I don't discount the impact that the/. community had on Bletchley Park's restoration, but that's not the issue here. You spent more time talking about historical effect than you did on the actual issue, which is Beta. Not only that, but you in no way answered my question. I don't find it unreasonable to ask for specifics on why the interface is bad. A critique that doesn't offer a solution isn't particularly useful. I'm sure you don't appreciate it when your customers ask you to make your product "less sucky" but it seems to be okay in this conversation. Apparently someone else does think I'm unreasonable, since I've been modded down (at least, that's how it appears, since I now have a score of 0 and usually I start with a 2. But that could be more of my lack of understanding on the moderation system here, which I really don't care much about anyway. I find the whole exercise to be highly amusing.)
I'm not picking on you per se. Your post was simply in the middle of a very large pack of complaints, the vast majority of which contain nothing but nebulous statements that something is bad, chest-thumping over how awesome the Slashdot community is, and outright threats of mass exodus if people don't get their way, none of which is helpful towards affecting positive change.
I'm sure someone else will be along shortly to mod me Flamebait again but that's okay; I can always use a good laugh.
That wasn't even remotely helpful. Can you please cite specific examples of why the beta sucks? Are your reasons personal preference or is there technical merit?
I don't code and I don't study user interface design, so I'm not qualified to offer reasons why the beta is bad. I'm just a user. I've been using it for most of the day and everything has worked for me. I was tempted to say that I don't like the new layout except that I don't like change to begin with. But I kind of like it. So what's the problem?
You do realize that you proved *his* point, not yours, right? Being able to name a dozen programs that ended, out of THOUSANDS that were created, does not help your cause. Congratulations on you Pyrrhic victory.
The last position I interviewed for started with them headhunting me. The headhunter (who knew just enough of the tech to at least not sound like a rube) screened me over the phone. Then I had a phone interview with the manager. Then I had a phone interview with the lead tech (who told me he was going to recommend me). A week later they flew me out and I interviewed with another half a dozen people.
During the on-site interviews I started getting some of these idiotic questions. I finally just stopped the guy and said "Let me stop you there. You just flew me across the country and this is what you're asking me. Is this really what you want to go with? You headhunted me, I didn't come to you. Your techs already cleared me. So, really, what is it that you want to know? What's your concern in hiring me?"
He knocked off with the crap, we had a real conversation, and I left with a signed job offer.
He may have had his gun on him the entire time, but the notion that he would have had to pay again to get back in is idiotic. Have you not ever been to a theater? There's a mechanism in place, evidence, if you will, that proves that a legal transaction took place. See, you give them money, and they give you a receipt. Theater receipts are really cool because they even tell you which which movie, which screen, and which time you've paid for.
I have never met an actual person who holds this belief either, yet I've met, worked with and am friends with dozens of fathers who have been victims of it.
Wow. Really? When was the last time you saw someone user the word 'libertarian' without adding some colorful adjectives to it? Let alone how Slashdot's increasingly leftist audience routinely refers to Republicans...
Well, intentionally re-defining a commonly understood word to mean something completely opposite and then hiding behind a TOS and EULA is pretty scummy. I have no problem with them trying to make money. I do have a problem with it when the obfuscate how they're doing it. Hiding behind the TOS is them admitting that they know they're wrong and trying to trick people, otherwise they wouldn't be hiding. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that they just be open and honest about how they're going to work.
"By 'private' we mean we won't intentionally share your message with other individual members until the next ToS change, but the contents are still fair game for us and our advertisers."
Fine, but don't call it "private" because that's not even close to what the word means.
I read two of her books and absolutely hated them, and both were highly recommended. I don't think I'd ever read anything of hers again. Too much stuff that's actually good out there.
Yes, yes I will be sorry. I'd rather have the $14 extra PER TICKET from seeing it on whatever screen it is playing on at the cheap-seats than going OOOOOOHHH for two hours.
I'm made plenty of mistakes with money. One that I no longer make is on entertainment, movies in particular. I'll get 95% of the enjoyment from seeing it on the small screen as I would on the large, and for a whole lot less. And, really, since I don't waste money on 3D, I really don't know what I'm missing, nor do I care.
Sorry, I'm just not going to buy ebooks until they fix the pricing. When the role playing game industry went to direct digital distribution, it was understood that the product was 50% off. Amazon, however, thinks that not only do I need to shell out a couple hundred dollars for a proprietary device that allows them to remote delete my purchased products, but that they also get to charge a premium for the product itself. No thank you.
If I buy a used book through Amazon, odds are that I can find it for under 1 dollar. I can frequently find it for 1 cent. But I have to pay $3.99 for S&H for *each* book. Maybe the brick & mortar stores should sell said books for $2-$3, so that the total purchase price is less than Amazon + S&H. 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing, and that's what B&M stores are looking at.
There's an old mantra about getting bodies in the store. It's not that simple. They need to pull wallets out. If people are going into B&M stores to window shop, then purchasing online via Amazon, then the B&M stores need to lower their prices to be competitive, or offer some other reason for people to spend money there. It has to be something that Amazon can't offer. Drinking coffee is not going to cut it.
