Oy. Wrong in so many ways. I have six monitors on my Mac Pro. The menu for any one app probably isn't even on the same monitor. It is a HUGE pain in the neck to navigate back to the display that (currently) contains the menu. The menus belong on the window(s) of the app that owns them. Period. Top-of-the-main-monitor is a complete foul-up
You can get programs that put the menu bar on each screen. Overall I still prefer this, because Windows and other OS have horrible multi-screen support. No system really does this very well except maybe the old NeXT system.
And then there's the whole one button mouse thing, although there are so many ways around that today you don't really get screwed solidly by it unless you buy an Apple mouse / trackpad. Even then, there are options besides the brain-dead "control-click."
Oh good grief, I didn't have that issue on Mac systems in 1994. When are people going to quit repeating this bullshit? It hasn't been a problem in a long, long time.
I agree on the real world interface items, it just makes no sense. A computer is not a physical book, desk, or shelf... I expect it to be more flexible that those and different in any case. The UI should be made for computers, not 19th Century office equipment.
I don't personally think that the menu bar requires more mouse travel. I tend to move the mouse a lot less when using OSX versus Windows, though that might be just better application design.
Where did you guys participate in scouting that had all these religious services? I was in the scouts and religion was never a part of it other than the occasional prayer. I never had "required" service or anything like that, and the local churches might have assisted but we got far more support from business and the local military than we ever did religions.
True. Adobe does the same thing, putting crap into their installers and frequently it installs either because it did not ask me if it was OK, or it ignored my opt-opt preference (which should be default).
Apple does it too, though it is at least their own software. Its still very annoying.
I had this problem working at Bank of America as a contractor. Workers from India would frequently screw things up badly but never would admit it. They never would admit they didn't understand you, didn't know how to do the work, or anything. Took me a good while to work out who could get work done (few of them) and how to communicate with them so they'd be honest with me.
Communication was very difficult, and so was any form of cooperation. It was very difficult to get them to do testing, revision control, or anything like that. Management of course should have enforced these things, but I would point out that none of us had good management. The workers from the US, England, and a couple from Europe had the same managers, but they wrote good code, kept it under revision control, and did the right thing even with poor management.
I ended up rewriting the code of 3 out of 5 workers in my group, so basically their salary was pure expense for the company with no return at all. Six months later they RIF'd me because I "cost too much". There is no way that was true in reality. They let everyone go who made good money, and I know from people who stayed there that their costs escalated and the project failed after we all left.
NOTE: I met some wonderful people from India, some of whom are still friends. They also told me pretty much the same thing, that their fellow countrymen there were largely worthless factory-degree workers and they resented them about as much as I did.
But how can you show respect by doing something you find disrespectful?
In my experience, people wearing a suit are far more likely to do harm to me. Most people who have done me harm, are doing me harm, and will do me harm wear a suit. They wear it to appear to be something they aren't. I actually would like to dress up at times, but I hate doing it because it makes me look like the assholes in life.
As far as comfort and good looks go... honestly most suit clothing isn't very confortable, especially in hot climates, and suits for guys don't look good these days. 1850s Edwardian liesure suits, oh yay! In past periods suits for guys looked better, but even then they were primarily cold weather gear. Its just really hard to wear a suit or even a good looking shirt when its 105F outside.
I don't agree with wearing t-shirts and jeans all the time, I like wearing pleated pants and polos or button down collars because they are functional, comfortable, and good looking. If you wear jeans and t-shirts, you should at least make sure they look good.
Suits frequently don't look that good especially on certain body types, so there is little way I can pull off showing respect for others by wearing one. That's a silly notion. I think we are just stuck in mindless conformity.
NOTE: This is different from wearing something like a suit for fun, or out on a date with your girl. Those are valid reasons for doing it. I'm not a big fan of shopping but some women are and I find a lot of them like taking a guy shopping for clothes. It makes them happy so I'll wear it for them. But the boss? Bleh.
