"Perhaps, though given that many of the colored icons were either white or blue, I'm not sure how big of a deal that really is. They were already pretty uniform in color."
I use a 3rd-party utility to restore the color in the sidebar (though I should not have to). The home user is a little white house with a red door. Desktop has an image of the default Leopard (Snow Leopard) desktop background... kind of purplish. The icon for applications is red and yellow. Local computers are gray with a blue screen. Drives are all gray. Etc. So there are actually quite a few colors.
"Three finger scroll to top and bottom has never done anything for me, so I looked into it. From what I can tell it was never a feature of the OS, but it was a shortcut built into Firefox.... Given the gesture was never something supported by Apple..."
"Well you were upset about the scrollbars, which are easily defeated, and a gesture that never existed in the OS"
No. The second part of your sentence is incorrect. The first part of your sentence is both incorrect and beside the point. You can turn off the disappearing behavior, but you can't set them back to their original sizes, or restore the color. Repeat: it isn't a matter of being upset (although I admit I was not happy about these changes). My comment was about how they implemented a LESS EFFECTIVE UI from a human interface perspective. That isn't my opinion; it's a matter of simple fact.
"They also made a bunch of improvements to Terminal.app (some that were sorely wanting, such as when you open a new tab, the shell starting in the same directory as the existing tab)."
They made that change before iOS existed. That feature has been in OS X since I first started using it. Which was... Tiger, I think.
"This isn't 1992 anymore. All modern Macs have shipped with mice and trackpads with scroll capability for what -- seven years now? Other than my wife, who still scrolls with scrollbars? Besides which, going with a higher contrast bar as they have now is easier for people with visual impairments. And there are options in System Settings to disable the auto-hiding if you don't like it."
WHOOSH #5.
Repeat, again: this isn't about what I like or don't like. It's about KNOWN GOOD COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERFACE PRINCIPLES. And all the changes I listed (and probably a few more) violate them.
No, they didn't change ALL the interface. That was a bit of exaggeration. But they did change some very important elements. For the worse. And I don't mean "worse" in terms of what I personally prefer. I mean "worse" from a human interface standpoint.
"In my evaluation, I personally found the disappearing scrollbars to be unnerving for all of two workdays worth of use, or thereabouts."
It's not about what a minority of individuals might prefer. It's about interface principles. They removed the color, making it harder for the eye to find. They made it narrower, making it harder for the pointer to grab or click. They made it disappear so you have to wait a moment for it to reappear. (Granted that last can be turned off, but disappearing is the default.)
These are all violations of known good human-computer interface principles.
They also make it easier to actually scroll through a long document.
I am aware that the scrollbars "reappear". But that takes time. I am also aware that this behavior can be turned off. But it is a dumb default for most people, for a desktop OS.
"By market share, iOS is more successful than every version of OS X combined."
You, too, have missed the point. My post wasn't about market share, or which OS was the better seller. It was about which one was the "better" OS, in terms of known interface principles.
"I think the monochrome sidebar icons were a huge improvement, the old ones were too busy."
You miss the point. Regardless of your personal preference, removing color removes ease-of-use. Studies have shown that people find and interpret colored symbols significantly faster than all gray.
One gesture that was removed in Lion (and not the only one) was three-finger scroll to top and bottom. Try to find it now.
" The iOS changes that most people are upset about can all be easily disabled via Preferences (scrollbars, Gatekeeper) or sit unused (Launchpad)."
I wasn't referring to changes that "most people are upset about". I was referring to changes that violate human interface principles.
"The "iOSification" of OS X is overblown hyperbole at the moment. "
"Overblown hyperbole"??? They changed their whole UI to make it more iOS-like.
They made the scrollbars smaller, less colorful, and they actually disappear! They took the color out of Finder sidebar icons. They took visual progress feedback out of Mail. They took away some gestures that used to be there. And so on. I could go on for a while.
And *ALL* of those changes were both (A) intended to make OS X more like iOS, and (B) directly contrary to known computer-human interface principles.
The problem with Apple's approach is that instead of making iOS more like OS X, they decided to be bass-ackwards and make OS X more like iOS. Which is a STUPID approach. The idea is supposed to be to improve your new OS until it is as good as the old one, not to drag the old (and successful!) OS down to the level of some goddamned hand-held thing.
If it were "overblown hyperbole" you would not have people threatening to quit OS X over the issue... but quite a few have, and I have been tempted myself. I just may, if Apple doesn't pull its head out and start actually improving OS X again, rather than tearing it down.
"Can someone please explain to me why one would use this distro instead of just installing packages with Debian? I've never understood the appeal"
See the reply to a similar question further up.
