You and NNKK use the word "label" as a concept that could be implemented (but which does not describe the implementation of Google). I use the word "label" to talk about what is implemented right now with Gmail and which Google call "label".
I'd like to remind you that the subject was Gmail and not some theory about a concept that could be called label. I'll let you think again about which comment was "dead on".
Hierarchical organization is about presentation of information and a specific relationship between categories. Google's labels do not fully replace hierarchical organization because there is no way to declare this relationship between different labels. Basically it's easier to organize emails with labels, but it's impossible to organize labels between them, something which is natural with folders and sub-folders. I will agree this organization is very limited as there is only one kind of relationship possible between folders, but a limited organization is better than no organization at all. There are workarounds, but as every workarounds they are clumsy, particularly because the interface is not design for it. Gmail interface is not designed to handle efficiently the hundred of labels necessary to implement a kind of hierarchical system.
As for threading, I can't control the subject lines other people will use, so there's nothing I can do to stop emails being in the wrong thread.
One more thing, I don't speak only for myself. I gave labels a try (with Outlook) and I like them. I still find them kind of limited, I would like a way to set relationship between categories, but having another option is a step in a good direction. But the thing is a also think about the needs of my clients. In fact, the needs of my clients are more important to me than my own. I won't try to change the way they think or work. I think it's my job to give them what's best for them, not what's best for me. Some people can adapt to new ways of doing things, some can't. You have to understand that the thinking to find something organized in a hierarchical system is different than the thinking to find something organized by unrelated concept. As my job is to offer a service, I must understand how someone think in order to provide him with the best tool. That's something Google's engineer didn't do. They probably thought their idea was better, and even if that was the case, they simply didn't think about the people who would be using it.
Here's something to help you understand... English and most other languages sucks. Esperanto (or preferably Ido) are better in every way. Do you think we should all learn Esperanto or do you think having to learn a whole new way to speak is not worth the hassle?
"New" and "innovation" are not synonymous of better. A lot of ideas are great in theory, but miserably fail in practice. Anyway, no, I don't insist on using only "folder", last week I gave an introduction to a group of employees of one of my client about using categories with Outlook, but I insist on still having the possibility of a hierarchical organization. Basically, I need both.
Again, I understand that you don't care for much hierarchical organization, I understand that you can satisfy your own need with the current label system of Gmail, but some people have more serious needs. As I said managing hundred of labels in order to kind of emulate a hierarchical system is not really an option with the current interface, even with "better gmail 2". I don't think I need to demonstrate it.
As for threaded conversation, I don't mind having it, in fact I think it's a good tool in theory, but I want to be the one controlling it. I'm better than any computer to know which message belong to which thread. Right now the problem is that you will end up with different subjects, that should belong to different labels (or folders), into the same thread. It makes any kind of organization impossible.
No, Gmail isn't trying to emulate folders with a half-baked implementation. It is the idea that it is possible to emulate a missing feature of gmail (hierarchical organization) by using a flat level system that is "half-baked".
As for why need several hundred labels, as I said, the fact that someone don't need a feature, doesn't mean that no one needs it. Some people "waste" their time organizing things, other "waste" their time searching for things. Individuals think differently and I believe a system should be adapted to people, not the other way around.
You seem to miss the context, which was the human interface. How "folders" are implemented behind the scene, is none of my concerns. In the context of human interface, flat level organization (Google's labels) is not a replacement of hierarchical organization (folders).
When you use a feature to emulate another feature, it is "half-baked". Seriously, have you tried to manage a gmail account with several hundred of labels? With a real hierarchical organization (read folder) it can be done, but not with flat level labels, at least not with the current interface.
Anyway, as I said, the main problem is still the implementation of threaded conversation, which to me clearly shows incompetence.
Don't you think a more intelligent solution would be to offer both labels AND folders? You may not see or understand why some people would rather have real folders instead of some half-baked solution that kind of do the job, but your own limitations should not impose any solution to other people. If the problem is "we didn't have the resource to do it" then I can understand it, otherwise it just shows incompetence.
Also there is still the enormous problem of threaded conversation. It sure is "cool" for people who use e-mail like they use instant messaging, but otherwise this implementation is atrocious and it makes gmail completely unusable for serious work.
