If screen real estate was the hallmark of UI, we'd still be using CLIs.
Funny then that Mac OS X is the first OS from Apple to ship with a terminal, eh?:P And as for vi, I do have some idea of whats going on, its my favorite text editor, and I know how to use about 10% of its capabilities.
Have a look at Office 95's preferences dialog to see how awful multiple tab bars are.
Ha! Try Mac Word 6! When Word 5 came out, Macworld magazine jokingly printed a picture of Word 6 with a 8 inch by 3 inch toolbar. When 6 came out, it was almost that big! Macworld said "hey guys, we were KIDDING!!!"
The problem was not that you could have a toolbar that big, but that it was that huge by default, rather than optional. You should be able to have one that big if you want it, but only if you need it. Its like that with the tab bar; its not even visible until you start using tabs. It could expand and contract if necessary, so you could have five rows of tabs if you really need to have that many windows open, but it would contract as you close them. To have some flexibility, as you said.
I just think its preferable to manage multiple browser windows through tabs rather than through the dock, especially on one of the 12" laptop screens (which I really really want). Maybe if the Safari developers had to do all their web browsing on small screens they'd like tabs more and would find some way to improve tabs to fix their perceived inadaquacies.
Right, its so much better to have 6, 7 or more windows cluttering up your desktop. One of the hallmarks of good UI design is to maximize the amount of free desktop real estate, which is one reason why tabs are so popular.
And as for the problem of having the titles disappear: just open another tab bar if thats such a big deal to you!
and in fact, you made my point that there is not difference in this example between "invent" and "create".
I made a point on how creating is different from inventing, you just chose to ignore it. Inventing is creating but creating isn't necessarily inventing. But since you found that "creating" and "inventing" can be synonyms for eachother, Gore must be a liar and shall burn in hell!!!
And I'm asking what concrete legislation did he pen or get passed for him to claim *any* credit whatsoever? I'm not saying that he claimed he wrote the TCP/IP stack, or defined the protocol. I just want to know what he did, even as a politician, to actually further the work and research already being done.
"In 1991, Vice President Al Gore, then a U.S. senator, proposed widening the architecture of NSFNET to include more K-12 schools, community colleges, and 2-year colleges. The resulting legislation expanded NSFNET and renamed it NREN (National Research and Educational Network). This bill also allowed businesses to purchase part of the network for commercial uses. The mass commercialization of today's Internet is the direct result of this legislation."
And namecalling like "shitsack" only hinders your case.
Ha! I doubt it would make any difference anyway. You seem determined to continue using an electron microscope to split hairs about wether Gore's statments hold water, then use non sequiters and ad hominums to avoid answering a simple, direct, question.
Attacking Bush when we are talking about *Gore* is using the EDI (Everbody Does It) defense. Try to stay focused.
Bull. Its enirely relevant; it happened during the same time frame, by two canidates in the same race. Why does one canidate get a free pass to lie and lay came to legislation he fought against tooth and nail, and the other is attacked for for statements he either never made, are completely factual, or taken totally out of context?
At a campaign rally before members of a union, Gore said his mother sang "Look for the union label" to him a child. The press rushed to throw this into the "fib bin", pointing out that the song wasn't written until Gore was 27. Except that it was obvious that he was speaking to a UNION and it was a JOKE.
U.S News and other reports nail Gore for "boasting" that he was the basis for one of the charachters in the book "Love Story" by Erich Segal. Except Gore was merely noting that some other reporter was claining that, and furthermore the charachter was based on him and his roomate Tommy Lee Jones.
Gore makes an annecdote (btw I hate annecdotes and cringed whenever he would use one) about a girl who had to stand in her classroom because there weren't enough desks for all the students. The press again slammed Gore for being a liar when they found out that on a later day the girl was able to sat down. But only because someone else had to stand, because there weren't enough desks in the room for all the students.
Meanwhile, during a debate, Bush says "you know the state of Texas is the first to allow patients to sue their HMO's". He does not mention that he vetoed that bill, and let it pass into law without his signature. This event is a footnote in a few papers a week later, and nobody cared.
Gotta do something to make up for all those eligible voters "scrubbed" from the lists by a company hired by Republican officials, and letting Republican workers take home invalid Republican absentee balots so they could be completed and counted!
