We're talking about probabilities here. We don't need to stop everyone, we need to make people less likely to do it.
Putting a second guy in a room with you absolutely makes you more aware of your legal and moral consequences. Even if they're your best friend. They don't want you killing yourself, or everyone on a plane. It prevents your mind from wandering into territory you know you shouldn't be in. We've all been in situations where we were thinking weird things and then someone came in and we suddenly realized how strange our thought-process was.
Putting a second guy in a room (and they can't be locked out because they also have keys) means you have to now outsmart and overpower a human being to do your craziness. It also means that if they notice you STARTING to get the point of crazy, they can DEFUSE IT before it becomes your urge to actually smash into a mountain.
We don't need a bunch of linebackers in a cockpit, but the fact that one pilot can easily lock out another pilot is pretty damned stupid if one of the pilots is the problem. And if you're worried about "the bad pilot getting back in" that's what the rest of the crew is force. A mile high gang bang.
Except you know... another equally strong guy sitting next to you, with the same keys as you, and increasingly suspicious as to why you keep sweating and talking about Valhalla.
I wonder how hard it would be to fork a file manager to add the functionality you are looking for. Someone else mentioned various filtering options.
I'm very much a fan of "it's easier to make the tool you need than it is to convince someone to make it for you."--even if it would be easier for someone to modify their own project than you having to learn all specifics, they're normally so resistant to ideas that it's almost impossible to get a dev to care about a feature you do.
All current large GUI changes are not to make our lives easier, it's to bring in new people who can't be bothered to learn how to use a normal, productive GUI. It's about drawing in new customers, not pleasing their existing ones that are getting more and more aggravated.
It's like when the Wii hit. Lot's of people like it, and hats off to you. But going from the NES, SNES, N64, and Gamecube... and then being stuck with "casual" games on the Wii was like a slap to the face. It's like they said "There's no money in you guys who supported us and got is this far, so we're throwing you away for some new people who don't even like games."
In other words, stupidity like the Metro interface (aka "Change for the sake of change because CHANGE MUST BE BETTER") is not reserved to just Microsoft, but is a symptom of a much bigger problem that permeates many projects and companies across the technological landscape.
Change is fine IF AND ONLY IF it can actually outperform the incumbent. Being different doesn't automatically make it better. Nobody complains that we should completely redesign current bicycles merely because they're old. They haven't changed drastically because they already went through a huge amount of experimentation. They're already a great fit for the problem they solve.
I vaguely remember some business proverb along the lines of: Ask your customers to change once, and they'll let you. Twice, and they'll hate you. Three times and they'll leave you.
If they want to force everyone to change user interfaces, they better be damn well sure that they've tested it and it clearly improves are ability to do real work. Because if it doesn't, we're leaving for more stable pastures.
People have gone from wasting money for CLAP ON lights to wasting money to have fucking apps in their refrigerators.
Let's all stop playing this "they're savvy people experimenting with a hobby" lie. No, they're people who are obsessed with minor materialistic technology, who buy all the latest WiFi enabled tech gadgets. They're gimmicks. They sell for what they are, not the problems they can actually solve. Their boxes of unopened gadgets line the closets, the floor, and the tables--depreciating by the day.
If someone wants to buy into the craze and own more things that can break in their house, as if things don't break enough already, that's fine--it really is. I'm not going to bash them for putting their money where they want. But I'm certainly not going to treat them with the respect that comes from something that involves actual thought, effort, and application of skills.
Think of plenty of dorky hobbies. Someone who spends ten hours a day playing with a hacky-sack at least learns some coordination skills. People who play chess can think moves ahead. But buying things to buy things is not a hobby. It's materialism. And it yields no fruits.
>Figure out what makes yours tick and use that knowledge and you'll both have an easier time of it.
DING DING DING. Thank you. It feels like everyone with a public voice on the matter is a complete moron. Children don't come off an assembly line. You cannot use the same technique and strategy for every person and to demand so basically means you have a pathetically narrow image of what constitutes a human being.
Ask any teacher, any performance artist, they will tell you, "You play the room. Every group is different."
Basically there's a war on men being men. Most women don't care at all. But it's a bunch of bitches who hates that anyone that has fun, and their complacent friends/boyfriends/husbands that white knight onto their side thinking it'll buy them some points to sell out their gender.
Look at the damn "wikipedia is dominated by men" issue. If that's the case, then how are radical feminists in control of the majority of controversial pages relating to gender, and Gamergate? And when these radical feminists abused their powers so much that Wikipedia had to step in and restrict them? Everyone cried censorship.
Because these women are so convinced that men are out to get them, it's reached conspiracy levels.
History will remember these people for what they were. Women full of vitriol and devoid of empathy and purpose.
People here love to hate Google, but they never bother to list any facts. Meanwhile, just five years ago, (see Internet Archive) everyone here was wishing Google would do anything and everything. They wanted more, more, more.