BTW, I have a gmail account, and I don't use it. End of story.
Nonsense? I can't compare Ubuntu or Fedora to OS X because I don't have enough experience with OS X. But if you compare Ubuntu to Windows, including Vista, then it's obvious the Linux experience sucks.
Don't get me wrong, I install and manage Linux servers, I'm certainly not fond of Windows 2003 and I think Linux servers are easier to maintain, but on the general desktop Linux is miles away from Windows. It can, kind of, do the job after a lot of tweaking, it can be "fun" for someone who sees computers as a hobby, but for someone who view a computer as a toaster, which is the majority of people, Linux is simply not usable for now on the average desktop (and after all those years, I've become kind of skeptical about its future).
That's simply not true, mainly because you don't have to eat as much to get your nutrients with healthy food. Of course, it takes a few months for your body to adapt, but after that adaptation period you'll discover that a small portion will be more than enough to feel "full", and this is when you'll realize that healthy food actually cost less.
I'm someone who do a lot of biking and running. I was hit twice by cars when biking and once when running. I don't think there is a single week I could qualify as "safe" (except when I'm the one in the car, of course). And the worst is I'm one of the very few who respect red lights and stop signs (when I run, I do stop at red lights). If speed limits were higher, I would be dead right now.
I bought Oblivion, looked at the pretty graphics and stop playing this extremely boring game pretty fast. I only did the mage's quests, the arena and went as far as to escort Martin to Bruma in the main quest. That's it. As I wanted to play a CRPG at the time, what I did was play again with Ultima Underworld, which is probably your definition of "eyesore".
Personally, after countless bad experience, I'm to a point where I'm very worry with good graphics. I almost automatically associate good graphics with poor gameplay and I tend to simply overlook those games.
As an example, a year and a half ago I discovered the Gothic series with Gothic 3. It was a fun game, much better than Oblivion, but I also got bored with the game after a while. I read a lot that the previous title were better, so I bought a copy of Gothic 1 on ebay. Of course, graphics were a lot worse, but the game was also a lot better and it was one of the few games I finished. I also bought Gothic Universe simply to have Gothic 2 NOTR.
Of course, the same game would be better with good graphics than with bad graphics, but graphics are still secondary to gameplay. I'd prefer an "eyesore" with good gameplay than a beauty with an average gameplay.
1) Speed limits without any "good" reason are rare. I would agree that some are probably only to raise money, but I think they are the exception. Personally, I think most speed limits are not low enough and they do sacrifice some innocent lives for convenience.
2) You don't live in a deserted island. Injuring yourself will have a cost for society. There will be minor inconveniences to a few people who are counting on you (boss, coworkers, clients...); there will be a lot of people who'll get late to work because you're body is blocking the road; depending on where you live, society will have to pay for cleaning up the mess, repair on public damage, hospital...
Could you explain to me how you can accidentally "trash" an installation in a way that would invalidate your activation? I installed and reinstalled a lot of computers and that never happened to me, so I'm curious about what you did.
I don't have any statistics, but my personal experience is that not a single small or medium business I saw viewed Microsoft as a partner. I always have to fight to make them buy (some of) their softwares and there are very few which have no pirated software at all. Saying the majority of businesses love to support the businesses supporting them, does not apply to Microsoft, Adobe or most other big software businesses.
No, the Internet is not that complex. There is a lot of protocols and a lot of details, but the big picture is quite easy to understand. A few hours is more than enough to understand what's going on. I used to give an introduction to the Internet, and with 3 or 4 hours I was able to cover IP, Ethernet and ARP, TCP, DNS, SMTP, POP, HTTP and basic concept in cryptography. I'd agree the average person is not interested in spending even a single hour on the subject, but someone who has to take a decision will take that time and understand it.
I'm not sure I understand... Why didn't you just click on the "Centered" button in the toolbar to center your page number just like any other paragraph ?
I'm glad you are happy with Kubuntu, but for most people Linux is far too much hassles for what it's worth. I'm a computer consultant, I install Linux servers (Samba/Squid/Postfix...), but, at home, I mostly use Windows. I was a believer a few years ago, but not anymore. I spent too many hours trying to know which hardware is compatible, searching for patches and recompiling, editing config files... As most people, when I have some spare time, I prefer to do something else than work (again) on my home computer.
