I second this. From what (admittedly little) I have read about Vista, the only thing that piqued my interest was Monad: the idea of being able to pipe objects between commands actually sounds like a natural evolution to shells. It sounds kinda cool.
Now, with even Monad being taken out for whatever reasons I don't see anything whatsoever that is interesting about Vista. Apart from a new look and feel -- which I don't think is enough to interest people -- am I missing something significant in Vista?
It could very easily be argued that the message in question was deserving of those moderations, espeically if the moderators believe as I do that your message was largely a strawman, and that the positive moderations were therefore unfair.
Apple apps have context menus. I'm running Firefox, and the right-click performs just the same as it does on Windows. The main reason Apple pushes the one-button mouse is so that developers will think about interfaces. Nothing more.
I've had this argument myself at least twice on slashdot, and my karma took a big hit from stepping away from the Apple Party Line
Can you search for the discussion? Again, it's just that I've never personally seen such a zealot.
Because the Apple fan-boys have been arguing that one button is best for many years, so they have to continue to pretend that one button is somehow better.
When? Where? From what I can tell the "zealot" you describe is a rather popular strawman. I don't think I have ever seen a discussion where someone claims the one-button mouse superior.
Quick question: Why isn't this already a national requirement? What reasonable explanation is there for such a glaring lack of security in the most fundamental of governmental institutions?
I would disagree with you in content, but I can't, because you're right. I would chide you for your vicious tone, but I can't, because it's justified.
This is bollocks. I don't know what brain dead moron(s) signed off on this UI, but I haven't seen anything this horrendously bad since the early days of the web when people thought the blink tag was a good thing. To say it is unintuitive is an understatement. It's horrible.
IE7 seems to be: IE6 with poorly implemented tabbing and an interface that is otherwise just amazingly shitty. Holy craparoni.
THIS is the app that people are going to be interfacing with the most in Windows for years to come? Scuse me while I go purchase some AAPL and short MSFT, y'all, cuz if this is the best they can do after FOUR FREAKIN YEARS then MS is in a world of hurt.
Beacuse I imagine it would get quite dark after the first few floors below the top. The main benefit of these fibers is that they allow sunlight to reach further than a hole in the roof can.
I wonder if these could be made to work in elevators? You could have the fibers going straight down from the roof, say one for each corner of the elevator. They would be shielded in a translucent tube so that the passengers couldn't obviously touch them. And since you have a natural shaft to the roof already, this seems like it would be a good fit.
The main benefit would be the lessened heat dissipation. I've been in far too many elevators that have what seems like way too many incandescents in the roof that make the elevator very hot, especially this time of year.
Serious question, not trolling: For what concrete reasons should I or anyone else vote Republican? I'll be very upfront here and say that I am a partisan Democrat, but part of the reason for this is that I asked myself this very question during the Clinton administration and couldn't come up with any good answers. But things like what Barton did here -- which I find to be utterly reprehensible -- are completely OK for the Republicans; "politics as usual", as it were.
So again I ask: What concrete reasons are there for voting Republican? Because most of what I see posing as reasons are fear mixed with shallow cynicism and zealotry.
I'm sitting here in a corporate, Windows-centric environment, and I'm happily using a Mac. (And surfing/., but we'll ignore that for the moment.)
My work environment is typical: Exchange server for email, MS Office for spreadsheets and word processing, etc. Guess what? I'm happy as a clam. Mail.app can connect to the Exchange server, Entourage handles the calendar (and mail, but I prefer Mail.app), Office for OS X works just fine and is completely seemless when exchanging documents with people on Windows, and I can connect to and mount any share on the network. I can, in short, do everything I want or need.
And I'm running OS X, not Windows, and that in and of itself is worth a lot.
There is only one application we use (our source control software, which somewhat ironically is written in Java) that does not run on OS X, and whenever I need that I just Remote Desktop in to my PC and do what I need.
Unless Macs are being used as servers as well as desktops, I don't see them doing as good a job as Windows or Linux for their respective 'corporate' environments.
I can tell you from personal (and daily!) experience that this isn't the case. Macs work quite well even in an almost exclusively Windows environment.
For instance, Apple are often described as innovative for producing things like the iMac, integrated wifi, bringing high quality industrial design to their products, etc. (Even not putting a floppy drive in the iMac was seen as innovation. Still trying to work that one out.)
Excellent message, of which I am only going to reply to this one part. I think for the word "innovation" to be properly applied, the innovator has to be more or less clearly responsible for the widespread adoption of the innovation by the broader marketplace. Nothing is created in a vacuum, so technological innovation is only a part of the equation.
