If you haven’t already, now’s the time to do it. Run that update. It’s under “Settings:General” And, until Apple releases a patch for OS X, you shouldn’t use Safari to browse the Web when you’re connecting to the Internet via a public WiFi on your laptop, either.
Dear Michael Sam,
I don’t follow American football—let alone college American football—with the great passion that many people do in my neighborhood or my country. But I do know enough about it to understand that, as a football player, your declaration of your sexual orientation will be met with a lot of passion by people. I fear that the passions many people will express will be thoughtless, heartless, and worse (if that’s possible). I am glad that you will have supporters.
I admire you for pre-emptively standing before all those people and saying, in effect, “Here I am.” Continue reading
Those folks at Barebones.com not only create marvelous pieces of software, but they have a sense of humor. Someone (Patrick, perhaps?) embedded in the support documents for Yojimbo, one of those products, a caution about users fiddling with some of the settings in that product:
The Yojimbo synchronization system contains no user-serviceable parts, and the cover should not be removed except by authorized service personnel in a static-free clean room environment.
Over on the NN/g Web site, Jen Cardello has an educational post about how to make the Healthcare.gov Web page much more readily navigable. It’s heavily focused on usability in the account set-up process, and it’s a beauty.
Alert readers will recognize NN/g (AKA the Nielsen Norman Group) as the public face of Jakob Nielsen, Don Norman, and their colleagues. Jen Cardello is a director for the operation. Learn more at http://www.nngroup.com/people/.
Are you aghast about, alarmed by, or just plain ticked off with the elected officials in Washington? Do you find yourself wondering what they must be thinking? Do you wonder why we elected some of them?
Whom would you dismiss from the US government?
I’ve got a little poll running for the next couple of days here. You may select multiple individuals. So, take a couple of seconds, scan the list of contenders. Note that you can only vote one time, but you can (as I indicated) vote for more than one individual when you vote—in fact, you can recommend they all go!
This is a time-limited poll. It’ll close on Saturday. Sorry you can’t vote often, but you may vote early! You can tell your your Republican’t or Spendocrat pals to vote, too; just send ‘em this link: http://bit.ly/1hXtKDW (sorry, a previously posted link was wrong).
Your votes are anonymous, but you are welcome to—ahem—expose yourself (or not) in the comments section. For example, you could wonder why I omitted certain dead people from the options.
In March of 2008, just a few years after Web 2.0 had really taken hold on the Internet and people were interacting with content (i.e., commenting on blog posts was becoming common; newspapers were opening up fora; social media were launching left and right; etc.), a guy named Paul Graham wrote a commentary about how people often disagree with what they read on the Web (and elsewhere, of course).
The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.
Many who respond to something disagree with it. That’s to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there’s less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you’re entering territory he may not have explored.
Mr. Graham anticipated the slapdash nature of disagreement that we’ve become accustomed to reading on the Internet since the first decade of the new millenium. He offered a preliminary seven-level hierarchy of categories of disagreement, ranging from “name calling” to “refuting the central point.”
I shan’t reproduce the details of all seven levels here. Interested readers should review Mr. Graham’s full descriptions on his original page. Also, however, someone sometimes identified as “Loudacris” (AKA: “Rocket000″) from CreateDebate.com created a nice graphic representing these seven levels of disagreement. The accompanying graphic shows them.
We might want to stretch the levels a bit. Those scientifically based readers might refine the top couple of levels of Mr. Graham’s hierarchy by making references to trustworthy or replicated studies. Sure, but maybe that’s included in “explains by it’s mistaken” or “explicitly refutes.”
Those would be good discussions to have, provided we get away from employing name-calling, ad-hominem, responding to tone, and such as our primary forms of argument.
So, what are you arguing?