Woah. Sounds more like you prefer to wallow in pity at the state of humanity instead of just accepting that humans are who they are (greedy bastards) and actually ENJOY things like the sporting events you decry as "nonsence".
Accept it and move on - too late to make it any better (you can't convince millions of people all to realize what you know), so no reason to whine about it when this is all we've got. Otherwise you'll go through like grumpy and angry, and that's no way to live life son.
That's nice and all, but it doesn't discredit what the OP was implying - MC Hammer only had one actual hit; it's the only song he's known for, hence the joke.
As an Australian citizen, I've been aware of how fucked our Governement is with regards to our rights. But I've always kept in my mind that the USA are also pretty fucked as well (they might have a Constitution, but due process seems to be getting shafted as time goes on). So then I look at the Brits, and they're fucked as well (too many cameras, among other things). But hey, the Europeans are smart cookies surely? Well, Italy is clearly fucked as well (seriously corrupt Government, not much to redeem there). And now we have another example of how the French are clearly fucked like everyone else.
There's basically nowhere in the world anymore when I can think that it's citizens aren't being fucked by their Government. Possible some Scandinavian countries, but it's only a matter of time. It's a good eye-opener to anyone who thinks life is better somewhere else - no, it's not. You're getting buttfucked no matter where you go.
No wonder people don't know what to do anymore. Our record levels of depression didn't just come out of thin air.
He's a competitor's CEO. He *needs* to criticise competitor in front of the public.
No he doesn't.
Marketing studies have shown that overly negative clams to discredit the opposite (i.e. basically bashing the competition) do not work well. People do not react well to negativity, particularly if they discover you're exaggerating/using hyperbole and hence lose even more credit. What you should do instead is explain how your product is *better* than the competition - don't bash, just act professional and talk up your own stuff.
Politicians love to run smear ads against each other when it comes time for the polls. For me that pushes me AWAY from the accuser because if that's all they've got in terms of convincing me want to vote for them, then they must be hopeless. I'm sure this technique works with some losers in society, but if you're also going to piss off the less manipulated folks as well, then you're doing it wrong!
Scientology makes Bart's voice (actor) a lie, as well as a despicable person.
No, not despicable, just gullible and perhaps a little crazy. I prefer this description because hotties like Catherine Bell are Scientologists - I don't want to have my fantasies destroyed simple because of their affiliation to a stupid cult.:)
I haven't tried a WP7 device yet, but I give credit to Microsoft for at least trying something different, original and novel. Whether it works well or not is debatable, although it appears to be very good at showing dynamic information clearly on the home screen. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of being tied to Windows tech with my phones even though I mostly run Windows 7 (I want to have the flexibility of moving to a Linux distro if they ever come good), so it's of no real use for me.
And this is why some people whine when I and other prefer certain commercial alternatives to free and open source software, simply because of the user interface. They just don't realize how important the ability to use a piece of software efficiently and easily is. People WILL pay for ease of use and well thought-out design.
It's the Achilles Heel of FOSS. Most projects don't have a dedicated UI designer, and programmers aren't good usability designers. Good GUI design is HARD. It's the reason why those low-grade armatures at Canonical who couldn't get a job at Apple, still can't get Unity working efficiently without requiring more clicks than necessary and ruining workflow.
Although this generally works well, there are two problems you might encounter when using this technique to block all Facebook stuff:
(1) Some sites integrate Facebook in such a way that a page using Facebook elements will appear to be continually waiting for a domain to respond before the page will have loaded. All this means is that sometimes the browser won't timeout until the connection fails and so some pages will have the "busy" mouse cursor appearing longer than usual, and the "loading page" browser throbber will stay animated longer. Once again, it varies as to whether this happens or not.
(2) Some sites (particularly news sites) have decided to use Facebook for their user commenting system instead of something separate like DISQUS or even their own custom implementation. Apart from the fact this limits commenting to Facebook users, even if you just want to read comments and not respond, a hosts block will prevent you from even doing that.
Some of us use pseudonyms that we've used for over a decade, unchanged. We have dozens of friends who know us by that name, and even more acquaintances. I've been "Zorin" since 1995. This is just as good as a real name for identifying me.
If I'm using Facebook and you were at my college or something and I was interested in looking you up, the name Zorin wouldn't help much if that was what you called yourself on Facebook.
At the same time you might argue "well I don't care about random acquaintances looking me up on Facebook". That's cool, except that networking with these folks might have hidden benefits that you only find out if you get into contact with them. But obscuring yourself only makes things more difficult.