The short answer is: because all the privileges and configs have been pre-set-up so everything just works. You would have to do an awful lot of diddling a standard *nix distro in order to do the same thing. This way, you just install. Somebody else has already done the (considerable amount of) work.
I should add that even if it were a treaty, it is pretty hypocritical of the government to use that as an excuse, since drone killings violate treaties all over the place.
"The TPP is being forced down many countries throats..."
BUT... the TPP is not "an agreement" yet, if it ever will be. It is only a proposal (one which the United States actually refused to follow itself, after a bunch of public outcry). So, since it is not yet an "agreement" or treaty, it does not actually block the unlocking of cell phones.
"How good is truth serum at verifying the type of insanity claimed, and what qualification does the judge have to diagnose the suspect's mental condition?"
That's two different questions. I don't know the answer to the latter. But as far as how effective "truth serum" is, based on past studies I can say "not very".
The problem with "truth serum" (usually sodium thiopental, also known as pentothal), is exactly the same problem with with using torture: if you use enough to break down the resistance of the subject, the subject then becomes too cooperative and is likely to say anything the interrogator wants to hear.
"he has no evidence. so everything he proposes is explicitly and entirely speculative. he does not deserve any credit for anything as a result of that."
I don't dispute that. But that's not even close to the same thing as 0% chance of being right.
Personally, I think he's full of bull. Because what little evidence I *have* seen would tend to refute his claims. But I wouldn't put it at 0%.
"Just don't buy it. "Bill of Rights" issues are for people who don't have a choice, like "Patients Bill of Rights" You do not have a choice about getting sick, you do have a choice about gaming."
I agree that there is some choice here, so "Bill of Rights" might not be terribly appropriate, but as the other poster pointed out, much of it is now a matter of law, and so everyone and their brother have adopted it, and there *IS* in fact some question of actual rights involved.
I would go even further than the other response, though, and say that it is a problem with all software, not just games. I think it is pointless to address this question just for games, and leave the wider software world out of it, when it also applies equally there.
"he is no more likely to be right than he ever was before. Which, without evidence, the chance remains at a firm 0%."
That's even less "science" than Wickramashinge's critics believe he is performing.
Without real evidence either way, the "chance" of his being right is completely indeterminate. And if it could be determined, it would likely not be 0%. A lot closer to 0% than 100%, though.
"... but their real problem from a programmer's perspective was the overly restrictive 64KB model and having to use a database for all storage."
True. But that didn't stop many people. There were thousands and thousands of apps for the Palm, many of them free.
What killed the Palm is that they threw away all their good, distinctive features when they built the Treo. They tossed the nice large screen in favor of a small screen and a shitty little keyboard; they tossed the default handwriting recognition in favor of that same keyboard. Battery life also went out the window.
That left them competing in the cell phone world with all the other cell phone companies, and the same features they had. To this day I wonder what the hell Palm was thinking. They should have just stuck a phone in an existing Palm, like the Tungsten.
My point was that it is hypocritical for someone to be berating the flaws of other countries (as opposed to just pointing them out), when their own country has the very same flaws. Unless of course they berate their own country, too.
Yes, exactly. Our own government has used the "state secrets" lie to cover much of its own misdoings... why should we be surprised -- much less alarmed -- that China would be doing the same thing?
Hey, fellow Americans! Yes, our country (and especially government) can use a lot of improvement. Let's not be hypocrites, okay?
"You show a serious lack of understanding of the Geneva Convention..."
*I* show a lack of understanding? Hahaha.
The Geneva Convention (there were actually more than one, but the term is generally used to mean the sum result of them) also defines things that countries CAN do as acts of war. For just one example, nerve and caustic gases are prohibited.
It doesn't matter whether the "enemy" is a terrorist, or Nazis, or Joe Blow down the street. Signatory countries may not do these things as an "act of war".
Look it up. Then come back to me and we'll see who was short of understanding.
Slashdot Mirror
"Perhaps, though given that many of the colored icons were either white or blue, I'm not sure how big of a deal that really is. They were already pretty uniform in color."
I use a 3rd-party utility to restore the color in the sidebar (though I should not have to). The home user is a little white house with a red door. Desktop has an image of the default Leopard (Snow Leopard) desktop background... kind of purplish. The icon for applications is red and yellow. Local computers are gray with a blue screen. Drives are all gray. Etc. So there are actually quite a few colors.
"Three finger scroll to top and bottom has never done anything for me, so I looked into it. From what I can tell it was never a feature of the OS, but it was a shortcut built into Firefox. ... Given the gesture was never something supported by Apple..."
