In a car with both tiptronic and regular stick shift
Are you on drugs?
If your example is so stupid that correctly applying it requires a car with two transmission interfaces, it is you that are shown to be on drugs.
And so far you have completely failed to demonstrate how things are screwed up.
That you conveniently forgot to quote the part of my post that demonstrated exactly this is not my fault. If it is not screwed up, you wouldn't have needed to suggest nit using the windows start screen. So you can ask yourself why you suggested that, to answer this point.
Shortcuts are lazy? Why did you use the shortcut of specifying "windows + R" then? Nice excuse for not reading a post before replying to it, though. And since you knew windows + r is not a replacement for search as in start menu search, but still stated it as a valid replacement, it is not exactly a surprise to you that I pointed this out, is it?
So, if I remove the stick shift in a car when moving to a tiptronic version, I have removed a feature? Are you on drugs? A change is not the same as a feature drop, if you can do the same (launch an application) it is a change
In a car with both tiptronic and regular stick shift, if stick shift is removed, yes it is a feature drop. Even more so when discussing with one who points out an ergonomic issue with tiptronic ( in cars I prefer tiptronic, so there is no issue there). Note that in earlier versions of windows, task bar as well as start menu search is available. Because of a deficiency in Windows 8 start "screen" search, you are having to suggest not using it, equivalent to not having the feature for some use cases, equivalient to dropping a feature.
Basically what you are saying is that when a number of companies moved the "Options" menu from the "Edit" menu to the "Windows" menu (or the other way around) the dropped a feature. Try again.
Again, "moving" is different from screwing up one of the ways to conduct an operation, leaving only the other way to conduct it. Task bar item is still there as from earlier, but with the same limitation of unsearchability (anywhere remotely as easy as start menu searching for applications), non-scalability, and being more geared toward visual usage.
{windows+R}vn -> gives an error
It's interesting to hear. Are you sure you are using a computer? Running Windows? Windows+R has worked since Windows 95 at least. Are you sure you were not trying to do something with one of those things in your wall where the light comes in? I was talking about the Windows Operating System on your computer.
I didn't say Windows+R didn't work at all, I said it doesn't work as you suggested it would. If typing "vn" in the dialog box popped by Windows+R has "since Windows 95 at least" been capable of opening VNC viewer, without a shortcut defined, it is you that is on drugs.
Please note, to use the Windows+R key you need to know the exact name of your application
Which is why I demonstrated by typing only "vn" in the dialog box opened by Windows+R and telling you that it gives an error, as shown by "{windows+R}vn". You are just too thick to get that.
If you want to use a more "fuzzy" search, you'll have to use the Windows+F key combination. Another combination that has been available since Windows 95.
Haha, you're struggling again. I like it. {windows+f}vn -> Opens a search window searching for files containing vn in the name, but does not open VNC viewer.
Ok, so you have conducted medical research to refute the evidence
That actually doesn't prove anything at all, since the door effect is not relevant. You don't have to use the Start Screen. No door. No relevance.
Sure, you don't have to use it. No start menu either. So one feature less in one incremental version. This is what I mean by "a huge issue" : if after a discussion of a "new and improved" feature, the conclusion is that assume the feature is not there at all.
how do I search applications on the Task Bar?
Windows+R.
Didn't work. {windows key}vn -> opens Vnc Viewer {windows+R}vn -> gives an error. Try again, I am enjoying your struggle.
Do you think it is a scalable interface suitable for hundreds of applications
No, and neither is the Start Menu nor the Start Screen
While it is not very good, one can actually search for applications to search using a start menu. Start screen being idiotic in other ways still gives the ability o search for applications. Taks bar just doesn't, and you have to lie about windows+R being a replacement to save your face.
so far not convinced there are any negative, real-world implications whatsoever
Ok, so you have conducted medical research to refute the evidence I presented here. I am taking your word for it.
So far I have not seen a single person being able to explain which real, practical negative implications the Start Screen has
Evidence in this thread suggests you simply ignore the answers. As I mentioned above about doorway amnesia, and you have been ignoring.
I have asked why people who don't want to (or can) use the Start Screen can not use the Task Bar, and I have so far received zero answers
A mad man on a street asked me how many hands I have and I made no reply. Basically when the answer is too obvious, one doesn't answer the question, but rather question the motives/sanity of the person asking. So I'll reply by asking - how do I search applications on the Task Bar? Do you think it is a scalable interface suitable for hundreds of applications? If not why do you insist on asking the question?