Put another way - hiding yourself on a social networking service can hinder the benefits gained from said service.
I don't use Facebook anymore because I got fed up with the inane comments of what I thought were my intelligent friends, but I still feel the need to address your points.
What is a "real" name? I signed up for facebook a while back with a totally, obviously bogus name. Same with myspace. People are total fucking IDIOTS for using their real names on these services.
The whole point of a social networking service is that you can be identified using your real name. If you don't use your real name, the value of a SOCIAL NETWORKING SERVICE goes down. Pseudonyms work everywhere else because the need for a real name isn't as important, but something like Facebook, where people have events (i.e. physical meets) and tag one another in pictures, makes it kinda more important that the names are real.
As the saying goes, if you aren't paying for the service, you aren't the customer. You are the product.
Doesn't matter. People get what they want out of these services so why would they give a fuck? They're lifestyle is enhanced socially and what information is mined out of their profiles isn't (generally) going to cause many issues. It's hard to communicate to the average Joe why being the product is such a bad thing in this case.
And, you know, there is NO CONTENT on facebook AT ALL. There is nothing there. Nothing to do. Yet retarded idiots just do "facebook" all day every day. Its insane. People are such mindless robots. Sad.
The content is produced by your Friends and what they post. The events, photo albums, etc. If you have no friends, obviously Facebook isn't going to have much to share.
Why in your right mind wouldn't you be using any of these?
The best reason I can think of is so that you won't have a battle if in the future, you decide you want to release a version of your software on another platform. Avoiding Windows-only solutions would make things a lot easier and the idea of a multi-platform release more palatable.
I mean really. Adobe Acrobat has an easy to use Redaction tool specifically designed for this sort of thing. Not only does it properly black out and remove the text underneath, it can also scrub the removed data from the PDF so that some smart fellow cannot undelete the contents. It's really not hard at all... unless of course you're paying peanuts to someone who doesn't give a shit about doing things correctly and instead just wants to give the impression of having done the job.
Re:What he took away is more precious than given
on
Steve Jobs Dead At 56
·
· Score: 1
Hardly. I'm having a fun life without needing to judge others. How about you?:)
Re:What he took away is more precious than given
on
Steve Jobs Dead At 56
·
· Score: 2
The removal of stuff is a mixed bag. To do it successfully requires one to be very careful about what you're removing and why, as well as having something to replace that lost functionality if it's still important. Steve got rid of the floppy drive - this didn't matter since removable media turned to flash drives. Was the move to flash media pushed by the loss of the floppy drive? I don't know if Apple had much influence to spurn the replacement, but maybe Steve Jobs had enough insight to realize floppies were dead and some form of removable media was going to flourish soon enough anyway.
GNOME has tried (and continues to try) the Apple approach of removing stuff to make things easier, but in my experience the GNOME team removes too MUCH stuff without some kind of replacement. They haven't learnt the reasons *why* stuff is removed, they just copy Apple's approach without knowing why, except that if Apple does it, maybe GNOME will benefit by copying said approach.
I try to avoid operating system/browser/editor/tech holy wars these days. They don't achieve much because the few posters who post good, well articulated and balanced views with accurate information end up completely ignored by others in the battle to rage louder than the next guy.
Oh, and Steve definitely had charisma, that's for sure.
Re:What he took away is more precious than given
on
Steve Jobs Dead At 56
·
· Score: 1
Apple products are offered as a package deal, take it or leave it. If you want the nice ease of use and aesthetic package, you have to play by Apple's rules. No modding, no tinkering, no exceptions, no whining.
Perhaps... however the thing about Apple products is that in general, they get the products to work very well such that you don't HAVE to mod or tinker with it to work well. Every time I use a Linux distro I'm always irritated with some design aspect of the desktop environment or design of how certain components fit together (or commonly in Linux's case, don't). With most Apple products they've worked out the kinks, polished off the edges, such that as long as the functionality it presents its enough for your needs, it's optimized to a higher level than you'd find in a competitor.
I say this without even being a user of any Apple products. I can at least recognize the fact that their "defaults" if you will work extremely well for the vast majority of users. Linux is the polar opposite of Apple's philosophy of course, but it clearly shows when you just want to use technology as opposed to messing around with it.
Re:What he took away is more precious than given
on
Steve Jobs Dead At 56
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I don't know about you, but I kind of like not having to worry about running malware scanners [google.com.au] on my phone.
Agreed.
