The tutorial lasts about 30 seconds and vaguely says "try hovering in various corners", but helpfully neglects such things as "how do I access the C: drive" or "how do I shut down" or "how do i close running metro apps".
It was helpful, but it should have been about 5 times longer or structured as a game or something. What they released was beta quality, and sloppy.
Its standard, right until you say "wait, I want to open the File Explorer", and you look for Start Menu --> Computer-- which has been a convention in one form or another for about 15 years. So you press start menu, and all of a sudden youre dropped into this bizarre interface, with no indication of how to do a text search, and no indication of how to get out of it.
Or you launch Internet Explorer on the desktop and it looks normal,and then one day you try to launch it by hitting Windows and typing "internet + [enter]", and all of a sudden youre in this bizarre interface again, and IE looks totally different.
Or you decide you want to log off, and you realize theres absolutely nothing anywhere that indicates you should hover your mouse over the bottom right corner and click "settings".
Or you decide you want to close your Metro apps, and it takes you about 2 hours of fiddling to realize that if you hover bottom right (but DONT CLICK!) and swipe upwards you get a list of the apps.
All of this stuff might make some degree of sense if I had a touchscreen; but having to constantly think "how would I do this if it were a tablet" doesnt scream "professional UI design", it screams "awkward".
Hardly, but people stuck in their ways with the UI or have a bug up their ass over it are going to continue to throw a hissy fit no matter what.
It will always suck to lose days of productivity learning a new UI. Microsoft could have done this a LOT better, rather than just saying "who cares how we did it in Win7, we're throwing everything out".
It also doesnt help that theres basically no discoverability built into the UI. I had to get a metro app called "Win8 tips" or something that has a list of shortcuts and how to use the new UI; thats not the mark of a well-done interface.
Yes, Im starting to cope after about 2 weeks, but somehow when I started using Ubuntu in 6.04 I figured out the UI in about 4 hours; and when I first used a Mac I figured things out in about 2 hours (though the hot corners and the disappearing dock remained perpetually aggravating). That Windows 8 / Server 2012 continues to mystify even people who do cross-platform tech for a living indicates that its not an issue of "people being stuck in their ways" as much as it is an issue of a really sloppy release.
Its even worse given how much people already pay for Apple devices. You would think part of the premium Apple price-tag would include being treated well; apparently it does not, and they continue to just gouge you through the product's entire lifecycle.
Ive seen this when a MacBook's trackpad failed. Apple store wanted like $120 to replace it, which is kind of absurd given that the user paid >$1000 for the device with the faulty part to begin with. When I buy PC parts from a primo vendor like Asus or Logitech (their gaming mice), their support has always been impeccable. Logitech has generally rewarded my patronage with no-questions asked free cross-shipped replacements.
Why cant Apple do something like that? Why do they have to always be gouging and charging extra?
Not to become too embroiled with something I havent really researched....
But if they had promised to make sure their device worked with the Galaxy Note 2 or Lumina 810, noone would have batted an eye. And if the Galaxy S3 had announced that it was going to use a new ultramini-USB, and the project promised to support this "to be released" connector, noone would have thought it strange to promise support for the connector-- because this has never been an issue. Blackberry historically has been a bit wacky about charging (requiring special utils in Linux for example), but noone ever had a problem making a Blackberry compatible charger if they really wanted to. Even laptops-- with an utter lack of standardization-- you can get third-party unsanctioned universal chargers without a problem; you just have to worry about QA.
The idea that someone will be technically incapable of adding a charging port to a device because you cant secure licencing terms is bizarre, and I cant believe people are defending it. I get that its a reality, that Apple licenses its magsafe and all that jazz, but its bizarre.
As a Windows / Linux / PC guy, Ive lived in a world where you can always connect device A to device B with enough support from adapters, drivers, and utilties; I can see that theres no technical reason you couldnt run USB over AC house wiring, you just need someone to want to do it bad enough. That we cant do something, not because of technical limits (like having that USB over AC run at 3.0 speeds:P ), but because of LICENSING? I think folks like me find it almost offensive. The ONLY reason to do so is to generate a "monopoly" in that little niche market to drive prices up on a connector for a device that already has absurd profit margins.
