The Dink Network

Could someone implement a rss feed for the news and or forums on this site, Personally I know id be more active if I had a constant rss feed to me Opera

example: 1 for news
1 for forum1
1 for both

Fun simple may help people become active

Personally, I haven't found RSS to be useful. It seems the amount of time it takes to view TDN versus viewing another program to check TDN is about the same. I can understand the benefit of aggregating results together, or being notified when a rarely-updating web site updates, but I'm much too fond of viewing the content in the original design.

So... as I'm naturally biased, I won't be working too hard to implement RSS.

However, [Insert Rant About How The Next Design Will Do Everything, Like RSS, And Even Automatic Banana Peeling]

RSS is overrated. And while we're on the subject of Hot Internet Trends, podcasts are stupid. Thank you, come again.

Oh no I dont use RSS from a outside program I use Opera thats why its soo handy for me

Edit: For those who dont know thats a internet explorer alternative thats better then fire fox {www.opera.com/}

With Firefox, Opera and IE7 (not sure about Netscape) having built in RSS viewing you don't need a seperate program. You just use one of those three browsers.

Also I used to think like you redink1, until yesterday when trying to find articles for a university assignment I found it quite useful.

And while we're on the subject of Hot Internet Trends, podcasts are stupid. Thank you, come again.

I'd like to add my support to your comment Tal. If you want your views etc to be known whats wrong with blogs and the like?

Firefox and IE7 also have built in RSS readers for those that want to know.

Oh and most computer experts disagree with our dear friend SirCabbage. They say FF is the most secure browser (according tio their rigerous tests).

Also Firefox 2.0 is in development and looks like (based on Alpha 1) that it'll surpass even FF1.5.

For those of you that have been under a rock for the last half a year and don't know: IE& is a massive upgrade to IE and will finally give IE tab browsing and RSS feeds. It also gives it anti-phising technology (a first as a built-in broweser feature as far as I know). There also other big upgrades to IE, too many to mention. Suffice to say that IE7 is the biggest upgrade to IE yet. If you want to try it goto to the ms website and do a search for it and try out Beta 2 refresh

For a comparison between all kinds of browsers, check this article at Wikipedia. Do with the information what you want to do (e.g. read, agree, disagree, ignore, print out and eat it, worship it, edit it away):

Comparison of web browsers.

It might not solve the endless browser wars and by no means I intend to prove that Firefox is better than Opera or vice versa, but just to give some actual test results and facts rather than a vague reference like "most computer experts say that FF is the most secure browsers, according to their rigorous tests". I mean, 'most computer expers' can technically mean 50.0001% of them. Also just "their rigorous tests" cannot be verified.
At first: who exactly are those computer experts? Are they the keepers of some PC shop in Middle-Of-Nowhere-City, are they programmers of Firefox or Opera, naturally biased, or are they people who work for Norton at the firewall department?
Secondly, how rigorous are these tests? When is a test called rigorous?

These are things that might be true, but cannot be verified. One person might find a test 'rigorous' and call someone a 'computer expert', while someone else disagrees. Then who's right?

Well, for one, you can't listen to blogs when you're outside/waiting for something/exercising/cooking/peeling bananas/...

Podcasts are a great way of consuming information while doing other things. That's the most important reason why I like them. This really isn't a trend or something, it's here to stay.

And while we're on the subject, let's diss vodcasting/vlogging! Who needs that when you have blogs? Expressing yourself through video sucks!

I'm not saying we should implement RSS here, but I do think RSS is a great way of both syndicating and receiving content. I know some people with over 700 sites in their RSS list. Try checking those manually every day

Ok, those people are the exceptions, but RSS is still a timesaver, even if you monitor just a couple dozen sites.

Btw, why don't you like podcasts, Tal?

I have 14 ^^

Also Firefox 2.0 is in development and looks like (based on Alpha 1) that it'll surpass even FF1.5.

Good. I hate Firefox. Maybe 2.0 will change my mind.

Why do you hate Firefox?

Flame... senses.... tingling!

no reason really

I don't like the way it "feels". It's interface kinda insults your intelligence, I guess. I like the Mozilla Suite much better.

