kaicherry

I’m a little older than you two, but yeah, I get where you are coming from; not having the Internet, anytime, anywhere, isn’t an ancient thing from a time long forgotten; there are cars on the road running right now that are older than this phenomenon.

Almost everyone I know can “remember way back when there was ‘no internet’”.

What I find most interesting and entertaining is (what to me anyway) is his realizations of his usage experiences with the Internet reflect a breadth, not depth. It matches an observation I’ve had wrt younger people; it rewards the impatient with a false sense of knowledge by replacing deep understanding with instant trivia access; the emphasis is on the “what” but not the “why”…the “why” is where the actual understanding of a thing is but in a certain segment of the Internet culture “why” taks Too Long so they Didn’t Read it :)

Um…no.

2 + 2 can never equal 5. 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8…not 5. Tha ef is wrong with you? :)

Technically…yes…BUT (and this is a big one part of the ‘whole new way’) SpaceX only gets checks cut for results; it isn’t like getting paid up front for what you say you are gonna do, then having taxpayers foot the bill for overruns. You know, how most contracting is done for the gov’t.

We pay in the form of 1. performance-based checks for successful milestones (SpaceX funds that stuff at whatever their costs are, we pay them a preset amount upon success) and 2. lending NASA guidance and expertise to SpaceX et al as they go about the business of actually trying to meet the goals.

Assuming they meet all of the goals, SpaceX will move out of the test program and be awarded a re-supply mission contract for ~ 1.6 Billion. The “twist” on this was that they had to prove they could do it, “on their dime” first.

This all frees up NASA to actually to the stuff they should be doing (work outside of LEO) and lets private (US) companies to the Space Fedex work. So far, this experiment seems to be paying off.

Dragon. “When Dragon docks”…the spacecraft is Dragon (when doing NASA business…otherwise it is designated as Dragonlab). The launch vehicle is a Falcon 9.

;)

Fav part: Space X goes wild when the solar panels deployed :)

So your follow up posts seem to be along the lines of “this is offensive to these people…stop using the US metric to judge” etc.

Here is the other side of that: So What? That is to say, there is a LOT of false equivalency …starting with Offensive == Hateful.

Are we? This example of yours makes me wonder:
‘why am I not allowed to take a banner with the writing "I hate blacks. They should go back to being our slaves" in the US of A’

Due to your lake of understanding, I am going to assume you are not a US Citizen/do not understand our concept of Free Speech/Hate Speech and where the lines are drawn.

It is perfectly legal in the US to do what you describe. Many people have invited the kinds of folks that like to do such things to certain areas of the country where these blacks that should go back to being slaves live in large numbers…but they generally don’t seem to accept the invites. Funny, that.

Now, while it is perfectly legal to parade around such idiocy, it is NOT legal to suggest actively forcing these blacks into slavery, it is not legal to incite people to start grabbing blacks off the streets and haul them to your plantation.

In the US, it is perfectly legal to talk about what and who you hate…but it is NOT legal to act upon it. Got it?

You keep say “spread hate”…which, as pointed out to you…repeatedly…does not in any way relate to the context of this at all…unless you are asserting that the competition that spawned this action is actually designed to “spead hate”…which it isn’t…what?

Space is really, really hard :)

LOL. I see what you did there. Some of us in the trenches appreciate :)

Except in the case of Safari/MobileSafari, what GOOG did had absolutely nothing to do with an “outdated browser P3P implementation”…

At the time this hit, exactly what GOOG did was well documented by the press and the researcher that uncovered it; Safari has explicit 3rd party blocks and what GOOG did was fake a form submission from an allowed entity to place a 3rd party cookie as a “workaround” to this explicit block. It was intentional and targeted specifically to Safari browsers.

I don’t want to further keep you from your (seeming) day job as a GOOG ‘turfer tho, so I’m gonna just leave it at that. Assuming you are actually interested in the facts regarding this…“Google is your friend” (clearly) so a search should take you to the relative details and in-depth analysis…which would support the above commenter’s assertion that GOOGs “explaination” was, in fact, “BS” :)

I spent more half my life without the Internet…along with most of the people I know personally, so from my perspective this experiment isn’t “odd” or “upsetting” or “insightful”…I mean there are enough people walking around, right now, that can tell you exactly what it is like.

People have mentioned “first world problem” etc…sure. I guess. I just don’t see what the big insight is expected to be…that someone couldn’t enumerate in 1000 words or less.

That would work for switching, but I think the problem he’s trying to solve is multiple apps viewed. I like the way iPhone apps are windowed with this, actually. The way full-screen apps are being windowed, not so much. I personally think a global “stack” might work better with the iOS UX, like when you use the gesture to switch between apps, they could be overlapped so if you wanted to see something or copy/paste. More nature for the UX. My 2¢ :)

I don’t write software that targets jB phones using undocumented apis. I like having a dev license. :)

I don’t think that is what it is, Grissom…at least not from the other devs. It is a solution to a problem, yes…and the devs I know of have given props…but it is a “wrong solution” for want of a better phrase. I’d like to see the core of this applied to solving the problem in an iOS-like way, not an OS X one.

Does that make it more clear?

Yes, do multiple views on demand.

No, do not do them like OS X…but not quite…plus break the UX because you have the “desktop” showing underneath…but cannot access the icons…you need a menu to deal with stacking order to solve that problem…it goes on and on :)

We are saying “ok, great start…” but before we throw out “Apple should hire this guy” accolades he has to offer a superior UX.

Make sense?

1. The iPad could use some sort of “multiple view paradigm” from time to time.
2. This is NOT that solution.

I’d like to see someone else’s take, something more imaginative and natural to the platform as this UX isn’t a very good one.