I don't think I was preventing you from pointing out any weaknesses, just pointing out that the modern Windows Start Menu search box is nothing like the "Run Command..." of older versions that the poster I replied to seemed to think it still was. And that a search box is both by no means a foreign concept, and in fact is the best method of finding something in many cases (Google, anyone?)
Also, that an "all graphical interface" really doesn't hinge on selecting an app to run, as should be glaringly obvious to someone who just posted a slashdot message, assuming you weren't using speech to text for what you just wrote;)
Not that I'm a Windows advocate by any means. I have a Windows desktop, but also a Linux workstation and server and an Apple phone. Each has their strengths and weaknesses, so I pick whichever I prefer for the task I want to accomplish. (And incidentally, all of those - Windows, iOS, Gnome 3 - have adopted the concept of global search as something central to their UI...)
Ok, I just tried it. Amazingly my hand was able to move that extra 4 inches necessary to accomplish your seemingly impossible task. And it was still so much easier than digging through a menu system.
It's not a command line, it's a search box. Been that way for a while - it's actually surprisingly useful once you realize that.
Yes, and? I have one hand on the keyboard and one hand on the mouse. I move to the menu, click on it, click on the section I want and click on the application I want. It starts. I use the mouse to interact with the application.
Alternatively I can take my hand off the mouse, type some crap, hope Windows finds the right application and then put my hand back on the mouse again. Why would I possibly prefer that?
Ok, I just tried this:
With one hand on my keyboard and one on my mouse, I hit the Windows key with my thumb, then "W" with the same hand, then it popped up all apps starting with W (as well as a bunch of documents, mp3s, web page shortcuts, etc). One mouse click and an app (Word in this case) is launched.
I tried the same thing with just the mouse and start menu, it took 4 clicks with some mouse movements, scrolling, and browsing through cumbersome lists of folders first.
So, it's *faster* with a mouse - and that's for something trivial like an application. It's even more dramatic for a random document, file, or Web bookmark. But it's irrelevant anyway. Once using Word you have to use both hands on the keyboard anyway, of course. I assume you used both hands to type that last post?
Yes, I understand, you're so totally l33t because you prefer inefficient UIs.
No, it's because I have actually tried out the things I discuss so I have an informed opinion...
Of course, putting in an A5 chip, nice 3D graphics, a much improved camera w/ 1080p video, Bluetooth 4.0, 14Mbps HSDPA, and AirPlay wireless video mirroring is a bit more than "tiny changes".
Sounds like a solid upgrade to an existing platform. Actually, sounds more like they pretty much gutted the interior and just reused the case. None of the specs are leaps and bounds ahead of the competition, but many people like their iPhones and this is a nice upgrade for most. The only people who should be whining are the Apple design fanboys who feel the need to show off their new toy to everyone in their local cafe/restaurant/bar/movie theater every 5 minutes.
And if the corporation refuses? Find them in contempt, and put them on probation... Oh, wait, then we're back where we started. The whole point of a corporation is "limited liability", and until something is done about that (ie. stop pretending people aren't making the decisions) nothing will change.
My other big resume pet peeve is people with more pages to their resume than years of job experience. No way in hell I am going to read through a 6 page single spaced resume for someone with 5 years of work experience.
I was annoyed when I had to give up and add a second page to mine, and now after about 18 years of experience I still refuse to add a third:)
But if a 16 year old sends a photo to another 16 year old with the consent of both, what business is that of law enforcement and how in hell should either be guilty of *any* criminal offense, whether it was the first, second, or third time? The new law is still absurd.
You must not read a lot of resumes in Silicon Valley:)
It's amazing how many I see with just plain incorrect English - misspellings, grammar errors, capitalization, etc. I understand writing skills won't be perfect if English is a second (or third) language (and that's not really a big deal as long as general communication skills are adequate). But a little proofreading by a friend, headhunter, whoever, would make a much better first impression; if they can't make the effort to ensure a resume isn't error-free, what does that say for attention to detail in their programming?