I've seen zero changes in their policies. But now, they've somehow become the devil--even while trying to protect Net Neutrality and gay rights.
Meanwhile, Microsoft is still shipping broken software and walling in UEFI, Apple is the North Korea of software platforms, and Canonical keeps trying to change the face of Linux by tossing out their existing userbase (Nintendo Wii anyone?).
But let's focus on Google. After all, I'm forced to use their products. Oh wait, no standard anywhere requires me to use their services at all. Isn't it terrible how we're required to use Google Drive over Dropbox to get a job? Nope. Isn't it terrible how we're required to use Google over Bing when we ship a PC? Nope. Isn't it terrible how we're required to use Google Docs over OpenOffice when we make a contract? Nope. I believe the answer you're looking for was Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft.
They likely picked up far more revenue in new customers than they ever lost to the court. Real integrity sells like hotcakes because it almost never exists.
... Except having a working healthcare system and not having to worrying about your money all going to fueling wars in the middle east and funding an industrial war complex.
Everyone else is forgetting that plenty of off-the-shelf components get used for Linux servers, desktops, and research systems all the time. If motherboard producers don't want the last of their sales to fly away to the mobile market, they're obviously not going to toss away alternative operating systems.
In other words, Microsoft can say whatever the hell they like. Hardware manufactures want money. They don't give two shits whether it comes from Windows or Potato-OS.
Anyone with a valid license can easily call tech support and yell at them. As long as you yell at them enough you get a free key. I know plenty of people who do that every time they want a new key even though they've never bought one. It's sketchy, but to imply legitimize users can't get their keys is an outright lie.
So in other words, Microsoft knows you're being a dick and using pirated software, but they're not going to do anything to hurt you even though they know you're guilty--except not patch your software which costs them bandwidth.
I disagree with lots of their policies, but this one is rather gratuitous and undeserved on our part.
Slashdot Mirror
We're talking about probabilities here. We don't need to stop everyone, we need to make people less likely to do it.
Putting a second guy in a room with you absolutely makes you more aware of your legal and moral consequences. Even if they're your best friend. They don't want you killing yourself, or everyone on a plane. It prevents your mind from wandering into territory you know you shouldn't be in. We've all been in situations where we were thinking weird things and then someone came in and we suddenly realized how strange our thought-process was.
Putting a second guy in a room (and they can't be locked out because they also have keys) means you have to now outsmart and overpower a human being to do your craziness. It also means that if they notice you STARTING to get the point of crazy, they can DEFUSE IT before it becomes your urge to actually smash into a mountain.
We don't need a bunch of linebackers in a cockpit, but the fact that one pilot can easily lock out another pilot is pretty damned stupid if one of the pilots is the problem. And if you're worried about "the bad pilot getting back in" that's what the rest of the crew is force. A mile high gang bang.
>Any security measure will have a gap.
Except you know... another equally strong guy sitting next to you, with the same keys as you, and increasingly suspicious as to why you keep sweating and talking about Valhalla.
So in otherwords, nothing is going to change and this is just a feel good measure to make bitter women happy.
While I think they're unprofessional, but to call them "sexist" is diluting the word to mean "anything you don't like."
I wonder how hard it would be to fork a file manager to add the functionality you are looking for. Someone else mentioned various filtering options.
I'm very much a fan of "it's easier to make the tool you need than it is to convince someone to make it for you."--even if it would be easier for someone to modify their own project than you having to learn all specifics, they're normally so resistant to ideas that it's almost impossible to get a dev to care about a feature you do.
All current large GUI changes are not to make our lives easier, it's to bring in new people who can't be bothered to learn how to use a normal, productive GUI. It's about drawing in new customers, not pleasing their existing ones that are getting more and more aggravated.
It's like when the Wii hit. Lot's of people like it, and hats off to you. But going from the NES, SNES, N64, and Gamecube... and then being stuck with "casual" games on the Wii was like a slap to the face. It's like they said "There's no money in you guys who supported us and got is this far, so we're throwing you away for some new people who don't even like games."
You use version 3.14 on a Pi?
In other words, stupidity like the Metro interface (aka "Change for the sake of change because CHANGE MUST BE BETTER") is not reserved to just Microsoft, but is a symptom of a much bigger problem that permeates many projects and companies across the technological landscape.
Change is fine IF AND ONLY IF it can actually outperform the incumbent. Being different doesn't automatically make it better. Nobody complains that we should completely redesign current bicycles merely because they're old. They haven't changed drastically because they already went through a huge amount of experimentation. They're already a great fit for the problem they solve.
I vaguely remember some business proverb along the lines of: Ask your customers to change once, and they'll let you. Twice, and they'll hate you. Three times and they'll leave you.
If they want to force everyone to change user interfaces, they better be damn well sure that they've tested it and it clearly improves are ability to do real work. Because if it doesn't, we're leaving for more stable pastures.