I don't feel that the interface insults anything let alone my intelligence. In fact if anything it's my favourite interface. It's the interface of IE7 that I hate and that's because MS decided that we don't need the menu toolbar and should have to turn it on if we feel otherwise. I also don't like the top part of the Opera Interface.

Then don't use IE7 or Opera.

Don't use IE7? Better that than IE6, despite the interface, afterall a version of IE is needed to access the Microsoft Update site. Besides IE7's features by far outway those of IE6 and features are more of a deciding factor for me than interface.

Regardless of its being required by Windows Update, you don't have to use it for everything else. Or you could just not use Windows -- problem solved. Sure it's the mainstream OS, but you can help change that.

Windows is way better than Linux.

Windows is way better than Linux.

Translation: I want to see a geek flame war.

Translation: I want to see a geek flame war.

Translation: I don't

Which OS is better depends on what kind of computer user you are. If you want something that just works, you should use Windows or MacOS. If you want to tweak and configure your system exactly to your liking, you use Linux. Said tweaking and configuring may take a long time to learn, so you should also have a serious interest in learning computers when you want to use Linux.

There... that's the least subjective viewpoint I could come up with...

Windows is way better than Linux.

Translation: I want to see a geek flame war.

Actually, I was just bugging the little wizard a bit, since I know how he hates everything Microsoft.

"If you want something that just works, you should use Windows or MacOS"

Mac works but its really VERY fabulous for anything other then Micromedia

I've often found Linux easier to configure.
The sound card f.ex. worked with 5.1 surround sound out-of-the-box in Linux, but I spent a long time getting it to work in Windows.
And M$' steering wheel, totally IMPOSSIBLE to get it to work with WinXP, in Linux all I did was create a symlink and it worked. Sometimes the way Linux is built makes it VERY easy to use

Regardless of its being required by Windows Update, you don't have to use it for everything else. Or you could just not use Windows -- problem solved. Sure it's the mainstream OS, but you can help change that.

I only use IE for sites that require it.

As for not using Windows.... well I choose to do so. However, I do use Linux as well (I dual boot (not a seperate pc)).

Macjust doesn't have the software support I require. I prefer Windows when I want to run software. However, for fun and geek things I prefer linux. You can mess around with Linux a lot more. Linux also has massive software support now (in fact most versions of Linux now come with a mass of pre-installed software, especially Debian (upto 14 CDs).

Which OS is better depends on what kind of computer user you are. If you want something that just works, you should use Windows or MacOS. If you want to tweak and configure your system exactly to your liking, you use Linux. Said tweaking and configuring may take a long time to learn, so you should also have a serious interest in learning computers when you want to use Linux.

I'd agree with that, except to add: that Mac is the best for publishing and that Windows is best for ease of use (it comes with more documented help than the other two).

There... that's the least subjective viewpoint I could come up with...

Indeed. That's an objective statement as opposed to subjective one. Translation: it is based on fact as opposed to opinion.

There is no best for anything: it's a matter of preference. Also, more documentation doesn't necessarily mean ease of use. In fact, I would say Linux comes with the most documentation.

Windows may have more documented help, but I've never known it to have helpful help.

Do you have your computer pluged in?
Is your computer turned on?
Is your monotor on?
Have you restarted?
Have you reformated?
You are writing a letter. <Auto-format>

Windows is best for ease of use

Well... let me correct you on that one.

Linux is actually blissfully easy to use. Genuinely. It is really easy to use. The reason it isn't perceived this way? Because the term "ease of use" has been so badly distorted. In common usage, "easy to use" now means "easy to do something without knowing beforehand how to do it". But that's not really "easy to use", is it? That's "easy to figure out". It's like the difference between:

• a safe with a notice above it saying "You unlock this safe by turning the dial to 32 then 64 then 18 then 9, then turn the key and lift the handle up"

and

• a car that can be unlocked by pressing the remote control "unlock" button.

It's far easier to unlock the car, right? One button from anywhere near the car, opposed to numerous highly-specific dial-turns. However, it's easier for somebody who doesn't know how to unlock either to get the safe open than the car: the safe has clear instructions in place, while the car just has buttons that aren't even attached to the car.