You know you are just rationalizing a big pile of shit. Any system that lets the less popular canidate lose by millions of votes but win the race is a perversion of democracy. Go back to gobbling some nice fat cock, or better yet do the world a favor and look into a shotgun lobotomy and take yourself out of the genepool.
"In 1991, Vice President Al Gore, then a U.S. senator, proposed widening the architecture of NSFNET to include more K-12 schools, community colleges, and 2-year colleges. The resulting legislation expanded NSFNET and renamed it NREN (National Research and Educational Network). This bill also allowed businesses to purchase part of the network for commercial uses. The mass commercialization of today's Internet is the direct result of this legislation."
Eat that, bitch. He was also the driving force in getting government agencies on the web. So, how bout you answer the question: why was it so popluar to disect Gore's statements for inaccuracies when Bush flat out takes credit for something he hated, and vetoed, on nation television and no one cares?
He never said that *he*, as Al Gore by himself, created the internet. Go back and look at the quote. The process by which an experimental network of networks became the Internet was the product of many many individuals. Scientists, researches, government officials. An no other elected official "got" the Internet like Gore did.
So yes me most certainaly *did*. He makes it very plain that he was talking about what he did when he was in Congress.
And let me as you this: while you are splitting hairs and thumping your chest at Gore, how about Bush trying to take credit for a bill he vetoed? And before you complain that it's irrelevant, it happened during the same time frame, the 2000 election, when the media was spewing the Gore "fib factor" BS.
The problem with the current system is that just a little fudging in one state is enough to through off the election. I think it was easier for them the fudge a few thousand votes where it counted, rather than trying to cheat their way past 500,000 votes to catch up to Gore nationally.
Go back and re-read the last half of my post. There are many many many lightbulbs. There is one Internet. If there was a huge frikkin lightbulb somewhere on earth, and when anyone refered to The Lightbulb they were talking about That One Big Frikkin Lightbulb, would it be inappropriate for a person to say they had a hand in creating it?
And yes, the Internet as we have it today was the result of the work of many, many people across several decades. What Gore was talking about was what he did AS A CONGRESSMAN, not as a scientest, not as a businessman setting up isp's. AS A CONGRESSMAN.
And creating is still not inventing, even if you lop off the first part of his quote and you lose the context, as they are two different completely different processes. Inventing is comming up with the idea in the first place. Creating is making that idea a reality. I can come up with plans for a zero emission car that runs on cigarette butts. If you actually build it, you can say you created it. Gore didn't build the Internet, but he didn't say that he did, since he was talking about what he did AS A CONGRESSMAN. And in that context it is perfectly appropriate for him to do so, since no politician has cared as much about it, except maybe for those passing the communications decency act, but thats hardly in the same league.
Lastly: while you're nitpicking a comment Gore made in an interview, what do you have to say about Bush TAKING CREDIT FOR SOMETHING HE VETOED. In one of the 2000 debates, Bush said "you know the state of Texas is the first to allow patients to sue their HMO's." Bush VETOED that bill as govenor, and he only let it become law without his signarture when the state legislature had enough votes to override his veto. The fact that so many people have made so much hay over lies that Gore never made, but will let a shitsack like Bush sit there and take credit for something he fought against tooth and nail, does not fill me with hope for the future of humanity.
Wow, I'm amazed you managed to stop watching ESPN long enough to type that. Maybe you should look into intervention? A presidential election is not a sports game. There is no season.
If you have the right to vote would you not say you should have that vote be counted? Not thrown away because you are a liberal in Georgia or a conservative in Massachuses.
We should either abolish the College outright, or at least force votes to be tallied proportionally rather than in a winner-take-all system.
I suppose if you were completely retarded you could see it that way. "Creating" and "inventing" are two totally seperate things.
I can say I created a light bulb and it could be a true statement, if I made one. If I said I invented the lightbulb, I would either be smoking way to much pot or be a bald face liar.
When Gore was talking about the Internet, he was talking the initiative as a government official in making the Internet what it is today, a single entity where you can get to millions of servers from your box at home from around the world. He did not say he invented the concept of the internet, which is any group of connected networks.
