I've never understood why geeks don't appreciate useability..
I'm design oriented and can flip this around...I've never understood why I can't get a good grasp on basic programming logic. It seems it's a mindset of WYSIWYG vs. I'm-super-logical-and-need-to-do-this-myself.
I'm married to a programmer, so I live this dichotomy every day;-)
Mind you neither are better than the other, just different. Of course, "design mode" IS better...for me...because I can get faster nicer looking results...FOR ME...but my wife can knock out 100 times the functionality in half the time, and change it in 1/10th of the time. It just doesn't look as nice.
Ahh, the inevitably incorrect Apple prediction. The most valuable tech company in the world that was predicted dead in 1997...the company that killed the floppy drive prematurely...the company that adopted USB too early...the company with the lame mp3 player.
You may still be able to buy a Mac Pro with an unlocked OS, but I'm willing to bet that soon all iMacs and MacBooks will be 100% walled garden.
That is possibly the most stupid prediction I've seen. Why would the company who is getting ready to consolidate OSX Server and OSX Home into ONE edition --OSX Lion-- start making different versions of the OS based on the user's hardware?
Keep predicting slashdotters, because my livelihood benefits from your terrible predictions.
It's intuitive because it's easy to figure it out. My 2 year old can use my iPhone because the interface allows for easy trial and error, building on consistent methodologies, leading to an intuitive interface.
I've always thought of it this way. A lot of people where pretty dumb when they were young, and now they are just old. My grandfather is 82, a retired Columbia law school professor, and a genius, regardless of his age. He doesn't use his age to prevent him from learning the tech he needs.
You teach the old person that an iPhone can have several alarms set, then they can pick which one they want to use. In that instance, you are "adding" an alarm. I'm almost 50 and this isn't that difficult.
Totally! Like where am I ever gonna find one of those!
But seriously, ICQ simplified IRC, so I doubt it was ever too complex for anyone. The fact that it is an Israeli company and everything you have ever typed is probably sitting in a government database somewhere is why I don't use ICQ, not its perceived complexity;-)
Well, the A in AIM was for AOL (nice...an acronym inside of an abbreviation...that'll never be confusing, right?) and the A in AOL was for "America". Makes sense "America" Online didn't take off in NotAmerica;-)
I'm probably mistaken, but I thought the reason I am not taxed when I sell stuff on ebay or craigslist (or at a garage sale) is because I'm not a business.
Those are nice figures, but what do they mean? If the top 1% tax payers tax burden rose as a percentage of all tax payers, then that could imply that the divide between rich and poor merely grew from 1981-1988, for reasons OTHER than tax rates.
Maybe there were less tax exemptions between 1980-1989? Maybe people made more money because of things like Wall Street and whatever else was booming in the 80s, and the nominal tax rates had nothing to do with that?
Anyone who is near or at the limit of being thrown into a higher tax bracket because of an idea like yours is going to do the most natural response: Keep themselves just shy of that limit. The reason "tax the rich" doesn't work is because it creates incentives for people becoming underachievers.
Looking at the top economies of the world, "tax the rich" does seem to be working, if you define working as "generating the most million/billionaires".
If true, that is the most stupid anecdote I've ever heard. Mind you, you aren't stupid for posting it, the reality of the anecdote is what is stupid. Where do you live???
The tax is on the individual purchasing the goods, not the company selling them. They are not restricting the company or its ability to trade goods at all.
Well as soon as the tax agencies start demanding taxes directly from the consumer instead of the company, I'll agree with your statement. Until then, it's the responsibility of the company to collect the taxes from the consumer, because the company has to turn around and pay the tax man.
Considering Saddam Hussein and the Baathists took over power in 1968, I fail to see how the US "CREATED" Saddam Hussein. Hell he became official President in 1979, a few years before the US started taking sides in the Iran-Iraq war.
I didn't say we didn't support Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. I said the support we gave them was not used against us in the 1st Gulf War war, like you suggest in the second link and like the first guy straight up said in his post. Your second link is pro-iranian garbage. Listing a bunch of conspiracy theories like the US shipped botulinum and anthrax to Iraq has no credibility. Where's the evidence that the US supplied Iraq with chemical weapons and why am I, a former intelligence professional specializing in Iraq, just now hearing about this in 2011? You citing it as a reference shows a severe lack of judgment. But thanks for the link. I have a new sample for my class on teaching how to recognize bias on the Internet.
you can probably rationalize both of those links as being "liberal media misinformation."
