They don't have parking in Hong Kong and Macau for enough car traffic to justify the cost of the bridge.
What makes you think people will go from China to Hong Kong / Macau rather than the other way? The poor tend not to flow towards rich areas in any great mass, and Zhuhai isn't exactly the bustling economy that is Macau or Hong Kong.
I was wondering why they chose to build it from Macau to Hong Kong, rather than mainland China, but thanks you just cleared that up for me.</sarcasm>
They didn't. There are three different countries at play here. The bridge starts in Hong Kong and then goes to a new artificial island built in the ocean where the Macau and mainland borders meet. At this 3-way customs facility the bridge splits in two, one part goes west to Macau, the other has this fancy flyover arrangement to flip the traffic to the other side of the road before continuing north and joining just south of of the port in Zhuhai.
However there are A LOT of people in settings where they don't have access to data that isn't metered. I am not saying products should be tailored to our use case by any means but minimally workable solutions should be offered.
Workable solutions do exist. There are android apps that don't use lots of disk space, and there's ways to manage data to ensure you don't go over carrier limits baked right into the OS.
I bought tax cut last year (boxed). Guess what nothing in there but a download link and license key. WTF?
I had someone give me a CD with software on it recently. My home computer doesn't have a 5.25" drive bay let alone a CD player. My laptop doesn't either. I had to see the IT department at work to make it readable. This is not such an extreme example in 2018. The point is that nowadays this truly does start bordering on the archaic tailored to specific people kind of scenarios.
The phone proceeded to re-download all of my apps? Why bother making a backup at all if it excludes 90% of the data!
Why bother backing up the data that already exists in a backed up form? I don't understand the reasoning here. The end result is you got your phone back to its normal working condition right? There's literally no point in backing up something that your phone keeps ever green, and exists elsewhere already. This is similar to Linus's reasoning: Only whips use backups, real men upload their data and let the rest of the world mirror it.
and setting every connection metered will still download 100s of megs of updates when it feels like it
Citation required. Based on all available research, windows update doesn't download anything while on a metered connection.
There should be reliable of setting limits.
You know that pretty much exists now right? What you're referencing are actual bugs, as is in this case here. Google News normally doesn't use much data. Restoring your phone will prompt you to use data and then additionally give you the option to only use it over wifi. Most apps that do anything with significant data (e.g. Facebook) will give you the option to not auto-download, not auto-play etc.
Some providers let you cut off access the moment you hit the limit. Well worth enabling. In the mean time did you send the bill to Google?
Google will ask why you didn't set your Android phone with a data cap, something that has been a feature of the OS for the past 10 years. Who cares about providers.
When a mobile app uses that much data you know fully well that it isn't downloading any meaningful comment. Have you never seen a bug where a program gets stuck in a loop requesting the same data over and over again? It doesn't matter what that data is providing it is requested ALL the time. Hell I've had open source software do that (alerted to it by an email addressed to "root" that a HDD was full). Windows Update has done that in the past too. My media centre did that too trying to get the weather, and the only reason it didn't use up any significant amount of data is because the server API timed out and blocked my system after the first 10000 requests came through within 5 minutes.
I have one app on my phone - it's called a browser. It can go to any of the sites I need.
Oh god. You browse the internet on your mobile phone? Why would you do that to yourself? Do you actively enjoy full page adverts, buggy rendering, slow pages, broken UIs, and mangled content?
If you're into that thing I'm sure there's some BDSM apps out there for you, but you may need to download another app store since that kind of self-punishment is against Google's guidelines.
Adding a single-line URL/Search bar never needed to be added to the codebase.
Conjecture. I represent one of many users who don't see a need for the two to be separate.
Firefox is likely collecting data using Topsites.
Really? Because I don't have Topsites installed. But why are you even guessing like this? The code base is there for you to see.
No would would need a private mode or it's bloat if you weren't collecting data in the first place.
A comment made by someone who doesn't understand what private mode is or why it exists. Pro-tip: It has nothing to do with Mozilla or anyone else on the internet collecting your data.
No one likes looking at square corners on tabs.
Conjecture. Speaking for all users without the authority to do so.
The API changes so radically and so often and so deeply and abrupt depreciating, that you can just forget about having a good extension base.
The API changes were made to decouple the API from the browser code base precisely so they wouldn't need changing in the future. This should make you happy.
Firefox should have supported its own MAF format, but it didn't.
It should tell you something about the MAF format when it's own company dumps support for it from it's key product.
Ewww, what is this! The early 00s? That's pre-iPhone talk man. Phones didn't even work before the iPhone revolution. Keep that talk up and you'll be labeled as some kind of a weirdo.