For example: WordPerfect didn't appear out of thin air. It was built upon ideas that had come before it. But it was nonetheless innovative for the time because it put those ideas together in a way that was powerful and easy to use, and was therefore widely accepted by businesses.
Side note: someone elsewhere in this discussion mentioned that Microsoft is a marketing company that sells technology. I wonder if your comment and his are related. It seems that the areas where MS has accutually been creative are those where marketing has the least sway.
Furthermore, it's amazing how passionate many are about their particular product line. Shit, just read some of their blogs and you'll see how much many care about the products they work on, the user experience, and so on. So saying 'the literally don't care' is about as far from reality as I can imagine. So either you are psychotic or ignorant or the people at Microsoft you've interfaced with personally happen to be vastly different from those that I've met/socialized with/worked with.
I'm afraid to say that the evidence available does not support the implied conclusion, namely that because developers you have met care passionately about their jobs that quality software therefore winds up hitting the shelves. And here is the reason why you are a bit off, I think:
I can't speak for their marketers or upper-management,
It matters little how passionate the developers at Microsoft are if the upper management is having problems of vision, strategy, cohesiveness, etc. The products that Microsoft has produced have been by and large quite crappy, and I think the eventual cause of this was stated correctly by the AC OP: they're marketing driven, not technology driven. Such emphasis comes from the top.
Do you think it's possible to have a rational non-breathless discussion about such things? It seems that it's difficult. Honestly, I don't think what he is suggesting is completely unimaginable, and there are certainly people in the world who would abuse patriotism in the way he described.
It never fails, no matter what the conflict, if you follow the money you will find the reason.
A reason, anyway. People are rarely so simple that their actions are governed by any single underlying motive. In the current case, financial attacks are a means to achieving a religious goal. Al Qaeda are zealots first and foremost; the weapons they use are terror that disrupts the financial stability of the target.
A few things bring peace to my mind, because they are utterly predictable and can be counted on no matter what chaos the world is currently embroiled in.
GNAA trolls
"Netcraft confirms..."
"In Soviet Russia..."
"I didn't read the article, but have an opinion about it anyway."
This was written by Warthog on Fark. I hope he doesn't mind.
As someone who on Sept. 11 watched the plane hit Tower 2 with his own eyes, and then almost lost his wife when the south tower fell, I can tell you in my experience that the first emotional response to such a terrible sequence of events is shock and numbness, followed by sadness, followed by rage. Rage tends to hang about the longest, but is the emotion to be most concerned about. Don't let the powers-that-be use the terrible events of today as an excuse to keep you afraid, or deprive you of even one bit of your liberty. It simply isn't worth it, and will never be. Grieve for the lost, comfort the wounded, and support those who are following orders over seas, but please, please resist the temptation to allow yourselves to sink to the level of the terrible people who did this.
The actual statement talks about how Britain is trembling in fear 'to the North, South, East and West'. Well, having heard from people who have a bus in mangled bits RIGHT OUTSIDE THEIR FECKING WINDOW, they've failed in that one. Everyone is just pissed off they've got several miles to walk home, because there's no public transport.
Fear is a means to an end. Bin Laden talked about using terror to incite governments to violent responses, leading to an escalating path of violence that he believes will ultimately end in a secular v. Muslim war where Islam, being backed by God, will of course triumph.
And my relatives wonder why I'm a Unitarian.
Londoners: My thoughts go out to you all. I hope the damage done turns out to be slight, and that your nation will respond in a way that more effectively damages Al Qaida.
It's people like you that make me keep reading messages on Slashdot. 99% of all messages are one of hyperbole, uninformed opinion, or GNAA trolls, but the occasional gem like this makes it all worth it.
Anyone who complains that much about their system performance either has something wrong with their hardware, or they're making shit up.
I would love to agree with you, but I can't, from experience. I have a 1.8GHz G5 w/ 512MB, and since installing Tiger it is *painfully* slower. My wife has a 1.2GHz PowerBook, also with 512MB, and it suffered no performance hit after the Tiger upgrade. If I turn off all my widgets, everything is better, although it still pages out more frequently than I'd like. But her laptop is usually faster than my G5 now.
That's just a little annoying. I'm going to try doing a clean Tiger install today, but the fact that I'm even having to THINK about doing this is really irritating.
So what you are saying is Bush should appoint a moderate who only 5% of the population agrees with. I'd rather he pick someone who about 55% of people agree with, even if I disagree with the decision.
Yes, I agree completely. That's exactly what he should do. If he appoints someone that is acceptable to the Senate, then he has proven the nominee is acceptable by 60% of their members, and therefore 60% of the people who elected those senators.