I think that right now we just have really screwed up ideas about fashion, with two extremes of view that both seem wrong to me.
A friend of mine has the upgraded cable package so she gets "History International" and it sounds like the shows there are better. I think what happened (possibly) is cable companies simply forced content to split into tiers so they could charge for "premium" content, which in some cases is what you used to get by default.
The streaming shows are also full of ads too, and sometimes its more annoying than seeing them on TV. A couple of shows I used to watch streaming now have ads so bad I just gave up on them.
Outside of the ranting, one thing he said is correct: the program is abusive simply because it is totally out of our control and oversight. We can't know if we are on it, how to get off, what causes us to get on it.
Most of the time when I'm on a government list, I'm told that I am and exactly why, and there is extensive documentation on how it happened, how to get off, how to defend myself, and a good bit of historical research I can do to learn more. Granted its still often completely screwed up, unfair, and so on but its not as bad as this at least.
I'm also given due process in almost all cases, and I'm not punished or restricted until someone can prove I'm a problem.
With things like the Patriot Act and no-fly lists... I have none of those options.
So sure, it was an ill-informed rant, but that one part of it is true and is worth discussion.
I can't speak for the OP, but I have seen a lot of users lose their data when they are told by their techs to reset/wipe/reinstall their machines.
Losing data is very, very common with portable devices and PCs during the "repair" process. A good shop using an open PC will try very hard to prevent it. With less general purpose systems, this is more difficult and its not uncommon to lose data. Sync should fix it for devices with that, but I think the point being made is that when you aren't allowed to get under the hood, you depend on the limited built-in systems to recover your data. You can't "do it on your own" and neither can your tech support.
I am obviously not statistically significant, but I would find it difficult to believe that the data loss I see among newbie computer users due to limits in the repair process are exceptional. From talking to a wide variety of other people, this is pretty common and I think it has the potential to become more widespread.
The main issue I have is that there is no reason for things to be this way. We can have walled gardens for those who want them without dumbing things down and removing the non-walled garden parts of it. That way end users get the walled garden, but the gate is open if they want to venture and and of course it helps technical support take care of them, and keeps non-approved innovation alive.
This is computer technology: there is no need for a black and white choice as the "solution".
That's a fair question, and yes it is easier to fall into doomsday mode:)
However, in the Apple world the App Store certainly does appear to be taking over. A lot of developers I buy software from have completely stopped direct selling and require me to go to the App Store now. Not only that, but they were forced to remove features from their applications to get past the gatekeeper, they increased their prices, and they prematurely stopped support for non-Lion operating systems.
Its been a really depressing situation for me and it looks to be getting worse, not better.
I agree, the pc won't go anywhere. But, it would be nice to get all the people who are not capable of running a computer off the computers.
I can't agree with that. If you get them off of the platform, then were will not be any software for it.
I can't think of many things that would suck worse than this scenario, and its already happening. As more people move to consoles, games start to suck. Ditto for most other non general purpose systems: its killing software availability, capability, and making us depending on central systems for our independent local systems.
Yes, and its all the same watered down crud mostly.
There are tons of applications that are very useful you'll never see for the walled garden. It will never show up in the App Store, on the portables, or on the consoles. You can't get into the market with your code.
Even existing applications are being dumbed down so they'll be accepted into the App Store. It sucks.
This is without even considering the security nightmare of a central authority for your licensing and other issues. If it goes down or you simply cannot access it, you are screwed.
Its not just that either, they restrict what you can do. Consoles are a good example: everything released for them is horribly limited and it affects any software that comes out for them which is ported to better systems. Same thing for portable computers.
The move away from general purpose PCs is dumbing things down. In my opinion, the security benefits are not worth the loss of capability and control.
Well that's depressing, but at least partly true so far.
I love games, and consoles have ruined gaming. Console games have to be restricted and dumbed down, and it just kills things for us PC users. Skyrim is a good example of that. Nice game, but severely dumbed down for the console compared to previous TES releases. Games are a very good barometer for the industry in a way, as graphics quality is up, but game complexity, detail, user interfaces, modfications, and story are all way down. A lot of other software follows this trend.