Then you should re-read what it is you just quoted from me maybe try all the way to the end of the sentence.
You say it's just details, but then you go on to show how the behavior of the start menu-- the single biggest UI element of the Windows desktop environment-- has changed.
Not at all. I was expressly pointing out that there was no change of any significance. The elements are still all there the interaction to start a program is still the same with Windows 10 as it was with Windows 95. You can take one person from one OS, sit them in front of the other and they will have no problem instinctively doing the same task, especially from the 95 > 10 route since the whole point of the "Start" word was to condition people to go to the bottom left to interact with a Windows OS.
But ultimately we're talking past each other. I agree there's changes in the UI, just that they are for rarely accessed items. In that regard there isn't much lost productivity associated with changing those elements. Incidentally those are things that are constantly changing even within various versions of Windows 10.
I don't think that makes it better.
It doesn't. It just makes it less of an impact on society in terms of productivity lost due to retraining.
There are plenty of people who still operate their computer on the basis of, "I don't understand how anything works, I just know that I press this button when I want that thing to happen," and if you move or rename the button, they can't function.
And my fundamental point is that most of those people see only minor differences between Windows 95 or Windows 10. Actually the single biggest and most jarring change over the years was the move from Windows XP to Visa which by default hid the "My Computer" icon from the desktop which messed with the workflow of people who typically accessed everything by going to their desktop... though given that archaic workflow it's hard to argue that isn't for the better.
Anyway all of this is beside the point since you dismissed the premise. We ARE talking about only Windows 10 since the GP said: "One fine morning, you wake up and the steering wheel has been moved from left to right" For EVERY version of Windows prior to Windows 10 you will wake up one find morning and find your OS completely unchanged.
Kids will be running for the bus, crossing streets in front of it, etc.
All the more reason to have this be handled by a computer system with a instantaneous 360degree view of obstructions rather than some dude driving a truck which by design severely limits his field of vision.
You could argue that the changes were good, but still, it's a change.
I didn't say there was no changes. I said the fundamental interaction remains unchanged. And yes I was specifically talking about changes to Windows 10 given that the GP was talking about waking up to find changes which systems prior to Windows 10 didn't do.
If you were used to Windows XP and you then sat down at a Windows 7 machine, a lot of things would have moved around, which would be confusing.
The details of using something vs its fundamentals are different things. The GP referenced steering wheel, breaks, and accelerator. He didn't mention locating the fuse box, or identifying warning lights or anything like that which I would agree then would definitely have moved around between Windows 10 updates, but let's expand the fundamentals to Windows XP:
Let's get in and fundamentally drive both: 1. Both present you with a login screen where you need to type a password then drop you on desktop. 2. Both you start by clicking the thing in the bottom right which includes the windows logo. 3. Minor Difference: One asks you to hover over Programs, the other gives you programs straight away in a scroll list. 4. You still start apps by clicking on them. 5. When you next interact with the OS, the way of maximising, minimising, and closing apps is still there in the same place and in the same order. Alt tab still switches between tabs (though Windows 10 gives you more options), copy and paste still works as it always did (though Windows 10 gives you more options). 6. When saving files I click on "Documents" on the left instead of "My Documents" as I did in Windows XP.
Sure settings have moved around a lot, but for most users their interaction with the control panel is incredibly limited and usually doesn't extend beyond adjusting projector settings (a place you can get to by right clicking and clicking Display Settings in both OSes). Oh and maybe wifi settings, an icon that is in the bottom right of both systems.
To be honest I think power users would be more baffled by the changes than normal users.
I'm sure if you looked there's more than one thing you'll find fun. Today I spent more time "jogging" through Hope County in Far Cry 5 than I did outside that's for sure.
The problem is, I have never really lived in a place where I could do that kind of exercise daily.
Now this is a very key problem. The ease of specific exercise is highly dependent on your locale. I used to love going rock climbing. I'd go once or twice a week. Now I live in an area where there's no mountains and only 2 indoor centres, both crap. I used to like swimming at the beach (lived about 5km away). I would swim about 4km a week, and go wakeboarding. Now my nearest beach is an hour drive up to the shitty north sea. Hiking here is a dud, but hey the cycling in top. In this country I can literally cycle between major cities without sharing the road with a car. Shame it rains for half the year.
Nope the word I was looking for was feasible. It implies a certain practicality (which encompasses its economics) as well as a probability of success. It is a far richer word than simply complaining about the economics of the device. There's a hell of a lot more wrong with it than just economics.