Apple is a company that makes some great products but are also filled with hubris, and I don't know why you can't let these two thoughts coexist in your head.
This right here basically sums up my dislike of apple products. I can acknowledge that some of them are impressive, but when fanboys come out and insist that "the iPhone is a superior phone for consultants" (despite its lack of physical keyboard or phone buttons, and its historically wonky activesync support) or that $2500 macbooks are superior to $500 laptops thus proving that Apple really is a better value-- it really just kind of makes me hate the entire culture. I see it as having deceived so many consumers into thinking that somehow that all apple products are superior in every way and it cannot be otherwise.
I was checking out an MS store last night for lulz and to take a peek @ WinPhone (as Ive never seen one) and i overheard several customers saying "surface? thats not as good as an ipad tho is it"? Yea, thats right, lets just assume because it wasnt made by Apple that it must be inferior; who needs to actually TRY the device, just check and see if it has an "i" in its name.
You can "keep your end of the bargain" without keeping your end of the bargain. I think most reasonable people-- including those like me who only marginally care about what kind of connector iPhones use-- would call the use of this wacky connector in an age when EVERYONE ELSE has managed to get in line with micro USB to be pretty low.
And I was not aware that the connector was $25, but thats really nothing short of robbery.
Benevolent dictator for life actually isn't so bad, in practice.
That worked out super well in Russia, Cuba, N Korea, Zimbabwe, and a score of other places.
The queen has basically no power; if she tried to use her "power" im not sure what would happen but for quite a long time parliament and the PM have been the real heads of state. From wikipedia: As the monarchy is constitutional, the monarch is limited to non-partisan functions such as bestowing honours and appointing the Prime Minister.
I distrust governments because there is no government that has proven itself worthy of absolute trust and no oversight, ever.
They're not; the option I choose is "I hate school shootings but am extremely uncomfortable with the government removing the right of citizens to arm, and think the negatives outweigh the positives especially in light of how rare of an issue school shootings are."
Really, you would have a stronger case to make about homicide in general, since that is far far far more common than school shooting deaths.
So passing a law against guns in violation of the Amendment is bad, but if the Amendment wasn't there, then that objection would be gone. So logically the solution is to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
That is my first and foremost objection, so yes that objection would be gone. Yes, youre darn tooting that passing a law in violation of an amendment is very much "bad", especially since it keeps being tried. I do have other reasons why Im not so hot on the "lets repeal second amendment" idea tho.
Also, cars are seen as a necessity. Banning them will be much much worse than the dead children we get from using them....Compare and contrast that with guns.
This was where I got my assumption that you wanted to ban guns; if I misunderstood my apologies, but the intent seemed to be that a gun ban was of a different nature than a hypothetical car ban.
If, as you say 90% of americans support a gun ban then the issue is moot; it can be put to a popular vote where if my memory serves a 75% popular vote will overturn the 2nd amendment. I think though that that will not happen in my lifetime.
My assertion that the threat is small is based on the fact that there are literally about 10000 things that are about 100 times more likely to kill you than a school shooting. For perspective... (after looking up stats it looks like the actual number is about 25 per year) ~2.5million total deaths per year in United states, which makes the ~25 deaths per year from school shootings 0.001% of the nations mortality rate ~10,000 children deaths (under 14) per year in the US (2009), and there were ~10 pre-highschool deaths per year, which is 0.1% among children (under 14). ~53000 "child" deaths (under 19) per year in the US (2007). All fire-arm, non-suicide, deaths total ~2200. Thats about 4%, which is higher than I like, but its also a lot lower than a lot of other causes. Non-firearm homocide is another 1100 for reference.
All this to say, if we could prevent 4% of child deaths without any downside, yea Im all for that. But to repeal an amendment is a major thing, and to remove the ability for someone to defend themselves in their own home using the weaponry of the day-- which is an incredibly long-standing right recognized by societies-- seems a really drastic move IMO, and not one that I take so lightly. I also do not much like the idea of the government being the sole arbiter of force; perhaps again it is my american upbringing but I have a deep-seated distrust of any person or group who has too much power and not enough restraint.