It evolved over time but yes it was in Article 2, Section 1. We should pass another amendment disbanding the College or, as someone else pointed out, mandate that the electoral votes be split according to the popular vote, rather than the winner-take-all system.
And if you had ANY clue about about statistics the electoral college works just fine.
Okay then, explain why it makes sense that you can lose the vote but win the election?
Also, If you had half a brain you would know that the president was NEVER meant to be elected by the genereal population. Get out of the mind-numbed publik skool and read some history.
And if you weren't an AC with your head up your butt you'd know that the system was put in place because the writers of the constitution didn't trust the population to directly elect the president. That is a retarded system (but would explain why you like it) where someone can lose the vote but still get the office. If they can change the constitution so we directly elect Senators to Congress, they can do the same thing for the most important office in the country.
Riiiiight. I just love it when conservatives make hay out of the fact that Democrats were racist 50 years ago, CONVIENIENTLY FORGETTING THAT THOSE RACISTS ALL JOINED THE GOP. Lott? GOP. Thurmond? GOP. Then there's all the Republicans who didn't start out as Democrats, but are Confederate flag wavers who visit Bob Jones University and give interviews to racist publications.
BECAUSE HE'S TALKING ABOUT WHAT HE DID AS A CONGRESSMAN. Repeat that 10,000 times to yourself until it sinks in.
And as far as "stealing" the election goes: Gore won the election, remember? By half a million votes. Its only due to an 18th century relic, the Electoral College, that we now have a deushbag for president.
How bout the fact that that's TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. The idea of investigating someone without probable cause and then justifying your actions by the findings is totally counter to our justice system, unless your name is Bill Clinton, and that was just a special excemption made by our wonderful Republicans in Congress.
Why would the police go and take trash from the dismissed cop unless they had good reason to suspect that she was a drug addict?
I sincerly hope you were being sarcastic there. If you'd read the article, you know that the police officer who ordered the invesitgation DATED her in the early 90's. No conflict of interest there. That is EXACTLY why we need to be worried about shit like this, especially with the huge increase in investigative power given to the goverment after 9/11. Many more people with ludicrous levels of authority means many more people abusing that authority for personal grudges.
If you can grasp the notion that an internet is not the Internet, it means exactly what he said it means.
The bullshit started with the origional Wired article, then Racist Majoraty Leader Trent Lott got it rolling by mockingly saying that he had "taken the intiative in creating the paper clip." "Inventing" was then substituted for "creating" by the cocksucking media, and an urban legend was born.
This article does a nice job debunking the "invented the internet" myth. Go read it. After that go ahead and keep making jokes about Gore and the internet, its all funny haha, but know that you are spreading a baldface lie.
What really pisses me off is that the media had a grand old time eviscerating Gore for a plethora of false statments that he never actually made, while ignoring then Govenor Bush's ATTEMPT TO TAKE CREDIT FOR A BILL HE FUCKING VETOED!!!. During the 2000 debates Bush said "As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the state of Texas, to get a patients' bill of rights through." The shitsack VETOED that bill, and then only let it pass into law without his signature because the Texas legislature passed it again with veto proof margins!
1. The 42 minute time limit of each episode. They would come up with all these interesting, complex situations and yet they'd have neat solutions cuz they'd run out of time.
2. Nothing ever changes. Everything at the end of the episode is the same as it was at the begining. You know Picard really isn't going to take up that research job on earth, that person that just fell in love with one of the charachters is either going to get left behind or killed.
3. Picard is a pansy. Every single confrentation would revolve around the Enterprise getting the crap kicked out of it because Picard would be busy hailing the enemy to talk some sense into them. And how many frikkin times to the Romulans have to cross the Neutral Zone before the Feds get off their asses and make some cloaking devices?
But thats not too likely to happen. Just look at all the other posts bitching about having to buy 14 songs of crap to get the one good song off of a cd. One of the big things that people want from an online service is to buy only the songs they want, not the whole albums. So you'll still find 10,000 copies of the latest Shitallica song but have a hard time getting the whole album at decent quality off P2P.
Slashdot Mirror
If screen real estate was the hallmark of UI, we'd still be using CLIs.
:P And as for vi, I do have some idea of whats going on, its my favorite text editor, and I know how to use about 10% of its capabilities.
Funny then that Mac OS X is the first OS from Apple to ship with a terminal, eh?