True. Plus, it's a technical manual. Most of the readers have a surprisingly poor grasp of their native language, let alone a second. Eh, and probably the majority of readers of the English edition aren't native speakers anyway...
Whoa, human rights? Christianity is responsible for more torture and death in the first 19 centuries AD than almost any other human cause, and probably stunted development of "civilization" by several hundred years. Scientology, fortunately, has managed to do little more than steal some disposable income from gullible celebrities.
Anyway, you seem to be applying a logical argument ("2000 years of...") as some sort of validation. If you applied length of belief to science, we'd still be studying the four elements...
And, I just don't see how philosophy and ethics need any requirement of religion, since religion has no requirement but faith. In fact, I never understood why "religion" needed to exist at all even for those who have that faith in a higher power. And IMO, personal faith in a few positive tenets doesn't really sound like a bad thing. If, as you say, the whole Bible should now be reduced to 2 concepts, why does there need to be such a massive infrastructure around it all? Why not just make it a personal thing that doesn't have to involve people who already understand the basic concepts of right and wrong?
Give up, you have no hope. You must already know this, but in an argument between science and religion, science can never win because it's constrained by provable facts, whereas religion has the entire depth of the human imagination to come up with a response.
But you have pointed out the key bit - why should the Bible be any more a source of authority than, say, Dianetics? I think one of the secret reasons people are against Scientology (besides the brainwashing and slavery bits) is that it so obviously shows - in a nice, condensed 60 year history - how a major religion can basically be manufactured whole cloth and accepted by millions...
Well, then. That already proves 95% of the Christian right doesn't follow Jesus.
Colbert put it pretty well...
"If this is gonna be a Christian nation that DOESN'T help the poor, either we've got to pretend that Jesus is just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition - then admit that we just don't want to do it."
Personally I think he was just a guy with a good message, like a lot of guys with good messages over the years - but despite that 100x horrible things have been done in his name as things that follow his message. Sad.
What about handling secure (https) connections? We will establish a secure connection from the cloud to the site owner on your behalf for page requests of sites using SSL (e.g. https://siteaddress.com./
Still a bit vague, but not the part about "from the cloud to the site owner on your behalf". But in this case nothing can be assumed - it's their browser, so they can implement the client to cloud connection however they want. Let's just hope they do it securely (even if, unlike real HTTPS, there is no way to guarantee a point to point secure connection, which is enough for me never to trust it enough for my online banking...)
Except they also said they were going to proxy your HTTPS traffic by making a connection from their "cloud" to the destination server for you. In some parts they call that a "man in the middle"...
And those statistics are only for the US, which is a first world country with a modern health care system that provides ready access to retrovirals, thorough testing, and sterile equipment. HIV vaccines aren't about the US.
There are an estimated 1M cases of HIV in the US, while Sub-Saharan Africa is estimated at well over 30M, with thousands of new cases daily. The WHO estimates 200-400 of those a day come from blood transfusions, so the "1 person in 8 years in the US" is pretty narrow minded...
What the hell does any of this have to do with the US? The vaccine from the original article wasn't even developed in the US. HIV isn't an epidemic "in the US", but that doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing a vaccine.
If you want to quote statistics - in Africa the estimate is 250-500 people a DAY contract HIV from unsafe (either contaminated blood or equipment) transfusions. Some 3rd world countries in Asia are almost as bad. And since there is such a higher rate of HIV and such poor health care conditions, it's much more dangerous for the health care workers as well.
But I guess same pseudo-moralistic bullshit attitude that would pretend to argue HIV is not a world epidemic and is only contracted by all of those fornicators and addicts probably doesn't give a shit about anyone outside of their tiny little world, anyway.
Their stock din't drop 60% in a couple of months because of bad PR.
It dropped because people have finally realized that their current inexpensive-streaming-business model will never actually do what all of the hype around them previously claimed, which is replace cable and new release VOD services. Their inflated market value (ie. at 300 the P/E was about 70!) reflected people's expectation for massive growth in the industry, and that has now been shaken.