No. All the Democrats in the Senate asked for were nominees that (a) weren't complete fascist ideologues and (b) in Bolton's case that the White House provide documents that would allow them to assess his competence.
The "advice and consent" means that the Senate can and should stop nominations when they judge it to be best.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, with even Monad being taken out for whatever reasons I don't see anything whatsoever that is interesting about Vista. Apart from a new look and feel -- which I don't think is enough to interest people -- am I missing something significant in Vista?
It could very easily be argued that the message in question was deserving of those moderations, espeically if the moderators believe as I do that your message was largely a strawman, and that the positive moderations were therefore unfair.
In other words, you have no solid proof to offer. Fair enough, but your claim stands as unproven.
I've had this argument myself at least twice on slashdot, and my karma took a big hit from stepping away from the Apple Party Line
Can you search for the discussion? Again, it's just that I've never personally seen such a zealot.
Because the Apple fan-boys have been arguing that one button is best for many years, so they have to continue to pretend that one button is somehow better.
When? Where? From what I can tell the "zealot" you describe is a rather popular strawman. I don't think I have ever seen a discussion where someone claims the one-button mouse superior.
Quick question: Why isn't this already a national requirement? What reasonable explanation is there for such a glaring lack of security in the most fundamental of governmental institutions?
This looks like garbage. Total fucking garbage.
I would disagree with you in content, but I can't, because you're right. I would chide you for your vicious tone, but I can't, because it's justified.
This is bollocks. I don't know what brain dead moron(s) signed off on this UI, but I haven't seen anything this horrendously bad since the early days of the web when people thought the blink tag was a good thing. To say it is unintuitive is an understatement. It's horrible.
IE7 seems to be: IE6 with poorly implemented tabbing and an interface that is otherwise just amazingly shitty. Holy craparoni.
THIS is the app that people are going to be interfacing with the most in Windows for years to come? Scuse me while I go purchase some AAPL and short MSFT, y'all, cuz if this is the best they can do after FOUR FREAKIN YEARS then MS is in a world of hurt.
Beacuse I imagine it would get quite dark after the first few floors below the top. The main benefit of these fibers is that they allow sunlight to reach further than a hole in the roof can.
The main benefit would be the lessened heat dissipation. I've been in far too many elevators that have what seems like way too many incandescents in the roof that make the elevator very hot, especially this time of year.
Violence against anyone is wrong, unless it's in self-defense.
Or you can drum up support for your violent cause using jingoistic cliches, fear-mongering, and a vast propaganda network.
Serious question, not trolling: For what concrete reasons should I or anyone else vote Republican? I'll be very upfront here and say that I am a partisan Democrat, but part of the reason for this is that I asked myself this very question during the Clinton administration and couldn't come up with any good answers. But things like what Barton did here -- which I find to be utterly reprehensible -- are completely OK for the Republicans; "politics as usual", as it were.
So again I ask: What concrete reasons are there for voting Republican? Because most of what I see posing as reasons are fear mixed with shallow cynicism and zealotry.
My work environment is typical: Exchange server for email, MS Office for spreadsheets and word processing, etc. Guess what? I'm happy as a clam. Mail.app can connect to the Exchange server, Entourage handles the calendar (and mail, but I prefer Mail.app), Office for OS X works just fine and is completely seemless when exchanging documents with people on Windows, and I can connect to and mount any share on the network. I can, in short, do everything I want or need.
And I'm running OS X, not Windows, and that in and of itself is worth a lot.
There is only one application we use (our source control software, which somewhat ironically is written in Java) that does not run on OS X, and whenever I need that I just Remote Desktop in to my PC and do what I need.
Unless Macs are being used as servers as well as desktops, I don't see them doing as good a job as Windows or Linux for their respective 'corporate' environments.
I can tell you from personal (and daily!) experience that this isn't the case. Macs work quite well even in an almost exclusively Windows environment.
I use a Mac both at home and at work. Both have mice that have scroll wheels on them, and both work just fine.
For instance, Apple are often described as innovative for producing things like the iMac, integrated wifi, bringing high quality industrial design to their products, etc. (Even not putting a floppy drive in the iMac was seen as innovation. Still trying to work that one out.)
Excellent message, of which I am only going to reply to this one part. I think for the word "innovation" to be properly applied, the innovator has to be more or less clearly responsible for the widespread adoption of the innovation by the broader marketplace. Nothing is created in a vacuum, so technological innovation is only a part of the equation.
For example: WordPerfect didn't appear out of thin air. It was built upon ideas that had come before it. But it was nonetheless innovative for the time because it put those ideas together in a way that was powerful and easy to use, and was therefore widely accepted by businesses.