But the problem you cite--sending emails to too many people--is not a problem with email. I see people do it in voice mail systems and in any chat system where the option is available. The problem is people's rudeness and stupidity, and you fix that with training and the occasionally boot to the ass.
Copying people is especially rude IMHO. If I send email to you, I sent it to you. If I wanted it also sent to XYZ I'd have done so. At least ask me before you broadcast it everywhere.
The real problem is humans and I laugh at anyone who thinks technology will fix that. People used to get training in the proper use of communications, and they don't any more. Its ironic that now we have advanced technology but lack a lot of the basic training people used to get 100 years ago.
I'm pretty much the opposite. I feel there is nothing at all personal about the others, and they are way less secure for me to use. Email is independent, I can set it up anywhere, even on my own mail server. Its just a better system than text/chat messaging.
As far as calling goes: calls are still subject to the age old limit that both ends have to be simultaneously available. Voice wastes far more of my time than email.
I thought about that, however: I didn't get the idea OPERA said neutrinos travel this fast in general, as in natural conditions. My impression was they were saying it was specifically because of how they were doing it, not that they think this is always the case.
Therefore, can we really compare natural neutrino bursts with these we make artificially?
For example, electrons in general don't move as fast naturally as they do in the local electron beam accelerator facility, so I wouldn't think comparing JLAB to natural electron flow to be valid.
Just thinking out loud, not refuting one thing or another.
This sounds interesting, but I question depending on it too much, at least right now.
What I am thinking is let's say we have a lot of power coming down from a satellite, and it fails. Its not like a terrestrial power plant where we can focus really hard on the problem and get it back up and running, it might take a minimum of months or even years to restore an orbital power plant, or at least it seems to have that potential problem anyway.
Maybe with redundancy and a regular launch schedule it would not be an issue, but I see it proposed a lot as an easy solution, but very little discussion of its possible problems.
Well I guess it was "time" for some moron to attack Americans, as if somehow they were more ignorant than the mass of other drooling humans on this planet. Complete with made up statistics no less, to "back it up".
Reprocessing does generate waste but precisely how much depends on what you are reprocessing, what method, and so on. The results can vary enough that "roughly 10" doesn't make much sense. Also from my point of view in America, it was always Europe who pushed the idea of reprocessing, criticizing America for not doing it, pushing breeder reactors, etc.
I think everyone in the world is pretty ignorant about these issues, and this thread while not representative of the world, has certainly managed to reflect that anyway.
Just a comment on the coal radiation thing: I worked in the power industry for a bit and we were told that slurry burners did release radioactive waste. We were monitored for radiation and the plants were as well. Was it "worse" than nuclear? I have no idea, but clearly it was a factor or they'd not have spent the money watching it. They must have at least been worried, no?
I also worked on Navy nuclear propulsion, and we were monitored there as well, even away from test sites. It was pretty rare for anyone to get a meter to react at either location, though there certainly were hot spots we were told to avoid.
No, you bitch at the morons in the Occupy movement who were denied the facilities for valid reasons.
They were trying to use temporary infrastructure for semi-permanent occupation, which is quite obviously harmful and just plain idiotic.
They had a right to protest, but not in the way they were, and in the end the message they sent to me was: I don't have money, and I think I should be able to steal it from you to fix it.
They were dirty in their camps and in their minds.
NOTE: Yes I know not all of them were like that, but the fact is that was the face I saw on the movement so if it was intended to show anything else then it failed. Besides that, it looked to be artificially created anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Oy. Wrong in so many ways. I have six monitors on my Mac Pro. The menu for any one app probably isn't even on the same monitor. It is a HUGE pain in the neck to navigate back to the display that (currently) contains the menu. The menus belong on the window(s) of the app that owns them. Period. Top-of-the-main-monitor is a complete foul-up
You can get programs that put the menu bar on each screen. Overall I still prefer this, because Windows and other OS have horrible multi-screen support. No system really does this very well except maybe the old NeXT system.