I'm surprised it took me this long to find the MS apologist, but ladies and gentlemen, here he is.
I'm keen to hear why I am wrong. In what fundamental way has Microsoft changed the Windows 10 UI between versions? By the way I don't apologise for MS. I simply call out bullshit when I see it. You're welcome to scroll down the threads and see some of my other posts where I'm critical of MS and the Windows 10 updates.
Actually, the reality is that MS has goobered up the UI to the point that people don't even want to use it.
Back in real reality: People don't give a shit. Even more in reality, nothing has fundamentally changed for people. The only major changes for users has been the Control Panel (something rarely used day to day), and the Action Panel (something completely ignoreable and your computer will work just fine). We get it, you don't like the new UI. Many power users don't.
For how bad you could say the start button was, the current W10 interface is a total POS in comparison.
I'm not sure what's more absurd, the notion that the start button was bad (it was seen as one of the most accessible and user friendly changes to UI design in the past 30 years and was adopted by GUIs everywhere as a result), or that you think the Windows 10 interface doesn't have exactly the same mechanics as Windows 7.
And guess what, everyone knows it. Only some will admit it.
Everyone knows it. You just seem to be the odd one out.
it was also a test to have Linux development controlled by someone else for a while to make sure it will still function, that all the support and infrastructure was in place.
Nothing happened when he was gone. Including no leadership, no major developments, no strategic decisions. If this was a "test" for "control" then it missed on both the test and the control part of it.
Car Analogy: This was a test to see if someone is able to be a full time truck driver, by having him climb into the cabin, start the engine and then calling it a success before they even reached for the gearstick.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't have parking in Hong Kong and Macau for enough car traffic to justify the cost of the bridge.
What makes you think people will go from China to Hong Kong / Macau rather than the other way? The poor tend not to flow towards rich areas in any great mass, and Zhuhai isn't exactly the bustling economy that is Macau or Hong Kong.
I was wondering why they chose to build it from Macau to Hong Kong, rather than mainland China, but thanks you just cleared that up for me.</sarcasm>
They didn't. There are three different countries at play here. The bridge starts in Hong Kong and then goes to a new artificial island built in the ocean where the Macau and mainland borders meet. At this 3-way customs facility the bridge splits in two, one part goes west to Macau, the other has this fancy flyover arrangement to flip the traffic to the other side of the road before continuing north and joining just south of of the port in Zhuhai.
How is it feasible if it isn't economical? Feasible implies possible AND pratical. If it's not economical it's not practical.
On the flipside. Lots of things are economical but not feasible.
Pfft. iPhone 7? What are you going to talk about next an Atari? Why don't you have the iPhone from the 2018 fall collection? Are you not stylish?
*in case anyone can't tell there's a furious amount of sarcasm here.
You trust a Chinese-owned browser to provide you with a free "VPN"? Are you serious?
That depends entirely on who it is you fear. Most Americans have far more to worry about in their own government than the Chinese one.
However there are A LOT of people in settings where they don't have access to data that isn't metered. I am not saying products should be tailored to our use case by any means but minimally workable solutions should be offered.
Workable solutions do exist. There are android apps that don't use lots of disk space, and there's ways to manage data to ensure you don't go over carrier limits baked right into the OS.
I bought tax cut last year (boxed). Guess what nothing in there but a download link and license key. WTF?
I had someone give me a CD with software on it recently. My home computer doesn't have a 5.25" drive bay let alone a CD player. My laptop doesn't either. I had to see the IT department at work to make it readable. This is not such an extreme example in 2018. The point is that nowadays this truly does start bordering on the archaic tailored to specific people kind of scenarios.
The phone proceeded to re-download all of my apps? Why bother making a backup at all if it excludes 90% of the data!
Why bother backing up the data that already exists in a backed up form? I don't understand the reasoning here. The end result is you got your phone back to its normal working condition right? There's literally no point in backing up something that your phone keeps ever green, and exists elsewhere already. This is similar to Linus's reasoning: Only whips use backups, real men upload their data and let the rest of the world mirror it.
and setting every connection metered will still download 100s of megs of updates when it feels like it
Citation required. Based on all available research, windows update doesn't download anything while on a metered connection.
There should be reliable of setting limits.
You know that pretty much exists now right? What you're referencing are actual bugs, as is in this case here. Google News normally doesn't use much data. Restoring your phone will prompt you to use data and then additionally give you the option to only use it over wifi. Most apps that do anything with significant data (e.g. Facebook) will give you the option to not auto-download, not auto-play etc.
Or if you're not on the spectrum you could just set a data limit in the Android OS and call it a day.