Linux is the same. It's easy to use if you know how to use it. It's easy to use, but it's not always easy to learn. Only if you are willing to invest the time in learning Linux will you find it easy. Inescapably, the more you break a task down into simple steps, the more steps you have to take to accomplish that task.

Source: Linux is not Windows

Linux is actually blissfully easy to use. Genuinely.It is really easy to use.

Well more people than not have had more problems with ease of use with Linux than Windows. This is mainly with people like my mum who are not the lest bit computer literate. However, they are the true test of ease-of-use. And for them Windows is the easier one to use. I managed to teach my mum to do some things with Windows, but from my experience of both OSes and from numerous reports, it would be harder to this with Linux. Personally I found linux eadsier to use.

Because the term "ease of use" has been so badly distorted. In common usage, "easy to use" now means "easy to do something without knowing beforehand how to do it". But that's not really "easy to use", is it? That's "easy to figure out". It's like the difference between

True. However, when something is easier to figure out it then becomes easier to use since you then know how to do it, while you don't otherwise unless someone teaches you. However, in cases like your example the two do not go together. It's just that in some cases they do.

Also "ease of use" is a relative term. It is not an objective thing. It is subjective. What is easier for one person may be (and usually is) harder for another person. In other words: it isn't as clear cut as you illustrate it to be.

You are falling in the very trap which I (or, my quoted text) warned about. Don't mix "ease of use" with "ease of learning/figuring out". They aren't the same. And let me inform you that while Microsoft Word is easy to figure out, it's not easy to use. It's very cumbersome compared to many of the Linux editors, like vi. To quote that article again:

-----

As a really simple example, take this arbitrary exercise: You want to move five lines (paragraphs) from the middle of a text document to the end.

In MS Word; MS WordPad; or MS Notepad; all "user-friendly" Windows text editors, the quickest way to do this is:
- Ctrl-Shift-Down
- Ctrl-Shift-Down
- Ctrl-Shift-Down
- Ctrl-Shift-Down
- Ctrl-Shift-Down
- Ctrl-X
- Ctrl-End
- Ctrl-V

(That's assuming you use the keyboard. Otherwise, you need some Click-and-Drag mouse operations and a reliable autoscroll.)

In vi, however, it is:
- d5d
- Shift-g
- p

(Or if you know vi really well, just ":1,5m$" will also work!)

Vi, which is about as "user-unfriendly" as it gets, beats Microsoft's offerings hands down. Why? Because vi was designed for functionality, while Microsoft design to be "user-friendly". Microsoft break everything down into easy steps, and so it takes far more steps to accomplish the same task.

This makes vi far quicker and easier to use for virtually all text-editing tasks. Just so long as you know how to use it. If you don't know "d5d" means "Place five lines of text in the buffer, and delete them from the document" then you're going to struggle to make vi work. But if you DO know, then you're going to fly along.

So when some newbie sees how fast and easily an experienced vi user can do stuff, he readily agrees that vi is superior to Word for text editing. Then he tries to use it himself. He starts it up, gets a screen full of ~s, and when he types, nothing appears on the screen.

He finds out about the text-entry and command modes, and starts trying to use vi with a limited knowledge of it's functions. He struggles, as there are so many things he has to learn before he can make vi work. Then he complains "vi would be much better if it was as easy to use as Word!"

But the real problem is "I don't know how to use vi and can't be bothered to learn." But that would mean the problem was with him, so he blames his problems on the software instead. Never mind all the thousands of people who are happily using vi without any problems: It's too hard to use, and must be changed!

-----

Yeah. So keep your jargon and facts straight before you argue, please. You may say that "something that is easy to learn is easy to use", but I would disagree. This quoted text perfectly illustrates that this isn't always (and actually very rarely) the case.

You are falling in the very trap which I (or, my quoted text) warned about. Don't mix "ease of use" with "ease of learning/figuring out". They aren't the same.

Sorry but when I said "ture" I mean "true". So in other words I agreed (partially). That typo has been corrected now.

