure of the text and the relationship between parts gets lost. I'm not sure the "semantic web" will make up for that lack, but it's probably a good example of how the "next web will be built on the bones of this one" (to paraphrase someone else's comment in this thread).
I shudder to think of what the Wikipedia-editing analogue of a global DDOS attack would be.
There's an entire body of research on visual design (a great introduction to which is Colin Ware's "Information Visualization") that gets right down to the nitty gritty details of human perception, like eye tracking speed, visual channel capacity, move and scan loops, visual working memory, the relationship between luminance channels, motion and shape as opposed to color channels, and on and on and on.
It turns out that "good" design principles can be quantified, communicated, taught, and learned, are based on our common biology, and that they needn't come at the expense of aesthetics or sound reasoning.
All other factors aside, it doesn't sound like the sort of healthy, active project that I like to use.