Here's my last problem (two days ago) : I wanted to play with an old C64 game. I Install Vice with synaptic, and... well, it doesn't work because the kernel ROM is not there and there's some copyright issues. I guess I could have found them on a PLF depot or somewhere else, I could have extracted them from the Windows package, but in the end I chose to do the most intelligent thing : I rebooted with Windows, downloaded the program from the official site, clicked on the nice little icon, and played.
I could fill pages of these kind of problems. From web sites that doesn't display videos to being unable to install Ubuntu 7.04 because it doesn't work with some Silicon Image chipset (it was working fine with 6.06). For most thing there is a way to solve the problem, but, as I said, I have other things to do than work on my home computer.
It is double standard, and it is more like common nonsense than common sense. If you praise the C- student because he gets a B, then you are only encouraging people to be bad at first and average after.
Imagine two stores which sell the exact same product. The first one is selling the product $15, while the second one is selling it for $10. From which one will you buy the product ? Now Suppose the week after, the first store lower its price to $14, while the second raise it to $11. Now what ? You will buy the product $14 because improvement is good while regression is bad ?
The link between commute time and obesity is interesting, but I'm not sure it's indirectly because a lack of exercise. I know people who don't exercise much, who spend most of their time in front of a computer, and who are very thin.
Also, I normally train a lot, and I eat a lot. But when I don't do any exercise, I'm just not hungry and I eat almost nothing. There is one exception though, and it's when I'm under some stress. Stress will make me crave food, particularly food with a lot of salt/sugar/fat. So what I'm wondering is : does commute time increase stress, which in turn increase the craving for food ?
"It's easier, cheaper and less time consuming to be a fat ass" everywhere in the world. Yet, the rest of the world obesity problem is not, for now, as serious as the one in the US. Why ?
Slashdot Mirror
You and NNKK use the word "label" as a concept that could be implemented (but which does not describe the implementation of Google). I use the word "label" to talk about what is implemented right now with Gmail and which Google call "label".
I'd like to remind you that the subject was Gmail and not some theory about a concept that could be called label. I'll let you think again about which comment was "dead on".
Hierarchical organization is about presentation of information and a specific relationship between categories. Google's labels do not fully replace hierarchical organization because there is no way to declare this relationship between different labels. Basically it's easier to organize emails with labels, but it's impossible to organize labels between them, something which is natural with folders and sub-folders. I will agree this organization is very limited as there is only one kind of relationship possible between folders, but a limited organization is better than no organization at all. There are workarounds, but as every workarounds they are clumsy, particularly because the interface is not design for it. Gmail interface is not designed to handle efficiently the hundred of labels necessary to implement a kind of hierarchical system.
As for threading, I can't control the subject lines other people will use, so there's nothing I can do to stop emails being in the wrong thread.
One more thing, I don't speak only for myself. I gave labels a try (with Outlook) and I like them. I still find them kind of limited, I would like a way to set relationship between categories, but having another option is a step in a good direction. But the thing is a also think about the needs of my clients. In fact, the needs of my clients are more important to me than my own. I won't try to change the way they think or work. I think it's my job to give them what's best for them, not what's best for me. Some people can adapt to new ways of doing things, some can't. You have to understand that the thinking to find something organized in a hierarchical system is different than the thinking to find something organized by unrelated concept. As my job is to offer a service, I must understand how someone think in order to provide him with the best tool. That's something Google's engineer didn't do. They probably thought their idea was better, and even if that was the case, they simply didn't think about the people who would be using it.
Here's something to help you understand... English and most other languages sucks. Esperanto (or preferably Ido) are better in every way. Do you think we should all learn Esperanto or do you think having to learn a whole new way to speak is not worth the hassle?
"New" and "innovation" are not synonymous of better. A lot of ideas are great in theory, but miserably fail in practice. Anyway, no, I don't insist on using only "folder", last week I gave an introduction to a group of employees of one of my client about using categories with Outlook, but I insist on still having the possibility of a hierarchical organization. Basically, I need both.