Have a look at Office 95's preferences dialog to see how awful multiple tab bars are.
Ha! Try Mac Word 6! When Word 5 came out, Macworld magazine jokingly printed a picture of Word 6 with a 8 inch by 3 inch toolbar. When 6 came out, it was almost that big! Macworld said "hey guys, we were KIDDING!!!"
The problem was not that you could have a toolbar that big, but that it was that huge by default, rather than optional. You should be able to have one that big if you want it, but only if you need it. Its like that with the tab bar; its not even visible until you start using tabs. It could expand and contract if necessary, so you could have five rows of tabs if you really need to have that many windows open, but it would contract as you close them. To have some flexibility, as you said.
I just think its preferable to manage multiple browser windows through tabs rather than through the dock, especially on one of the 12" laptop screens (which I really really want). Maybe if the Safari developers had to do all their web browsing on small screens they'd like tabs more and would find some way to improve tabs to fix their perceived inadaquacies.
Right, its so much better to have 6, 7 or more windows cluttering up your desktop. One of the hallmarks of good UI design is to maximize the amount of free desktop real estate, which is one reason why tabs are so popular.
And as for the problem of having the titles disappear: just open another tab bar if thats such a big deal to you!
You got derailed in your debating points here
No I didn't.
and in fact, you made my point that there is not difference in this example between "invent" and "create".
I made a point on how creating is different from inventing, you just chose to ignore it. Inventing is creating but creating isn't necessarily inventing. But since you found that "creating" and "inventing" can be synonyms for eachother, Gore must be a liar and shall burn in hell!!!
And I'm asking what concrete legislation did he pen or get passed for him to claim *any* credit whatsoever? I'm not saying that he claimed he wrote the TCP/IP stack, or defined the protocol. I just want to know what he did, even as a politician, to actually further the work and research already being done.
"In 1991, Vice President Al Gore, then a U.S. senator, proposed widening the architecture of NSFNET to include more K-12 schools, community colleges, and 2-year colleges. The resulting legislation expanded NSFNET and renamed it NREN (National Research and Educational Network). This bill also allowed businesses to purchase part of the network for commercial uses. The mass commercialization of today's Internet is the direct result of this legislation."
And namecalling like "shitsack" only hinders your case.
Ha! I doubt it would make any difference anyway. You seem determined to continue using an electron microscope to split hairs about wether Gore's statments hold water, then use non sequiters and ad hominums to avoid answering a simple, direct, question.
Attacking Bush when we are talking about *Gore* is using the EDI (Everbody Does It) defense. Try to stay focused.
Bull. Its enirely relevant; it happened during the same time frame, by two canidates in the same race. Why does one canidate get a free pass to lie and lay came to legislation he fought against tooth and nail, and the other is attacked for for statements he either never made, are completely factual, or taken totally out of context?
At a campaign rally before members of a union, Gore said his mother sang "Look for the union label" to him a child. The press rushed to throw this into the "fib bin", pointing out that the song wasn't written until Gore was 27. Except that it was obvious that he was speaking to a UNION and it was a JOKE.
U.S News and other reports nail Gore for "boasting" that he was the basis for one of the charachters in the book "Love Story" by Erich Segal. Except Gore was merely noting that some other reporter was claining that, and furthermore the charachter was based on him and his roomate Tommy Lee Jones.
Gore makes an annecdote (btw I hate annecdotes and cringed whenever he would use one) about a girl who had to stand in her classroom because there weren't enough desks for all the students. The press again slammed Gore for being a liar when they found out that on a later day the girl was able to sat down. But only because someone else had to stand, because there weren't enough desks in the room for all the students.
Meanwhile, during a debate, Bush says "you know the state of Texas is the first to allow patients to sue their HMO's". He does not mention that he vetoed that bill, and let it pass into law without his signature. This event is a footnote in a few papers a week later, and nobody cared.
Gotta do something to make up for all those eligible voters "scrubbed" from the lists by a company hired by Republican officials, and letting Republican workers take home invalid Republican absentee balots so they could be completed and counted!
You know you are just rationalizing a big pile of shit. Any system that lets the less popular canidate lose by millions of votes but win the race is a perversion of democracy. Go back to gobbling some nice fat cock, or better yet do the world a favor and look into a shotgun lobotomy and take yourself out of the genepool.
