The Office 2010 UI is more refined, more usable, more customizable, and just plain easier to use, and makes more sense. Things are more discoverable, and more logical.
Transitioning from 2003 to the new ribbon interface can be frustrating. Many coworkers have been cursing up a storm. However, there's really only a few concepts you need to tell people and suddenly they "get it" and shortly thereafter are liking it better than the old way. Among these are "Old keyboard short-cuts you're used to still work in general", "Hold down ALT to see the keys to press to use the ribbon from the keyboard", showing them the "office button" or "backstate/file" menu for all the things they need to do with the document (metadata), and showing them where the hell they moved the Options to (the worst UI aspect of the 2007 was how it was impossible to find the damn options and settings!)
Because this particular complaint is blatently sexist and heterosexist?
Imagine saying you were disappointed you saw black people in a movie... sheesh.
That you felt compelled to even mention it is kind of disappointing, especially given that all movies taken together have about a thousand to one ratio of female to male nudity, so your preferences are already well catered to. To begrudge the other half of the population equal time is... kind of self-abosrbed and annoying. I'm just saying.
I'm always disappointed when I see female nudity in a film - the fimmakers were willing to show nudity, but alas what a disappointing waste: it wasn't male nudity.
(rolling eyes at you, seriously, for your self-absorbed take on this entire issue, and you're weird obsession with wanting a life devoid of all male nudity, but being perfectly okay with everyone being subjected to female nudity... it's hypocritical, inconsistent, and overtly sexist, just so you know).
If I can go through life putting up with the rampant and constant female nudity everywhere (the vast majority of it utterly gratuitous, which it wasn't here as it was part of the character's journey away from his 'humanity'), I think you can put up with ONE freakin' movie that has ONE character that has ONE CGI-animated penis without putting up a fuss. Sheesh.
Using IE9, I'm unable to Meta-Moderate, because there are no + or - icons to click on. I haven't checked with other browsers yet. Just wanted to report this issue. Dunno if it's an IE9-specific issue, or if Meta-Moderating is just broken.
And you honestly think the same people pushing this complete non-issue would care nearly as much if the President were a White Republican conservative? Honestly?
He was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If he weren't qualified for office, I doubt that would have happened. Nobody in Congress tried to block his swearing-in on these grounds either. They have the last word.
Whining about it now is an exercise in crying over spilt milk, even if what you say IS true, and most legal scholars would disagree with you that there's an issue here.
And if you produced a long form, they'd just move the goal posts again. Their real issue isn't his citizenship status. Their real issue is that they want some excuse to invalidate the fact that he is their legtimitaely elected leader, because they have a knee-jerk, but very viscereal hatered of the man.
The Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's International Dictionary (3rd edition) define it as a person who becomes a citizen at birth (as opposed to becoming one later).
Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines 'Natural Born Citizen' as "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government."
Obama's mother was a legal citizen of the United States and he was born in this country. He is a natural citizen by any definition.
This "birther" nonsense is just that: nonsense.
I close with a relavent quote from wikipedia:
Barack Obama (born 1961), 44th president of the United States, was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to a U.S. citizen mother and a British subject father from what was then the Kenya Colony of the United Kingdom (which became the independent country of Kenya in 1963). Before and after the 2008 presidential election, arguments were made that he is not a natural born citizen. On June 12, 2008, the Obama presidential campaign launched a website to counter what it described as smears by his opponents, including these challenges to his eligibility.[67] The most prominent issue raised against Obama was the claim made in several lawsuits that he was not actually born in Hawaii. In two other lawsuits, the plaintiffs argued that it was irrelevant whether he was born in Hawaii,[68] but argued instead that he was nevertheless not a natural born citizen because his citizenship status at birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.[69] The relevant courts have either denied all applications or declined to render a judgment due to lack of jurisdiction. Some of the cases have been dismissed because of the plaintiff's lack of standing.[30] On July 28, 2009, Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a statement saying, "I... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen."[70] On July 27, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.Res. 593, commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood, including the text, "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961."[71] The vote passed 378-0.[72]
Because chanting in the street by a tiny fraction of a percent of the population doesn't actually convince anyone of anything.