And then there's the whole one button mouse thing, although there are so many ways around that today you don't really get screwed solidly by it unless you buy an Apple mouse / trackpad. Even then, there are options besides the brain-dead "control-click."
Oh good grief, I didn't have that issue on Mac systems in 1994. When are people going to quit repeating this bullshit? It hasn't been a problem in a long, long time.
I agree on the real world interface items, it just makes no sense. A computer is not a physical book, desk, or shelf... I expect it to be more flexible that those and different in any case. The UI should be made for computers, not 19th Century office equipment.
I don't personally think that the menu bar requires more mouse travel. I tend to move the mouse a lot less when using OSX versus Windows, though that might be just better application design.
Where did you guys participate in scouting that had all these religious services? I was in the scouts and religion was never a part of it other than the occasional prayer. I never had "required" service or anything like that, and the local churches might have assisted but we got far more support from business and the local military than we ever did religions.
True. Adobe does the same thing, putting crap into their installers and frequently it installs either because it did not ask me if it was OK, or it ignored my opt-opt preference (which should be default).
Apple does it too, though it is at least their own software. Its still very annoying.
I had this problem working at Bank of America as a contractor. Workers from India would frequently screw things up badly but never would admit it. They never would admit they didn't understand you, didn't know how to do the work, or anything. Took me a good while to work out who could get work done (few of them) and how to communicate with them so they'd be honest with me.
Communication was very difficult, and so was any form of cooperation. It was very difficult to get them to do testing, revision control, or anything like that. Management of course should have enforced these things, but I would point out that none of us had good management. The workers from the US, England, and a couple from Europe had the same managers, but they wrote good code, kept it under revision control, and did the right thing even with poor management.
I ended up rewriting the code of 3 out of 5 workers in my group, so basically their salary was pure expense for the company with no return at all. Six months later they RIF'd me because I "cost too much". There is no way that was true in reality. They let everyone go who made good money, and I know from people who stayed there that their costs escalated and the project failed after we all left.
NOTE: I met some wonderful people from India, some of whom are still friends. They also told me pretty much the same thing, that their fellow countrymen there were largely worthless factory-degree workers and they resented them about as much as I did.
That sounds sort of like not hiring people for their lack of experience which they can't get if you don't hire them.
There is nothing in the MBA program that is that difficult, so why require management experience first?
But how can you show respect by doing something you find disrespectful?
In my experience, people wearing a suit are far more likely to do harm to me. Most people who have done me harm, are doing me harm, and will do me harm wear a suit. They wear it to appear to be something they aren't. I actually would like to dress up at times, but I hate doing it because it makes me look like the assholes in life.
As far as comfort and good looks go... honestly most suit clothing isn't very confortable, especially in hot climates, and suits for guys don't look good these days. 1850s Edwardian liesure suits, oh yay! In past periods suits for guys looked better, but even then they were primarily cold weather gear. Its just really hard to wear a suit or even a good looking shirt when its 105F outside.
I don't agree with wearing t-shirts and jeans all the time, I like wearing pleated pants and polos or button down collars because they are functional, comfortable, and good looking. If you wear jeans and t-shirts, you should at least make sure they look good.
Suits frequently don't look that good especially on certain body types, so there is little way I can pull off showing respect for others by wearing one. That's a silly notion. I think we are just stuck in mindless conformity.
NOTE: This is different from wearing something like a suit for fun, or out on a date with your girl. Those are valid reasons for doing it. I'm not a big fan of shopping but some women are and I find a lot of them like taking a guy shopping for clothes. It makes them happy so I'll wear it for them. But the boss? Bleh.
I think that right now we just have really screwed up ideas about fashion, with two extremes of view that both seem wrong to me.
A friend of mine has the upgraded cable package so she gets "History International" and it sounds like the shows there are better. I think what happened (possibly) is cable companies simply forced content to split into tiers so they could charge for "premium" content, which in some cases is what you used to get by default.