In theory OpenVPN is SUPPOSED to be SSL, but from what Im reading something about the handshake and the way traffic is transmitted is tipping the Chinese GFC admins off. I did a little reasearch after I posted above and others report the same as he does-- that theyre really good about distinguishing VPN from non VPN traffic.
I am neither happy with school shootings, NOR am I comfortable with government intervention.
You are also false in your assumption that I am emotionally tied to the idea of guns: I do not own any firearms or other weapons, nor have I been to a shooting range in a decade, nor does it register as a significant issue on my radar-- until someone decides its OK to try to override the second amendment. That, to me, is an issue-- because we have the bill of rights SPECIFICALLY to restrict what our legislature can do, and I see any attempt to do an end run on an amendment as highly dangerous. It is to me as if a president were to seek a third term.
With cars, the idea that we are doing "all we can" is a little strange to me. We still have many many many people who DWI, we still have HUGE numbers of people who run red lights (I see this every day) and speed ( I see this every day), and we still have tons of people who simply dont know the driving laws (heck, I dont even know all of them, and I bet you dont either). Saying "we're doing all we can" to me implies that you do not think we could do any better, and I really dont think thats defensible.
That you seem to think banning guns is acceptable given A) the 2nd amendment and B) immense societal opposition to it is frankly a little scary to me-- especially given just how incredibly low of a threat we're dealing with here.
I think the major area where we're disagreeing is, I think there are some problems the government CANT solve. There will always be someone who commits crimes, and there always has been.
Finally, determining "who needs it" is a whole other lengthy discussion; conservatives tend to oppose freebies because they tend to be open to huge abuse.
False dichotomy. That attitude seems to imply that we can eliminate all schoolchildren deaths, if only we take enough measures. This is false; or at least it is false for any kind of society you would want to live in (think "dystopian novel" style society).
I accept that as part of living in a free society, I could die at any moment through the actions of another individual, and that the largest part of the deterrent comes after the crime has been committed. You cant get around this; bad people can do bad things, thats part of the price we pay for allowing people to live independent lives.
And its worth noting that in general, relatively, it is a small price to pay (with all respect to the dead): I dont have the exact statistics, but your chance of dying from "bad people doing bad things" is quite low in comparison with all the other risks out there, and our life expectancy remains quite high. This isnt a problem that is encountered that often-- we're averaging under 10 deaths per year from school shootings (at least ones that have made the news), in a nation of some 300 million. On a local level it is a tragedy, but on a national level it is not a problem that should cause us to completely rethink our society.
So let's turn the question around: Why are we becoming less violent? One of the more plausible explanations that I have heard is... video games. Teenage boys are staying home and playing video games instead of joining gangs and getting in trouble.
Simpler explanation: the facts that they can afford video games and are less violent are BOTH consequences of increasing affluence, which in general tends to reduce violent crime.
Whats important is that we can make a gun control issue out of this, and if perspective is going to hamper that goal, well then youre part of the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Google "limecat"
My name signifies nothing other than amusement at the meme in general.
Somehow every single person Ive talked to who has used Windows 8 either took a while or had to ask to figure out how to log out / shut down.
You can call it habit all day long, but at the end of the day if noone can figure out how to use the UI without someone explaining it, its a bad UI.
During initial setup only.
The tutorial lasts about 30 seconds and vaguely says "try hovering in various corners", but helpfully neglects such things as "how do I access the C: drive" or "how do I shut down" or "how do i close running metro apps".
It was helpful, but it should have been about 5 times longer or structured as a game or something. What they released was beta quality, and sloppy.
Its standard, right until you say "wait, I want to open the File Explorer", and you look for Start Menu --> Computer-- which has been a convention in one form or another for about 15 years. So you press start menu, and all of a sudden youre dropped into this bizarre interface, with no indication of how to do a text search, and no indication of how to get out of it.