That might be true in general, and especially today and in this country (though I'm sure there are counter-examples through-out history), but the Tea Party represents a much smaller fraction of the population than those represented by the protests I'm referring to.
But the media loves to cover Tea Party events, because if they didn't someone might start to think that their narrative about them being violent racists is actually a whole lot of complete BS.
Well, except that it's nto BS at all. The Tea Part IS full of violent individuals and racists, and very deeply ignorant people who are very confused about what's going on and who is to blame for it. As a perfect example, four REPUBLICANS just recently dropped out of races due to the death threats coming from the extremist Tea Party members... because the Republicans weren't right-wing or extremist enough. Never mind all the violent threats and vitriol directed at anyone who is left of a Republican.
Well, no. Even on MSNBC they criticize Democrats heavily.
And CNN has more conservatives on air than liberals, significantly.
Republican talking points get a lot more unquestioning play than any liberal or Democratic ones... even on Networks.
And DON'T think that Republican/Conservatives/FOX News are anti-big government... they're NOT. Republicans and FOX News are very, very pro-big-government. They just believe in big government for the wealthy, the corporations, and the militarty industrial complex. In fact, 80% of the national debt was run up under Republican Presidents. The biggest increases in government spending happened under Bush, when he had all three branches of government in Republican control. The notion that Republicans (and by extension, FOX News) is in any way "small-government" or "fiscally responsible" is just a big, blatent lie.
BOTH parties are "big-government". The only difference is who benefits the most.
SOME were huge, you are right. But I'm refering to a few instances where a Tea Party gathering was literally hundreds (when many thousands were expected), and it STILL got wall to wall coverage.
And watching CNN and some network coverage, there wasn't much "poking fun" going on.
Meanwhile, that same weekend, a huge march/protest in Chicago went uncovered by any major news organization that I saw. Why? They were protesting FOR progressive issues, not against them. Hrm.
Most of the protests weren't covered, or were downplayed.
I've seen protests with 20,000 or more be completely ignored by the media, while a few hundred Tea Party morons gathering in one spot with their misspelled signs gets wall to wall coverage for an entire weekend.
Yeah, no media bias here (and I'm not just talking about FOX News, by any stretch of the imagination).
Actually, he campagined on expanding the war in Afghanistan.
He said something about getting out of Iraq though. And he does seem to be working towards drawing down the huge expense and committment there, but in spite of "combat operations having ended", there are still lots and lots of troops there.
Interesting theory... except for the fact that Obama's birth certificat has been produced, a copy is available on-line, and its validity has been repeatedly verified by the state of Hawaii.
It's more accurate to say that those right-wing nutters (and racists) will not be persuaded from their tin-hat conspiracy theories by anything as pesky as facts. They cling to it tenatiously, regardless.
I agree, though to be fair, iTunes has gotten slightly less annoying over the last couple of years.
But I loathe iTunes so much that when my iPhone 4 contract is up, I'll be taking a hard look at WP7. If I can't find something I like there, I'll look hard at Android. And ONLY if I can't find anything there, will I even remotely trying iPhone.next.
iPhone isn't really a single device... it's 3GS and iPhone 4, along with a few 3Gs and even some of the original phones still around. So really, four devices/models.
It'll be interesting to see if WP7 adoption causes Microsoft's erosion to halt and start growing again over time. WP7 is decent enough as it is, and has some good updates coming out over the next year that should keep some excitement going on that front.
As for Apple, I think the Verizon iPhone will probably help them a great deal against Android, and they should reclaim their second spot quite easily I think.
They already have Media Center for Windows, the XBox 360, and Media Center Exteders... they're going to add something ELSE to the mix? Never mind Zune.
What is it with Microsoft always just throwing layers and crap out there, making things confusing and complicated. Can they ever stop and think something through, and put out something that is cohesive, simple to use and understand, and useful?
I find the wireless management under Win7 to be vastly simpler and superior to XP. I'm not even sure what you're talking abou there. In Win7 it just works. It was always a pain in the ass with XP (so much so that every laptop seemed to ship with its own 'replacement' for XP's built in wireless networking features).
Fallout 3 might suck as a sequel to Fallout 2. I don't know. I don't care. Never played 1 or 2.