Yes, it was. Three-finger scroll to top and bottom was a feature in Leopard and Snow Leopard, at least for those using a multitouch device. I have a server that is still running Snow Leopard, and the gesture is supported. In Lion and Mountain Lion, those gestures are now used by Mission Control and Exposé. You can turn them on or off, but not replace them without 3rd-party tools.
"Well you were upset about the scrollbars, which are easily defeated, and a gesture that never existed in the OS"
No. The second part of your sentence is incorrect. The first part of your sentence is both incorrect and beside the point. You can turn off the disappearing behavior, but you can't set them back to their original sizes, or restore the color. Repeat: it isn't a matter of being upset (although I admit I was not happy about these changes). My comment was about how they implemented a LESS EFFECTIVE UI from a human interface perspective. That isn't my opinion; it's a matter of simple fact.
"They also made a bunch of improvements to Terminal.app (some that were sorely wanting, such as when you open a new tab, the shell starting in the same directory as the existing tab)."
They made that change before iOS existed. That feature has been in OS X since I first started using it. Which was... Tiger, I think.
"This isn't 1992 anymore. All modern Macs have shipped with mice and trackpads with scroll capability for what -- seven years now? Other than my wife, who still scrolls with scrollbars? Besides which, going with a higher contrast bar as they have now is easier for people with visual impairments. And there are options in System Settings to disable the auto-hiding if you don't like it."
WHOOSH #5.
Repeat, again: this isn't about what I like or don't like. It's about KNOWN GOOD COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERFACE PRINCIPLES. And all the changes I listed (and probably a few more) violate them.
No, they didn't change ALL the interface. That was a bit of exaggeration. But they did change some very important elements. For the worse. And I don't mean "worse" in terms of what I personally prefer. I mean "worse" from a human interface standpoint.
"In my evaluation, I personally found the disappearing scrollbars to be unnerving for all of two workdays worth of use, or thereabouts."
It's not about what a minority of individuals might prefer. It's about interface principles. They removed the color, making it harder for the eye to find. They made it narrower, making it harder for the pointer to grab or click. They made it disappear so you have to wait a moment for it to reappear. (Granted that last can be turned off, but disappearing is the default.)
These are all violations of known good human-computer interface principles.
WHOOSH number 4.
They also make it easier to actually scroll through a long document.
I am aware that the scrollbars "reappear". But that takes time. I am also aware that this behavior can be turned off. But it is a dumb default for most people, for a desktop OS.
... And to answer your question: I have been using OS X almost exclusively now for over 6 years.
"What EXACTLY is your complaint?"
I already stated EXACTLY what my complaint was: they "dumbed down" a number of the OS X interface elements, in terms of known human interface factors.
You are the third person so far who's had a WHOOSH experience.
"By market share, iOS is more successful than every version of OS X combined."
You, too, have missed the point. My post wasn't about market share, or which OS was the better seller. It was about which one was the "better" OS, in terms of known interface principles.
"I think the monochrome sidebar icons were a huge improvement, the old ones were too busy."
You miss the point. Regardless of your personal preference, removing color removes ease-of-use. Studies have shown that people find and interpret colored symbols significantly faster than all gray.
One gesture that was removed in Lion (and not the only one) was three-finger scroll to top and bottom. Try to find it now.
" The iOS changes that most people are upset about can all be easily disabled via Preferences (scrollbars, Gatekeeper) or sit unused (Launchpad)."
I wasn't referring to changes that "most people are upset about". I was referring to changes that violate human interface principles.
"The "iOSification" of OS X is overblown hyperbole at the moment. "
"Overblown hyperbole"??? They changed their whole UI to make it more iOS-like.
They made the scrollbars smaller, less colorful, and they actually disappear! They took the color out of Finder sidebar icons. They took visual progress feedback out of Mail. They took away some gestures that used to be there. And so on. I could go on for a while.
And *ALL* of those changes were both (A) intended to make OS X more like iOS, and (B) directly contrary to known computer-human interface principles.
The problem with Apple's approach is that instead of making iOS more like OS X, they decided to be bass-ackwards and make OS X more like iOS. Which is a STUPID approach. The idea is supposed to be to improve your new OS until it is as good as the old one, not to drag the old (and successful!) OS down to the level of some goddamned hand-held thing.
If it were "overblown hyperbole" you would not have people threatening to quit OS X over the issue... but quite a few have, and I have been tempted myself. I just may, if Apple doesn't pull its head out and start actually improving OS X again, rather than tearing it down.
"Hmph. Everyone knows corn nuts are the best snack for well-reasoned and rational comment watching!"
Which is why you may not see any. Corn doesn't have nuts.