Now to calrify the point I made before: I was NOT saying that they are the same. Quite the reverse. I was was simply saying that "ease of figuring out can affect ease of use". That is quite different to them being the same.

In MS Word; MS WordPad; or MS Notepad; all "user-friendly" Windows text editors, the quickest way to do this is:
- Ctrl-Shift-Down
- Ctrl-Shift-Down
- Ctrl-Shift-Down
- Ctrl-Shift-Down
- Ctrl-Shift-Down
- Ctrl-X
- Ctrl-End
- Ctrl-V

Wrong. Cut and paste is the easiest way to do this in all of the quoted word processors/text editors (at least I assume cut and paste can be done in vi, otherwise it is useless).

(That's assuming you use the keyboard. Otherwise, you need some Click-and-Drag mouse operations and a reliable autoscroll.)[i]

Why use the keyboard when you cun just use the mouse to do Cut and paste tasks (or use the keyboard shortcuts and the mouse).

[i]Just so long as you know how to use it. If you don't know "d5d" means "Place five lines of text in the buffer, and delete them from the document" then you're going to struggle to make vi work. But if you DO know, then you're going to fly along.

So when some newbie sees how fast and easily an experienced vi user can do stuff, he readily agrees that vi is superior to Word for text editing. Then he tries to use it himself. He starts it up, gets a screen full of ~s, and when he types, nothing appears on the screen.

He finds out about the text-entry and command modes, and starts trying to use vi with a limited knowledge of it's functions. He struggles, as there are so many things he has to learn before he can make vi work. Then he complains "vi would be much better if it was as easy to use as Word!"

Thsese points proves my point about how knowing (understanding) how to use it (thus ease of understanding) can affect ease of use. For if you don't know/understand what "d5d" means (which I didn't until you explained it) it's harder to use, thus also proving my point of 'subjective ease of use". As i stated their is no such thing is as objective ease of use. This is because it relies on people and people are subjective (hence the saying "everyone is an individual).

... can't be bothered to learn

Not neccessarily. Some people simply don't understand that sort of thing.

Also to me it sounds like vi is less intuitive, which is also a factor that affects ease of use (and yes I know they aren't the same thing).

Yeah. So keep your jargon and facts straight before you argue, please. You may say that "something that is easy to learn is easy to use", but I would disagree. This quoted text perfectly illustrates that this isn't always (and actually very rarely) the case.

I did have them correct. I never said that it's "always' the case. I said "sometimes". I even clearly stated that. Here is a couple of sentances that I said along those lines:

However, in cases like your example the two do not go together. It's just that in some cases they do.

So in other words you are the one that should be getting your facts straight not me, since you ignored part of what i said, despite it being an important and clarifying part of it. A part of it that actually agreed with you. In missing that you were arguing with only part of my staement, a part of it that could not be left out if you wanted to be arguing with it and getting your facts straight. Also in missing it out you were not arguing with my whole point, only half ot it. But since a point is the whole thing, not half of it, you in fact argued against something I did not in fact say.

In short: do not criticise someone for doing something when it was in fact you who done it, not the person you critised.

So you are agreeing that you are using the term 'ease of use' with several levels of meanings, most of which could be better decribed under a differnt catch-phrase, and you think he is in the wrong?

I thought it was 5dd. Does d5d also work?

I won't continue this discussion beyond this reply, because you never listen to me anyway, but like I said, you're mixing the two terms, because you're using the distorted and "wrong" meaning of the word "ease of use" to describe things.

So first of all, ease of figuring out is different from ease of learning. Figuring out vi is extremely difficult. But learning how to use vi (by reading the manual and tutorials) isn't necessarily hard. Vi, once you've learnt it, has a much better ease of use than Word. To get that same functionality in Word as in vi, you would either have to program some macros yourself (ease of use, eh?) or be lucky and have had someone else do that for you already.

Wrong. Cut and paste is the easiest way to do this in all of the quoted word processors/text editors (at least I assume cut and paste can be done in vi, otherwise it is useless).

What those lines describe is cut and paste. You didn't know that? And if you compare the two, you have to agree that if you know both the methods, the vi one is easier. It's a matter of a few keystrokes, versus Word's method with a whole dozen Ctrl-commands.