The streaming shows are also full of ads too, and sometimes its more annoying than seeing them on TV. A couple of shows I used to watch streaming now have ads so bad I just gave up on them.
Outside of the ranting, one thing he said is correct: the program is abusive simply because it is totally out of our control and oversight. We can't know if we are on it, how to get off, what causes us to get on it.
Most of the time when I'm on a government list, I'm told that I am and exactly why, and there is extensive documentation on how it happened, how to get off, how to defend myself, and a good bit of historical research I can do to learn more. Granted its still often completely screwed up, unfair, and so on but its not as bad as this at least.
I'm also given due process in almost all cases, and I'm not punished or restricted until someone can prove I'm a problem.
With things like the Patriot Act and no-fly lists... I have none of those options.
So sure, it was an ill-informed rant, but that one part of it is true and is worth discussion.
I can't speak for the OP, but I have seen a lot of users lose their data when they are told by their techs to reset/wipe/reinstall their machines.
Losing data is very, very common with portable devices and PCs during the "repair" process. A good shop using an open PC will try very hard to prevent it. With less general purpose systems, this is more difficult and its not uncommon to lose data. Sync should fix it for devices with that, but I think the point being made is that when you aren't allowed to get under the hood, you depend on the limited built-in systems to recover your data. You can't "do it on your own" and neither can your tech support.
I am obviously not statistically significant, but I would find it difficult to believe that the data loss I see among newbie computer users due to limits in the repair process are exceptional. From talking to a wide variety of other people, this is pretty common and I think it has the potential to become more widespread.
The main issue I have is that there is no reason for things to be this way. We can have walled gardens for those who want them without dumbing things down and removing the non-walled garden parts of it. That way end users get the walled garden, but the gate is open if they want to venture and and of course it helps technical support take care of them, and keeps non-approved innovation alive.
This is computer technology: there is no need for a black and white choice as the "solution".
That's a fair question, and yes it is easier to fall into doomsday mode :)
However, in the Apple world the App Store certainly does appear to be taking over. A lot of developers I buy software from have completely stopped direct selling and require me to go to the App Store now. Not only that, but they were forced to remove features from their applications to get past the gatekeeper, they increased their prices, and they prematurely stopped support for non-Lion operating systems.
Its been a really depressing situation for me and it looks to be getting worse, not better.
True, but they are creating only in the way they are allowed to create.
What if their music or their studio setup requires applications the walled garden does not allow?
I agree, the pc won't go anywhere. But, it would be nice to get all the people who are not capable of running a computer off the computers.
I can't agree with that. If you get them off of the platform, then were will not be any software for it.
I can't think of many things that would suck worse than this scenario, and its already happening. As more people move to consoles, games start to suck. Ditto for most other non general purpose systems: its killing software availability, capability, and making us depending on central systems for our independent local systems.
Yes, and its all the same watered down crud mostly.
There are tons of applications that are very useful you'll never see for the walled garden. It will never show up in the App Store, on the portables, or on the consoles. You can't get into the market with your code.
Even existing applications are being dumbed down so they'll be accepted into the App Store. It sucks.
This is without even considering the security nightmare of a central authority for your licensing and other issues. If it goes down or you simply cannot access it, you are screwed.
Its not just that either, they restrict what you can do. Consoles are a good example: everything released for them is horribly limited and it affects any software that comes out for them which is ported to better systems. Same thing for portable computers.
The move away from general purpose PCs is dumbing things down. In my opinion, the security benefits are not worth the loss of capability and control.
Well that's depressing, but at least partly true so far.
I love games, and consoles have ruined gaming. Console games have to be restricted and dumbed down, and it just kills things for us PC users. Skyrim is a good example of that. Nice game, but severely dumbed down for the console compared to previous TES releases. Games are a very good barometer for the industry in a way, as graphics quality is up, but game complexity, detail, user interfaces, modfications, and story are all way down. A lot of other software follows this trend.
