Apps, programs, and websites keep feeling the need to redesign their UI, usually without any real improvement to user experience.
That's debatable. The Office 2007 Ribbon was probably one of the most controversial UI changes ever, and I hated it too when it landed. But after years of using it (and 2010, 2013 etc) going back to 2003 seem archaic.
Having said that Win8 was a disaster, however it did lead to Win10 which I think is the best Windows yet.
You also have to remember that change always feels bad initially, because it forces you to do things differently. But most of the time these actually do result in improvements if you give it a chance. This is why young people tend to be more progressive than old people. Because we get set in our ways and resist change, even if the change is actually better.
One thing that comes to mind that made old software "better" was how much smaller it was. The oldest Microsoft Office ISO I have immediately available is 2003 Professional. It's 410MB for, if memory serves, everything including Access and Frontpage. The Office 2016 Professional installer is 2.4GB...
Why do you care? If I have a 2TB HDD then 400MB or 2.4GB is equally trivial. Same goes for RAM.
I'd much rather have features than save disk or RAM space that cost peanuts to upgrade.
Many are likely voting one way or the other on the potential for the Supreme Court balance alone. That's actually my main issue now, along with gun rights.
As a Non-American I find this fixation with guns absurd. I've lived in a a few different countries all with much tighter gun control than the US, yet the normal citizen can still get a gun if they want one. What whacky scenario do you see playing out where all the guns are taken from you? Do you honestly believe this would ever happen?
Not telling you how to vote, just telling you that the narrative you hear has little factual basis. Consume all the facts you can from various sources before making a decision.
I agree with this statement, could you point to somewhere where I can get independent verified facts about Trump? Because so far he seems to want everyone to take him on his word, which as you point out, isn't a very reliable source.
Not only does Trump not have such an agenda, 99% of his followers have nothing to do with racism, sexism, xenophobia, or accepting sexual assault.
How do you think political agendas work? I'll give you a hint, they're very rarely written down in black and white.
eg Can you point to the where Hitler said he intends to gas the Jews?
But with all that Trump has said or promoted, I've not seen yet where he came out to promote the agenda that is against equality in matters of gender and race.
This is the problem with tyrants, they don't tell you what the real plan is up front. Hitler never said he was going to gas the Jews either.
And for the record, Trump has made made plenty of disparaging remarks about Mexicans and women.
Has Thiel himself come out for these views against equality? If so, I missed that.
He is supporting someone who is quite obviously a bully, misogynist and racist. Do you want to wait until Trump actual acts on this before doing something about it?
Trump has said a lot of stupid shit, but I've not heard him yet say he was against racial or gender equality.
Most racist/sexist people don't admit to be racist, that's why the running joke is "I'm not racist but..."
This is really getting dangerous in this country, if people start getting blackballed, hired or fired for having expressed mere support for X political party or Y viewpoint.
There's more to it than that. No-one is being blackballed for simply being Dem or GOP, but I find it quite reasonable to blackball someone who supports someone who is clearly a bigot. Unacceptable behaviour is unacceptable. And it's only unacceptable if you clearly refuse to accept it.
You want to know why software never really gets better? It's because "old timers" are deliberately flushed from the system, so there is no institutional memory.
Um, software does get better, it's why most of us prefer new software to old software. And it gets better precisely because young people with new ideas find better ways to do things.
Out of interest, if Software is getting worse, when was it exactly that you think software peaked? It didn't just so happen to be when you we're younger per chance? And you don't find that a huge co-incidence at all?
Um, you do realize that there are networking technologies to protect the network from practically every scenario that you mentioned?
There are no free lunches. You either have a simple network that could fail and is easy to understand and fix, or a complex network that could also fail but is a nightmare to understand and fix. The other big issue with the latter network, is the size and complexity makes upgrades and patching difficult and expensive, and if people leave it's difficult to bring them up to speed on how it works. The results is that it costs more to maintain than you would lose with a few hours downtime each year. So there is no such thing as a network that never goes down, you either have one that is cost effective or you don't.
Question, were you offended when Trump flailed his arms like a RETARD, or does it mean something different when you say it?
You know that words have actual meanings? And even if you are offended by that meaning the meaning doesn't change?
Retard is an actual word meaning to hinder or make slow. If you are slow then retard is a perfectly accurate definition.
Since you are probably retarded, you won't understand that what Trump was doing was mocking a person with a disability which is disgraceful. But when I call you a retard I am not mocking you, I am merely calling you out for what you are, mentally slow.