Overpaying for a few Dreamworks titles is mostly just an attempt at PR as well - one that will cost them an absurd amount of money for a few titles. If they do this direction with all studios this previous price hike will look modest. You just can't replace $100+ / month in cable, video rentals, etc, that many consumers pay with an $8 streaming service.
And seeing as the market reacted to that news with another loss (so far) apparently it wasn't fooled by the desperate move, either.
Anyway, I'm not saying it isn't a good service, it's just the end-all of consumer TV/content like pundits have claimed in recent years.
Yeah, but Guild Wars isn't an MMORPG. They made a lot of decisions in their game design to keep server costs to a minimum. Those were some great decisions for what they wanted to accomplish, but it's a different type of game...
If your company has thousands of employees using desktops the overhead of "a few throusand dollars a month" will be pretty insignificant compared to so many other inefficiencies or costs. They could get 10x the savings by charging for coffee, switching to single ply toilet paper, or firing one incompetent employee...
In terms of "official standard", I guess that is in the eye of the beholder. I do believe that the W3C did archive the GIF standard and provided links to Compuseve's documents on the format as a recommended image format for web browsers before the patent issue hit the fan. It certainly was hard to avoid the use of GIFs even if you tried, and was a pretty universal image format even before web browsers were created.
Yep, everything you say is true, of course - I was just pointing out that neither GIF nor JPEG was really an example of a standards body intentionally expecting implementors to pay licensing fees. JPEG in fact tried to avoid it and was hit by trolls, and GIF was just one of those de facto standards in the early days of the Internet that was also hit by a troll.
IMO it would be interesting to see if there could be some sort of government registration of "standards" that requires a review and formal submission process/timeline for any potential infringing patents, after which it is officially declared patent-free and open for implementation by anyone. Seems like that would go a long way towards preventing patent trolls like this...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think I was preventing you from pointing out any weaknesses, just pointing out that the modern Windows Start Menu search box is nothing like the "Run Command..." of older versions that the poster I replied to seemed to think it still was. And that a search box is both by no means a foreign concept, and in fact is the best method of finding something in many cases (Google, anyone?)
Also, that an "all graphical interface" really doesn't hinge on selecting an app to run, as should be glaringly obvious to someone who just posted a slashdot message, assuming you weren't using speech to text for what you just wrote ;)
Not that I'm a Windows advocate by any means. I have a Windows desktop, but also a Linux workstation and server and an Apple phone. Each has their strengths and weaknesses, so I pick whichever I prefer for the task I want to accomplish. (And incidentally, all of those - Windows, iOS, Gnome 3 - have adopted the concept of global search as something central to their UI...)
Ok, I just tried it. Amazingly my hand was able to move that extra 4 inches necessary to accomplish your seemingly impossible task. And it was still so much easier than digging through a menu system.
It's not a command line, it's a search box. Been that way for a while - it's actually surprisingly useful once you realize that.
Yes, and? I have one hand on the keyboard and one hand on the mouse. I move to the menu, click on it, click on the section I want and click on the application I want. It starts. I use the mouse to interact with the application.
Alternatively I can take my hand off the mouse, type some crap, hope Windows finds the right application and then put my hand back on the mouse again. Why would I possibly prefer that?
Ok, I just tried this:
With one hand on my keyboard and one on my mouse, I hit the Windows key with my thumb, then "W" with the same hand, then it popped up all apps starting with W (as well as a bunch of documents, mp3s, web page shortcuts, etc). One mouse click and an app (Word in this case) is launched.
I tried the same thing with just the mouse and start menu, it took 4 clicks with some mouse movements, scrolling, and browsing through cumbersome lists of folders first.
So, it's *faster* with a mouse - and that's for something trivial like an application. It's even more dramatic for a random document, file, or Web bookmark. But it's irrelevant anyway. Once using Word you have to use both hands on the keyboard anyway, of course. I assume you used both hands to type that last post?
Yes, I understand, you're so totally l33t because you prefer inefficient UIs.
No, it's because I have actually tried out the things I discuss so I have an informed opinion...
It's not a command line, it's a search box. Been that way for a while - it's actually surprisingly useful once you realize that.
