And New York city car ownership is far lower and public transport much better than general US figures either. Talking in exceptions will not go anywhere.
So they are not examples of lack of cars working well in sparsely populated areas then. What is the point of bringing it up at all in that context? I have 20 fairy tales to tell.
My point was not to compare orders of magnitude, but to concisely demonstrate that this is, indeed, about cost-benefit
Without going into the benefit of cars? US cities will suddenly without a blood-bath shrink if cars are much more strictly controlled? We are talking about cars in the US vs. guns in the US. There is no comparison in orders.....
I am interested : how does mass transit drop people to their homes scattered over light years of Russian landscape? If not, how do people not succumb to the greatest warrior in history : Russian winter? For very widespread car usage you need much higher income levels anyway so the comparison like all others is faulty.
It's the result of the application of my general approach of "freedom by default unless a damn good reason exists to the contrary", and me not seeing the aforementioned damn good reason
So what is the reason for not allowing artillery cannons to general public in the US? Grass? Where is the freedom? I just see cost-benefit everywhere.
And yet you don't tell of any comparison in the order of magnitude of the order of magnitude between benefits of guns and cars.
PS : of course it is Russia I mean when I talk about American self-congratulatory description of the tragedy of the war.
I am not convinced. Vast majority of people could live without a car - or at least trimming down its use very significantly - using bus for their commute and shopping. How do I know? In my country of origin, that was the case until a decade or so ago.
Nice, so you have an example of lack of cars working well with a population density comparable to that of the US? I thought that does not exist, but I would be glad to be proven wrong. In my country too car ownership is low, but population density is many times that of the US, and two-wheel-vehicles* are more popular.
* not recommended.
Even so, the crime levels are high enough, and chances of getting gutted on the street with a knife (or just getting your skull pounded till it cracks
So you have an example of a country with per-capita-income levels nearly of the US and yet much higher crime rates without guns? I thought it doesn't exist, but again... Note that you made the same mistake of comparing across cultures / economies / demographies.
Ironically, I am not an American, and I hail from a country where guns are very hard to obtain
American culture is well marketed. More than half the people in the world who ever cared believe the US had a difficult and brave second world war contributing significantly to its result without even knowing about the Americans weapons industry.
I hope you can see why I'm skeptical about gun control in general, and its correlation with crime in particular.
Definitely. Since the dangers of guns are highly dependent on other aspects of society than the gun laws, every jurisdiction has to make its own mistakes and decisions. But at times humans fall into the monkey-cage-ladder-banana-water syndrome which a brief study of history with an open mind can cure but is resisted.
Excellent point on comparing different countries and concluding on harms of gun ownership - a more ridiculous extreme that I like to point people to is - millions of flies eat shit and never get AIDS so...
But I don't agree as to the comparison with cars. Without cars, there is sure to be an economic catastrophe - which always leads to many more lives lost . The decision might have been on a gut feel level, but the difference between the benefits of guns and cars is such an astronomical one that only Americans or other gun-countries if any raised on the gun culture even ask it. Has there been a study on comparative benefits of potassium cyanide and nicotine? Your question is nearly as ridiculous as that.
You can do a thought experimen about life without cars and guns. It would be of great value to you guys to learn why you love guns so much, and you would find that most of the reasons for having guns don't really hold true any more, though they surely did once. The thought experiment http://freekvermeulen.blogspot.in/2008/08/monkey-story-experiment-involved-5.html?m=1 would be very useful too.
True, many societies have had this problem and Singapore is a big outlier in the topic of car-control. Most other societies after going through the usual process of constitution writing, judicial review over centuries with practical events as context, election campaign over centuries followed by explicit legislation; have uniformly come to the conclusion that the advantage of cars enormously overwhelms the risk. And I agree wholeheartedly.
As to banning / discouraging cars, most densely populated societies do so by having a mass-transit system orders of magnitude more convenient than cars. Including Singapore. About the 35 MPH thing, if this happens there would be many people walking on the roads to go to the suburban train station, for whom 35 MPH is fatal.