"In 1991, Vice President Al Gore, then a U.S. senator, proposed widening the architecture of NSFNET to include more K-12 schools, community colleges, and 2-year colleges. The resulting legislation expanded NSFNET and renamed it NREN (National Research and Educational Network). This bill also allowed businesses to purchase part of the network for commercial uses. The mass commercialization of today's Internet is the direct result of this legislation."
Eat that, bitch. He was also the driving force in getting government agencies on the web. So, how bout you answer the question: why was it so popluar to disect Gore's statements for inaccuracies when Bush flat out takes credit for something he hated, and vetoed, on nation television and no one cares?
Good for him. Not all confederate flag wavers are racists, but the most of the racists are confederate flag wavers.
He never said that *he*, as Al Gore by himself, created the internet. Go back and look at the quote. The process by which an experimental network of networks became the Internet was the product of many many individuals. Scientists, researches, government officials. An no other elected official "got" the Internet like Gore did.
So yes me most certainaly *did*. He makes it very plain that he was talking about what he did when he was in Congress.
And let me as you this: while you are splitting hairs and thumping your chest at Gore, how about Bush trying to take credit for a bill he vetoed? And before you complain that it's irrelevant, it happened during the same time frame, the 2000 election, when the media was spewing the Gore "fib factor" BS.
The problem with the current system is that just a little fudging in one state is enough to through off the election. I think it was easier for them the fudge a few thousand votes where it counted, rather than trying to cheat their way past 500,000 votes to catch up to Gore nationally.
Go back and re-read the last half of my post. There are many many many lightbulbs. There is one Internet. If there was a huge frikkin lightbulb somewhere on earth, and when anyone refered to The Lightbulb they were talking about That One Big Frikkin Lightbulb, would it be inappropriate for a person to say they had a hand in creating it?
And yes, the Internet as we have it today was the result of the work of many, many people across several decades. What Gore was talking about was what he did AS A CONGRESSMAN, not as a scientest, not as a businessman setting up isp's. AS A CONGRESSMAN.
And creating is still not inventing, even if you lop off the first part of his quote and you lose the context, as they are two different completely different processes. Inventing is comming up with the idea in the first place. Creating is making that idea a reality. I can come up with plans for a zero emission car that runs on cigarette butts. If you actually build it, you can say you created it. Gore didn't build the Internet, but he didn't say that he did, since he was talking about what he did AS A CONGRESSMAN. And in that context it is perfectly appropriate for him to do so, since no politician has cared as much about it, except maybe for those passing the communications decency act, but thats hardly in the same league.
Lastly: while you're nitpicking a comment Gore made in an interview, what do you have to say about Bush TAKING CREDIT FOR SOMETHING HE VETOED. In one of the 2000 debates, Bush said "you know the state of Texas is the first to allow patients to sue their HMO's." Bush VETOED that bill as govenor, and he only let it become law without his signarture when the state legislature had enough votes to override his veto. The fact that so many people have made so much hay over lies that Gore never made, but will let a shitsack like Bush sit there and take credit for something he fought against tooth and nail, does not fill me with hope for the future of humanity.
True, that would fix the worst of the problems.
Wow, I'm amazed you managed to stop watching ESPN long enough to type that. Maybe you should look into intervention? A presidential election is not a sports game. There is no season.
If you have the right to vote would you not say you should have that vote be counted? Not thrown away because you are a liberal in Georgia or a conservative in Massachuses.
We should either abolish the College outright, or at least force votes to be tallied proportionally rather than in a winner-take-all system.
I suppose if you were completely retarded you could see it that way. "Creating" and "inventing" are two totally seperate things.
I can say I created a light bulb and it could be a true statement, if I made one. If I said I invented the lightbulb, I would either be smoking way to much pot or be a bald face liar.
When Gore was talking about the Internet, he was talking the initiative as a government official in making the Internet what it is today, a single entity where you can get to millions of servers from your box at home from around the world. He did not say he invented the concept of the internet, which is any group of connected networks.