Side note: someone elsewhere in this discussion mentioned that Microsoft is a marketing company that sells technology. I wonder if your comment and his are related. It seems that the areas where MS has accutually been creative are those where marketing has the least sway.
Furthermore, it's amazing how passionate many are about their particular product line. Shit, just read some of their blogs and you'll see how much many care about the products they work on, the user experience, and so on. So saying 'the literally don't care' is about as far from reality as I can imagine. So either you are psychotic or ignorant or the people at Microsoft you've interfaced with personally happen to be vastly different from those that I've met/socialized with/worked with.
I'm afraid to say that the evidence available does not support the implied conclusion, namely that because developers you have met care passionately about their jobs that quality software therefore winds up hitting the shelves. And here is the reason why you are a bit off, I think:
I can't speak for their marketers or upper-management,
It matters little how passionate the developers at Microsoft are if the upper management is having problems of vision, strategy, cohesiveness, etc. The products that Microsoft has produced have been by and large quite crappy, and I think the eventual cause of this was stated correctly by the AC OP: they're marketing driven, not technology driven. Such emphasis comes from the top.
Do you think it's possible to have a rational non-breathless discussion about such things? It seems that it's difficult. Honestly, I don't think what he is suggesting is completely unimaginable, and there are certainly people in the world who would abuse patriotism in the way he described.
It never fails, no matter what the conflict, if you follow the money you will find the reason.
A reason, anyway. People are rarely so simple that their actions are governed by any single underlying motive. In the current case, financial attacks are a means to achieving a religious goal. Al Qaeda are zealots first and foremost; the weapons they use are terror that disrupts the financial stability of the target.
- GNAA trolls
- "Netcraft confirms..."
- "In Soviet Russia..."
- "I didn't read the article, but have an opinion about it anyway."
- "But Clinton..."
- Dupes.
I'm beyond caring.This was written by Warthog on Fark. I hope he doesn't mind.
As someone who on Sept. 11 watched the plane hit Tower 2 with his own eyes, and then almost lost his wife when the south tower fell, I can tell you in my experience that the first emotional response to such a terrible sequence of events is shock and numbness, followed by sadness, followed by rage. Rage tends to hang about the longest, but is the emotion to be most concerned about. Don't let the powers-that-be use the terrible events of today as an excuse to keep you afraid, or deprive you of even one bit of your liberty. It simply isn't worth it, and will never be. Grieve for the lost, comfort the wounded, and support those who are following orders over seas, but please, please resist the temptation to allow yourselves to sink to the level of the terrible people who did this.
The actual statement talks about how Britain is trembling in fear 'to the North, South, East and West'. Well, having heard from people who have a bus in mangled bits RIGHT OUTSIDE THEIR FECKING WINDOW, they've failed in that one. Everyone is just pissed off they've got several miles to walk home, because there's no public transport.
Fear is a means to an end. Bin Laden talked about using terror to incite governments to violent responses, leading to an escalating path of violence that he believes will ultimately end in a secular v. Muslim war where Islam, being backed by God, will of course triumph.
And my relatives wonder why I'm a Unitarian.
Londoners: My thoughts go out to you all. I hope the damage done turns out to be slight, and that your nation will respond in a way that more effectively damages Al Qaida.
It's people like you that make me keep reading messages on Slashdot. 99% of all messages are one of hyperbole, uninformed opinion, or GNAA trolls, but the occasional gem like this makes it all worth it.
Thanks.
Anyone who complains that much about their system performance either has something wrong with their hardware, or they're making shit up.
I would love to agree with you, but I can't, from experience. I have a 1.8GHz G5 w/ 512MB, and since installing Tiger it is *painfully* slower. My wife has a 1.2GHz PowerBook, also with 512MB, and it suffered no performance hit after the Tiger upgrade. If I turn off all my widgets, everything is better, although it still pages out more frequently than I'd like. But her laptop is usually faster than my G5 now.
That's just a little annoying. I'm going to try doing a clean Tiger install today, but the fact that I'm even having to THINK about doing this is really irritating.
Yep, that'll help. Except for all those criminals who don't obey the law.
Right. So why don't we just make everything legal, hm?
Ronald Reagan was right, the most frightening words in the English language are "Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
In many cases the government can and should help. If people are stealing, then I want the government to use its powers to stop them.
So what you are saying is Bush should appoint a moderate who only 5% of the population agrees with. I'd rather he pick someone who about 55% of people agree with, even if I disagree with the decision.
Yes, I agree completely. That's exactly what he should do. If he appoints someone that is acceptable to the Senate, then he has proven the nominee is acceptable by 60% of their members, and therefore 60% of the people who elected those senators.
The "advice and consent" means that the Senate can and should stop nominations when they judge it to be best.