Again, I understand that you don't care for much hierarchical organization, I understand that you can satisfy your own need with the current label system of Gmail, but some people have more serious needs. As I said managing hundred of labels in order to kind of emulate a hierarchical system is not really an option with the current interface, even with "better gmail 2". I don't think I need to demonstrate it.
As for threaded conversation, I don't mind having it, in fact I think it's a good tool in theory, but I want to be the one controlling it. I'm better than any computer to know which message belong to which thread. Right now the problem is that you will end up with different subjects, that should belong to different labels (or folders), into the same thread. It makes any kind of organization impossible.
No, Gmail isn't trying to emulate folders with a half-baked implementation. It is the idea that it is possible to emulate a missing feature of gmail (hierarchical organization) by using a flat level system that is "half-baked".
As for why need several hundred labels, as I said, the fact that someone don't need a feature, doesn't mean that no one needs it. Some people "waste" their time organizing things, other "waste" their time searching for things. Individuals think differently and I believe a system should be adapted to people, not the other way around.
You seem to miss the context, which was the human interface. How "folders" are implemented behind the scene, is none of my concerns. In the context of human interface, flat level organization (Google's labels) is not a replacement of hierarchical organization (folders).
When you use a feature to emulate another feature, it is "half-baked". Seriously, have you tried to manage a gmail account with several hundred of labels? With a real hierarchical organization (read folder) it can be done, but not with flat level labels, at least not with the current interface.
Anyway, as I said, the main problem is still the implementation of threaded conversation, which to me clearly shows incompetence.
Don't you think a more intelligent solution would be to offer both labels AND folders? You may not see or understand why some people would rather have real folders instead of some half-baked solution that kind of do the job, but your own limitations should not impose any solution to other people. If the problem is "we didn't have the resource to do it" then I can understand it, otherwise it just shows incompetence.
Also there is still the enormous problem of threaded conversation. It sure is "cool" for people who use e-mail like they use instant messaging, but otherwise this implementation is atrocious and it makes gmail completely unusable for serious work.
BTW, I have a gmail account, and I don't use it. End of story.
Nonsense? I can't compare Ubuntu or Fedora to OS X because I don't have enough experience with OS X. But if you compare Ubuntu to Windows, including Vista, then it's obvious the Linux experience sucks.
Don't get me wrong, I install and manage Linux servers, I'm certainly not fond of Windows 2003 and I think Linux servers are easier to maintain, but on the general desktop Linux is miles away from Windows. It can, kind of, do the job after a lot of tweaking, it can be "fun" for someone who sees computers as a hobby, but for someone who view a computer as a toaster, which is the majority of people, Linux is simply not usable for now on the average desktop (and after all those years, I've become kind of skeptical about its future).
For infrastructures, monopolies are the way to go, and government owned monopolies works a lot better than private monopolies.
That's simply not true, mainly because you don't have to eat as much to get your nutrients with healthy food. Of course, it takes a few months for your body to adapt, but after that adaptation period you'll discover that a small portion will be more than enough to feel "full", and this is when you'll realize that healthy food actually cost less.
I'm someone who do a lot of biking and running. I was hit twice by cars when biking and once when running. I don't think there is a single week I could qualify as "safe" (except when I'm the one in the car, of course). And the worst is I'm one of the very few who respect red lights and stop signs (when I run, I do stop at red lights). If speed limits were higher, I would be dead right now.
Basically, you are wrong (and a fucking idiot).
I bought Oblivion, looked at the pretty graphics and stop playing this extremely boring game pretty fast. I only did the mage's quests, the arena and went as far as to escort Martin to Bruma in the main quest. That's it. As I wanted to play a CRPG at the time, what I did was play again with Ultima Underworld, which is probably your definition of "eyesore".
Personally, after countless bad experience, I'm to a point where I'm very worry with good graphics. I almost automatically associate good graphics with poor gameplay and I tend to simply overlook those games.
As an example, a year and a half ago I discovered the Gothic series with Gothic 3. It was a fun game, much better than Oblivion, but I also got bored with the game after a while. I read a lot that the previous title were better, so I bought a copy of Gothic 1 on ebay. Of course, graphics were a lot worse, but the game was also a lot better and it was one of the few games I finished. I also bought Gothic Universe simply to have Gothic 2 NOTR.
