Like TFS/TFA, I'm talking about in-app icons for functions, not the app's own icon. Every app seems to use their own versions, none are standardised, they hardly ever have function names, and they increasingly seem to be generic monotone outlines. Oh, a half-filled circle, the function of that is obvious. An outline square next to a filled square, how informative.)
Agreed, there was nothing that required the floppy icon to mean Save and not Open. (Or even File-Manager. Click on the disk to view what's on the disk, wouldn't that make sense?)
What the icons mean is mostly arbitrary. But like the controls on cars, once the manufacturers standardised, it meant anyone who could drive, could quickly adapt to any new model. The current trend towards highly generic mono outline icons, different in nearly every program even on the same platform, is completely counter-productive.
I still don't understand why we have to "Save" documents in today's computer age.
I still don't understand why my super-complex nth-generation Office software still asks me if I want to "Save or Discard Changes" when I quit, without showing me what has changed in the document. (You might get a hint from the Undo drop-down, but that's a clumsy work-around, and doesn't work while the "Save/Discard" pop-up is showing.) Even the standard wiki text editors can do that, yet not one stand-alone program I've ever seen can show my what has changed between my saved and unsaved versions.
Interestingly, the Russians have chosen the opposite (evolved-design) process and produced the Su-27...-37 Flanker family and now the PAK-FA - which is apparently just a notch behind the F-22, and a couple of notches ahead of the F-35. Air combat between F-22 and PAK-FA is thought to be close to a draw, depending entirely on pilots and whatever next gen weapons/radar/etc are carried. While the F-35 will lose most encounters with the PAK-FA. And since the Flankers and PAK-FAs are intended for export, the US is going to be facing these in every theatre from now on. And with the F-22 being export restricted and now production-capped, US allies will be flying inferior and expensive F-35s against superior and cheaper Sukhois.
Similarly, the cost-overruns of the F-22 and particularly the F-35 development will reduce the US's ability to develop those very next-gen systems that it needs to keep the F-22 effective and the F-35 alive. While Russia's program will be export focused and for-profit; paying for itself, and its successor, and its next-gen systems. (For example, the PAK-FA apparently has an airborne mesh network that allows weapons on one aircraft to use radar/IR telemetry from another aircraft for targeting. This is important because stealth depends heavily on orientation. So an F-22 is more visible from the side, and much more from the rear, than it is during head-to-head.)
And importantly, the US seems to have no plans for what comes next, whereas the Russians will continue to evolve the Sukhois over the coming decades.
The electronics could buzz you when you have an appointment, carry memory cards with data, or connect you in a social network with others wearing electronics.
Is that really the best they could come up with? An alarm clock, a PDF file, or a Like/Share button. Gosh I bet it will also help you save recipes.
What ever happened to old fashioned spycraft? You know who he is, put him under surveillance, monitor his emails/phone/travel/visitors, he's in contact with al Qaeda, let him run with it. If he is directed to meet any local AQ contacts, bam, new surveillance targets. If he organises an actual attack, you intercept and now you have him and possibly a whole local cell, and not just for writing a few stupid emails. Hell, if nothing happens, then arrest him, wave terrorism charges at him, but only to turn him and send him out to work for you; give him a better story to lure out AQ, say he has access to radioactive material for a dirty bomb, but needs explosives and a bomb maker...
You're kidding right? Monetisation is the backbone of all major and proselytising religions.
I think we should give porn (and other commercial sex services like prostitution) the tax free status possessed by all religions, no matter how stupid, dangerous, or just obviously fraudulent. If scientology, sleazebag televangelists and the pope can all soak the gullible for millions and not pay a cent in taxes, why shouldn't porn stars and prostitutes? At least they're honest when they lie to you.
And I know of some amazingly bad decisions that were made on the 777 and copied onto the 787. Even after the screw-up was discovered on the first model.
Way to go for reading comprehension. So you are trying to say that the pay tv right holder
Speaking of reading comprehension, feel free to find anything about pay-tv in TFS or TFA. Did you notice the part in TFS where it said "terrestrial-television"? In other words, the free-to-air channels. Or in TFA: "Optus began offering its customers the ability to record any free-to-air television program"
Optus played the role of a digital Freeview recorder for it's cellphone customers. It is merely allowing viewers to record and watch freely available TV channels, just as they are legally allowed to at home.
