One step closer
Google is opening a Web Store to collect web apps in one place:
Now, this should give you a small glimpse into how Google and I see the future of the internet:
Gone are the cryptic URLS and gone is this page-by-page nonsense. Instead of writing a string of letters and numbers in a search bar and thereby navigating to a certain site, we are now presented with an online world much closer to that of our offline world. We have icons, we have shortcuts, we have depth and we have interactivity. We have spend years perfecting this offline world and now we are really beginning to perfecting the online world as well, slowly merging the interfaces.
Think of this scenario: What if, in Windows or OS X or linux, whenever you wanted to go to a folder or open a new app, you had to write the name of the folder/app and it's path in the terminal. What a waste of time, right? Well, that is where we are right now on the web. "Web pages" are not a necessity of the internet. I do not have 'pages' on my Snow Leopard OS so why would we not be able to get rid of pages on the internet as well? Why not take what we learned from the offline world and incorporate it into the online world?
What we will get in the near future is something much further away from the current "Type URL- go to site, type new URL- go to site". It is a more interactive and dynamic homepage. A mix between the current Chrome homepage, your desktop on your OS (folders etc) and a presentation of Applications. Much more intuitive, much more visual and much more relevant.
And that will just be the beginning. As Google has predicted, the browser is the new operating system.
EDIT: Need to clear up some misunderstandings. No, I am not saying that "search" or the address bar is gonna disappear. Search has not disappeared from the desktop environment and of course it will not disappear on the web. What I am saying is that the two worlds are becoming increasingly similar, and just as the average consumer does not go into terminal to navigate to a certain folder, in the same way he will not have to write and decipher the URLs of today.
What's the advantage of "installing" an app from Chrome Web Store?
When Google Chrome users "install" a web application from the store, a convenient shortcut is added for quickly accessing the app.
Now, this should give you a small glimpse into how Google and I see the future of the internet:
Gone are the cryptic URLS and gone is this page-by-page nonsense. Instead of writing a string of letters and numbers in a search bar and thereby navigating to a certain site, we are now presented with an online world much closer to that of our offline world. We have icons, we have shortcuts, we have depth and we have interactivity. We have spend years perfecting this offline world and now we are really beginning to perfecting the online world as well, slowly merging the interfaces.
Think of this scenario: What if, in Windows or OS X or linux, whenever you wanted to go to a folder or open a new app, you had to write the name of the folder/app and it's path in the terminal. What a waste of time, right? Well, that is where we are right now on the web. "Web pages" are not a necessity of the internet. I do not have 'pages' on my Snow Leopard OS so why would we not be able to get rid of pages on the internet as well? Why not take what we learned from the offline world and incorporate it into the online world?
What we will get in the near future is something much further away from the current "Type URL- go to site, type new URL- go to site". It is a more interactive and dynamic homepage. A mix between the current Chrome homepage, your desktop on your OS (folders etc) and a presentation of Applications. Much more intuitive, much more visual and much more relevant.
And that will just be the beginning. As Google has predicted, the browser is the new operating system.
EDIT: Need to clear up some misunderstandings. No, I am not saying that "search" or the address bar is gonna disappear. Search has not disappeared from the desktop environment and of course it will not disappear on the web. What I am saying is that the two worlds are becoming increasingly similar, and just as the average consumer does not go into terminal to navigate to a certain folder, in the same way he will not have to write and decipher the URLs of today.
The most important thought in recent tech-times
An absolute must-read. The quicker we get rid of "Files" and/or "folder hierarchy" the better.
Something that Microsoft, Google and maybe even Apple does not quite get yet.
Something that Microsoft, Google and maybe even Apple does not quite get yet.
Jakob Nielsen on the iPad
I hope Apple is listening to this.
I would very much like to see a conversation between Jobs and Nielsen, regarding the iPad.
I would very much like to see a conversation between Jobs and Nielsen, regarding the iPad.
5 films
Giallo films are usually plot-oriented, focusing on the unraveling of murder mysteries through the eyes of a (often vigilante) detective. Amer, though, strips away intricate plot details in favor of atmosphere and sense-stimulation. And I mean really strips away. The story is not told through dialog, or even through editing, no, it is told through sense-intense imagery and sound effects. And it is good. Really good.
Paying homage to the midnight-movies of the 70's and 80's this film manages to become a modern cult-film. This is not your average sky-fi film though, as it centers around, and pokes fun at, the mormon culture of Salt Lake city. The plentiful, but scattered, humor and the overall weirdness of this flick makes it work. Or maybe I was just more drunk than I though when I saw it.
You sit for 40 minutes imagining how horrible the upcoming horror is actually gonna be. With an uneasy stomach and tense muscles you wait and you wait and you wait. And then it comes. Dr. Joseph Heiter sows together 3 random by passers, creating what he calls a "human centipede". Grafting them from mouth to anus. Then you sit for the next 40 minutes with an even more uneasy stomach, and even more tense muscles. Cringing, but unable to look away. Now, I have seen all the grotesque must-sees through cinema history and "The Human Centipede" is absolutely up there with the most horrific. And yet I loved every second of it.