Purposely obtuse, me? If you are above 6 years of age, you would most likely have the ability to think from another person's point of view. And know that no one does anything without a benefit to himself.
If not, why not discuss how much advantageous it would be for us if the candy-floss man distributes goodies for free? It is similarly masturbatory in nature, and the topic is suited to the age level of such thinkers too.
You're measuring the wrong thing. The thing to measure is not the harm caused by a particular artifact, but the ratio of advantage to society vs. the harm. So vaccines are very harmful to an enormous 1% of children but yet their advantage is a lot higher so they stay. Military style artillery cannons are destructive and their advantage is questionable so they are illegal to be owned by individual citizens in most jurisdictions.
Now talking about this ratio, it ismuch greater than thousand times an advantage to cars as compared to the same ratio for guns. Take away cars, and the US (many others as well) system comes to a grinding halt. Singapore is the only place I know of which has "strict car control laws", and even there many people have cars. But hundreds of others are doing just fine with strict control of guns.
Talking about the US, sure you guys are er.. I mean have wild animals. And you achieved independence through violent means so that caused constitution founding fathers to write gun ownership deep into the bowels of the constitution.
But all is not lost yet. You can start small, like measures advocated in TFA. You should also pay for "gun freedom " by spending more on check posts for gun
detection and confiscation on entry to places where the ratio of places with unfavourable ratio of advantage to society by guns vs probability of harm. Schools, hospitals, airliners are some examples.
You have to package it, inventory manage it, advertise it, market it, ship it, provide toll free number to customers for complaints, create software to update and verify firmware, support the software on various operating systems, manage warranty , RMA it. Advertise and branding spending needs are higher here because this kind of product stores precious data, there isn't space for 500 brands here like is the case of Bluetooth dongles.
Such products also need to come with screws, 3.5" adapter, SATA cables, software CD to update and manage firmware, secure erase, TRIM etc. All of this is optional but decreases brand value to skip them, and brand is important as mentioned earlier.
If you want minimum A minimum speed, pay B. If you want X minimum speed, pay Y....
1. Why? Why change the status quo that is quite profitable for the ISPs? 2. Minimum? Maximum? Are you insane? Consumers currently don't even understand "if you want X speed pay Y". Because they have no clue about practical implications of 10 Mbps. There is no IEEE standard for web browsing speed, so how do you expect the ISPs to be honest about it? How will it improve anything for the users when 2 bps will be declared web browsing speed, 1kbps for generous ISPs? 3. Who pays for the support calls for "I don't understand this minimum maximum business. Explain it to me. Give 5 examples."
Express speed in any way users can understand like "Web browsing speed" or "HD movie watching speed" just like they do now
"I went to a speed test site and it came out half of what I pay my ISP for, what a ripoff!"
1. Speed test site will tell the speed in Mbps? Or "web browsing speed" which is not well defined? Can you decide before posting? 2. From all the minimum maximum explanation, the customer will just remember the highest Mbps number. Then the speed test comes short of his expectation and same conclusion of ripoff. Or an expensive support call where the customer thinks himself smart as he ran a speed test, so immediately starts abusing the support representative upon any hesitation.
With an amount cap, everybody could still be downloading during peak hours, and almost nobody using it late at night.
ISP business is all about the good guess that not everybody uses the resources at the same time. Given a large customer base, this guess tends to a certainty.
I suggested basically an SLA
Yes, you tried to fit an enterprise solution to a consumer business. Who will explain what an SLA means to the customer? Who pays for explaining optimization of bandwidth usage at various times to the customer who barely knows what an Mbps means. A business can schedule non-real-time bandwidth usage at non-peak low rates. A consumer can't and there are no free dollars growing on trees to spend on educating consumers so that they would be able to. Even if they understood, all their consumer software do not support scheduling, or do not make it easy to use.
Windows updates? Most consmers can barely keep up with updates, forget about scheduling downloads for off-peak periods. Itunes downloads? It is already complicated enough, though this might be one of the simplest usages. It just doesn't fit a consumer business model. If another ISP charges extra but it's plan is simpler to understand, it will get all the non-geek business as soon as the word spreads about "complicated plan", (apparent) "deficient service" of the SLA toting ISP.