I assume you have used a search box before? Some newfangled web sites have started using them. Or are you still a Yahoo! Directory fan?
Of course, putting in an A5 chip, nice 3D graphics, a much improved camera w/ 1080p video, Bluetooth 4.0, 14Mbps HSDPA, and AirPlay wireless video mirroring is a bit more than "tiny changes".
Sounds like a solid upgrade to an existing platform. Actually, sounds more like they pretty much gutted the interior and just reused the case. None of the specs are leaps and bounds ahead of the competition, but many people like their iPhones and this is a nice upgrade for most. The only people who should be whining are the Apple design fanboys who feel the need to show off their new toy to everyone in their local cafe/restaurant/bar/movie theater every 5 minutes.
And if the corporation refuses? Find them in contempt, and put them on probation... Oh, wait, then we're back where we started. The whole point of a corporation is "limited liability", and until something is done about that (ie. stop pretending people aren't making the decisions) nothing will change.
My other big resume pet peeve is people with more pages to their resume than years of job experience. No way in hell I am going to read through a 6 page single spaced resume for someone with 5 years of work experience.
I was annoyed when I had to give up and add a second page to mine, and now after about 18 years of experience I still refuse to add a third :)
But if a 16 year old sends a photo to another 16 year old with the consent of both, what business is that of law enforcement and how in hell should either be guilty of *any* criminal offense, whether it was the first, second, or third time? The new law is still absurd.
You must not read a lot of resumes in Silicon Valley :)
It's amazing how many I see with just plain incorrect English - misspellings, grammar errors, capitalization, etc. I understand writing skills won't be perfect if English is a second (or third) language (and that's not really a big deal as long as general communication skills are adequate). But a little proofreading by a friend, headhunter, whoever, would make a much better first impression; if they can't make the effort to ensure a resume isn't error-free, what does that say for attention to detail in their programming?
True. Plus, it's a technical manual. Most of the readers have a surprisingly poor grasp of their native language, let alone a second. Eh, and probably the majority of readers of the English edition aren't native speakers anyway...
Not really. It should be "Roland Mas and *I*...
Whoa, human rights? Christianity is responsible for more torture and death in the first 19 centuries AD than almost any other human cause, and probably stunted development of "civilization" by several hundred years. Scientology, fortunately, has managed to do little more than steal some disposable income from gullible celebrities.
Anyway, you seem to be applying a logical argument ("2000 years of ...") as some sort of validation. If you applied length of belief to science, we'd still be studying the four elements...
And, I just don't see how philosophy and ethics need any requirement of religion, since religion has no requirement but faith. In fact, I never understood why "religion" needed to exist at all even for those who have that faith in a higher power. And IMO, personal faith in a few positive tenets doesn't really sound like a bad thing. If, as you say, the whole Bible should now be reduced to 2 concepts, why does there need to be such a massive infrastructure around it all? Why not just make it a personal thing that doesn't have to involve people who already understand the basic concepts of right and wrong?
Give up, you have no hope. You must already know this, but in an argument between science and religion, science can never win because it's constrained by provable facts, whereas religion has the entire depth of the human imagination to come up with a response.
But you have pointed out the key bit - why should the Bible be any more a source of authority than, say, Dianetics? I think one of the secret reasons people are against Scientology (besides the brainwashing and slavery bits) is that it so obviously shows - in a nice, condensed 60 year history - how a major religion can basically be manufactured whole cloth and accepted by millions...
Well, then. That already proves 95% of the Christian right doesn't follow Jesus.
Colbert put it pretty well...
"If this is gonna be a Christian nation that DOESN'T help the poor, either we've got to pretend that Jesus is just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition - then admit that we just don't want to do it."
Personally I think he was just a guy with a good message, like a lot of guys with good messages over the years - but despite that 100x horrible things have been done in his name as things that follow his message. Sad.
From Amazon's own FAQ on Silk:
What about handling secure (https) connections?