But Fallout 3 is an awesome game in its own right. Bad sequel != Bad game.
Now, I consider Fallout New Vegas to be a bad sequel to Fallout 3. It's boring. It's More-of-the-same, only less-so. It's buggy as hell. It's not nearly as engaging or as fun.
Fallout 3 was a great game. Engaging, interesting, amazing quests, great plot and story, just lots of fun and TONS of content.
Fallout New Vegas is fraking BORING. It's not even "more of the same", it's "less of the same". Endless wandering for nothing. Silly even trivial side-quests. Pointless side-quests. Really short main quest. Much lamer weapons. Really bad difficulty management (areas are either way too hard or way too easy). It seems completely half-assed and thrown together. Never mind all the major bugs, hangs, crashes, glitches, and brokenness of the entire thing.
Worst is the quests-that-aren't-quests. I don't recall any of these in Fallout 3... but you get quests with no markers, no notes, no nothing. Put the game down for a few days (let alone a two week christmas break) and you completely forget what you're doing, for who, or why, or who to go back to to get any credit for it. UGH. And skill specialization is rendered pointless with the new 'magazines' that basically allow you to do anything regardless of your skill level, making specialization meaningless.
Fallout 3 was a masterpiece, one of the top three games I've ever played (and I played through the entire thing twice, plus all DLCs). I don't even think I want to bother with the DLCs for Fallout New Vegas. Hell, I'm not even sure I'll finish it. I'd rather go back and play Fallout 3 again.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel exactly the opposite.
I felt like the Office 2007 was not fully baked.
The Office 2010 UI is more refined, more usable, more customizable, and just plain easier to use, and makes more sense. Things are more discoverable, and more logical.
Transitioning from 2003 to the new ribbon interface can be frustrating. Many coworkers have been cursing up a storm. However, there's really only a few concepts you need to tell people and suddenly they "get it" and shortly thereafter are liking it better than the old way. Among these are "Old keyboard short-cuts you're used to still work in general", "Hold down ALT to see the keys to press to use the ribbon from the keyboard", showing them the "office button" or "backstate/file" menu for all the things they need to do with the document (metadata), and showing them where the hell they moved the Options to (the worst UI aspect of the 2007 was how it was impossible to find the damn options and settings!)
Because this particular complaint is blatently sexist and heterosexist?
Imagine saying you were disappointed you saw black people in a movie... sheesh.
That you felt compelled to even mention it is kind of disappointing, especially given that all movies taken together have about a thousand to one ratio of female to male nudity, so your preferences are already well catered to. To begrudge the other half of the population equal time is... kind of self-abosrbed and annoying. I'm just saying.
In other words, get over it.
I'm always disappointed when I see female nudity in a film - the fimmakers were willing to show nudity, but alas what a disappointing waste: it wasn't male nudity.
(rolling eyes at you, seriously, for your self-absorbed take on this entire issue, and you're weird obsession with wanting a life devoid of all male nudity, but being perfectly okay with everyone being subjected to female nudity... it's hypocritical, inconsistent, and overtly sexist, just so you know).
If I can go through life putting up with the rampant and constant female nudity everywhere (the vast majority of it utterly gratuitous, which it wasn't here as it was part of the character's journey away from his 'humanity'), I think you can put up with ONE freakin' movie that has ONE character that has ONE CGI-animated penis without putting up a fuss. Sheesh.
Using IE9, I'm unable to Meta-Moderate, because there are no + or - icons to click on. I haven't checked with other browsers yet. Just wanted to report this issue. Dunno if it's an IE9-specific issue, or if Meta-Moderating is just broken.
And once again, a like makes it all the way around the world before the truth even gets its pants on.
Does anyone actually verify anything any more?
And you honestly think the same people pushing this complete non-issue would care nearly as much if the President were a White Republican conservative? Honestly?
He was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If he weren't qualified for office, I doubt that would have happened. Nobody in Congress tried to block his swearing-in on these grounds either. They have the last word.
Whining about it now is an exercise in crying over spilt milk, even if what you say IS true, and most legal scholars would disagree with you that there's an issue here.