Taking break deliberately is one thing. Opening another application for the same task when the user doesn't necessarily want to take a break; making it easier to lose concentration is another.
It is not a good design which makes it easier to do bad things.
1. First one disabuses the reader of the notion that everyone not being aware of the problem doesn't mean there is no problem.
2. Second sentence already answers the question you ask now - the fact that "not a huge issue" is the best thing you can say about a new feature; is a huge issue.
You said one can't make applications visible when start screen is open? That is enough to cause the doorway amnesia. And enough to be bad industrial design for humans.
An irritant, but nothing that would impede your work unless you have a lot of apps that start with the same number of characters
Well, while opening the start menu and typing the required characters to select the application, I can pause at any time, corresponding to a mental "pause" while mentally assimilating something from the currently used app. With a start screen, there is not only a discontinuity, but any non-trivial usage of start screen is an active distraction. Placement of email, stock, weather etc. tiles on the screen amplify the doorway amnesia effect. The tool (computer in this case) is trying hard to not let the user concentrate on one task at a time.
Industrial design has to keep attributes of human body in mind while designing. This includes physiological attributes (not needing more than 2 hands, easily reachable handles even for someone not in the prime of health etc.) and psychological ones (doorway amnesia, more pictorial nature of human thought and memory rather than olfactory/aural etc.) If they don't, it is bad industrial design.
It is not that one can't adapt to it, but it is a travesty that one has to. If most car manufacturers collude to creating cars that punches all occupants every 10 minutes, users might get used to it, but it is no cause for celebration as I see in your posts. Like so many major computer manufacturers have colluded to sell devices with Microsoft software with these serious industrial design issues.
the start screen is in fact far more flexible than the Win7 start button
Ok, how can I keep my application window visible when the "start screen" is opened? I am in a habit of continuing to read from my applications when the start menu is open and I am typing the new application's name. The typical new application I want to open is part of the same "task" that I am already performing, and I don't like to take my attention away from it to read stock news or mail.
Philosophy having no morality doesn't mean its adherents are expected to have no morality. Just that morality is outside of the scope of the particular philosophy.
E.g. Psychology having nothing to do with astrophysics doesn't mean it gives freedom to commit Astrophysical mistakes.
Anyway you stick to ignorance of the definition of philosophy.
Not sure what you mean by "that". Take science as another philosophy which has no morality. By its very definition, philosophy needs to have only epistemology and metaphysics. Only one ignorant of this would assume ALL philosophies have morality.
No, not all philosophies have moral lessons. A philosophy has epistemology, metaphysics, and an optional morality component. For example the ancient Indian Charvaka philosophy has no ethics / morality.
That I'm conscious, and not just a bio-robot with no more self-awareness than a rock, is something I can't even prove to you, nor you to me
If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it well. So you could take it to mean that you don't understand "conscious"-ness well, nor self-awareness.
A child might guess that they have a "spirit" inside, and that they would not expect the rock to have one
A child might even guess that their bodies have mass, and they would not expect air to have it. But then they would be wrong. It is ok, we are all wrong when we are children. Cooking up ill-defined words like "spirit" isn't going to help with reasoning skills.
I'm sorry, but I like having a durable backup installer of anything I am going to rely on. And that means on permanent media that I can put away in a drawer.
Yes, but what has that got to do with optical media?
Your post is VERY funny for anyone really poor, say in a typical third world country.
Heartbreaking? Heart is a luxury. Housing, low-quality but food, clothes, fucking CAR? It is the description of an 80 percentile rich Indian without considering the car. Include the car, and it becomes 96 percentile rich Indian.
Slashdot Mirror
In a car with both tiptronic and regular stick shift
Are you on drugs?
If your example is so stupid that correctly applying it requires a car with two transmission interfaces, it is you that are shown to be on drugs.
And so far you have completely failed to demonstrate how things are screwed up.
That you conveniently forgot to quote the part of my post that demonstrated exactly this is not my fault. If it is not screwed up, you wouldn't have needed to suggest nit using the windows start screen. So you can ask yourself why you suggested that, to answer this point.
Shortcuts are lazy? Why did you use the shortcut of specifying "windows + R" then? Nice excuse for not reading a post before replying to it, though. And since you knew windows + r is not a replacement for search as in start menu search, but still stated it as a valid replacement, it is not exactly a surprise to you that I pointed this out, is it?
