The opposite of graceful degradation

This is Coursera. (No, I'm not directly linking. They've been a bad boy.) "Why are you showing their webpage before it loads?" you might be thinking. Well, to me, this is their webpage. Because I was viewing it with Javascript disabled. And if you do that, this is all you ever see.

That's right. The entirety of their site depends on Javascript. You don't just see a normal webpage but maybe the pop-up calendar doesn't work, or the navigation bar is a bit wonky. No, it's not even like Gawker circa 2011 where you still see some UI elements but everything else fails to load. Here, you simply see nothing.

You'd expect a modern, hip company like Coursera might take heed of the ideas like graceful degradation and progressive enhancement that have been all the rage lately. The point is, it's fine to have extra features provided by Javascript or the latest HTML5 specs. But if those features don't work for your visitor, you should have the more basic functionality there and operational. The particular reason the idea has been popular recently is the explosion in mobile devices, many of which are limited in their form factors and supported technologies. It's also a good idea for accessibility and even Google juice. But no, Coursera is turning away all those less-able devices and people at the door.

Postscript: Yes, I can just turn Javascript on. And I probably will. But I am definitely not turning it on for every site I happen to run into. Whether out of security concerns (and oh, there are many) or because they just don't want all that crap bogging down their browsing, disabling Javascript is a legitimate choice many people make. And if I run into a site like Coursera, half the time I'll just leave and never come back.

 (Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal)

Nothing more dismaying than an election year!

"Tech Bubble" vs. "Social Bubble"

(Google Trends)

In honor of the recent merger of Google Trends with Google Insights for Search, I thought I'd note an interesting recent trend that confirms one in my own head. People used to refer to the "Bubble 2.0" as the "tech bubble" exclusively, but now they refer to it as the "social bubble" just as much. That evolution mirrors my own, where I've come to understand that the current tech bubble is almost entirely centered on social media hysteria.

More info: I've written about bubble stuff a couple times, though you should probably just skip those and go directly to the really informative video I linked. It's a really good, informative, non-hysterical analysis of the nature and evolution of the bubble.

Oh, and P.P.S., in case you haven't heard, it's already popped. But that's no surprise, is it? This was all pretty silly in the first place. Maybe now I'll stop seeing things like my local coffee shop begging for me to like it on Facebook.

Cybersecurity: not just protecting Grandma's bank account anymore

(source: PC Magazine)

So reportedly, PNC Bank's website just got hit by a Muslim hacktivist group (don't worry, it was just a DDoS). It's supposedly another front in the Youtubes Wars of 2012. But, like most of these shenanigans, people suspect it to be just a tool for political aims. Specifically, some government people think it's just a cover for Iran's burgeoning hacker corps.

The point is, for years we've been hearing people try to use "cyberterrorism" as another way to scare people into securing their networks. But it's now finally happening.

So before, security experts were saddled with warning about your credit card number getting sent to Russia as their most realistic argument. And the non-security person could counter with "Well my bank will just reverse the charges, so why is it worth running a hardened Arch Linux system just to look at cat pictures?" Now, hopefully, we're seeing that it's not just about weighing the hassle of your own (or your customers') info getting out. It's a matter of national security. So finally, people: get your shit together!

The Howling Fat Men of the Coen Brothers

Of course this is a Coen Brothers trope. Why would you expect any different?

But really, this video might be better if it were restricted to John Goodman. The entire thing is worth it just to see him burst out of the ground amidst a thunderstorm, yelling at the sky like he clawed his way out of the womb that is Mother Earth herself. Nothing will convince you of that man's overwhelming presence like that clip.

Walph Raldo Emerson

Is it just me, or does anyone else always think that when they read "Ralph Waldo Emerson"? I have no idea why it transmutes in my head to that, but it does. And for some reason the name "Walph" is hilarious to me.

Somehow Google yielded no pages discussing this very important phenomenon. Looks like there's still a topic in this world that's not on the internet. (Until now. And yes, that's half the purpose of this post.)

The new iPod nano

(via imgur)

Uh oh, better break out the lawyers.

P.S. I swear this won't turn into a 24/7 Apple Hate blog. But for the time being, I've decided to stop holding back at all. The fact that we can now patent rounded corners and make the other guy pay $1 billion for it means all the stops have been pulled out and we're now in free-fall toward patent law insanity. And Apple has (unexpectedly) decided to become the poster child of all of it.

Facebook

(source: Ars Technica)

Re: Apple hitting Samsung with $1 billion patent fine

(via imgur)

Yeah, now that they've come out with that verdict, I'm going to start being shameless myself about shaming Apple.

Maybe I'll just keep yelling "Xerox PARC!"

Re: Apple's import ban on Android phones

A reference if you aren't up on the news: Apple may seek U.S. ban of Samsung Galaxy S III today - CNET

Oh, and instead of repeating myself, I'll point to a previous post that makes clear what I think of some (j/k- most) software patents: Apple swings +6 mace of multitouch at enemies

UPDATE: This post was about the import ban, but oh man, even better is the ongoing trial between Apple and Samsung over the very essence of Android: Apple is accusing Android of outright ripping off the iPhone. It's basically a repeat of the Apple vs. Microsoft case in the 90's where Apple accused Windows of copying the Macintosh. Except if Microsoft ripped off Apple, then Apple ripped off Xerox PARC. But maybe that's another can of worms.