Wow! I've just posted a video onto YouTube. This is the first time I've ever done such a thing.
The video is about global warming. It has two basic parts. The first part simply shows several clips from various movies basically showing opinions on global warming. The second part uses Star Wars Episode III (specifically Order 66 and thereabouts) as a metaphor for global warming.
This is it:
I was reading this post by Andrew Watt, after finding it on Daring Fireball.
Andrew Watt mentions that he can't force the entire web to change their stylesheets to make certain characters appear correctly. He resorted to changing the entire font which was causing the issue.
I think I have a mostly complete solution, however. A simple stylesheet included in Safari's preferences should be able to solve the problem. Here is the stylesheet I came up with and tested on his demo:
body * {font-family: "Myriad Pro", "Helvetica", "Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro", "Osaka", "Zapf Dingbats" !important;}
Note that this is not as complete of a solution as Andrew's, as a few situations could probably cause the "!important" to be ignored. Even so, it has the benefit of allowing me to change most of the internet to use Myriad Pro, my favorite font.
Too many programs are complicated. The prevailing viewpoint seems to be that the programs need to be complicated to have a wide feature set. Why, however, is it not possible to have both simplicity and complexity? Or rather, why is it not possible to have simplicity and flexibility?
The truth of the matter is that everything can be simple. A program might be terribly complicated and use tons of super-advanced formulas, but that program can always be broken down to one of the simplest (if difficult to use) languages: assembler. Assembler has a very small command set. How is it possible for such a language to allow so much flexibility?
The key, in my opinion, is for applications to be layered. This is already true for the frameworks for most applications; high-level elements are based on lower-level ones. The higher-level elements, however, usually lack some of the flexibility of the lower-level elements.
Thankfully, possible to expose all levels simultaneously. Use the top level, and it will be easier to accomplish the task. Use the bottom level and it will be more flexible.
Too many GUIs don't seem to understand this. They either expose hardly any options, restricting the user greatly, or expose all features at the same time, overwhelming the user with options.
Why not layer the features? Why not allow both high-level and low-level features? Use keyboard shortcuts to quicken the lower-level tasks for advanced users, and make the shortcuts modifiable. Expose the more complicated features through intuitive methods if possible - perhaps they aren't actually as complicated as they seem. Most things aren't.
Many people seem to hate "GOTO," and I can sympathize with them. The use of GOTO statements can make a program's code very messy. However, whether a programmer likes it or not, they use GOTOs in every program. They go by names such as functions, loops, if statements, and switches.
I came up with an idea about a programming language or environment to teach programming concepts.
The language is meant to allow students to learn at whatever pace they want. Though it would never act quite like a real language, as it would all be managed and used through a UI rather than through typing code, it should be able to progressively express the different concepts in computer program design. The advanced features should always be present, but also transparent; this way, they will not distract students from what they are learning, but will also not hinder them if they want to learn more.
I think that the goal in product design should not be to design a product, but to design a tool. A tool should get a job done as quickly and as easily as possible. However, a tool should also be unobtrusive. It should not ever get in the way. Inherently, this makes the users the best designers, and thus all designers should be users.
Well, I was having terrible difficulties with some C++ code. I had a template class, and a template class which inherited that first template class. I named them simpleStream and arrayStream (arrayStream inherited simpleStream), and I'll explain what they were for later.