Or you launch Internet Explorer on the desktop and it looks normal,and then one day you try to launch it by hitting Windows and typing "internet + [enter]", and all of a sudden youre in this bizarre interface again, and IE looks totally different.
Or you decide you want to log off, and you realize theres absolutely nothing anywhere that indicates you should hover your mouse over the bottom right corner and click "settings".
Or you decide you want to close your Metro apps, and it takes you about 2 hours of fiddling to realize that if you hover bottom right (but DONT CLICK!) and swipe upwards you get a list of the apps.
All of this stuff might make some degree of sense if I had a touchscreen; but having to constantly think "how would I do this if it were a tablet" doesnt scream "professional UI design", it screams "awkward".
Hardly, but people stuck in their ways with the UI or have a bug up their ass over it are going to continue to throw a hissy fit no matter what.
It will always suck to lose days of productivity learning a new UI. Microsoft could have done this a LOT better, rather than just saying "who cares how we did it in Win7, we're throwing everything out".
It also doesnt help that theres basically no discoverability built into the UI. I had to get a metro app called "Win8 tips" or something that has a list of shortcuts and how to use the new UI; thats not the mark of a well-done interface.
Yes, Im starting to cope after about 2 weeks, but somehow when I started using Ubuntu in 6.04 I figured out the UI in about 4 hours; and when I first used a Mac I figured things out in about 2 hours (though the hot corners and the disappearing dock remained perpetually aggravating). That Windows 8 / Server 2012 continues to mystify even people who do cross-platform tech for a living indicates that its not an issue of "people being stuck in their ways" as much as it is an issue of a really sloppy release.
Its even worse given how much people already pay for Apple devices. You would think part of the premium Apple price-tag would include being treated well; apparently it does not, and they continue to just gouge you through the product's entire lifecycle.
Ive seen this when a MacBook's trackpad failed. Apple store wanted like $120 to replace it, which is kind of absurd given that the user paid >$1000 for the device with the faulty part to begin with. When I buy PC parts from a primo vendor like Asus or Logitech (their gaming mice), their support has always been impeccable. Logitech has generally rewarded my patronage with no-questions asked free cross-shipped replacements.
Why cant Apple do something like that? Why do they have to always be gouging and charging extra?
Not to become too embroiled with something I havent really researched....
But if they had promised to make sure their device worked with the Galaxy Note 2 or Lumina 810, noone would have batted an eye. And if the Galaxy S3 had announced that it was going to use a new ultramini-USB, and the project promised to support this "to be released" connector, noone would have thought it strange to promise support for the connector-- because this has never been an issue. Blackberry historically has been a bit wacky about charging (requiring special utils in Linux for example), but noone ever had a problem making a Blackberry compatible charger if they really wanted to. Even laptops-- with an utter lack of standardization-- you can get third-party unsanctioned universal chargers without a problem; you just have to worry about QA.
The idea that someone will be technically incapable of adding a charging port to a device because you cant secure licencing terms is bizarre, and I cant believe people are defending it. I get that its a reality, that Apple licenses its magsafe and all that jazz, but its bizarre.
As a Windows / Linux / PC guy, Ive lived in a world where you can always connect device A to device B with enough support from adapters, drivers, and utilties; I can see that theres no technical reason you couldnt run USB over AC house wiring, you just need someone to want to do it bad enough. That we cant do something, not because of technical limits (like having that USB over AC run at 3.0 speeds :P ), but because of LICENSING? I think folks like me find it almost offensive. The ONLY reason to do so is to generate a "monopoly" in that little niche market to drive prices up on a connector for a device that already has absurd profit margins.
Apple is a company that makes some great products but are also filled with hubris, and I don't know why you can't let these two thoughts coexist in your head.
This right here basically sums up my dislike of apple products. I can acknowledge that some of them are impressive, but when fanboys come out and insist that "the iPhone is a superior phone for consultants" (despite its lack of physical keyboard or phone buttons, and its historically wonky activesync support) or that $2500 macbooks are superior to $500 laptops thus proving that Apple really is a better value-- it really just kind of makes me hate the entire culture. I see it as having deceived so many consumers into thinking that somehow that all apple products are superior in every way and it cannot be otherwise.