My life is busy enough without micromanaging every little detail of it.
Some providers let you cut off access the moment you hit the limit. Well worth enabling. In the mean time did you send the bill to Google?
Google will ask why you didn't set your Android phone with a data cap, something that has been a feature of the OS for the past 10 years. Who cares about providers.
If they honour it as much as the "Download via Wi-Fi" option, what's the point?
Who is "they"? The OS puts a had block on your cell data just fine. The problem was a bug in an app. This is not a question of honour.
WTF was it actually downloading?
When a mobile app uses that much data you know fully well that it isn't downloading any meaningful comment. Have you never seen a bug where a program gets stuck in a loop requesting the same data over and over again? It doesn't matter what that data is providing it is requested ALL the time. Hell I've had open source software do that (alerted to it by an email addressed to "root" that a HDD was full). Windows Update has done that in the past too. My media centre did that too trying to get the weather, and the only reason it didn't use up any significant amount of data is because the server API timed out and blocked my system after the first 10000 requests came through within 5 minutes.
I have one app on my phone - it's called a browser. It can go to any of the sites I need.
Oh god. You browse the internet on your mobile phone? Why would you do that to yourself? Do you actively enjoy full page adverts, buggy rendering, slow pages, broken UIs, and mangled content?
If you're into that thing I'm sure there's some BDSM apps out there for you, but you may need to download another app store since that kind of self-punishment is against Google's guidelines.
Pocket must go!
Why, just ignore what you don't need.
Adding a single-line URL/Search bar never needed to be added to the codebase.
Conjecture. I represent one of many users who don't see a need for the two to be separate.
Firefox is likely collecting data using Topsites.
Really? Because I don't have Topsites installed. But why are you even guessing like this? The code base is there for you to see.
No would would need a private mode or it's bloat if you weren't collecting data in the first place.
A comment made by someone who doesn't understand what private mode is or why it exists. Pro-tip: It has nothing to do with Mozilla or anyone else on the internet collecting your data.
No one likes looking at square corners on tabs.
Conjecture. Speaking for all users without the authority to do so.
The API changes so radically and so often and so deeply and abrupt depreciating, that you can just forget about having a good extension base.
The API changes were made to decouple the API from the browser code base precisely so they wouldn't need changing in the future. This should make you happy.
Firefox should have supported its own MAF format, but it didn't.
It should tell you something about the MAF format when it's own company dumps support for it from it's key product.
Ahhh the good ol' no "real" extension fallacy.
And I mean screws visible from the outside
Ewww, what is this! The early 00s? That's pre-iPhone talk man. Phones didn't even work before the iPhone revolution. Keep that talk up and you'll be labeled as some kind of a weirdo.
That post doesn't mention Windows 10.
Then you should re-read what it is you just quoted from me maybe try all the way to the end of the sentence.
You say it's just details, but then you go on to show how the behavior of the start menu-- the single biggest UI element of the Windows desktop environment-- has changed.
Not at all. I was expressly pointing out that there was no change of any significance. The elements are still all there the interaction to start a program is still the same with Windows 10 as it was with Windows 95. You can take one person from one OS, sit them in front of the other and they will have no problem instinctively doing the same task, especially from the 95 > 10 route since the whole point of the "Start" word was to condition people to go to the bottom left to interact with a Windows OS.
But ultimately we're talking past each other. I agree there's changes in the UI, just that they are for rarely accessed items. In that regard there isn't much lost productivity associated with changing those elements. Incidentally those are things that are constantly changing even within various versions of Windows 10.
I don't think that makes it better.
It doesn't. It just makes it less of an impact on society in terms of productivity lost due to retraining.
There are plenty of people who still operate their computer on the basis of, "I don't understand how anything works, I just know that I press this button when I want that thing to happen," and if you move or rename the button, they can't function.
And my fundamental point is that most of those people see only minor differences between Windows 95 or Windows 10. Actually the single biggest and most jarring change over the years was the move from Windows XP to Visa which by default hid the "My Computer" icon from the desktop which messed with the workflow of people who typically accessed everything by going to their desktop ... though given that archaic workflow it's hard to argue that isn't for the better.
Anyway all of this is beside the point since you dismissed the premise. We ARE talking about only Windows 10 since the GP said: "One fine morning, you wake up and the steering wheel has been moved from left to right"
For EVERY version of Windows prior to Windows 10 you will wake up one find morning and find your OS completely unchanged.
Kids will be running for the bus, crossing streets in front of it, etc.