I am a liberal--so much for that theory. But the second link is biased Iranian garbage, regardless of my political ideology.
Saddam Hussein wasn't an an Islamist. He was a secularist that pretended to be a muslim, to maintain power over his people. Therefore, in this case, Islamists weren't the evil, Saddam Hussein was. But yeah, Islamist are "the ebil", they just weren't part of either of the Iraq - US wars.
"The presence of Al-Qa'ida militants on Iraqi soil poses many questions. We are uncertain to what extent Baghdad is actively complicit in this use of its territory by al-Qai'da operatives for safehaven and transit. Given the pervasive presence of the Iraq's security apparatus, it would be difficult for al-Qai'da to maintain an active, long term presence in Iraq without alerting authorities, or without at least their acquiescence."
(Emphasis mine).
In other words, nobody really knows the bin Laden-Zarqawi-Saddam Hussein connection other than the three of them were loosely connected due to Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his allegiance to bin Laden, before the US invasion occurred. To say Zarqawi didn't come to Iraq until the US invasion is wrong. To say Zarqawi had no allegiance to bin Laden is wrong. To say Saddam Hussein provided material support to Al-Qai'da is most likely wrong, but unproven (nor did I ever make that claim, for the record).
What I'm trying to say is that most people will pick the news bite they hear that best supports their belief and run with that. My example being many people who are anti-Iraq-War will swear up and down that Zarqawi was never even in Iraq (which is funny, since he DIED in Iraq), or that he wasn't in Iraq until the US invasion (also wrong).
There are a lot of easier things to pick on than this detail (yellow cake, meetings in Prague that never happened, mobile chemical weapons vehicles, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
I've never understood why geeks don't appreciate useability..
I'm design oriented and can flip this around...I've never understood why I can't get a good grasp on basic programming logic. It seems it's a mindset of WYSIWYG vs. I'm-super-logical-and-need-to-do-this-myself.
I'm married to a programmer, so I live this dichotomy every day ;-)
Mind you neither are better than the other, just different. Of course, "design mode" IS better...for me...because I can get faster nicer looking results...FOR ME...but my wife can knock out 100 times the functionality in half the time, and change it in 1/10th of the time. It just doesn't look as nice.
The reason Mac users are now targetted is because they are less computer savvy,
*citation needed
have deep pockets
Probably because they have jobs and moved out of their mothers' basements.
and have been shown to be more educated than Windows users.
FTFY, which probably explains your second point as well
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20056815-71.html
And, yes, they will certainly lock down OSX.
Ahh, the inevitably incorrect Apple prediction. The most valuable tech company in the world that was predicted dead in 1997...the company that killed the floppy drive prematurely...the company that adopted USB too early...the company with the lame mp3 player.
You may still be able to buy a Mac Pro with an unlocked OS, but I'm willing to bet that soon all iMacs and MacBooks will be 100% walled garden.
That is possibly the most stupid prediction I've seen. Why would the company who is getting ready to consolidate OSX Server and OSX Home into ONE edition --OSX Lion-- start making different versions of the OS based on the user's hardware?
Keep predicting slashdotters, because my livelihood benefits from your terrible predictions.
Just wait until all other computer manufactures start thinking the way Apple does.
If it gets rid of the 75% of stuff out there that is pure crap, I'm all for it.
It's intuitive because it's easy to figure it out. My 2 year old can use my iPhone because the interface allows for easy trial and error, building on consistent methodologies, leading to an intuitive interface.
ah but language changes drastically every 10-20 years
Old people can't acquire new language?
I've always thought of it this way. A lot of people where pretty dumb when they were young, and now they are just old. My grandfather is 82, a retired Columbia law school professor, and a genius, regardless of his age. He doesn't use his age to prevent him from learning the tech he needs.
You teach the old person that an iPhone can have several alarms set, then they can pick which one they want to use. In that instance, you are "adding" an alarm. I'm almost 50 and this isn't that difficult.
It's intuitive because Apple development standards use the + symbol consistently. Once you learn it once, it applies forever.
Or the lazy, in my case.
... not instant and require a web browser,
Totally! Like where am I ever gonna find one of those!
But seriously, ICQ simplified IRC, so I doubt it was ever too complex for anyone. The fact that it is an Israeli company and everything you have ever typed is probably sitting in a government database somewhere is why I don't use ICQ, not its perceived complexity ;-)
Interesting you know anybody, let alone "everyone you know", that uses ANY IM procotol.
The "stupid, ignorant America" is really turning into a tired meme.