Now my turn for a question. Why is Trump and his retard supporters so big on the Constitution when it comes to the second amendment, but are happy to shit all over it with the first?
I agree with your sentiment, it's almost certainly a wifi issue. Because Wifi sucks... a lot.
WiFi works ok for me, whether it's low latency gaming or high volume HD streaming, maybe you are doing something wrong?
I developed a wireless device that delivered wifi video to devices and it was a huge pain in the ass. You just had to accept that reliability and range would be shit, especially in a busy environment. How many times has Steve Jobs chastised the audience that they wouldn't get to see a demo if they didn't turn off their wifi?
Congestion problems can be solved if you design your solution to fit the application, rather than what most people get wrong, they run a consumer grade AP for their industrial app then wonder why it's drops out all the time.
When you have a tablet, you can do things like punch in what defense the other team just used to provide statistical analysis of what the next best play is, or what kind of defense to run if your opponent is doing X often.
Then why have a coach at all? Just have two teams call each play based purely statistical chance. Then we don't need humans to play the plays either we could just watch a computer generated image of what the likely outcome of each play would've resulted in. In fact I think you can do this now on a Playstation. You watch a demo NFL game on a Playstation and I'll go to a real game with humans and pens and paper and we'll see which one is more enjoyable to watch.
For Tim Cook, the presidency would be a huge demotion. Today, he runs a company that has tens of millions of satisfied customers.
-jcr
The USA has hundreds of millions of satisfied customers too. They may pretend to be angry and upset with their lot, but you don't too many of them moving. Just like teenage kids they bitch and moan about life not being fair, but they come home to a bed and a meal everyday which is better than the alternative.
If I truly wasn't happy with my lot I'd move somewhere better, in fact that's exactly what I did. And it's what millions of refugees attempt to do every year. Since we don't see this from the US, we can assume things aren't really as bad as the headlines try to make out.
however Twitter is a publicly traded company not private and is responsible to it's shareholders.
This maybe a cultural terminology thing. Where I live 'public' means government, ie owned by the people, 'private' means owned by individuals.
Publicly listed companies are also public but we differentiate by calling them 'listed'.
The big difference is that the rules for things like free speech etc only apply to the public sector because it has to try and be fair to every single person in the country. Private can be as biased as they like, since in a free market if you disagree you always have the choice not to use their services. (It's not quite that simple but that's the general gist of it)
So that goes all back to the original point, when you ban people because "reasons" it doesn't draw people in.
I think it depends. Donald Trump drew in about 35 million supporters with similar rhetoric, and most sports clubs work specifically on the tribal us vs them exclusion mentality that makes no sense. Apple is also the most profitable company in the world specifically because of the highly controlled ecosystem they provide their customers.
Twitter is merely trying to create a controlled environment that benefits more users. They may have executed it poorly, I wouldn't know because I find the whole Twitter concept stupid to start with so don't get involved, but the idea can work if done properly.
Funny enough it's the same people who watch movies like Trumbo and are outraged by the actions of the HUAC and McCarthy. Bunch of hypocrites.
One is private person/business acting in their own interest, the other is a public official representing the country. If you can't tell the difference, then it's no wonder retards like Trump make it so far in the process.
That would be called prejudice, motherfucker. But I bet you STILL will feel like your clever opinion is correct.
Some states have higher education levels than others, this is a fact. Just because you can't grasp that fact doesn't make it any less true.
Donald Trump has by far the lowest percentage of educated voters of any candidate in the modern era, so it follows that the strongest support would be in the least educated states.
If you had an education you would understand this, instead you get angry and call names when you hear things you don't like to hear.
Not when you consider how much of his father's money he burnt in the process. Most of us are lucky get one chance at wealth, He has had many and still finds ways to throw it away.
This is not the reputation I'd want looking after the nation's finances.
The argument goes something like this... "TRUMP IS HITLER/A NAZI"... as if that excuses Hillary of being Stalin purging Soviet Union of dissidents.
I saw the question put this way... "Which would you rather do, Microwave or boil the kitten?" As if one was better than the other.
Actually according to independent analysis , Trump is like Hitler, but Clinton is similar to Thatcher.
So a more accurate analogy is, which would you rather do microwave the cat, or merely punch it in the face? One is actually a less worse outcome.
Right, would you rather try debate? Want to try again and explain how censoring things is a good idea that will draw people in?