Nobody ever went bankrupt betting on the stupidity of the American consumer.
If you stagger the cycles, both achieve the same goal - low bandwidth usage. Data limit is much easier to explain to customers, and much easier for customers to track than bandwidth changing every nanosecond and for customers to be able to judge whether such changing bandwidth is as per their agreement with the ISP.
No, it just creates "pages" of icons if they don't fit the length of the bar.
Yep, dig for your window in the underground taskbar. Keep clicking. What, you need to do work? Why are you using windows then? Got it.
Regardless of that, pinned apps don't really cause overflow, because you pin those apps which are heavily used - i.e. the kind of stuff that's normally "always open" in any case.
ok, so you have conveniently forgotten that I explicitly mentioned that only pinned but not running applications cause the clutter? And that the same problem is not there for first level entries in the start menu. So the answer to your question is NO because pinning has this problem of cluttering and first level start menu entries don't. Do I have to repeat myself a million times to make you understand this?
It's not randomly reordering - it's in most recently used order,
Ok, so I searched for it( http://www.windows7taskforce.com/view/208) . And wow is it stupid! You get to dig for your window in the underground taskbar. And guess what, we helpfully randomized your alt-tab list so your misguided attempts to keep thinking about your actual work do not succeed. You are made to suffer every moment of your windows using time.
Please tell me my quick Google search fed me false information as Google detected I'm no good.
Yes, I've seen it. Though the habit is persisting from windows 2k days, and my windows use is in spurts. Does it download a 50 inch screen for you to fit 50 icons 1 inch long each on your small 25 inch wide screen?
With windows 7, there is another issue of it randomly reordering the alt-tab window list so that the user cannot concentrate on his work but has to actually think about "window management". In the 21st century.
First, your question "Isn't that precisely what the "pin this program" feature on the taskbar is for in Win7?" has only one answer, and that is NO. Because by any interpretation, it is not precisely that.
Secondly, the pinned programs take space on the taskbar. If there were no pinned programs, or less pinned programs, the icon representing each application would be larger and hence potentially more helpful. After a certain threshold number of applications, the taskbar representation of applications become so tiny as to be meaningless. I guess such threshold is 25 applications in a single line taskbar of 1080 width screen, which is why I have always used 2 or 3 line taskbars as 35 running programs is not a high number for me. And I hate grouping, as it increases number of clicks to reach a particular window. This unfortunately takes precious vertical space, which I resent given the trend in monitor resolutions.
So with lots of pinned but not running programs, takes precious taskbar space which eventually translates to more wasted vertical space. Hence even with your this post's clarification, the answer to the original question is still NO, and not even imprecisely that.
"Obvious" and "intuitive" are not ways shutting down the start menu has ever been. First there was the whole nonsense of going to a menu labeled "Start" to shut down the computer. Not obvious or intuitive, but people got used to it. Then they changed the restart/sleep/switch user/hibernate options to fit inside a little arrow next to the very large shut down button. What a wonderful UI design: making the function you do maybe once a day large and easily accessible, and making the more frequent functions like sleep and log-off hidden and hard to click. I can't tell you how many times I've accidentally shut down my computer due to careless clicking.
Exactly. People have paid billions of dollars to the creator of such a horrible UI. People want the refund of the wasted billions of dollars before they pay MORE to a company known for very bad UI. Creating such bad UI in the past gives no confidence to people that the new one is any better, or even that it is not worse in various aspects.
No, pinned programs clutter the field of vision all the time. First level start menu items clutter the field of vision only when start button is clicked.
Slashdot Mirror
And New York city car ownership is far lower and public transport much better than general US figures either. Talking in exceptions will not go anywhere.
Ah, but they're not scattered, that's the point
So they are not examples of lack of cars working well in sparsely populated areas then. What is the point of bringing it up at all in that context? I have 20 fairy tales to tell.