Rumours are that they've been getting too many erroneous abort codes during testing. It may not be true, but it seems a reasonable inference that solving such a problem would have required changes to the code, changes that themselves required testing. Hence the delay.
Have a look at the dollar-value of the satellite industry some time.
If you have a reusable/refuelable GTO booster in orbit, you effectively increase your launcher's GEO-payload by 4-7 times.
The reason we don't do that today is because you'd have to launch the fuel anyway. But if you have fuel available in orbit, then you just need a reusable transfer stage. And a bunch of companies are working on restartable rocket engines, and long-duration ion-drives, and similar technology. Some are working on orbital refuelling technology. Others are working on novel docking technology. A whole bunch of ideas seem to be converging, which might be why these guys are leaping now.
With a refuelable booster in orbit, you also have a second chance at saving incorrectly placed satellites, or probes like the recent Phobos Grunt, reducing insurance or replacement costs. With refuelling technology and the booster, satellite refuelling is an obvious market, and companies are already developing the technology. Capture and refuel of satellites lends itself to more detailed servicing of satellites. Etc etc. Incremental steps.
THE moon is moving currently away at a rate of about 4 cm a year
It's weird that you looked up that, but didn't bother to look up the mass of the moon.
Mass of Moon: 70,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes. For comparison, annual iron mined globally: 2,400,000,000 tonnes. Time to mine just 1% of the Moon's mass at 10 billion tonnes per year: 70,000,000,000 years. (About 5 times the current age of the universe.) Increase in Earth's mass of adding 1% moon mass: 0.01%
If we were capable of bringing enough material down to Earth to appreciably change the Earth's mass, or the moon's orbit, then we'd have the technology to go out and get a new moon (one with blackjack and hookers) from one of the gas giants and placing it anywhere we wanted.
then you do not have a grasp of how far away the asteroids are.
If you: a) Think that all asteroids are in the belt between Mars & Jupiter. And b) think of space in terms of distance, not fuel/velocity/energy. Then you don't understand enough to comment.
and generate one from scratch with our great knowledge of ecosystems, great enough apparently to create a sustaining biosphere from nothing, but NOT great enough to have allowed us to successfully manage a perfectly-working one we already had without fucking it up.
Yeah we know so little about ecosystems. If only there was some way for people to experiment with ecosystems, in order to learn enough to properly manage existing ecosystems, but without risking those same ecosystems during the learning phase. If only there was... I don't know... some other place... one without existing ecosystems. But no, the whole of Earth is covered in ecosystems of one sort or another, and humans who depend on those ecosystems, there's nowhere to safely experiment and learn; we'd need to be somewhere else, somewhere not on Earth... and there's nowhere like that.
You're not really arguing against my point. Flickr integrates perfectly well with blogs and websites. And regular web users comfortably navigate in and out of blogs and websites. But Facebook is a closed universe, a walled garden. The site doesn't play well with other services, you can't even view a public wall without a Facebook account (Youtube, G+, Flickr, Tumblr, Wordpress, etc etc etc all happily let random surfers view public pages/photos/videos/profiles without creating an account. (Pinterest is a little more obnoxious about it, but it still lets you see the pin/profile, unlike Facebook.))
And like previous walled gardens, like AOL, like CompuServe, too many Facebook users lose or never gain the ability to use the web-proper. As soon as they move beyond the walled garden, they are lost and confused. Doesn't matter how badly Facebook works, doesn't matter how many superior services are out there, if it's not on Facebook it doesn't exist in their world.
Slashdot Mirror
Like TFS/TFA, I'm talking about in-app icons for functions, not the app's own icon. Every app seems to use their own versions, none are standardised, they hardly ever have function names, and they increasingly seem to be generic monotone outlines. Oh, a half-filled circle, the function of that is obvious. An outline square next to a filled square, how informative.)
Just how do you mouse-over on a touch-device? (They're plagued with those meaningless mono outline type icons.)
Shotgun.
I clearly wasn't talking about a lack of versioning and its variants. I was talking about the standard 20+ year old Quit/Exit dialogue box.
Agreed, there was nothing that required the floppy icon to mean Save and not Open. (Or even File-Manager. Click on the disk to view what's on the disk, wouldn't that make sense?)