Because a lot of people only like to hear what they want to hear.
Twitter is a private company not a public service, there is no obligation to offer everyone a voice. Just like sports, religion, music, fashion or any other private venture, you create an ecosystem that you think customers want. You and I might think it's shit, but millions of others out there might think this sanitised version of Internet communication is great.
The astute reader will notice that 22 states on that map are colored red or pink. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Without even looking it up, I'm going to bet that those 22 states correspond to the lowest education and human development standards in the US as well.
True, but so is Trump trying desperately trying to distrac this negative aspects. Desperately trying to distract is a key skill of all politicians.
2. Maybe the story is true, and the Clinton campaign hires people with the security acumen of a burned-out toaster.
Not Clinton, the DNC. And yes they probably do just like the Republicans and Independents do too. Any sufficiently large organisation will have numpties among their numbers. even the CIA, KGB, NSA, DoD etc have numpties. This is not unusual.
Hardly. Neutral predictions put his odds of winning at about 1 in 6 at the moment, and a lot can happen in the next 3 weeks.
A nominee turning around a 1 in 3 chance in 3 weeks would be considered a huge upset, a 5% swing in politics is massive. 1 in 6 is the equivalent of zero.
Trump is right about the biased media, they are biased toward him by pretending he still has a chance purely to help them sell clicks. As candidate go, he is dead in the water. He has 40% voter support with zero chance of gaining any more. Hillary only has to avoid jail for 3 more weeks and it's in the bag.
Only if you define 'successful businessmen' as businessmen who continually fail
And before you come back and say how successful he is now, how do you know? He says he's rich, but since we don't have tax records we don't know how much of his current assets are heavily financed under junk loans that might bankrupt him tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
Apps, programs, and websites keep feeling the need to redesign their UI, usually without any real improvement to user experience.
That's debatable. The Office 2007 Ribbon was probably one of the most controversial UI changes ever, and I hated it too when it landed. But after years of using it (and 2010, 2013 etc) going back to 2003 seem archaic.
Having said that Win8 was a disaster, however it did lead to Win10 which I think is the best Windows yet.
You also have to remember that change always feels bad initially, because it forces you to do things differently. But most of the time these actually do result in improvements if you give it a chance. This is why young people tend to be more progressive than old people. Because we get set in our ways and resist change, even if the change is actually better.
One thing that comes to mind that made old software "better" was how much smaller it was. The oldest Microsoft Office ISO I have immediately available is 2003 Professional. It's 410MB for, if memory serves, everything including Access and Frontpage. The Office 2016 Professional installer is 2.4GB...
Why do you care? If I have a 2TB HDD then 400MB or 2.4GB is equally trivial. Same goes for RAM.
I'd much rather have features than save disk or RAM space that cost peanuts to upgrade.
Many are likely voting one way or the other on the potential for the Supreme Court balance alone. That's actually my main issue now, along with gun rights.
As a Non-American I find this fixation with guns absurd. I've lived in a a few different countries all with much tighter gun control than the US, yet the normal citizen can still get a gun if they want one. What whacky scenario do you see playing out where all the guns are taken from you? Do you honestly believe this would ever happen?
Not telling you how to vote, just telling you that the narrative you hear has little factual basis. Consume all the facts you can from various sources before making a decision.
I agree with this statement, could you point to somewhere where I can get independent verified facts about Trump? Because so far he seems to want everyone to take him on his word, which as you point out, isn't a very reliable source.
Not only does Trump not have such an agenda, 99% of his followers have nothing to do with racism, sexism, xenophobia, or accepting sexual assault.
How do you think political agendas work? I'll give you a hint, they're very rarely written down in black and white.
eg Can you point to the where Hitler said he intends to gas the Jews?
You mean Trump likes the ladies? Is that forbidden now?
Depends if you sexually assault them or not...
But with all that Trump has said or promoted, I've not seen yet where he came out to promote the agenda that is against equality in matters of gender and race.
This is the problem with tyrants, they don't tell you what the real plan is up front. Hitler never said he was going to gas the Jews either.
And for the record, Trump has made made plenty of disparaging remarks about Mexicans and women.
Has Thiel himself come out for these views against equality? If so, I missed that.
He is supporting someone who is quite obviously a bully, misogynist and racist. Do you want to wait until Trump actual acts on this before doing something about it?
Trump has said a lot of stupid shit, but I've not heard him yet say he was against racial or gender equality.