But it is valid for a large swath of our population. I like to call them the Tea Party.
I'm American. I used ICQ for many years, as did millions of other Americans. You aren't as special as you think.
I had some program on my Mac that brought ICQ, Messenger (Yahoo), AIM and other accounts into one account. Yeah, don't miss those days...
Well, the A in AIM was for AOL (nice...an acronym inside of an abbreviation...that'll never be confusing, right?) and the A in AOL was for "America". Makes sense "America" Online didn't take off in NotAmerica ;-)
Configuring IRC was too complicated for the average user. AIM took care of that for the masses.
I'm probably mistaken, but I thought the reason I am not taxed when I sell stuff on ebay or craigslist (or at a garage sale) is because I'm not a business.
Can I quote you from now on until...forever? That was pure awesome sauce.
Those are nice figures, but what do they mean? If the top 1% tax payers tax burden rose as a percentage of all tax payers, then that could imply that the divide between rich and poor merely grew from 1981-1988, for reasons OTHER than tax rates.
Maybe there were less tax exemptions between 1980-1989? Maybe people made more money because of things like Wall Street and whatever else was booming in the 80s, and the nominal tax rates had nothing to do with that?
Anyone who is near or at the limit of being thrown into a higher tax bracket because of an idea like yours is going to do the most natural response: Keep themselves just shy of that limit. The reason "tax the rich" doesn't work is because it creates incentives for people becoming underachievers.
Looking at the top economies of the world, "tax the rich" does seem to be working, if you define working as "generating the most million/billionaires".
If true, that is the most stupid anecdote I've ever heard. Mind you, you aren't stupid for posting it, the reality of the anecdote is what is stupid. Where do you live???
The tax is on the individual purchasing the goods, not the company selling them. They are not restricting the company or its ability to trade goods at all.
Well as soon as the tax agencies start demanding taxes directly from the consumer instead of the company, I'll agree with your statement. Until then, it's the responsibility of the company to collect the taxes from the consumer, because the company has to turn around and pay the tax man.
Considering Saddam Hussein and the Baathists took over power in 1968, I fail to see how the US "CREATED" Saddam Hussein. Hell he became official President in 1979, a few years before the US started taking sides in the Iran-Iraq war.
I didn't say we didn't support Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. I said the support we gave them was not used against us in the 1st Gulf War war, like you suggest in the second link and like the first guy straight up said in his post. Your second link is pro-iranian garbage. Listing a bunch of conspiracy theories like the US shipped botulinum and anthrax to Iraq has no credibility. Where's the evidence that the US supplied Iraq with chemical weapons and why am I, a former intelligence professional specializing in Iraq, just now hearing about this in 2011? You citing it as a reference shows a severe lack of judgment. But thanks for the link. I have a new sample for my class on teaching how to recognize bias on the Internet.
you can probably rationalize both of those links as being "liberal media misinformation."
I am a liberal--so much for that theory. But the second link is biased Iranian garbage, regardless of my political ideology.
Saddam Hussein wasn't an an Islamist. He was a secularist that pretended to be a muslim, to maintain power over his people. Therefore, in this case, Islamists weren't the evil, Saddam Hussein was. But yeah, Islamist are "the ebil", they just weren't part of either of the Iraq - US wars.
"The presence of Al-Qa'ida militants on Iraqi soil poses many questions. We are uncertain to what extent Baghdad is actively complicit in this use of its territory by al-Qai'da operatives for safehaven and transit. Given the pervasive presence of the Iraq's security apparatus, it would be difficult for al-Qai'da to maintain an active, long term presence in Iraq without alerting authorities, or without at least their acquiescence."
(Emphasis mine).
In other words, nobody really knows the bin Laden-Zarqawi-Saddam Hussein connection other than the three of them were loosely connected due to Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his allegiance to bin Laden, before the US invasion occurred. To say Zarqawi didn't come to Iraq until the US invasion is wrong. To say Zarqawi had no allegiance to bin Laden is wrong. To say Saddam Hussein provided material support to Al-Qai'da is most likely wrong, but unproven (nor did I ever make that claim, for the record).
What I'm trying to say is that most people will pick the news bite they hear that best supports their belief and run with that. My example being many people who are anti-Iraq-War will swear up and down that Zarqawi was never even in Iraq (which is funny, since he DIED in Iraq), or that he wasn't in Iraq until the US invasion (also wrong).
There are a lot of easier things to pick on than this detail (yellow cake, meetings in Prague that never happened, mobile chemical weapons vehicles, etc.).