What the icons mean is mostly arbitrary. But like the controls on cars, once the manufacturers standardised, it meant anyone who could drive, could quickly adapt to any new model. The current trend towards highly generic mono outline icons, different in nearly every program even on the same platform, is completely counter-productive.
I still don't understand why we have to "Save" documents in today's computer age.
I still don't understand why my super-complex nth-generation Office software still asks me if I want to "Save or Discard Changes" when I quit, without showing me what has changed in the document. (You might get a hint from the Undo drop-down, but that's a clumsy work-around, and doesn't work while the "Save/Discard" pop-up is showing.) Even the standard wiki text editors can do that, yet not one stand-alone program I've ever seen can show my what has changed between my saved and unsaved versions.
Interestingly, the Russians have chosen the opposite (evolved-design) process and produced the Su-27...-37 Flanker family and now the PAK-FA - which is apparently just a notch behind the F-22, and a couple of notches ahead of the F-35. Air combat between F-22 and PAK-FA is thought to be close to a draw, depending entirely on pilots and whatever next gen weapons/radar/etc are carried. While the F-35 will lose most encounters with the PAK-FA. And since the Flankers and PAK-FAs are intended for export, the US is going to be facing these in every theatre from now on. And with the F-22 being export restricted and now production-capped, US allies will be flying inferior and expensive F-35s against superior and cheaper Sukhois.
Similarly, the cost-overruns of the F-22 and particularly the F-35 development will reduce the US's ability to develop those very next-gen systems that it needs to keep the F-22 effective and the F-35 alive. While Russia's program will be export focused and for-profit; paying for itself, and its successor, and its next-gen systems. (For example, the PAK-FA apparently has an airborne mesh network that allows weapons on one aircraft to use radar/IR telemetry from another aircraft for targeting. This is important because stealth depends heavily on orientation. So an F-22 is more visible from the side, and much more from the rear, than it is during head-to-head.)
And importantly, the US seems to have no plans for what comes next, whereas the Russians will continue to evolve the Sukhois over the coming decades.
The electronics could buzz you when you have an appointment, carry memory cards with data, or connect you in a social network with others wearing electronics.
Is that really the best they could come up with? An alarm clock, a PDF file, or a Like/Share button. Gosh I bet it will also help you save recipes.
What ever happened to old fashioned spycraft? You know who he is, put him under surveillance, monitor his emails/phone/travel/visitors, he's in contact with al Qaeda, let him run with it. If he is directed to meet any local AQ contacts, bam, new surveillance targets. If he organises an actual attack, you intercept and now you have him and possibly a whole local cell, and not just for writing a few stupid emails. Hell, if nothing happens, then arrest him, wave terrorism charges at him, but only to turn him and send him out to work for you; give him a better story to lure out AQ, say he has access to radioactive material for a dirty bomb, but needs explosives and a bomb maker...
You're kidding right? Monetisation is the backbone of all major and proselytising religions.
I think we should give porn (and other commercial sex services like prostitution) the tax free status possessed by all religions, no matter how stupid, dangerous, or just obviously fraudulent. If scientology, sleazebag televangelists and the pope can all soak the gullible for millions and not pay a cent in taxes, why shouldn't porn stars and prostitutes? At least they're honest when they lie to you.
You're confusing the American FGM-148 Javelin anti-armour missile with the British Javelin surface-to-air missile. Click the link, above.
No no, for the Olympics they'll be using... wait for it... wait for it... Javelins!
but perhaps they could've timed the captain's rest better
Being the captain means you don't do graveyard shift. Being the junior means you always get graveyard.
And I know of some amazingly bad decisions that were made on the 777 and copied onto the 787. Even after the screw-up was discovered on the first model.
Care to share some examples?
(Not trolling, I'm genuinely curious.)
Way to go for reading comprehension. So you are trying to say that the pay tv right holder
Speaking of reading comprehension, feel free to find anything about pay-tv in TFS or TFA. Did you notice the part in TFS where it said "terrestrial-television"? In other words, the free-to-air channels. Or in TFA: "Optus began offering its customers the ability to record any free-to-air television program"
Optus played the role of a digital Freeview recorder for it's cellphone customers. It is merely allowing viewers to record and watch freely available TV channels, just as they are legally allowed to at home.