Most racist/sexist people don't admit to be racist, that's why the running joke is "I'm not racist but..."
This is really getting dangerous in this country, if people start getting blackballed, hired or fired for having expressed mere support for X political party or Y viewpoint.
There's more to it than that. No-one is being blackballed for simply being Dem or GOP, but I find it quite reasonable to blackball someone who supports someone who is clearly a bigot. Unacceptable behaviour is unacceptable. And it's only unacceptable if you clearly refuse to accept it.
You want to know why software never really gets better? It's because "old timers" are deliberately flushed from the system, so there is no institutional memory.
Um, software does get better, it's why most of us prefer new software to old software. And it gets better precisely because young people with new ideas find better ways to do things.
Out of interest, if Software is getting worse, when was it exactly that you think software peaked? It didn't just so happen to be when you we're younger per chance? And you don't find that a huge co-incidence at all?
As Gary Johnson said, the Earth will eventually be consumed by the sun and humanity will perish, so why should we care about global warming?
Um, you do realize that there are networking technologies to protect the network from practically every scenario that you mentioned?
There are no free lunches. You either have a simple network that could fail and is easy to understand and fix, or a complex network that could also fail but is a nightmare to understand and fix. The other big issue with the latter network, is the size and complexity makes upgrades and patching difficult and expensive, and if people leave it's difficult to bring them up to speed on how it works. The results is that it costs more to maintain than you would lose with a few hours downtime each year. So there is no such thing as a network that never goes down, you either have one that is cost effective or you don't.
Question, were you offended when Trump flailed his arms like a RETARD, or does it mean something different when you say it?
You know that words have actual meanings? And even if you are offended by that meaning the meaning doesn't change?
Retard is an actual word meaning to hinder or make slow. If you are slow then retard is a perfectly accurate definition.
Since you are probably retarded, you won't understand that what Trump was doing was mocking a person with a disability which is disgraceful. But when I call you a retard I am not mocking you, I am merely calling you out for what you are, mentally slow.
Now my turn for a question. Why is Trump and his retard supporters so big on the Constitution when it comes to the second amendment, but are happy to shit all over it with the first?
I agree with your sentiment, it's almost certainly a wifi issue. Because Wifi sucks... a lot.
WiFi works ok for me, whether it's low latency gaming or high volume HD streaming, maybe you are doing something wrong?
I developed a wireless device that delivered wifi video to devices and it was a huge pain in the ass. You just had to accept that reliability and range would be shit, especially in a busy environment. How many times has Steve Jobs chastised the audience that they wouldn't get to see a demo if they didn't turn off their wifi?
Congestion problems can be solved if you design your solution to fit the application, rather than what most people get wrong, they run a consumer grade AP for their industrial app then wonder why it's drops out all the time.
When you have a tablet, you can do things like punch in what defense the other team just used to provide statistical analysis of what the next best play is, or what kind of defense to run if your opponent is doing X often.
Then why have a coach at all? Just have two teams call each play based purely statistical chance. Then we don't need humans to play the plays either we could just watch a computer generated image of what the likely outcome of each play would've resulted in. In fact I think you can do this now on a Playstation. You watch a demo NFL game on a Playstation and I'll go to a real game with humans and pens and paper and we'll see which one is more enjoyable to watch.
For Tim Cook, the presidency would be a huge demotion. Today, he runs a company that has tens of millions of satisfied customers.
-jcr
The USA has hundreds of millions of satisfied customers too. They may pretend to be angry and upset with their lot, but you don't too many of them moving. Just like teenage kids they bitch and moan about life not being fair, but they come home to a bed and a meal everyday which is better than the alternative.
If I truly wasn't happy with my lot I'd move somewhere better, in fact that's exactly what I did. And it's what millions of refugees attempt to do every year. Since we don't see this from the US, we can assume things aren't really as bad as the headlines try to make out.
however Twitter is a publicly traded company not private and is responsible to it's shareholders.
This maybe a cultural terminology thing. Where I live 'public' means government, ie owned by the people, 'private' means owned by individuals.
Publicly listed companies are also public but we differentiate by calling them 'listed'. The big difference is that the rules for things like free speech etc only apply to the public sector because it has to try and be fair to every single person in the country. Private can be as biased as they like, since in a free market if you disagree you always have the choice not to use their services. (It's not quite that simple but that's the general gist of it)
So that goes all back to the original point, when you ban people because "reasons" it doesn't draw people in.