Why use the keyboard when you cun just use the mouse to do Cut and paste tasks (or use the keyboard shortcuts and the mouse).

Uh... the mouse isn't a tool of ease of use in text editing. If you know a proper editor, you don't ever touch the mouse. It's always the slower and less easy option. That's why. As far as I know, vi doesn't even support mouse use.

For if you don't know/understand what "d5d" means (which I didn't until you explained it) it's harder to use, thus also proving my point of 'subjective ease of use".

See? You're missing the point. Because until you've learnt how to use it, you're not allowed to talk about how easy or not it is. Since you don't know vi, you're not really qualified to tell me whether or not it's harder to use than Word. And unless you're bothered to learn vi properly, you never will be qualified to tell me.

So in other words you are the one that should be getting your facts straight not me, since you ignored part of what i said, despite it being an important and clarifying part of it.

No. I did not ignore anything. Besides, your post is now not the same as the one I replied to, so I will never be able to really check.

A part of it that actually agreed with you. In missing that you were arguing with only part of my staement, a part of it that could not be left out if you wanted to be arguing with it and getting your facts straight.

No. You said sometimes ease of use is connected to ease of figuring out. To which I replied "Yeah, but in the rarest of cases".

You keep talking like ease of use is ease of figuring out, because one of your major points always is that since figuring something out quickly means knowing how to do something correct quicker means ease of use. No. Something that is made to be very simple to use once you know it means ease of use, even if it takes longer to learn than the program that was made easy to figure out, (and get that part, you gotta learn something before you can say whether or not it's easy to use) but not necessarily created with ease of use in mind.

So you are agreeing that you are using the term 'ease of use' with several levels of meanings...

No I am using it with one level of meaning. The area where "several" applies is what affects "ease of use".

...most of which could be better decribed under a differnt catch-phrase...

I don't think so. Seems like a good phrase to me.

...and you think he is in the wrong?

Yes, and no. No, because I think he is right that "ease of use" and "ease of understanding" are not the same thing. Yes, because I think he is wrong that there is no connection.

I won't continue this discussion beyond this reply, because you never listen to me anyway

Actually I did listen. I just didn't agree. I hate when people do what you just done, i.e. think that I didn't listen just because I didn't agree. Besides with your constant misinterpretaions of what I said, i could say that to some extent you done the same thing you accused me of doing.

So first of all, ease of figuring out is different from ease of learning.

I know that. I'm not an idiot.

Figuring out vi is extremely difficult. But learning how to use vi (by reading the manual and tutorials) isn't necessarily hard.

Well I prefer intuitive over having to learn from a manual or tutorials. Well where it's possible that is. For example a programming language has to learnt through tutorials or looking at well commented code.

To get that same functionality in Word as in vi, you would either have to program some macros yourself (ease of use, eh?) or be lucky and have had someone else do that for you already.

Personally I'd rather not add more features to Word. I think it's bloated. Both it and OpenOffice have more features than I like to be in a program (a member of Objectivism Online Forum's count for Word was "hundreds"). I prefer programs like RoughDraft, Wordtabs and Abiword. None of these are, in my opinion, bloated. However, I prefer OpenOffice over Word, because it is cheaper and more intuitive.

What those lines describe is cut and paste. You didn't know that? And if you compare the two, you have to agree that if you know both the methods, the vi one is easier. It's a matter of a few keystrokes, versus Word's method with a whole dozen Ctrl-commands.

Um... with Word you just select text to be moved, press Ctrl+X to cut it (or use the context menu), then use the mouse or arrows keys to position the cursor where you want the text to be, the press Crtl+V to paste it (or use the context menu). That's a lot easier than what you described. And if vi doesn't support this method, which is an industry standard, then it is harder and lacking in an important area.

Uh... the mouse isn't a tool of ease of use in text editing. If you know a proper editor, you don't ever touch the mouse. It's always the slower and less easy option. That's why. As far as I know, vi doesn't even support mouse use.