It evolved over time but yes it was in Article 2, Section 1. We should pass another amendment disbanding the College or, as someone else pointed out, mandate that the electoral votes be split according to the popular vote, rather than the winner-take-all system.
l
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.htm
And if you had ANY clue about about statistics the electoral college works just fine.
Okay then, explain why it makes sense that you can lose the vote but win the election?
Also, If you had half a brain you would know that the president was NEVER meant to be elected by the genereal population. Get out of the mind-numbed publik skool and read some history.
And if you weren't an AC with your head up your butt you'd know that the system was put in place because the writers of the constitution didn't trust the population to directly elect the president. That is a retarded system (but would explain why you like it) where someone can lose the vote but still get the office. If they can change the constitution so we directly elect Senators to Congress, they can do the same thing for the most important office in the country.
Riiiiight. I just love it when conservatives make hay out of the fact that Democrats were racist 50 years ago, CONVIENIENTLY FORGETTING THAT THOSE RACISTS ALL JOINED THE GOP. Lott? GOP. Thurmond? GOP. Then there's all the Republicans who didn't start out as Democrats, but are Confederate flag wavers who visit Bob Jones University and give interviews to racist publications.
BECAUSE HE'S TALKING ABOUT WHAT HE DID AS A CONGRESSMAN. Repeat that 10,000 times to yourself until it sinks in.
And as far as "stealing" the election goes: Gore won the election, remember? By half a million votes. Its only due to an 18th century relic, the Electoral College, that we now have a deushbag for president.
funny, so long as you know the "invented the interner" line is a lie, as in he never said that.
How bout the fact that that's TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. The idea of investigating someone without probable cause and then justifying your actions by the findings is totally counter to our justice system, unless your name is Bill Clinton, and that was just a special excemption made by our wonderful Republicans in Congress.
Why would the police go and take trash from the dismissed cop unless they had good reason to suspect that she was a drug addict?
I sincerly hope you were being sarcastic there. If you'd read the article, you know that the police officer who ordered the invesitgation DATED her in the early 90's. No conflict of interest there. That is EXACTLY why we need to be worried about shit like this, especially with the huge increase in investigative power given to the goverment after 9/11. Many more people with ludicrous levels of authority means many more people abusing that authority for personal grudges.
If you can grasp the notion that an internet is not the Internet, it means exactly what he said it means.
The bullshit started with the origional Wired article, then Racist Majoraty Leader Trent Lott got it rolling by mockingly saying that he had "taken the intiative in creating the paper clip." "Inventing" was then substituted for "creating" by the cocksucking media, and an urban legend was born.
This article does a nice job debunking the "invented the internet" myth. Go read it. After that go ahead and keep making jokes about Gore and the internet, its all funny haha, but know that you are spreading a baldface lie.
What really pisses me off is that the media had a grand old time eviscerating Gore for a plethora of false statments that he never actually made, while ignoring then Govenor Bush's ATTEMPT TO TAKE CREDIT FOR A BILL HE FUCKING VETOED!!!. During the 2000 debates Bush said "As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the state of Texas, to get a patients' bill of rights through." The shitsack VETOED that bill, and then only let it pass into law without his signature because the Texas legislature passed it again with veto proof margins!
you do know that the "inventing the internet" reference is bull, right?
Associated Press, News Hour on PBS, NPR, BBC
I'm going to make a wild guess here -- you're not a minority, right?
:)
If you are, you must not get out of Queens much, eh?
1. The 42 minute time limit of each episode. They would come up with all these interesting, complex situations and yet they'd have neat solutions cuz they'd run out of time.
2. Nothing ever changes. Everything at the end of the episode is the same as it was at the begining. You know Picard really isn't going to take up that research job on earth, that person that just fell in love with one of the charachters is either going to get left behind or killed.
3. Picard is a pansy. Every single confrentation would revolve around the Enterprise getting the crap kicked out of it because Picard would be busy hailing the enemy to talk some sense into them. And how many frikkin times to the Romulans have to cross the Neutral Zone before the Feds get off their asses and make some cloaking devices?
But thats not too likely to happen. Just look at all the other posts bitching about having to buy 14 songs of crap to get the one good song off of a cd. One of the big things that people want from an online service is to buy only the songs they want, not the whole albums. So you'll still find 10,000 copies of the latest Shitallica song but have a hard time getting the whole album at decent quality off P2P.