And if you produced a long form, they'd just move the goal posts again. Their real issue isn't his citizenship status. Their real issue is that they want some excuse to invalidate the fact that he is their legtimitaely elected leader, because they have a knee-jerk, but very viscereal hatered of the man.
From dictionaries:
The Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's International Dictionary (3rd edition) define it as a person who becomes a citizen at birth (as opposed to becoming one later).
Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines 'Natural Born Citizen' as "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government."
Obama's mother was a legal citizen of the United States and he was born in this country. He is a natural citizen by any definition.
This "birther" nonsense is just that: nonsense.
I close with a relavent quote from wikipedia:
Barack Obama (born 1961), 44th president of the United States, was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to a U.S. citizen mother and a British subject father from what was then the Kenya Colony of the United Kingdom (which became the independent country of Kenya in 1963). Before and after the 2008 presidential election, arguments were made that he is not a natural born citizen. On June 12, 2008, the Obama presidential campaign launched a website to counter what it described as smears by his opponents, including these challenges to his eligibility.[67] The most prominent issue raised against Obama was the claim made in several lawsuits that he was not actually born in Hawaii. In two other lawsuits, the plaintiffs argued that it was irrelevant whether he was born in Hawaii,[68] but argued instead that he was nevertheless not a natural born citizen because his citizenship status at birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.[69] The relevant courts have either denied all applications or declined to render a judgment due to lack of jurisdiction. Some of the cases have been dismissed because of the plaintiff's lack of standing.[30] On July 28, 2009, Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a statement saying, "I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen."[70] On July 27, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.Res. 593, commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood, including the text, "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961."[71] The vote passed 378-0.[72]
Because chanting in the street by a tiny fraction of a percent of the population doesn't actually convince anyone of anything.
That might be true in general, and especially today and in this country (though I'm sure there are counter-examples through-out history), but the Tea Party represents a much smaller fraction of the population than those represented by the protests I'm referring to.
But the media loves to cover Tea Party events, because if they didn't someone might start to think that their narrative about them being violent racists is actually a whole lot of complete BS.
Well, except that it's nto BS at all. The Tea Part IS full of violent individuals and racists, and very deeply ignorant people who are very confused about what's going on and who is to blame for it. As a perfect example, four REPUBLICANS just recently dropped out of races due to the death threats coming from the extremist Tea Party members... because the Republicans weren't right-wing or extremist enough. Never mind all the violent threats and vitriol directed at anyone who is left of a Republican.
Well, no. Even on MSNBC they criticize Democrats heavily.
And CNN has more conservatives on air than liberals, significantly.
Republican talking points get a lot more unquestioning play than any liberal or Democratic ones... even on Networks.
And DON'T think that Republican/Conservatives/FOX News are anti-big government... they're NOT. Republicans and FOX News are very, very pro-big-government. They just believe in big government for the wealthy, the corporations, and the militarty industrial complex. In fact, 80% of the national debt was run up under Republican Presidents. The biggest increases in government spending happened under Bush, when he had all three branches of government in Republican control. The notion that Republicans (and by extension, FOX News) is in any way "small-government" or "fiscally responsible" is just a big, blatent lie.
BOTH parties are "big-government". The only difference is who benefits the most.
SOME were huge, you are right. But I'm refering to a few instances where a Tea Party gathering was literally hundreds (when many thousands were expected), and it STILL got wall to wall coverage.
And watching CNN and some network coverage, there wasn't much "poking fun" going on.
Meanwhile, that same weekend, a huge march/protest in Chicago went uncovered by any major news organization that I saw. Why? They were protesting FOR progressive issues, not against them. Hrm.
Uh, yeah. It's true. He produced his birth certificate during the campaign. There were claims it was a forgery. It was not.
Maybe start here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
And yeah, the 'birther' debate IS over his nationality. Which is American. Born in the USA. A natural citizen. Like his mother. End of discussion.
Most of the protests weren't covered, or were downplayed.
I've seen protests with 20,000 or more be completely ignored by the media, while a few hundred Tea Party morons gathering in one spot with their misspelled signs gets wall to wall coverage for an entire weekend.
Yeah, no media bias here (and I'm not just talking about FOX News, by any stretch of the imagination).