My point was not to compare orders of magnitude, but to concisely demonstrate that this is, indeed, about cost-benefit
Without going into the benefit of cars? US cities will suddenly without a blood-bath shrink if cars are much more strictly controlled? We are talking about cars in the US vs. guns in the US. There is no comparison in orders.....
I am interested : how does mass transit drop people to their homes scattered over light years of Russian landscape? If not, how do people not succumb to the greatest warrior in history : Russian winter? For very widespread car usage you need much higher income levels anyway so the comparison like all others is faulty.
It's the result of the application of my general approach of "freedom by default unless a damn good reason exists to the contrary", and me not seeing the aforementioned damn good reason
So what is the reason for not allowing artillery cannons to general public in the US? Grass? Where is the freedom? I just see cost-benefit everywhere.
And yet you don't tell of any comparison in the order of magnitude of the order of magnitude between benefits of guns and cars.
PS : of course it is Russia I mean when I talk about American self-congratulatory description of the tragedy of the war.
I am not convinced. Vast majority of people could live without a car - or at least trimming down its use very significantly - using bus for their commute and shopping. How do I know? In my country of origin, that was the case until a decade or so ago.
Nice, so you have an example of lack of cars working well with a population density comparable to that of the US? I thought that does not exist, but I would be glad to be proven wrong. In my country too car ownership is low, but population density is many times that of the US, and two-wheel-vehicles* are more popular.
* not recommended.
Even so, the crime levels are high enough, and chances of getting gutted on the street with a knife (or just getting your skull pounded till it cracks
So you have an example of a country with per-capita-income levels nearly of the US and yet much higher crime rates without guns? I thought it doesn't exist, but again ... Note that you made the same mistake of comparing across cultures / economies / demographies.
Ironically, I am not an American, and I hail from a country where guns are very hard to obtain
American culture is well marketed. More than half the people in the world who ever cared believe the US had a difficult and brave second world war contributing significantly to its result without even knowing about the Americans weapons industry.
I hope you can see why I'm skeptical about gun control in general, and its correlation with crime in particular.
Definitely. Since the dangers of guns are highly dependent on other aspects of society than the gun laws, every jurisdiction has to make its own mistakes and decisions. But at times humans fall into the monkey-cage-ladder-banana-water syndrome which a brief study of history with an open mind can cure but is resisted.
Ok, so nothing in windows XP is a major problem. So why should one pay for windows 8? Not having a major problem is hardly a USP.
Excellent point on comparing different countries and concluding on harms of gun ownership - a more ridiculous extreme that I like to point people to is - millions of flies eat shit and never get AIDS so ...
But I don't agree as to the comparison with cars. Without cars, there is sure to be an economic catastrophe - which always leads to many more lives lost . The decision might have been on a gut feel level, but the difference between the benefits of guns and cars is such an astronomical one that only Americans or other gun-countries if any raised on the gun culture even ask it. Has there been a study on comparative benefits of potassium cyanide and nicotine? Your question is nearly as ridiculous as that.
You can do a thought experimen about life without cars and guns. It would be of great value to you guys to learn why you love guns so much, and you would find that most of the reasons for having guns don't really hold true any more, though they surely did once. The thought experiment http://freekvermeulen.blogspot.in/2008/08/monkey-story-experiment-involved-5.html?m=1 would be very useful too.
True, many societies have had this problem and Singapore is a big outlier in the topic of car-control. Most other societies after going through the usual process of constitution writing, judicial review over centuries with practical events as context, election campaign over centuries followed by explicit legislation; have uniformly come to the conclusion that the advantage of cars enormously overwhelms the risk. And I agree wholeheartedly.
As to banning / discouraging cars, most densely populated societies do so by having a mass-transit system orders of magnitude more convenient than cars. Including Singapore. About the 35 MPH thing, if this happens there would be many people walking on the roads to go to the suburban train station, for whom 35 MPH is fatal.
Purposely obtuse, me? If you are above 6 years of age, you would most likely have the ability to think from another person's point of view. And know that no one does anything without a benefit to himself.
If not, why not discuss how much advantageous it would be for us if the candy-floss man distributes goodies for free? It is similarly masturbatory in nature, and the topic is suited to the age level of such thinkers too.