All the more reason to have this be handled by a computer system with a instantaneous 360degree view of obstructions rather than some dude driving a truck which by design severely limits his field of vision.
and starts being the cable companies they hated so much.
You could argue that the changes were good, but still, it's a change.
I didn't say there was no changes. I said the fundamental interaction remains unchanged. And yes I was specifically talking about changes to Windows 10 given that the GP was talking about waking up to find changes which systems prior to Windows 10 didn't do.
If you were used to Windows XP and you then sat down at a Windows 7 machine, a lot of things would have moved around, which would be confusing.
The details of using something vs its fundamentals are different things. The GP referenced steering wheel, breaks, and accelerator. He didn't mention locating the fuse box, or identifying warning lights or anything like that which I would agree then would definitely have moved around between Windows 10 updates, but let's expand the fundamentals to Windows XP:
Let's get in and fundamentally drive both:
1. Both present you with a login screen where you need to type a password then drop you on desktop.
2. Both you start by clicking the thing in the bottom right which includes the windows logo.
3. Minor Difference: One asks you to hover over Programs, the other gives you programs straight away in a scroll list.
4. You still start apps by clicking on them.
5. When you next interact with the OS, the way of maximising, minimising, and closing apps is still there in the same place and in the same order. Alt tab still switches between tabs (though Windows 10 gives you more options), copy and paste still works as it always did (though Windows 10 gives you more options).
6. When saving files I click on "Documents" on the left instead of "My Documents" as I did in Windows XP.
Sure settings have moved around a lot, but for most users their interaction with the control panel is incredibly limited and usually doesn't extend beyond adjusting projector settings (a place you can get to by right clicking and clicking Display Settings in both OSes). Oh and maybe wifi settings, an icon that is in the bottom right of both systems.
To be honest I think power users would be more baffled by the changes than normal users.
My computer BIOS literally presents the option to cheat on 3DMark...
Single source, photo not hard evidence, expert using words like "could".
You'd want to have more than that when you make an accusation affecting the worlds biggest companies.
I'm sure if you looked there's more than one thing you'll find fun. Today I spent more time "jogging" through Hope County in Far Cry 5 than I did outside that's for sure.
The problem is, I have never really lived in a place where I could do that kind of exercise daily.
Now this is a very key problem. The ease of specific exercise is highly dependent on your locale. I used to love going rock climbing. I'd go once or twice a week. Now I live in an area where there's no mountains and only 2 indoor centres, both crap. I used to like swimming at the beach (lived about 5km away). I would swim about 4km a week, and go wakeboarding. Now my nearest beach is an hour drive up to the shitty north sea. Hiking here is a dud, but hey the cycling in top. In this country I can literally cycle between major cities without sharing the road with a car. Shame it rains for half the year.
Nope the word I was looking for was feasible. It implies a certain practicality (which encompasses its economics) as well as a probability of success. It is a far richer word than simply complaining about the economics of the device. There's a hell of a lot more wrong with it than just economics.
I'm surprised it took me this long to find the MS apologist, but ladies and gentlemen, here he is.
I'm keen to hear why I am wrong. In what fundamental way has Microsoft changed the Windows 10 UI between versions? By the way I don't apologise for MS. I simply call out bullshit when I see it. You're welcome to scroll down the threads and see some of my other posts where I'm critical of MS and the Windows 10 updates.
Actually, the reality is that MS has goobered up the UI to the point that people don't even want to use it.
Back in real reality: People don't give a shit. Even more in reality, nothing has fundamentally changed for people. The only major changes for users has been the Control Panel (something rarely used day to day), and the Action Panel (something completely ignoreable and your computer will work just fine). We get it, you don't like the new UI. Many power users don't.
For how bad you could say the start button was, the current W10 interface is a total POS in comparison.
I'm not sure what's more absurd, the notion that the start button was bad (it was seen as one of the most accessible and user friendly changes to UI design in the past 30 years and was adopted by GUIs everywhere as a result), or that you think the Windows 10 interface doesn't have exactly the same mechanics as Windows 7.
And guess what, everyone knows it. Only some will admit it.
Everyone knows it. You just seem to be the odd one out.
I want regular 'ol analog gauges
Cool story bro.
it was also a test to have Linux development controlled by someone else for a while to make sure it will still function, that all the support and infrastructure was in place.
Nothing happened when he was gone. Including no leadership, no major developments, no strategic decisions. If this was a "test" for "control" then it missed on both the test and the control part of it.
Car Analogy:
This was a test to see if someone is able to be a full time truck driver, by having him climb into the cabin, start the engine and then calling it a success before they even reached for the gearstick.