We will establish a secure connection from the cloud to the site owner on your behalf for page requests of sites using SSL (e.g. https://siteaddress.com./
Still a bit vague, but not the part about "from the cloud to the site owner on your behalf". But in this case nothing can be assumed - it's their browser, so they can implement the client to cloud connection however they want. Let's just hope they do it securely (even if, unlike real HTTPS, there is no way to guarantee a point to point secure connection, which is enough for me never to trust it enough for my online banking...)
Except they also said they were going to proxy your HTTPS traffic by making a connection from their "cloud" to the destination server for you. In some parts they call that a "man in the middle"...
And those statistics are only for the US, which is a first world country with a modern health care system that provides ready access to retrovirals, thorough testing, and sterile equipment. HIV vaccines aren't about the US.
There are an estimated 1M cases of HIV in the US, while Sub-Saharan Africa is estimated at well over 30M, with thousands of new cases daily. The WHO estimates 200-400 of those a day come from blood transfusions, so the "1 person in 8 years in the US" is pretty narrow minded...
Well, you are clearly a troll, too, but I didn't even reply to you, jeez.
What the hell does any of this have to do with the US? The vaccine from the original article wasn't even developed in the US. HIV isn't an epidemic "in the US", but that doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing a vaccine.
If you want to quote statistics - in Africa the estimate is 250-500 people a DAY contract HIV from unsafe (either contaminated blood or equipment) transfusions. Some 3rd world countries in Asia are almost as bad. And since there is such a higher rate of HIV and such poor health care conditions, it's much more dangerous for the health care workers as well.
But I guess same pseudo-moralistic bullshit attitude that would pretend to argue HIV is not a world epidemic and is only contracted by all of those fornicators and addicts probably doesn't give a shit about anyone outside of their tiny little world, anyway.
This *is* Slashdot, so likely all three...
And don't ever get sick enough to need a blood transfusion.
Oh, and don't ever work in the health industry or volunteer anywhere that you could accidentally come in contact with infected blood.
Are you trolling or just that naive?
Their stock din't drop 60% in a couple of months because of bad PR.
It dropped because people have finally realized that their current inexpensive-streaming-business model will never actually do what all of the hype around them previously claimed, which is replace cable and new release VOD services. Their inflated market value (ie. at 300 the P/E was about 70!) reflected people's expectation for massive growth in the industry, and that has now been shaken.
Overpaying for a few Dreamworks titles is mostly just an attempt at PR as well - one that will cost them an absurd amount of money for a few titles. If they do this direction with all studios this previous price hike will look modest. You just can't replace $100+ / month in cable, video rentals, etc, that many consumers pay with an $8 streaming service.
And seeing as the market reacted to that news with another loss (so far) apparently it wasn't fooled by the desperate move, either.
Anyway, I'm not saying it isn't a good service, it's just the end-all of consumer TV/content like pundits have claimed in recent years.
Yeah, but Guild Wars isn't an MMORPG. They made a lot of decisions in their game design to keep server costs to a minimum. Those were some great decisions for what they wanted to accomplish, but it's a different type of game...
If your company has thousands of employees using desktops the overhead of "a few throusand dollars a month" will be pretty insignificant compared to so many other inefficiencies or costs. They could get 10x the savings by charging for coffee, switching to single ply toilet paper, or firing one incompetent employee...
In terms of "official standard", I guess that is in the eye of the beholder. I do believe that the W3C did archive the GIF standard and provided links to Compuseve's documents on the format as a recommended image format for web browsers before the patent issue hit the fan. It certainly was hard to avoid the use of GIFs even if you tried, and was a pretty universal image format even before web browsers were created.
Yep, everything you say is true, of course - I was just pointing out that neither GIF nor JPEG was really an example of a standards body intentionally expecting implementors to pay licensing fees. JPEG in fact tried to avoid it and was hit by trolls, and GIF was just one of those de facto standards in the early days of the Internet that was also hit by a troll.
IMO it would be interesting to see if there could be some sort of government registration of "standards" that requires a review and formal submission process/timeline for any potential infringing patents, after which it is officially declared patent-free and open for implementation by anyone. Seems like that would go a long way towards preventing patent trolls like this...