I understand the "cancel out" argument. I don't understand how anyone would use this as an excuse not to do something to improve safety, such as putting a seat belt on. Just wearing a seat belt won't make me less likely to get in a wreck, but it will protect me significantly if I do. Statistically speaking, IF I do have an accident (regardless if I'm driving faster because I feel safer or not) I will suffer less bodily damage if I'm wearing a seat than if I'm not. Your analysis looks at the probability of an accident happening and correlation to seat belt use, where my analysis looks at the effectiveness when there IS an accident.
I did read your post. I'm still confused at why you have to label the lack of enforcing existing laws and creating new laws in their place as a "liberal" issue. That is all.
That would be a good first step. Unfortunately for my ex-girlfriend's ex-boyfriend, he's a felon for punching me in the head for sleeping with his ex-girlfriend. He got 8 years of probation he assaulted me, and evidently I'm special since I work (worked, at the time) for the feds. Note to jealous boyfriends--don't punch federal agents in the head.
Lacking wisdom and risk assessments are hardly grounds for locking somebody up for life. Something about the penalty fitting the crime comes to mind. If you want to go around locking up people that lack judgment, we'd have more people in prison than not.
And I fail to see how stealing golf clubs constitutes a threat against fellow citizens on the magnitude of "we must lock this guy up to protect everyone around him".
Seat belts don't correlate with traffic deaths, yet 100% of the time, people wearing properly functioning seat belts are not ejected from the vehicle, flung 100 meters through the air, and head first into a tree. Certainly they may die because they couldn't get unseated from the vehicle as it slowly sank to the bottom of the ocean, but I'd rather take my chances and wear a seat belt, given the odds.
Those airplanes are privately owned, and the people who own them can make any rules they want about who can ride.
No they can't. I thought we proved that in Selma, Alabama a while back? Besides, in this case, the rules are being set by the federal government, not the privately owned airlines.
"Three strikes" laws -- particularly the California version that allows petty crimes to trigger the third strike -- are problematic. There are varying levels of severity for felonies, some that deserve life sentences, some that deserve probation, and everything in between.
One guy commits two two heinous felonies, somehow lawyers his way out of long prison terms, and another guy, a) steals a purse, b) hits a parked car and runs away, and c) steals bubble gum from the store goes to prison for life. I'm not sure how any sane, thinking person on this planet can't see the glaring flaw with this system.
Maybe the whole point of the article was to complain about MS business practices. I see no indication this article claims to be a review of Windows 7, other than slashdot linked to it stating as such.
It's not the list of features that matters, it's how well the features in the list work. Once Microsoft learns that simple lesson, they'll make a good OS.
The article was an indictment of Microsoft business practices. I didn't see anywhere in the article where he reviewed Windows7, nor anywhere where it pretends to be a review of Windows7.
To be fair, Win+E is intuitive only if you know what an "Explorer" is, and the difference between Explorer and Windows Explorer. Apple+Q is more intuitive, because it uses a consistent modifier key, plus an intuitive, logical letter (Apple+Q makes far more sense than Alt+F4 on ANY planet). And to be really fair, if the OS doesn't display the keyboard shortcut within a menu, then it really isn't helpful, because people will not naturally figure them out on their own with much success.
That's the thing I'm really not getting here. He should have very quickly gone "shit, this isn't what I wanted!" AND NOT CLICKED THE "YES, I'M REALLY SURE I WANT THIS" BUTTON.
I hate this attitude. It's right up there with the slashdot mantra of "that's what the preview function is for". Bullshit. I previewed it but then noticed that I had a mistake. I'd like to edit it, thank you very much. No amount of "use the preview, noob!" yelling is going to fix my mistake, or even prevent it in the first place. There should always be checks in place that make it hard/nearly impossible for a user to make a simple mistake. Blaming the user for something the UI could prevent/make harder to screw up is stupid. In slashdot's particular case, the "submit" button and the "continue editing" button should be on opposite ends of the dialog, with virtually no chance of clicking the wrong one, and absolutely ZERO chance of clicking the wrong one based on lack of mouse control/misclicking.
Its hold alt and drag. Its hardly a "secret key combo". For one, you think the typical user is going to change screen resolutions?
As someone who has never seen any flavor of Linux, Hold+Alt+drag sounds pretty secret to me, unless it actually displays that above my cursor when I hover over the desktop space, or says so in a menu somewhere. And yes, average users change screen resolution for various reasons. Good to see the same bad attitudes towards new users are still flying around in Linux-land though.
To build on your last line, Microsoft has such a stranglehold on the market that when something better does come around, new users are frustrated that it doesn't work "the way Windows does", so they think the new way sucks. I've seen many new Mac users go back to Windows because of this.
It's not about Apple "dropping its price on Macs". They'd have to build cheaper models, with less stuff in them, which is a cultural decision they've made not to do. Where's my $15,000 BMW?
I think the vodka one-liner is a somewhat clever, and totally fair analogy that speaks about the corporate culture at Microsoft. Fortunately, it looks like Win7 might be a departure from that.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand the "cancel out" argument. I don't understand how anyone would use this as an excuse not to do something to improve safety, such as putting a seat belt on. Just wearing a seat belt won't make me less likely to get in a wreck, but it will protect me significantly if I do. Statistically speaking, IF I do have an accident (regardless if I'm driving faster because I feel safer or not) I will suffer less bodily damage if I'm wearing a seat than if I'm not. Your analysis looks at the probability of an accident happening and correlation to seat belt use, where my analysis looks at the effectiveness when there IS an accident.