70-minutes of chaotic Argentinian humor presented to you in Flash (Yes, that's right, Flash), totally disregarding any form of narrative structure and cinematic guidelines. It's a must-see.
The sanest film of the 5, this film is about this... uhm... it's about this guy... or is it about the other guy? Or maybe the girl? Ah, whatever, this film is a mess. Email me if you care and I will expand upon this.
Removing "http://" from URLs
Finally we get some attention to what has long been the most cryptic part of the internet: The perplexing, difficult and totally undecipherable combo of random letters, words and numbers that is URLs.
I would like to meet the man to whom this string of bull shit = mona lisa through google search.
Paul Graham on Taste
A must read for anyone interested in anything:
If you mention taste nowadays, a lot of people will tell you that "taste is subjective." They believe this because it really feels that way to them. When they like something, they have no idea why. It could be because it's beautiful, or because their mother had one, or because they saw a movie star with one in a magazine, or because they know it's expensive. Their thoughts are a tangle of unexamined impulses.
Visible Suspension of Particles in the Air - and what to do about it?
The obvious reason is Nicotine. It's effects are described here
But there are other, reasons for adults indulge in the vice of smoking cigarettes, and these reasons characterize two different groups:
First, the individuals who smoke simply because they enjoy life. This person enjoys fine food, good music and in this case, the sensation of warm, coarse smoke slowly entering and exiting his lungs. He enjoys manipulating the fumes, he enjoys the fondling of the cigarette, the stuffing of the pipe and the simple, yet entrancing, flicker of a match.
But why choose cigarettes when more fulfilling alternatives like cigars, pipe tobacco or even joints exist? Cost, accessibility and practicality.
To characterize the second group we must investigate why they began smoking in the first place. Bullet pointed:
1. Curiosity.
2. Group pressure.
3. Pop-culture and other phenomenons inspire enough to begin smoking. I.e. "coolness-factor".
Most of these are totally excusable reasons to begin smoking. It is part of human nature to be curious, to bow under to group pressure and to be influenced by the culture around us. Where the chain breaks is when the teen-smokers grow up and then continue smoking. They do not smoke because they enjoy it, they smoke because they have not had the will/strength/incentive to quit.
So, the question is not whether smoking is good or bad and should we allow/disallow it, the question is rather, how do we create a set of rules that fits these vastly different groups. There is no reason to punish the first group as they are more than aware of what they are doing and could, but will not, quit anytime. Why take away their freedom to indulge in something they enjoy? The second group, on the other hand, are not able to take care of themselves and need consumer-protection. They endanger themselves and their surroundings (Think of the children!), not because they enjoy what they are doing, but simply because they are addicted.
So, what do we do? If we disallow cigarettes, we punish the first group. If we keep allowing cigarettes, we let the second group punish themselves.
As I see it, the solution is to ban nicotine. From cigarettes, from pipe tobacco and from anything else except medications. Those who enjoy life and smoking will not be affected since they do not smoke because of addiction, but rather because of an appetite for life. The second group, those who smoke because of habit and addiction, will find it substantially easier to quit.
There are movements(WHO) advocating for this, but with a poor implementation. Their approach is to slowly reduce the amount of nicotine in tobacco, and hereby slowly decrease users dependence of nicotine. Clive Bates explains why this approach will not work:
The problem with the nicotine-removal [over-time] idea is that tobacco users would continue t seek nicotine up to the level that provides a satisfactory dose. This is the reason why ‘light’ cigarettes are such a fraud. With light cigarettes, the smoke is diluted with air drawn through ventilation holes in the filter, but smokers respond by taking in more of the weaker smoke to attain the nicotine they need. The machines used for measuring cigarettes do not respond in this way, so the light cigarettes give low tar and nicotine readings on machines but unchanged doses to the smoker. Switching from full-flavour cigarettes to light cigarettes is a little like trying to reduce alcohol intake by switching from wine to beer.
With light cigarettes the tobacco is almost the same as in conventional cigarettes, and an attempt to reduce its nicotine content would make matters worse: the smoke would not be diluted, but it would have a lower concentration of nicotine. This means smokers would be taking in more undiluted smoke to attain the nicotine they need. If this happened their toxic exposure would increase and the health impact would be serious — possibly adding millions to the expected tobacco-related death toll.
So, to avoid a period of half-assedness, nicotine should be banned immediately and entirely (medically supervised to ease users transition). And no, people would not flood to the illegal channels as they do during prohibitions, as nicotine does not actually do anything substantial but make you addicted.
post scriptum: It should be noted that the two groups described above are also recognized within drug users and consumers of alcohol. Sadly, the same solution to the problem is not available.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