Of course, the same game would be better with good graphics than with bad graphics, but graphics are still secondary to gameplay. I'd prefer an "eyesore" with good gameplay than a beauty with an average gameplay.
1) Speed limits without any "good" reason are rare. I would agree that some are probably only to raise money, but I think they are the exception. Personally, I think most speed limits are not low enough and they do sacrifice some innocent lives for convenience.
2) You don't live in a deserted island. Injuring yourself will have a cost for society. There will be minor inconveniences to a few people who are counting on you (boss, coworkers, clients...); there will be a lot of people who'll get late to work because you're body is blocking the road; depending on where you live, society will have to pay for cleaning up the mess, repair on public damage, hospital...
I am already surrounded by technology I do not understand. What would be the difference for me?
If you enjoyed that video, you are obviously an idiot.
Could you explain to me how you can accidentally "trash" an installation in a way that would invalidate your activation? I installed and reinstalled a lot of computers and that never happened to me, so I'm curious about what you did.
I don't have any statistics, but my personal experience is that not a single small or medium business I saw viewed Microsoft as a partner. I always have to fight to make them buy (some of) their softwares and there are very few which have no pirated software at all. Saying the majority of businesses love to support the businesses supporting them, does not apply to Microsoft, Adobe or most other big software businesses.
Flamebait? How about funny!
No, the Internet is not that complex. There is a lot of protocols and a lot of details, but the big picture is quite easy to understand. A few hours is more than enough to understand what's going on. I used to give an introduction to the Internet, and with 3 or 4 hours I was able to cover IP, Ethernet and ARP, TCP, DNS, SMTP, POP, HTTP and basic concept in cryptography. I'd agree the average person is not interested in spending even a single hour on the subject, but someone who has to take a decision will take that time and understand it.
I'm not sure I understand... Why didn't you just click on the "Centered" button in the toolbar to center your page number just like any other paragraph ?
I'm glad you are happy with Kubuntu, but for most people Linux is far too much hassles for what it's worth. I'm a computer consultant, I install Linux servers (Samba/Squid/Postfix...), but, at home, I mostly use Windows. I was a believer a few years ago, but not anymore. I spent too many hours trying to know which hardware is compatible, searching for patches and recompiling, editing config files... As most people, when I have some spare time, I prefer to do something else than work (again) on my home computer.
Here's my last problem (two days ago) : I wanted to play with an old C64 game. I Install Vice with synaptic, and... well, it doesn't work because the kernel ROM is not there and there's some copyright issues. I guess I could have found them on a PLF depot or somewhere else, I could have extracted them from the Windows package, but in the end I chose to do the most intelligent thing : I rebooted with Windows, downloaded the program from the official site, clicked on the nice little icon, and played.
I could fill pages of these kind of problems. From web sites that doesn't display videos to being unable to install Ubuntu 7.04 because it doesn't work with some Silicon Image chipset (it was working fine with 6.06). For most thing there is a way to solve the problem, but, as I said, I have other things to do than work on my home computer.
It is double standard, and it is more like common nonsense than common sense. If you praise the C- student because he gets a B, then you are only encouraging people to be bad at first and average after.
Imagine two stores which sell the exact same product. The first one is selling the product $15, while the second one is selling it for $10. From which one will you buy the product ? Now Suppose the week after, the first store lower its price to $14, while the second raise it to $11. Now what ? You will buy the product $14 because improvement is good while regression is bad ?
Here's some actual http://www.fresh99.com/fred-flintstone-car.htm photos of the car... It will help you understand from where the extra power come from.
The link between commute time and obesity is interesting, but I'm not sure it's indirectly because a lack of exercise. I know people who don't exercise much, who spend most of their time in front of a computer, and who are very thin.
Also, I normally train a lot, and I eat a lot. But when I don't do any exercise, I'm just not hungry and I eat almost nothing. There is one exception though, and it's when I'm under some stress. Stress will make me crave food, particularly food with a lot of salt/sugar/fat. So what I'm wondering is : does commute time increase stress, which in turn increase the craving for food ?
"It's easier, cheaper and less time consuming to be a fat ass" everywhere in the world. Yet, the rest of the world obesity problem is not, for now, as serious as the one in the US. Why ?