People have gone from wasting money for CLAP ON lights to wasting money to have fucking apps in their refrigerators.
Let's all stop playing this "they're savvy people experimenting with a hobby" lie. No, they're people who are obsessed with minor materialistic technology, who buy all the latest WiFi enabled tech gadgets. They're gimmicks. They sell for what they are, not the problems they can actually solve. Their boxes of unopened gadgets line the closets, the floor, and the tables--depreciating by the day.
If someone wants to buy into the craze and own more things that can break in their house, as if things don't break enough already, that's fine--it really is. I'm not going to bash them for putting their money where they want. But I'm certainly not going to treat them with the respect that comes from something that involves actual thought, effort, and application of skills.
Think of plenty of dorky hobbies. Someone who spends ten hours a day playing with a hacky-sack at least learns some coordination skills. People who play chess can think moves ahead. But buying things to buy things is not a hobby. It's materialism. And it yields no fruits.
Technically, if you're using CSVs at all, you're doing something wrong. CSVs are the guilty hack work-around for when proper methods don't work.
Generation X gave way to Generation D for Denial.
Too bad they forgot:
People who bury their heads in the sand, drown when the tide comes in.
Your idea might work but it paints a disturbingly low opinion of people who live in rural areas with lots of space to themselves. (90% of Alaska?)
>Figure out what makes yours tick and use that knowledge and you'll both have an easier time of it.
DING DING DING. Thank you. It feels like everyone with a public voice on the matter is a complete moron. Children don't come off an assembly line. You cannot use the same technique and strategy for every person and to demand so basically means you have a pathetically narrow image of what constitutes a human being.
Ask any teacher, any performance artist, they will tell you, "You play the room. Every group is different."
Mind aside, your neck is not designed to be pointed down at your chest the whole day.
http://www.today.com/health/te...
Basically there's a war on men being men. Most women don't care at all. But it's a bunch of bitches who hates that anyone that has fun, and their complacent friends/boyfriends/husbands that white knight onto their side thinking it'll buy them some points to sell out their gender.
Look at the damn "wikipedia is dominated by men" issue. If that's the case, then how are radical feminists in control of the majority of controversial pages relating to gender, and Gamergate? And when these radical feminists abused their powers so much that Wikipedia had to step in and restrict them? Everyone cried censorship.
Because these women are so convinced that men are out to get them, it's reached conspiracy levels.
History will remember these people for what they were. Women full of vitriol and devoid of empathy and purpose.
People here love to hate Google, but they never bother to list any facts. Meanwhile, just five years ago, (see Internet Archive) everyone here was wishing Google would do anything and everything. They wanted more, more, more.
I've seen zero changes in their policies. But now, they've somehow become the devil--even while trying to protect Net Neutrality and gay rights.
Meanwhile, Microsoft is still shipping broken software and walling in UEFI, Apple is the North Korea of software platforms, and Canonical keeps trying to change the face of Linux by tossing out their existing userbase (Nintendo Wii anyone?).
But let's focus on Google. After all, I'm forced to use their products. Oh wait, no standard anywhere requires me to use their services at all. Isn't it terrible how we're required to use Google Drive over Dropbox to get a job? Nope. Isn't it terrible how we're required to use Google over Bing when we ship a PC? Nope. Isn't it terrible how we're required to use Google Docs over OpenOffice when we make a contract? Nope. I believe the answer you're looking for was Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft.
They likely picked up far more revenue in new customers than they ever lost to the court. Real integrity sells like hotcakes because it almost never exists.
... Except having a working healthcare system and not having to worrying about your money all going to fueling wars in the middle east and funding an industrial war complex.
Everyone else is forgetting that plenty of off-the-shelf components get used for Linux servers, desktops, and research systems all the time. If motherboard producers don't want the last of their sales to fly away to the mobile market, they're obviously not going to toss away alternative operating systems.
In other words, Microsoft can say whatever the hell they like. Hardware manufactures want money. They don't give two shits whether it comes from Windows or Potato-OS.
You seem to be under the assumption that your hardware, and your compiler are incapable of being attack vectors.
http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ke...
Anyone with a valid license can easily call tech support and yell at them. As long as you yell at them enough you get a free key. I know plenty of people who do that every time they want a new key even though they've never bought one. It's sketchy, but to imply legitimize users can't get their keys is an outright lie.
So in other words, Microsoft knows you're being a dick and using pirated software, but they're not going to do anything to hurt you even though they know you're guilty--except not patch your software which costs them bandwidth.
I disagree with lots of their policies, but this one is rather gratuitous and undeserved on our part.
Shut up with your damn facts and quotations! We're trying to be mad at Republicans!
In other words, "Let them change anything they want" because the current system is so shitty you'd be hard pressed to find much worth saving.
I'm a pollution-denier. I don't think smog exists because the science hasn't all come out yet.