journal: think
The 2006 Worst Websites of The Year Awards
Well everybody, this last year was one heck of a year here on Deep Thought, and as we start things for 2007 up I’m going to be giving you my quick list of the five worst websites of 2006. The explanation of a “bad website” is simple. Its a website that has one of three issues.
NOTE: All websites considered for worst website are mainstream; this will not include small one-man websites that have a reason to look and be crappy.
Three qualifying issues
The first of the three issues with a website is design: a muddled website just plain will not work. So if I can’t get around your website, you qualify. Secondly, their is the qualifier of customer support. Since I’m a jerk to many people I find it fun to write fake customer support email to websites and see how they handle things. Some of the replies I’ve gotten range from scams to just plain rudeness. The third and final qualifier for the “worst website” is purely how much I like it, just my opinion. Now lets get started with number five.
Number Five
This years number five worst website of the year award goes to THE WORLD’S WORST WEBSITE. This site proclaims itself to be the worst website out there, and even though it’s not mainstream I have to include it for trying. (Also, it was number two on Google search.) This website is really a horrible site and I couldn’t stand it for more than enough…
(Continue)
 |
1 | 5276 |
| comment | views |
Creative Commons: Freeing Copyrights Everywhere
In today’s world, everything is copyrighted; the TV shows you watch, the shampoo you use, and even the patterns on the clothes you’re wearing. One non-profit organization has created a way for everyone to share the fun. It’s called Creative Commons. The basic premise of Creative Commons ("CC" for short) is that you can give others the right to use your artistic work easily and quickly. If you are clicking at normal speed, it takes about one-and-a-half minutes to get a HTML code sporting the customized license you have chosen for your work. The concept and process of CC really is a brilliant thing for artists. Deviant Art currently employs an easy DHTML plug-in on their submit art page that give you the power to use the CC license, as opposed to applying a full copyright.
I’m not going to even attempt the whole legality of CC, because I’m not a lawyer. However, the CC lawyers have written up this page to help us who don’t understand it. As I said earlier, CC is very quick to use, and quite nice with its clean HTML codes that it outputs. Heres a test CC code i generated.
<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/"><img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width: 0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nd/2.5/88x31.png"/></a><br/>This work is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/">Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.5 License</a>.<!--/Creative Commons License--><!-- <rdf:RDF xml="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xml:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xml:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xml:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">
<Work rdf:about="">
<license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/" />
<dc:type rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text" />
</Work>
<License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/"><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduction"/><permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribution"/><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice"/><requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attribution"/></License></rdf:RDF>
Clicking on the image takes you to a page that…
(Continue)
|
|
0 | 1754 |
| comments | views |
Basic Database Design
Editor’s note: Pilky originally published this on his personal blog. He agreed to republish it here at our request. We have edited it to a minimal degree for formatting and minor changes like capitalization.
Database design is becoming key to developing applications. Almost all web applications are driven by a database, and with Core Data, Cocoa applications are starting to have true database back ends. Therefore it is surprising that so many programmers don’t know anything about database design. So here is a simple overview of the theory behind database design.
What is the benefit of using a database? Well, for one, it is fast. If you were using XML file stores for lots of data then you will know just how slow they are. SQL is much faster as it only loads the data that is needed. Another benefit is data redundancy, or rather the lack of it in a well designed database. There are 3 main bits of database design that I am going to go through: keys, relationships and normalisation. The first two are very simple, but normalisation is a little hard to get your head round at first, but it is fundamental to a well designed database, both in terms of speed and redundancy.
Terminology
First off, lets get the basic terminology out of the way. A database is a central pool of data, simple as that. Within a database there can be several tables. A table (or entity) is a subset of this data, e.g. a…
(Continue)
 |
7 | 40431 |
| comments | views |
More musings on MacHeist
Software developers can choose any price they want, so if they think giving away a bunch of apps for nickels on the dollar is fair, thats their choice.
So there’s been lots and lots of discussion about the economics and equitability of MacHeist over the past few weeks (see below for a list of the more popular commentary). Many points have been argued on both sides of the coin; here is a brief summary of some of these points:
Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
|
|
It is my argument that MacHeist is a completely fair ordeal, no matter which way the krona crumbles.
What’s fair is fair
Many of the points heistractors (which is a word I just made up to describe detractors of MacHeist) like to raise concentrate on the equitability of the deal MacHeist made with the developers. According to Gus Mueller, MacHeist offered each developer $5000 in a “take it or leave it” deal to be part of the final bundle (no word yet on what the freebie suppliers received, if anything). That means MacHeist can sell as many copies of the…
(Continue)
 |
1 | 2453 |
| Arden | comment | views |
Musings on MacHeist
I'm as big a backer of shareware on the Mac as anybody else. If I find software to be worthwhile, I buy it... Not everyone is like me, though, and that's where a low-priced bundle is a good idea for attracting new customers.
Hmm, I guess it’s been a while since I posted to the staff blogs.
This is one of the few times since I started writing for DT that I’ve started an article without knowing what to say. Seriously.
First of all, I should make it clear that this is not intended to be a hit piece against Phill Ryu or any of the MacHeist organizers, nor against any critics of MacHeist.
At any rate, I will attempt to discuss my feelings about MacHeist, the online mystery-solving game of sorts, which has since unleashed a software bundle of biblical proportions for the absurdly low price of $49. A quarter of the revenue is donated to charity. What about that over 75%? That’s where it gets murky.
In his criticism of MacHeist, Gus Mueller mentions how he was offered a non-negotiable, flat-rate $5,000 to participate in MacHeist. Mueller states that he declined this offer because it was a flat-rate deal and not percentage-based (i.e. a certain percentage from every bundle sold goes directly to the developers). This means that if 5,000 bundles are sold, had he accepted the offer, Mueller would have gotten the equivalent of one dollar for each bundle sold. If 10,000 bundles are sold, it drops to the equivalent of 50 cents per bundle sold.
I don’t have any reason to doubt Gus in this case, being that the MacHeist team has yet to disclose any information on how the agreements with developers were structured, and I don’t know why…
(Continue)
 |
2 | 2163 |
| Nick | comments | views |