Oops I thought the TFA was the recent one for gun safety features. I apologize for the mixup.
You're measuring the wrong thing. The thing to measure is not the harm caused by a particular artifact, but the ratio of advantage to society vs. the harm. So vaccines are very harmful to an enormous 1% of children but yet their advantage is a lot higher so they stay. Military style artillery cannons are destructive and their advantage is questionable so they are illegal to be owned by individual citizens in most jurisdictions.
Now talking about this ratio, it ismuch greater than thousand times an advantage to cars as compared to the same ratio for guns. Take away cars, and the US (many others as well) system comes to a grinding halt. Singapore is the only place I know of which has "strict car control laws", and even there many people have cars. But hundreds of others are doing just fine with strict control of guns.
Talking about the US, sure you guys are er.. I mean have wild animals. And you achieved independence through violent means so that caused constitution founding fathers to write gun ownership deep into the bowels of the constitution.
But all is not lost yet. You can start small, like measures advocated in TFA. You should also pay for "gun freedom " by spending more on check posts for gun
detection and confiscation on entry to places where the ratio of places with unfavourable ratio of advantage to society by guns vs probability of harm. Schools, hospitals, airliners are some examples.
Restate? TFA doesn't tell what the ISPs have to gain by changing the status quo.
No it just raises the question.
Well, thank god the contract does not explicitly say they will not deposit a million dollars in my bank account. I am a millionaire.
1. Why? Why change the status quo that is quite profitable for the ISPs?
That's kind of the point of the article, profit to the detriment of the consumer.
And yet you don't have an answer to the question.
You have to package it, inventory manage it, advertise it, market it, ship it, provide toll free number to customers for complaints, create software to update and verify firmware, support the software on various operating systems, manage warranty , RMA it. Advertise and branding spending needs are higher here because this kind of product stores precious data, there isn't space for 500 brands here like is the case of Bluetooth dongles.
Such products also need to come with screws, 3.5" adapter, SATA cables, software CD to update and manage firmware, secure erase, TRIM etc. All of this is optional but decreases brand value to skip them, and brand is important as mentioned earlier.
"if I *like* their race, how could that be racist?"
Because liking just one race means you hate other races. *ducks*
If you want minimum A minimum speed, pay B. If you want X minimum speed, pay Y....
1. Why? Why change the status quo that is quite profitable for the ISPs?
2. Minimum? Maximum? Are you insane? Consumers currently don't even understand "if you want X speed pay Y". Because they have no clue about practical implications of 10 Mbps. There is no IEEE standard for web browsing speed, so how do you expect the ISPs to be honest about it? How will it improve anything for the users when 2 bps will be declared web browsing speed, 1kbps for generous ISPs?
3. Who pays for the support calls for "I don't understand this minimum maximum business. Explain it to me. Give 5 examples."
Express speed in any way users can understand like "Web browsing speed" or "HD movie watching speed" just like they do now
"I went to a speed test site and it came out half of what I pay my ISP for, what a ripoff!"
1. Speed test site will tell the speed in Mbps? Or "web browsing speed" which is not well defined? Can you decide before posting?
2. From all the minimum maximum explanation, the customer will just remember the highest Mbps number. Then the speed test comes short of his expectation and same conclusion of ripoff. Or an expensive support call where the customer thinks himself smart as he ran a speed test, so immediately starts abusing the support representative upon any hesitation.
With an amount cap, everybody could still be downloading during peak hours, and almost nobody using it late at night.
ISP business is all about the good guess that not everybody uses the resources at the same time. Given a large customer base, this guess tends to a certainty.
I suggested basically an SLA
Yes, you tried to fit an enterprise solution to a consumer business. Who will explain what an SLA means to the customer? Who pays for explaining optimization of bandwidth usage at various times to the customer who barely knows what an Mbps means. A business can schedule non-real-time bandwidth usage at non-peak low rates. A consumer can't and there are no free dollars growing on trees to spend on educating consumers so that they would be able to. Even if they understood, all their consumer software do not support scheduling, or do not make it easy to use.