I did read your post. I'm still confused at why you have to label the lack of enforcing existing laws and creating new laws in their place as a "liberal" issue. That is all.
That would be a good first step. Unfortunately for my ex-girlfriend's ex-boyfriend, he's a felon for punching me in the head for sleeping with his ex-girlfriend. He got 8 years of probation he assaulted me, and evidently I'm special since I work (worked, at the time) for the feds. Note to jealous boyfriends--don't punch federal agents in the head.
Lacking wisdom and risk assessments are hardly grounds for locking somebody up for life. Something about the penalty fitting the crime comes to mind. If you want to go around locking up people that lack judgment, we'd have more people in prison than not.
And I fail to see how stealing golf clubs constitutes a threat against fellow citizens on the magnitude of "we must lock this guy up to protect everyone around him".
Seat belts don't correlate with traffic deaths, yet 100% of the time, people wearing properly functioning seat belts are not ejected from the vehicle, flung 100 meters through the air, and head first into a tree. Certainly they may die because they couldn't get unseated from the vehicle as it slowly sank to the bottom of the ocean, but I'd rather take my chances and wear a seat belt, given the odds.
I fail to see how you can categorize this as a "liberal" cause. This is a public safety cause.
That's a nice train ride from Portland, OR to Honolulu, HI!
Those airplanes are privately owned, and the people who own them can make any rules they want about who can ride.
No they can't. I thought we proved that in Selma, Alabama a while back? Besides, in this case, the rules are being set by the federal government, not the privately owned airlines.
Since when does the "Pursuit of Happiness" require the federal government to provide you cheap and convenient forms of air travel?
Nice! As a striker myself, I can appreciate your brutal form of defense, but still don't like it ;-)
"Three strikes" laws -- particularly the California version that allows petty crimes to trigger the third strike -- are problematic. There are varying levels of severity for felonies, some that deserve life sentences, some that deserve probation, and everything in between.
One guy commits two two heinous felonies, somehow lawyers his way out of long prison terms, and another guy, a) steals a purse, b) hits a parked car and runs away, and c) steals bubble gum from the store goes to prison for life. I'm not sure how any sane, thinking person on this planet can't see the glaring flaw with this system.
I was thinking something along the line of red card analgoies, but you normally don't get three "strikes" before the red card.
Maybe the whole point of the article was to complain about MS business practices. I see no indication this article claims to be a review of Windows 7, other than slashdot linked to it stating as such.
It's not the list of features that matters, it's how well the features in the list work. Once Microsoft learns that simple lesson, they'll make a good OS.
The same reason I listen to Rush Limbaugh, yet I can't stand Rush Limbaugh.
The article was an indictment of Microsoft business practices. I didn't see anywhere in the article where he reviewed Windows7, nor anywhere where it pretends to be a review of Windows7.
Unprofitable customers?! If they're so unprofitable, how did Microsoft make all those billions of dollars?
Selling 1 billion copies of Windows at $1 profit nets far more money than selling 1 million copies of OSX at $10 profit...that's how.
Don't you have to turn on a setting in OSX to allow for keyboard navigation of menu items? It's off by default (dumb).
To be fair, Win+E is intuitive only if you know what an "Explorer" is, and the difference between Explorer and Windows Explorer. Apple+Q is more intuitive, because it uses a consistent modifier key, plus an intuitive, logical letter (Apple+Q makes far more sense than Alt+F4 on ANY planet). And to be really fair, if the OS doesn't display the keyboard shortcut within a menu, then it really isn't helpful, because people will not naturally figure them out on their own with much success.
That's the thing I'm really not getting here. He should have very quickly gone "shit, this isn't what I wanted!" AND NOT CLICKED THE "YES, I'M REALLY SURE I WANT THIS" BUTTON.
I hate this attitude. It's right up there with the slashdot mantra of "that's what the preview function is for". Bullshit. I previewed it but then noticed that I had a mistake. I'd like to edit it, thank you very much. No amount of "use the preview, noob!" yelling is going to fix my mistake, or even prevent it in the first place. There should always be checks in place that make it hard/nearly impossible for a user to make a simple mistake. Blaming the user for something the UI could prevent/make harder to screw up is stupid. In slashdot's particular case, the "submit" button and the "continue editing" button should be on opposite ends of the dialog, with virtually no chance of clicking the wrong one, and absolutely ZERO chance of clicking the wrong one based on lack of mouse control/misclicking.
Its hold alt and drag. Its hardly a "secret key combo". For one, you think the typical user is going to change screen resolutions?
As someone who has never seen any flavor of Linux, Hold+Alt+drag sounds pretty secret to me, unless it actually displays that above my cursor when I hover over the desktop space, or says so in a menu somewhere. And yes, average users change screen resolution for various reasons. Good to see the same bad attitudes towards new users are still flying around in Linux-land though.
To build on your last line, Microsoft has such a stranglehold on the market that when something better does come around, new users are frustrated that it doesn't work "the way Windows does", so they think the new way sucks. I've seen many new Mac users go back to Windows because of this.
It's not about Apple "dropping its price on Macs". They'd have to build cheaper models, with less stuff in them, which is a cultural decision they've made not to do. Where's my $15,000 BMW?
All that since monday? Clearly you have driver or even hardware problems.
Blame Microsoft if it makes you feel better, but the real problem is almost certainly elsewhere.
Unless, of course, he was using WinXP on the same computer before Monday with no such trouble.
I think the vodka one-liner is a somewhat clever, and totally fair analogy that speaks about the corporate culture at Microsoft. Fortunately, it looks like Win7 might be a departure from that.