I used to have an idealistic belief that the walled garden was a bad thing too, that user convenience and security should not take precident over a locked-down infrastructure. But as I've gotten older that belief has withered away. People have clearly shown they LIKE the walled garden because it makes things the experience ultimately less painful, and more enjoyable. People seem to prefer a walled garden environment, and companies like Apple are gladly going to give them what they want. Geeks prefer the open environment but as it turns out, the benefits aren't substantial enough to negate all the other problems.
Steve Jobs knew what he was doing, and Apple succeeded because of the fact he didn't believe the die-hard geeks were worth listening to. Sometimes it's important to realize geeks don't understand what normal people want in technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Woah. Sounds more like you prefer to wallow in pity at the state of humanity instead of just accepting that humans are who they are (greedy bastards) and actually ENJOY things like the sporting events you decry as "nonsence".
Accept it and move on - too late to make it any better (you can't convince millions of people all to realize what you know), so no reason to whine about it when this is all we've got. Otherwise you'll go through like grumpy and angry, and that's no way to live life son.
That's nice and all, but it doesn't discredit what the OP was implying - MC Hammer only had one actual hit; it's the only song he's known for, hence the joke.
As an Australian citizen, I've been aware of how fucked our Governement is with regards to our rights. But I've always kept in my mind that the USA are also pretty fucked as well (they might have a Constitution, but due process seems to be getting shafted as time goes on). So then I look at the Brits, and they're fucked as well (too many cameras, among other things). But hey, the Europeans are smart cookies surely? Well, Italy is clearly fucked as well (seriously corrupt Government, not much to redeem there). And now we have another example of how the French are clearly fucked like everyone else.
There's basically nowhere in the world anymore when I can think that it's citizens aren't being fucked by their Government. Possible some Scandinavian countries, but it's only a matter of time. It's a good eye-opener to anyone who thinks life is better somewhere else - no, it's not. You're getting buttfucked no matter where you go.
No wonder people don't know what to do anymore. Our record levels of depression didn't just come out of thin air.
Why the fuck would Microsoft want to astroturf SLASHDOT of all places? There are plenty of other ways to waste someone's time for a futile effort.
Everything? In other words...
GOOGLE TAKES
ALL THE THINGS
No he doesn't.
Marketing studies have shown that overly negative clams to discredit the opposite (i.e. basically bashing the competition) do not work well. People do not react well to negativity, particularly if they discover you're exaggerating/using hyperbole and hence lose even more credit. What you should do instead is explain how your product is *better* than the competition - don't bash, just act professional and talk up your own stuff.
Politicians love to run smear ads against each other when it comes time for the polls. For me that pushes me AWAY from the accuser because if that's all they've got in terms of convincing me want to vote for them, then they must be hopeless. I'm sure this technique works with some losers in society, but if you're also going to piss off the less manipulated folks as well, then you're doing it wrong!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/12/windows_7_overtakes_xp/
Makes me glad actually. Windows 7 is so much nicer than XP.
No, not despicable, just gullible and perhaps a little crazy. I prefer this description because hotties like Catherine Bell are Scientologists - I don't want to have my fantasies destroyed simple because of their affiliation to a stupid cult. :)
I haven't tried a WP7 device yet, but I give credit to Microsoft for at least trying something different, original and novel. Whether it works well or not is debatable, although it appears to be very good at showing dynamic information clearly on the home screen. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of being tied to Windows tech with my phones even though I mostly run Windows 7 (I want to have the flexibility of moving to a Linux distro if they ever come good), so it's of no real use for me.
And this is why some people whine when I and other prefer certain commercial alternatives to free and open source software, simply because of the user interface. They just don't realize how important the ability to use a piece of software efficiently and easily is. People WILL pay for ease of use and well thought-out design.
It's the Achilles Heel of FOSS. Most projects don't have a dedicated UI designer, and programmers aren't good usability designers. Good GUI design is HARD. It's the reason why those low-grade armatures at Canonical who couldn't get a job at Apple, still can't get Unity working efficiently without requiring more clicks than necessary and ruining workflow.
And if they're using a cephalopod?
Although this generally works well, there are two problems you might encounter when using this technique to block all Facebook stuff:
(1) Some sites integrate Facebook in such a way that a page using Facebook elements will appear to be continually waiting for a domain to respond before the page will have loaded. All this means is that sometimes the browser won't timeout until the connection fails and so some pages will have the "busy" mouse cursor appearing longer than usual, and the "loading page" browser throbber will stay animated longer. Once again, it varies as to whether this happens or not.