You mean like Windows 8?
"Can someone please explain to me why one would use this distro instead of just installing packages with Debian? I've never understood the appeal"
See the reply to a similar question further up.
The short answer is: because all the privileges and configs have been pre-set-up so everything just works. You would have to do an awful lot of diddling a standard *nix distro in order to do the same thing. This way, you just install. Somebody else has already done the (considerable amount of) work.
I should add that even if it were a treaty, it is pretty hypocritical of the government to use that as an excuse, since drone killings violate treaties all over the place.
"The TPP is being forced down many countries throats..."
BUT... the TPP is not "an agreement" yet, if it ever will be. It is only a proposal (one which the United States actually refused to follow itself, after a bunch of public outcry). So, since it is not yet an "agreement" or treaty, it does not actually block the unlocking of cell phones.
"How good is truth serum at verifying the type of insanity claimed, and what qualification does the judge have to diagnose the suspect's mental condition?"
That's two different questions. I don't know the answer to the latter. But as far as how effective "truth serum" is, based on past studies I can say "not very".
The problem with "truth serum" (usually sodium thiopental, also known as pentothal), is exactly the same problem with with using torture: if you use enough to break down the resistance of the subject, the subject then becomes too cooperative and is likely to say anything the interrogator wants to hear.
"he has no evidence. so everything he proposes is explicitly and entirely speculative. he does not deserve any credit for anything as a result of that."
I don't dispute that. But that's not even close to the same thing as 0% chance of being right.
Personally, I think he's full of bull. Because what little evidence I *have* seen would tend to refute his claims. But I wouldn't put it at 0%.
"Just don't buy it. "Bill of Rights" issues are for people who don't have a choice, like "Patients Bill of Rights" You do not have a choice about getting sick, you do have a choice about gaming."
I agree that there is some choice here, so "Bill of Rights" might not be terribly appropriate, but as the other poster pointed out, much of it is now a matter of law, and so everyone and their brother have adopted it, and there *IS* in fact some question of actual rights involved.
I would go even further than the other response, though, and say that it is a problem with all software, not just games. I think it is pointless to address this question just for games, and leave the wider software world out of it, when it also applies equally there.
"Phil Plait rips the paper to shreds. Wickramasinghe is a crank, and that Journal publishes all kinds of nonsense."
This deserves more than a short mention. I do not always agree with Phil Plait, but I think he nailed it pretty solidly here.
First, Plait points out that the diatoms are (A) all known Earthly varieties, and (B) almost certainly not "fossilized".
Then, he gives us other good reasons to question whether the "fragment" is a meteorite at all.
"he is no more likely to be right than he ever was before. Which, without evidence, the chance remains at a firm 0%."
That's even less "science" than Wickramashinge's critics believe he is performing.
Without real evidence either way, the "chance" of his being right is completely indeterminate. And if it could be determined, it would likely not be 0%. A lot closer to 0% than 100%, though.
"Proof of extra-terrestrial life."
It's not a bigger story because it's not new. This particular meteorite may be new, but this has all been done before.
"... but their real problem from a programmer's perspective was the overly restrictive 64KB model and having to use a database for all storage."
True. But that didn't stop many people. There were thousands and thousands of apps for the Palm, many of them free.
What killed the Palm is that they threw away all their good, distinctive features when they built the Treo. They tossed the nice large screen in favor of a small screen and a shitty little keyboard; they tossed the default handwriting recognition in favor of that same keyboard. Battery life also went out the window.
That left them competing in the cell phone world with all the other cell phone companies, and the same features they had. To this day I wonder what the hell Palm was thinking. They should have just stuck a phone in an existing Palm, like the Tungsten.
My point was that it is hypocritical for someone to be berating the flaws of other countries (as opposed to just pointing them out), when their own country has the very same flaws. Unless of course they berate their own country, too.
"Gee, welcome to the club."
Yes, exactly. Our own government has used the "state secrets" lie to cover much of its own misdoings... why should we be surprised -- much less alarmed -- that China would be doing the same thing?
Hey, fellow Americans! Yes, our country (and especially government) can use a lot of improvement. Let's not be hypocrites, okay?
"You show a serious lack of understanding of the Geneva Convention..."
*I* show a lack of understanding? Hahaha.
The Geneva Convention (there were actually more than one, but the term is generally used to mean the sum result of them) also defines things that countries CAN do as acts of war. For just one example, nerve and caustic gases are prohibited.
It doesn't matter whether the "enemy" is a terrorist, or Nazis, or Joe Blow down the street. Signatory countries may not do these things as an "act of war".
Look it up. Then come back to me and we'll see who was short of understanding.