Actually, even though I know macros like the above one I find it easier to use the mouse, thus making it a tool of ease of use for me. like I said. ease of use is subjective. You keep repeatedly desribing ease of use as an objective thing, even if you don't realise it, but it simply isn't, as I've already made clear.

See? You're missing the point. Because until you've learnt how to use it, you're not allowed to talk about how easy or not it is. Since you don't know vi, you're not really qualified to tell me whether or not it's harder to use than Word. And unless you're bothered to learn vi properly, you never will be qualified to tell me.

Not allowed? Who is forbidding me? besides, I never actually said vi is harder/easier than Word. I just said "if it's like this" and "if it isn't like this". So in other words I wasn't talking about what I wasn't qualified to talk about. I agree with you that I am not qualified to say which is easier, which is why I limited my arguments to ifs.

No. I did not ignore anything. Besides, your post is now not the same as the one I replied to, so I will never be able to really check.

Actually I changes only spelling, not the point, so your comment is invalid. Didn't igonre? Then why did you reply in a way that ignored the two quotes sentances?

No. You said sometimes ease of use is connected to ease of figuring out. To which I replied "Yeah, but in the rarest of cases".

It didn't come across that way. You used words that illustrated disagreeing not "only in rare cases" when intrepreted literally. You should choose your wording better.

You keep talking like ease of use is ease of figuring out, because one of your major points always is that since figuring something out quickly means knowing how to do something correct quicker means ease of use

No I didn't. I used words that when interpreted literally mean that it can sometimes be connected.

No. Something that is made to be very simple to use once you know it means ease of use, even if it takes longer to learn than the program that was made easy to figure out, (and get that part, you gotta learn something before you can say whether or not it's easy to use) but not necessarily created with ease of use in mind.

You seem to be arguing that something that is figured out is not related to ease of use because it is not learnt. That is not true. Learning is the gaining of new knowledge. A couple of direct quotes from WordWeb: "The cognitive process of acquiring skill or knowledge" and "Gain knowledge or skills". There is also more in WordWeb to support my claim to the meaning of learning.

However, I will admit that I may be getting twhat you said there wrong. However, i do not think it is through a fault of mine. Your wording is ambigous.

I refer to intrepreting words literally, beacuse as someone who wants to be an author I have to know how to do so and with the knowledge of how to do so came the realisation that most people are useless at doing this. And so far throughout this argument you have not proved good at doing so. However, I use words based on a literal intrepretation of their meaning, hence a literal use of the word. Without the knowledge of literal definitions of words you will never be able to correctly interpret my more meaningful comments, hence never be able to argue with my true point.

Finally, I finuse of with a question: why are still aruing with me about the fact that ease of understanding and ease of use after I blatently said that I didn't think it was and even agblatently agreed with you?

I'm just letting you know DD that I'm trying very hard and not correcting any of your spelling in this post. Just so you know.

RSS make life easier by check in on new posts/news on MUTIPLE sites! It also inform people in an effcient way, you don't have to come back to the site all the time!

Hello, necromancer.

EDIT : My picture doesn't work anymore.

EDIT 2 : If you want to see it, it's the big undead picture on the front page on this site.

Oh, it works. You just have to stop the image from loading. Then you should copy the url, and paste it into a clean page.

Same hotlink prevention workaround as with Sharp's sound effect.

Thanks magicman, I didn't know that.

Firefox is a great interface (if you configure it nicely). any please anyone know how to quickly crete a RSS fead for the dinknetwork as it would make life EASIER as you know the rate of updationg for the news...

I had made a Beta Version of a RSS feed for this network.

Link: RSS (Now availble)

What kind of person revives posts?

What kind of person posts in every dang thread in the forum?

What kind of person listens to BArry Manilow?

What kind of person asks what kind of person adjective noun?

Certainly not a person like me.

What kind of person posts in every dang thread in the forum?

Actually I don't. Some in the blog area, development, and news comments I just never look at. Development because I can't help people with programing, so I just help however I possibly can. The others, I just say to heck with them because I really don't care.

I have made a rss feed for this site, just scroll up a little and find the link to the thread.

Creating a link to thread in question helps a lot more then to tell people to scroll up(which is actually down after I post this)