They're called pigeons, stupid.
Rumours are that they've been getting too many erroneous abort codes during testing. It may not be true, but it seems a reasonable inference that solving such a problem would have required changes to the code, changes that themselves required testing. Hence the delay.
Most meteors you see are the size of grains of sand. This one was millions of times larger. "Millions of times larger than normal" is "a big one".
Where do "they" live? If it's on Earth, they would be hunted down by every nation of Earth.
In the real world, Lex Luthor was shot in the head by a special forces team.
Have a look at the dollar-value of the satellite industry some time.
If you have a reusable/refuelable GTO booster in orbit, you effectively increase your launcher's GEO-payload by 4-7 times.
The reason we don't do that today is because you'd have to launch the fuel anyway. But if you have fuel available in orbit, then you just need a reusable transfer stage. And a bunch of companies are working on restartable rocket engines, and long-duration ion-drives, and similar technology. Some are working on orbital refuelling technology. Others are working on novel docking technology. A whole bunch of ideas seem to be converging, which might be why these guys are leaping now.
With a refuelable booster in orbit, you also have a second chance at saving incorrectly placed satellites, or probes like the recent Phobos Grunt, reducing insurance or replacement costs. With refuelling technology and the booster, satellite refuelling is an obvious market, and companies are already developing the technology. Capture and refuel of satellites lends itself to more detailed servicing of satellites. Etc etc. Incremental steps.
THE moon is moving currently away at a rate of about 4 cm a year
It's weird that you looked up that, but didn't bother to look up the mass of the moon.
Mass of Moon: 70,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
For comparison, annual iron mined globally: 2,400,000,000 tonnes.
Time to mine just 1% of the Moon's mass at 10 billion tonnes per year: 70,000,000,000 years.
(About 5 times the current age of the universe.)
Increase in Earth's mass of adding 1% moon mass: 0.01%
If we were capable of bringing enough material down to Earth to appreciably change the Earth's mass, or the moon's orbit, then we'd have the technology to go out and get a new moon (one with blackjack and hookers) from one of the gas giants and placing it anywhere we wanted.
then you do not have a grasp of how far away the asteroids are.
If you: a) Think that all asteroids are in the belt between Mars & Jupiter. And b) think of space in terms of distance, not fuel/velocity/energy. Then you don't understand enough to comment.
and generate one from scratch with our great knowledge of ecosystems, great enough apparently to create a sustaining biosphere from nothing, but NOT great enough to have allowed us to successfully manage a perfectly-working one we already had without fucking it up.
Yeah we know so little about ecosystems. If only there was some way for people to experiment with ecosystems, in order to learn enough to properly manage existing ecosystems, but without risking those same ecosystems during the learning phase. If only there was... I don't know... some other place... one without existing ecosystems. But no, the whole of Earth is covered in ecosystems of one sort or another, and humans who depend on those ecosystems, there's nowhere to safely experiment and learn; we'd need to be somewhere else, somewhere not on Earth... and there's nowhere like that.
You're not really arguing against my point. Flickr integrates perfectly well with blogs and websites. And regular web users comfortably navigate in and out of blogs and websites. But Facebook is a closed universe, a walled garden. The site doesn't play well with other services, you can't even view a public wall without a Facebook account (Youtube, G+, Flickr, Tumblr, Wordpress, etc etc etc all happily let random surfers view public pages/photos/videos/profiles without creating an account. (Pinterest is a little more obnoxious about it, but it still lets you see the pin/profile, unlike Facebook.))
And like previous walled gardens, like AOL, like CompuServe, too many Facebook users lose or never gain the ability to use the web-proper. As soon as they move beyond the walled garden, they are lost and confused. Doesn't matter how badly Facebook works, doesn't matter how many superior services are out there, if it's not on Facebook it doesn't exist in their world.
There's no tagging
From Flickr's homepage: "Add rich information like tags, locations & people." "Explore Flickr through tags"
and nobody wants to have to create an account just so that they can leave a comment.
From Flickr's homepage: "or login with your facebook ID"
The integrated "photos" feature is very convenient and definitely serves a purpose.
From Flickr's homepage: "Upload your photos once to Flickr, then easily and safely share them through Facebook, Twitter, email, blogs and more."
Seriously, Facebook = AOL. "Don't know, don't want to know."