Windows updates? Most consmers can barely keep up with updates, forget about scheduling downloads for off-peak periods. Itunes downloads? It is already complicated enough, though this might be one of the simplest usages. It just doesn't fit a consumer business model. If another ISP charges extra but it's plan is simpler to understand, it will get all the non-geek business as soon as the word spreads about "complicated plan", (apparent) "deficient service" of the SLA toting ISP.
Nobody ever went bankrupt betting on the stupidity of the American consumer.
If you stagger the cycles, both achieve the same goal - low bandwidth usage. Data limit is much easier to explain to customers, and much easier for customers to track than bandwidth changing every nanosecond and for customers to be able to judge whether such changing bandwidth is as per their agreement with the ISP.
No, it just creates "pages" of icons if they don't fit the length of the bar.
Yep, dig for your window in the underground taskbar. Keep clicking. What, you need to do work? Why are you using windows then? Got it.
Regardless of that, pinned apps don't really cause overflow, because you pin those apps which are heavily used - i.e. the kind of stuff that's normally "always open" in any case.
ok, so you have conveniently forgotten that I explicitly mentioned that only pinned but not running applications cause the clutter? And that the same problem is not there for first level entries in the start menu. So the answer to your question is NO because pinning has this problem of cluttering and first level start menu entries don't. Do I have to repeat myself a million times to make you understand this?
It's not randomly reordering - it's in most recently used order,
No, you are wrong again, shill. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=windows+7+alt+tab+order+
Ok, so I searched for it( http://www.windows7taskforce.com/view/208) . And wow is it stupid! You get to dig for your window in the underground taskbar. And guess what, we helpfully randomized your alt-tab list so your misguided attempts to keep thinking about your actual work do not succeed. You are made to suffer every moment of your windows using time.
Please tell me my quick Google search fed me false information as Google detected I'm no good.
Yes, I've seen it. Though the habit is persisting from windows 2k days, and my windows use is in spurts. Does it download a 50 inch screen for you to fit 50 icons 1 inch long each on your small 25 inch wide screen?
With windows 7, there is another issue of it randomly reordering the alt-tab window list so that the user cannot concentrate on his work but has to actually think about "window management". In the 21st century.
First, your question "Isn't that precisely what the "pin this program" feature on the taskbar is for in Win7?" has only one answer, and that is NO. Because by any interpretation, it is not precisely that.
Secondly, the pinned programs take space on the taskbar. If there were no pinned programs, or less pinned programs, the icon representing each application would be larger and hence potentially more helpful. After a certain threshold number of applications, the taskbar representation of applications become so tiny as to be meaningless. I guess such threshold is 25 applications in a single line taskbar of 1080 width screen, which is why I have always used 2 or 3 line taskbars as 35 running programs is not a high number for me. And I hate grouping, as it increases number of clicks to reach a particular window. This unfortunately takes precious vertical space, which I resent given the trend in monitor resolutions.
So with lots of pinned but not running programs, takes precious taskbar space which eventually translates to more wasted vertical space. Hence even with your this post's clarification, the answer to the original question is still NO, and not even imprecisely that.
"Obvious" and "intuitive" are not ways shutting down the start menu has ever been. First there was the whole nonsense of going to a menu labeled "Start" to shut down the computer. Not obvious or intuitive, but people got used to it. Then they changed the restart/sleep/switch user/hibernate options to fit inside a little arrow next to the very large shut down button. What a wonderful UI design: making the function you do maybe once a day large and easily accessible, and making the more frequent functions like sleep and log-off hidden and hard to click. I can't tell you how many times I've accidentally shut down my computer due to careless clicking.
Exactly. People have paid billions of dollars to the creator of such a horrible UI. People want the refund of the wasted billions of dollars before they pay MORE to a company known for very bad UI. Creating such bad UI in the past gives no confidence to people that the new one is any better, or even that it is not worse in various aspects.
No, pinned programs clutter the field of vision all the time. First level start menu items clutter the field of vision only when start button is clicked.