I was checking out an MS store last night for lulz and to take a peek @ WinPhone (as Ive never seen one) and i overheard several customers saying "surface? thats not as good as an ipad tho is it"? Yea, thats right, lets just assume because it wasnt made by Apple that it must be inferior; who needs to actually TRY the device, just check and see if it has an "i" in its name.
An adapter (which Apple provides) is sufficient.
You can "keep your end of the bargain" without keeping your end of the bargain. I think most reasonable people-- including those like me who only marginally care about what kind of connector iPhones use-- would call the use of this wacky connector in an age when EVERYONE ELSE has managed to get in line with micro USB to be pretty low.
And I was not aware that the connector was $25, but thats really nothing short of robbery.
Technically USB chargers are not permitted by the USB standard to provide more than 500mA, I believe. I think thats changing /changed with USB 3 tho.
Can you name any other manufacturer that uses custom authentication chips to prevent people making charging cables?
Used to be all the rage with Dell and HP, though I havent seen the behavior in quite some time.
Benevolent dictator for life actually isn't so bad, in practice.
That worked out super well in Russia, Cuba, N Korea, Zimbabwe, and a score of other places.
The queen has basically no power; if she tried to use her "power" im not sure what would happen but for quite a long time parliament and the PM have been the real heads of state. From wikipedia:
As the monarchy is constitutional, the monarch is limited to non-partisan functions such as bestowing honours and appointing the Prime Minister.
I distrust governments because there is no government that has proven itself worthy of absolute trust and no oversight, ever.
Those seem to be the only two options,
They're not; the option I choose is "I hate school shootings but am extremely uncomfortable with the government removing the right of citizens to arm, and think the negatives outweigh the positives especially in light of how rare of an issue school shootings are."
Really, you would have a stronger case to make about homicide in general, since that is far far far more common than school shooting deaths.
So passing a law against guns in violation of the Amendment is bad, but if the Amendment wasn't there, then that objection would be gone. So logically the solution is to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
That is my first and foremost objection, so yes that objection would be gone. Yes, youre darn tooting that passing a law in violation of an amendment is very much "bad", especially since it keeps being tried. I do have other reasons why Im not so hot on the "lets repeal second amendment" idea tho.
Also, cars are seen as a necessity. Banning them will be much much worse than the dead children we get from using them....Compare and contrast that with guns.
This was where I got my assumption that you wanted to ban guns; if I misunderstood my apologies, but the intent seemed to be that a gun ban was of a different nature than a hypothetical car ban.
If, as you say 90% of americans support a gun ban then the issue is moot; it can be put to a popular vote where if my memory serves a 75% popular vote will overturn the 2nd amendment. I think though that that will not happen in my lifetime.
My assertion that the threat is small is based on the fact that there are literally about 10000 things that are about 100 times more likely to kill you than a school shooting. For perspective... (after looking up stats it looks like the actual number is about 25 per year)
~2.5million total deaths per year in United states, which makes the ~25 deaths per year from school shootings 0.001% of the nations mortality rate
~10,000 children deaths (under 14) per year in the US (2009), and there were ~10 pre-highschool deaths per year, which is 0.1% among children (under 14).
~53000 "child" deaths (under 19) per year in the US (2007). All fire-arm, non-suicide, deaths total ~2200. Thats about 4%, which is higher than I like, but its also a lot lower than a lot of other causes. Non-firearm homocide is another 1100 for reference.
All this to say, if we could prevent 4% of child deaths without any downside, yea Im all for that. But to repeal an amendment is a major thing, and to remove the ability for someone to defend themselves in their own home using the weaponry of the day-- which is an incredibly long-standing right recognized by societies-- seems a really drastic move IMO, and not one that I take so lightly. I also do not much like the idea of the government being the sole arbiter of force; perhaps again it is my american upbringing but I have a deep-seated distrust of any person or group who has too much power and not enough restraint.