But the problem you cite--sending emails to too many people--is not a problem with email. I see people do it in voice mail systems and in any chat system where the option is available. The problem is people's rudeness and stupidity, and you fix that with training and the occasionally boot to the ass.
Copying people is especially rude IMHO. If I send email to you, I sent it to you. If I wanted it also sent to XYZ I'd have done so. At least ask me before you broadcast it everywhere.
The real problem is humans and I laugh at anyone who thinks technology will fix that. People used to get training in the proper use of communications, and they don't any more. Its ironic that now we have advanced technology but lack a lot of the basic training people used to get 100 years ago.
Dude, chat history doesn't work very well at all. Half of the chat programs encrypt their history or store it only on servers, etc.
Email is far superior. Chat is horrible with multiple conflicting and buggy protocols and servers.
I'm pretty much the opposite. I feel there is nothing at all personal about the others, and they are way less secure for me to use. Email is independent, I can set it up anywhere, even on my own mail server. Its just a better system than text/chat messaging.
As far as calling goes: calls are still subject to the age old limit that both ends have to be simultaneously available. Voice wastes far more of my time than email.
I thought about that, however: I didn't get the idea OPERA said neutrinos travel this fast in general, as in natural conditions. My impression was they were saying it was specifically because of how they were doing it, not that they think this is always the case.
Therefore, can we really compare natural neutrino bursts with these we make artificially?
For example, electrons in general don't move as fast naturally as they do in the local electron beam accelerator facility, so I wouldn't think comparing JLAB to natural electron flow to be valid.
Just thinking out loud, not refuting one thing or another.
Nuclear tech doesn't fit in a capitalist democracy. You can't have reactors build by the lowest bidder at the whim of voters with no accountability.
Chernobyl seems to indicate it doesn't fit in a socialist zone either.
I think this has far less to do with government types, and more to do with greed and cronyism which cross those borders at will.
This sounds interesting, but I question depending on it too much, at least right now.
What I am thinking is let's say we have a lot of power coming down from a satellite, and it fails. Its not like a terrestrial power plant where we can focus really hard on the problem and get it back up and running, it might take a minimum of months or even years to restore an orbital power plant, or at least it seems to have that potential problem anyway.
Maybe with redundancy and a regular launch schedule it would not be an issue, but I see it proposed a lot as an easy solution, but very little discussion of its possible problems.
Well I guess it was "time" for some moron to attack Americans, as if somehow they were more ignorant than the mass of other drooling humans on this planet. Complete with made up statistics no less, to "back it up".
Reprocessing does generate waste but precisely how much depends on what you are reprocessing, what method, and so on. The results can vary enough that "roughly 10" doesn't make much sense. Also from my point of view in America, it was always Europe who pushed the idea of reprocessing, criticizing America for not doing it, pushing breeder reactors, etc.
I think everyone in the world is pretty ignorant about these issues, and this thread while not representative of the world, has certainly managed to reflect that anyway.
Just a comment on the coal radiation thing: I worked in the power industry for a bit and we were told that slurry burners did release radioactive waste. We were monitored for radiation and the plants were as well. Was it "worse" than nuclear? I have no idea, but clearly it was a factor or they'd not have spent the money watching it. They must have at least been worried, no?
I also worked on Navy nuclear propulsion, and we were monitored there as well, even away from test sites. It was pretty rare for anyone to get a meter to react at either location, though there certainly were hot spots we were told to avoid.
No, you bitch at the morons in the Occupy movement who were denied the facilities for valid reasons.
They were trying to use temporary infrastructure for semi-permanent occupation, which is quite obviously harmful and just plain idiotic.
They had a right to protest, but not in the way they were, and in the end the message they sent to me was: I don't have money, and I think I should be able to steal it from you to fix it.
They were dirty in their camps and in their minds.
NOTE: Yes I know not all of them were like that, but the fact is that was the face I saw on the movement so if it was intended to show anything else then it failed. Besides that, it looked to be artificially created anyway.