I think it depends. Donald Trump drew in about 35 million supporters with similar rhetoric, and most sports clubs work specifically on the tribal us vs them exclusion mentality that makes no sense. Apple is also the most profitable company in the world specifically because of the highly controlled ecosystem they provide their customers.
Twitter is merely trying to create a controlled environment that benefits more users. They may have executed it poorly, I wouldn't know because I find the whole Twitter concept stupid to start with so don't get involved, but the idea can work if done properly.
Funny enough it's the same people who watch movies like Trumbo and are outraged by the actions of the HUAC and McCarthy. Bunch of hypocrites.
One is private person/business acting in their own interest, the other is a public official representing the country. If you can't tell the difference, then it's no wonder retards like Trump make it so far in the process.
That would be called prejudice, motherfucker. But I bet you STILL will feel like your clever opinion is correct.
Some states have higher education levels than others, this is a fact. Just because you can't grasp that fact doesn't make it any less true.
Donald Trump has by far the lowest percentage of educated voters of any candidate in the modern era, so it follows that the strongest support would be in the least educated states.
If you had an education you would understand this, instead you get angry and call names when you hear things you don't like to hear.
The Times says he's worth at least $1.8 billion if not more, per FEC financials. But I guess that's not successful enough?
Not when you consider how much of his father's money he burnt in the process. Most of us are lucky get one chance at wealth, He has had many and still finds ways to throw it away.
This is not the reputation I'd want looking after the nation's finances.
The argument goes something like this ... "TRUMP IS HITLER/A NAZI" ... as if that excuses Hillary of being Stalin purging Soviet Union of dissidents.
I saw the question put this way ... "Which would you rather do, Microwave or boil the kitten?" As if one was better than the other.
Actually according to independent analysis , Trump is like Hitler, but Clinton is similar to Thatcher.
So a more accurate analogy is, which would you rather do microwave the cat, or merely punch it in the face? One is actually a less worse outcome.
Registered and disclosed. Do you see how it works now?
No, I don't. What's different?
You don't understand how disclosure is useful as an anti-corruption measure? If that is the case I can't help you.
Right, would you rather try debate? Want to try again and explain how censoring things is a good idea that will draw people in?
Because a lot of people only like to hear what they want to hear. Twitter is a private company not a public service, there is no obligation to offer everyone a voice. Just like sports, religion, music, fashion or any other private venture, you create an ecosystem that you think customers want. You and I might think it's shit, but millions of others out there might think this sanitised version of Internet communication is great.
The astute reader will notice that 22 states on that map are colored red or pink. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Without even looking it up, I'm going to bet that those 22 states correspond to the lowest education and human development standards in the US as well.
A few points on this alleged story:
1. The Clinton campaign desperately trying to distract attention away from Hillary's fundamental dishonesty.
True, but so is Trump trying desperately trying to distrac this negative aspects. Desperately trying to distract is a key skill of all politicians.
2. Maybe the story is true, and the Clinton campaign hires people with the security acumen of a burned-out toaster.
Not Clinton, the DNC. And yes they probably do just like the Republicans and Independents do too. Any sufficiently large organisation will have numpties among their numbers. even the CIA, KGB, NSA, DoD etc have numpties. This is not unusual.
3. Buzzfeed? Really?
Pass
4. Maybe they figure if they keep yelling "Trump is a Putin pawn!" enough we'll ignore the fact that Podesta is a registered lobbyist for Putin's bank.
There's one candidate in this race who has a proven record of taking money for favors from Russian sources, and it isn't Trump.
Registered and disclosed. Do you see how it works now?
Hardly. Neutral predictions put his odds of winning at about 1 in 6 at the moment, and a lot can happen in the next 3 weeks.
A nominee turning around a 1 in 3 chance in 3 weeks would be considered a huge upset, a 5% swing in politics is massive. 1 in 6 is the equivalent of zero.
Trump is right about the biased media, they are biased toward him by pretending he still has a chance purely to help them sell clicks. As candidate go, he is dead in the water. He has 40% voter support with zero chance of gaining any more. Hillary only has to avoid jail for 3 more weeks and it's in the bag.
Hillary disagrees with you. She believes there should be more successful businessmen in politics.
Only if you define 'successful businessmen' as businessmen who continually fail
And before you come back and say how successful he is now, how do you know? He says he's rich, but since we don't have tax records we don't know how much of his current assets are heavily financed under junk loans that might bankrupt him tomorrow.