Sources... (not all for same year, ranging from 1999-2011; did the best I could in ~10 minutes)
http://www.childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?loct=2&by=a&order=a&ind=22&dtm=286&tf=38
In theory OpenVPN is SUPPOSED to be SSL, but from what Im reading something about the handshake and the way traffic is transmitted is tipping the Chinese GFC admins off. I did a little reasearch after I posted above and others report the same as he does-- that theyre really good about distinguishing VPN from non VPN traffic.
Why not run OpenVPN (An SSL vpn) over TCP 443? I mean, unless they intend to block SSL as well...
Im kind of curious whether running OpenVPN over TCP 443 might avoid the block by appearing as standard HTTPS traffic. Anyone tried this?
Im gonna go out on a limb and say that the AC GP hasnt dealt with chinese ISPs or VPN inside the GF.
The false dichotomy was this:
Then you are happy with school shootings, right?
I am neither happy with school shootings, NOR am I comfortable with government intervention.
You are also false in your assumption that I am emotionally tied to the idea of guns: I do not own any firearms or other weapons, nor have I been to a shooting range in a decade, nor does it register as a significant issue on my radar-- until someone decides its OK to try to override the second amendment. That, to me, is an issue-- because we have the bill of rights SPECIFICALLY to restrict what our legislature can do, and I see any attempt to do an end run on an amendment as highly dangerous. It is to me as if a president were to seek a third term.
With cars, the idea that we are doing "all we can" is a little strange to me. We still have many many many people who DWI, we still have HUGE numbers of people who run red lights (I see this every day) and speed ( I see this every day), and we still have tons of people who simply dont know the driving laws (heck, I dont even know all of them, and I bet you dont either). Saying "we're doing all we can" to me implies that you do not think we could do any better, and I really dont think thats defensible.
That you seem to think banning guns is acceptable given A) the 2nd amendment and B) immense societal opposition to it is frankly a little scary to me-- especially given just how incredibly low of a threat we're dealing with here.
The kids mother was apparently fairly well off.
I think the major area where we're disagreeing is, I think there are some problems the government CANT solve. There will always be someone who commits crimes, and there always has been.
Finally, determining "who needs it" is a whole other lengthy discussion; conservatives tend to oppose freebies because they tend to be open to huge abuse.
False dichotomy. That attitude seems to imply that we can eliminate all schoolchildren deaths, if only we take enough measures. This is false; or at least it is false for any kind of society you would want to live in (think "dystopian novel" style society).
I accept that as part of living in a free society, I could die at any moment through the actions of another individual, and that the largest part of the deterrent comes after the crime has been committed. You cant get around this; bad people can do bad things, thats part of the price we pay for allowing people to live independent lives.
And its worth noting that in general, relatively, it is a small price to pay (with all respect to the dead): I dont have the exact statistics, but your chance of dying from "bad people doing bad things" is quite low in comparison with all the other risks out there, and our life expectancy remains quite high. This isnt a problem that is encountered that often-- we're averaging under 10 deaths per year from school shootings (at least ones that have made the news), in a nation of some 300 million. On a local level it is a tragedy, but on a national level it is not a problem that should cause us to completely rethink our society.
We either need to consider mental illnesses as illnesses, or repeal the 2nd Amendment
Maybe its just part of my conservative american mentality, but I trust no government enough to handle either of those options.
So let's turn the question around: Why are we becoming less violent? One of the more plausible explanations that I have heard is ... video games. Teenage boys are staying home and playing video games instead of joining gangs and getting in trouble.
Simpler explanation: the facts that they can afford video games and are less violent are BOTH consequences of increasing affluence, which in general tends to reduce violent crime.
Correlation, causation, etc.
Whats important is that we can make a gun control issue out of this, and if perspective is going to hamper that goal, well then youre part of the problem.
.... Except that the guns were legally owned by someone else.
And except that the entire crux of the issue is "how do we do that without trampling all over the second amendment".
Im looking forward to someone making a suggestion of how we "take meaningful action" that would prevent this from happening again.