(2) Some sites (particularly news sites) have decided to use Facebook for their user commenting system instead of something separate like DISQUS or even their own custom implementation. Apart from the fact this limits commenting to Facebook users, even if you just want to read comments and not respond, a hosts block will prevent you from even doing that.
If I'm using Facebook and you were at my college or something and I was interested in looking you up, the name Zorin wouldn't help much if that was what you called yourself on Facebook.
At the same time you might argue "well I don't care about random acquaintances looking me up on Facebook". That's cool, except that networking with these folks might have hidden benefits that you only find out if you get into contact with them. But obscuring yourself only makes things more difficult.
Put another way - hiding yourself on a social networking service can hinder the benefits gained from said service.
http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account
I don't use Facebook anymore because I got fed up with the inane comments of what I thought were my intelligent friends, but I still feel the need to address your points.
The whole point of a social networking service is that you can be identified using your real name. If you don't use your real name, the value of a SOCIAL NETWORKING SERVICE goes down. Pseudonyms work everywhere else because the need for a real name isn't as important, but something like Facebook, where people have events (i.e. physical meets) and tag one another in pictures, makes it kinda more important that the names are real.
Doesn't matter. People get what they want out of these services so why would they give a fuck? They're lifestyle is enhanced socially and what information is mined out of their profiles isn't (generally) going to cause many issues. It's hard to communicate to the average Joe why being the product is such a bad thing in this case.
The content is produced by your Friends and what they post. The events, photo albums, etc. If you have no friends, obviously Facebook isn't going to have much to share.
The best reason I can think of is so that you won't have a battle if in the future, you decide you want to release a version of your software on another platform. Avoiding Windows-only solutions would make things a lot easier and the idea of a multi-platform release more palatable.
I mean really. Adobe Acrobat has an easy to use Redaction tool specifically designed for this sort of thing. Not only does it properly black out and remove the text underneath, it can also scrub the removed data from the PDF so that some smart fellow cannot undelete the contents. It's really not hard at all... unless of course you're paying peanuts to someone who doesn't give a shit about doing things correctly and instead just wants to give the impression of having done the job.
Hardly. I'm having a fun life without needing to judge others. How about you? :)
The removal of stuff is a mixed bag. To do it successfully requires one to be very careful about what you're removing and why, as well as having something to replace that lost functionality if it's still important. Steve got rid of the floppy drive - this didn't matter since removable media turned to flash drives. Was the move to flash media pushed by the loss of the floppy drive? I don't know if Apple had much influence to spurn the replacement, but maybe Steve Jobs had enough insight to realize floppies were dead and some form of removable media was going to flourish soon enough anyway.
GNOME has tried (and continues to try) the Apple approach of removing stuff to make things easier, but in my experience the GNOME team removes too MUCH stuff without some kind of replacement. They haven't learnt the reasons *why* stuff is removed, they just copy Apple's approach without knowing why, except that if Apple does it, maybe GNOME will benefit by copying said approach.
I try to avoid operating system/browser/editor/tech holy wars these days. They don't achieve much because the few posters who post good, well articulated and balanced views with accurate information end up completely ignored by others in the battle to rage louder than the next guy.
Oh, and Steve definitely had charisma, that's for sure.
Perhaps... however the thing about Apple products is that in general, they get the products to work very well such that you don't HAVE to mod or tinker with it to work well. Every time I use a Linux distro I'm always irritated with some design aspect of the desktop environment or design of how certain components fit together (or commonly in Linux's case, don't). With most Apple products they've worked out the kinks, polished off the edges, such that as long as the functionality it presents its enough for your needs, it's optimized to a higher level than you'd find in a competitor.
I say this without even being a user of any Apple products. I can at least recognize the fact that their "defaults" if you will work extremely well for the vast majority of users. Linux is the polar opposite of Apple's philosophy of course, but it clearly shows when you just want to use technology as opposed to messing around with it.
Steve Jobs has gone to the iCloud
Agreed.
I used to have an idealistic belief that the walled garden was a bad thing too, that user convenience and security should not take precident over a locked-down infrastructure. But as I've gotten older that belief has withered away. People have clearly shown they LIKE the walled garden because it makes things the experience ultimately less painful, and more enjoyable. People seem to prefer a walled garden environment, and companies like Apple are gladly going to give them what they want. Geeks prefer the open environment but as it turns out, the benefits aren't substantial enough to negate all the other problems.
Steve Jobs knew what he was doing, and Apple succeeded because of the fact he didn't believe the die-hard geeks were worth listening to. Sometimes it's important to realize geeks don't understand what normal people want in technology.