Actually, he campagined on expanding the war in Afghanistan.
He said something about getting out of Iraq though. And he does seem to be working towards drawing down the huge expense and committment there, but in spite of "combat operations having ended", there are still lots and lots of troops there.
Interesting theory... except for the fact that Obama's birth certificat has been produced, a copy is available on-line, and its validity has been repeatedly verified by the state of Hawaii.
It's more accurate to say that those right-wing nutters (and racists) will not be persuaded from their tin-hat conspiracy theories by anything as pesky as facts. They cling to it tenatiously, regardless.
I agree, though to be fair, iTunes has gotten slightly less annoying over the last couple of years.
But I loathe iTunes so much that when my iPhone 4 contract is up, I'll be taking a hard look at WP7. If I can't find something I like there, I'll look hard at Android. And ONLY if I can't find anything there, will I even remotely trying iPhone.next.
iPhone isn't really a single device... it's 3GS and iPhone 4, along with a few 3Gs and even some of the original phones still around. So really, four devices/models.
WP7 is the competition you speak of.
It'll be interesting to see if WP7 adoption causes Microsoft's erosion to halt and start growing again over time. WP7 is decent enough as it is, and has some good updates coming out over the next year that should keep some excitement going on that front.
As for Apple, I think the Verizon iPhone will probably help them a great deal against Android, and they should reclaim their second spot quite easily I think.
Inconceivable!
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
They already have Media Center for Windows, the XBox 360, and Media Center Exteders... they're going to add something ELSE to the mix? Never mind Zune.
What is it with Microsoft always just throwing layers and crap out there, making things confusing and complicated. Can they ever stop and think something through, and put out something that is cohesive, simple to use and understand, and useful?
I find the wireless management under Win7 to be vastly simpler and superior to XP. I'm not even sure what you're talking abou there. In Win7 it just works. It was always a pain in the ass with XP (so much so that every laptop seemed to ship with its own 'replacement' for XP's built in wireless networking features).
Okay, seriously mods... how is parent a "troll"? All I did was cite my own experience and opinion. Sheesh.
I stand by everything I typed. It's 100% accurate for me. It most certainly wasn't any attempt to troll anyone.
Fallout 3 might suck as a sequel to Fallout 2. I don't know. I don't care. Never played 1 or 2.
But Fallout 3 is an awesome game in its own right. Bad sequel != Bad game.
Now, I consider Fallout New Vegas to be a bad sequel to Fallout 3. It's boring. It's More-of-the-same, only less-so. It's buggy as hell. It's not nearly as engaging or as fun.
Just could not disagree with you more.
Fallout 3 was a great game. Engaging, interesting, amazing quests, great plot and story, just lots of fun and TONS of content.
Fallout New Vegas is fraking BORING. It's not even "more of the same", it's "less of the same". Endless wandering for nothing. Silly even trivial side-quests. Pointless side-quests. Really short main quest. Much lamer weapons. Really bad difficulty management (areas are either way too hard or way too easy). It seems completely half-assed and thrown together. Never mind all the major bugs, hangs, crashes, glitches, and brokenness of the entire thing.
Worst is the quests-that-aren't-quests. I don't recall any of these in Fallout 3... but you get quests with no markers, no notes, no nothing. Put the game down for a few days (let alone a two week christmas break) and you completely forget what you're doing, for who, or why, or who to go back to to get any credit for it. UGH. And skill specialization is rendered pointless with the new 'magazines' that basically allow you to do anything regardless of your skill level, making specialization meaningless.
Fallout 3 was a masterpiece, one of the top three games I've ever played (and I played through the entire thing twice, plus all DLCs). I don't even think I want to bother with the DLCs for Fallout New Vegas. Hell, I'm not even sure I'll finish it. I'd rather go back and play Fallout 3 again.
I loved Fallout 3.
Fallout New Vegas is really lame, a luke-warm re-tread, more of a large DLC than a "sequel". I find it very disappointing. Almost boring to play.
But then I never played Fallout 1 or 2.
So Fallout 3 may have been a "bad sequel" in your eyes, but it was a great game. And Fallout New Vegas is a "bad sequel" to Fallout 3 for sure.