So, if I remove the stick shift in a car when moving to a tiptronic version, I have removed a feature? Are you on drugs? A change is not the same as a feature drop, if you can do the same (launch an application) it is a change
In a car with both tiptronic and regular stick shift, if stick shift is removed, yes it is a feature drop. Even more so when discussing with one who points out an ergonomic issue with tiptronic ( in cars I prefer tiptronic, so there is no issue there). Note that in earlier versions of windows, task bar as well as start menu search is available. Because of a deficiency in Windows 8 start "screen" search, you are having to suggest not using it, equivalent to not having the feature for some use cases, equivalient to dropping a feature.
Basically what you are saying is that when a number of companies moved the "Options" menu from the "Edit" menu to the "Windows" menu (or the other way around) the dropped a feature. Try again.
Again, "moving" is different from screwing up one of the ways to conduct an operation, leaving only the other way to conduct it. Task bar item is still there as from earlier, but with the same limitation of unsearchability (anywhere remotely as easy as start menu searching for applications), non-scalability, and being more geared toward visual usage.
{windows+R}vn -> gives an error
It's interesting to hear. Are you sure you are using a computer? Running Windows? Windows+R has worked since Windows 95 at least. Are you sure you were not trying to do something with one of those things in your wall where the light comes in? I was talking about the Windows Operating System on your computer.
I didn't say Windows+R didn't work at all, I said it doesn't work as you suggested it would. If typing "vn" in the dialog box popped by Windows+R has "since Windows 95 at least" been capable of opening VNC viewer, without a shortcut defined, it is you that is on drugs.
Please note, to use the Windows+R key you need to know the exact name of your application
Which is why I demonstrated by typing only "vn" in the dialog box opened by Windows+R and telling you that it gives an error, as shown by "{windows+R}vn". You are just too thick to get that.
If you want to use a more "fuzzy" search, you'll have to use the Windows+F key combination. Another combination that has been available since Windows 95.
Haha, you're struggling again. I like it.
{windows+f}vn -> Opens a search window searching for files containing vn in the name, but does not open VNC viewer.
Ok, so you have conducted medical research to refute the evidence
That actually doesn't prove anything at all, since the door effect is not relevant. You don't have to use the Start Screen. No door. No relevance.
Sure, you don't have to use it. No start menu either. So one feature less in one incremental version. This is what I mean by "a huge issue" : if after a discussion of a "new and improved" feature, the conclusion is that assume the feature is not there at all.
how do I search applications on the Task Bar?
Windows+R.
Didn't work.
{windows key}vn -> opens Vnc Viewer
{windows+R}vn -> gives an error.
Try again, I am enjoying your struggle.
Do you think it is a scalable interface suitable for hundreds of applications
No, and neither is the Start Menu nor the Start Screen
While it is not very good, one can actually search for applications to search using a start menu. Start screen being idiotic in other ways still gives the ability o search for applications. Taks bar just doesn't, and you have to lie about windows+R being a replacement to save your face.
so far not convinced there are any negative, real-world implications whatsoever
Ok, so you have conducted medical research to refute the evidence I presented here. I am taking your word for it.
So far I have not seen a single person being able to explain which real, practical negative implications the Start Screen has
Evidence in this thread suggests you simply ignore the answers. As I mentioned above about doorway amnesia, and you have been ignoring.
I have asked why people who don't want to (or can) use the Start Screen can not use the Task Bar, and I have so far received zero answers
A mad man on a street asked me how many hands I have and I made no reply. Basically when the answer is too obvious, one doesn't answer the question, but rather question the motives/sanity of the person asking. So I'll reply by asking - how do I search applications on the Task Bar? Do you think it is a scalable interface suitable for hundreds of applications? If not why do you insist on asking the question?
Opening another application for the same task
That's assuming that "losing concentration" in a process where you are already losing some concentration
Taking break deliberately is one thing. Opening another application for the same task when the user doesn't necessarily want to take a break; making it easier to lose concentration is another.
It is not a good design which makes it easier to do bad things.
The post you replied to has 2 sentences.
1. First one disabuses the reader of the notion that everyone not being aware of the problem doesn't mean there is no problem.
2. Second sentence already answers the question you ask now - the fact that "not a huge issue" is the best thing you can say about a new feature; is a huge issue.
Not a huge issue exactly like the Sony rootkit wasn't a huge issue - the people affected don't know the issue.
The very fact that "not a huge issue" is the conclusion of the discussion on a new feature; is a huge issue.
But outside of buzzword world, smart could be taken to mean smart enough to not try what the user doesn't want.
While I have no pony in the race, smart need not always mean cramming of features into smaller devices.
You said one can't make applications visible when start screen is open? That is enough to cause the doorway amnesia. And enough to be bad industrial design for humans.
I don't see how it would be an issue though,
Now you see
An irritant, but nothing that would impede your work unless you have a lot of apps that start with the same number of characters
Well, while opening the start menu and typing the required characters to select the application, I can pause at any time, corresponding to a mental "pause" while mentally assimilating something from the currently used app. With a start screen, there is not only a discontinuity, but any non-trivial usage of start screen is an active distraction. Placement of email, stock, weather etc. tiles on the screen amplify the doorway amnesia effect. The tool (computer in this case) is trying hard to not let the user concentrate on one task at a time.
Industrial design has to keep attributes of human body in mind while designing. This includes physiological attributes (not needing more than 2 hands, easily reachable handles even for someone not in the prime of health etc.) and psychological ones (doorway amnesia, more pictorial nature of human thought and memory rather than olfactory/aural etc.) If they don't, it is bad industrial design.
It is not that one can't adapt to it, but it is a travesty that one has to. If most car manufacturers collude to creating cars that punches all occupants every 10 minutes, users might get used to it, but it is no cause for celebration as I see in your posts. Like so many major computer manufacturers have colluded to sell devices with Microsoft software with these serious industrial design issues.
By God, it is this. And emphatically not this, too.
the start screen is in fact far more flexible than the Win7 start button
Ok, how can I keep my application window visible when the "start screen" is opened? I am in a habit of continuing to read from my applications when the start menu is open and I am typing the new application's name. The typical new application I want to open is part of the same "task" that I am already performing, and I don't like to take my attention away from it to read stock news or mail.
thanks
I said that a philosophy that claims to have no morality, is teaching that morality is subjective rather than objective.
No, it is simply not teaching morality.
Psychology does not have universal gravitational constant as a topic of discussion, this does not mean it is teaching the constant is subjective.
Discussion is about Apple Mac Store, not iDevice's "app store". So comparison is not valid.
Philosophy having no morality doesn't mean its adherents are expected to have no morality. Just that morality is outside of the scope of the particular philosophy.
E.g. Psychology having nothing to do with astrophysics doesn't mean it gives freedom to commit Astrophysical mistakes.
Anyway you stick to ignorance of the definition of philosophy.
Not sure what you mean by "that". Take science as another philosophy which has no morality. By its very definition, philosophy needs to have only epistemology and metaphysics. Only one ignorant of this would assume ALL philosophies have morality.
No, not all philosophies have moral lessons. A philosophy has epistemology, metaphysics, and an optional morality component. For example the ancient Indian Charvaka philosophy has no ethics / morality.
The questionchanges everything we do if there is a creator. Without one, morality is not an issue. With one, morality becomes important
What does morality have to do with creator? As a scholar of many years, have you found no explanation of morality that doesn't need God?
But what does "spiritual" even mean?
That I'm conscious, and not just a bio-robot with no more self-awareness than a rock, is something I can't even prove to you, nor you to me
If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it well. So you could take it to mean that you don't understand "conscious"-ness well, nor self-awareness.
A child might guess that they have a "spirit" inside, and that they would not expect the rock to have one
A child might even guess that their bodies have mass, and they would not expect air to have it. But then they would be wrong. It is ok, we are all wrong when we are children. Cooking up ill-defined words like "spirit" isn't going to help with reasoning skills.
Why the hell is there so much hate for UEFI
People, incorrectly, use the word UEFI instead of UEFI SecureBoot.
I am waiting for the UEFI equivalent of CoreBoot
Just like yourself.
I'm sorry, but I like having a durable backup installer of anything I am going to rely on. And that means on permanent media that I can put away in a drawer.
Yes, but what has that got to do with optical media?
Since when has telling truths be seen as kindness?
Your post is VERY funny for anyone really poor, say in a typical third world country.
Heartbreaking? Heart is a luxury. Housing, low-quality but food, clothes, fucking CAR? It is the description of an 80 percentile rich Indian without considering the car. Include the car, and it becomes 96 percentile rich Indian.
any organization suspected of subversion can be considered an enemy
I see nothing wrong with that. If the organization were not an enemy, they would have used GIT.