The consumer is at a disadvantage here. If everyone were honest, then no, maybe we shouldn't ban it. But that would required companies to not have laws and regulations written to their specs, allowing them to do things like claim 0.0g per 4oz serving to use the under 0.5g loophole. But because that's not the case, then someone needs to step in and regulate it fairly.
Beyond that, there are times when it really should not be up to the consumer. There is zero legitimate reason to be poisoning the food supply. "Because it tastes better" and "Because it's cheaper" and "Because it stores longer" are not legitimate reasons.
Mod parent up. That page should be required reading for anyone who wants to put their spin on why the book is bad and how the movie was a legitimate treatment.
About a year after the movie came out I was in the book store and found a book about the making of the SST movie. In it they talk about the guys who originally wrote the script wanting to make a movie about WW1 soldiers fighting bugs. They couldn't find any takers. Someone said they should look at SST because it was about soldiers fighting bugs. They did, liked it, convinced Virginia Heinlein to option the movie rights to them, and they managed to get Verhoeven involved. He wanted to make a movie that satirized his experiences with fascist states and took it in that direction, and repeatedly admitted that he never bothered reading the book. When the budget cuts came and it was a choice between power armor and bugs, bugs won out because that was the point of the movie. Total hatchet job.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't discount the impact that the /. community had on Bletchley Park's restoration, but that's not the issue here. You spent more time talking about historical effect than you did on the actual issue, which is Beta. Not only that, but you in no way answered my question. I don't find it unreasonable to ask for specifics on why the interface is bad. A critique that doesn't offer a solution isn't particularly useful. I'm sure you don't appreciate it when your customers ask you to make your product "less sucky" but it seems to be okay in this conversation. Apparently someone else does think I'm unreasonable, since I've been modded down (at least, that's how it appears, since I now have a score of 0 and usually I start with a 2. But that could be more of my lack of understanding on the moderation system here, which I really don't care much about anyway. I find the whole exercise to be highly amusing.)
I'm not picking on you per se. Your post was simply in the middle of a very large pack of complaints, the vast majority of which contain nothing but nebulous statements that something is bad, chest-thumping over how awesome the Slashdot community is, and outright threats of mass exodus if people don't get their way, none of which is helpful towards affecting positive change.
I'm sure someone else will be along shortly to mod me Flamebait again but that's okay; I can always use a good laugh.
Yes, that was flamebait. Good god the mods around here are stupid.
That wasn't even remotely helpful. Can you please cite specific examples of why the beta sucks? Are your reasons personal preference or is there technical merit?
I don't code and I don't study user interface design, so I'm not qualified to offer reasons why the beta is bad. I'm just a user. I've been using it for most of the day and everything has worked for me. I was tempted to say that I don't like the new layout except that I don't like change to begin with. But I kind of like it. So what's the problem?
You do realize that you proved *his* point, not yours, right? Being able to name a dozen programs that ended, out of THOUSANDS that were created, does not help your cause. Congratulations on you Pyrrhic victory.
The last position I interviewed for started with them headhunting me. The headhunter (who knew just enough of the tech to at least not sound like a rube) screened me over the phone. Then I had a phone interview with the manager. Then I had a phone interview with the lead tech (who told me he was going to recommend me). A week later they flew me out and I interviewed with another half a dozen people.
During the on-site interviews I started getting some of these idiotic questions. I finally just stopped the guy and said "Let me stop you there. You just flew me across the country and this is what you're asking me. Is this really what you want to go with? You headhunted me, I didn't come to you. Your techs already cleared me. So, really, what is it that you want to know? What's your concern in hiring me?"
He knocked off with the crap, we had a real conversation, and I left with a signed job offer.
So I said "Sometimes I'm a little too honest." He said "That doesn't sound like a flaw." And I said "I don't give a shit what you think."
They don't give a shit what we, the people, their boss, want. They're going to continue doing it anyway.
Yes, let's let the cops do their job. That includes GETTING A GOD-DAMNED WARRANT.
The rest of your commentary is so laughably idiotic that I hope no one wastes any time responding to it.
You were relevant right until you decided to bring religion into it.
He may have had his gun on him the entire time, but the notion that he would have had to pay again to get back in is idiotic. Have you not ever been to a theater? There's a mechanism in place, evidence, if you will, that proves that a legal transaction took place. See, you give them money, and they give you a receipt. Theater receipts are really cool because they even tell you which which movie, which screen, and which time you've paid for.
I have never met an actual person who holds this belief either, yet I've met, worked with and am friends with dozens of fathers who have been victims of it.
Wow. Really? When was the last time you saw someone user the word 'libertarian' without adding some colorful adjectives to it? Let alone how Slashdot's increasingly leftist audience routinely refers to Republicans...
Well, intentionally re-defining a commonly understood word to mean something completely opposite and then hiding behind a TOS and EULA is pretty scummy. I have no problem with them trying to make money. I do have a problem with it when the obfuscate how they're doing it. Hiding behind the TOS is them admitting that they know they're wrong and trying to trick people, otherwise they wouldn't be hiding. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that they just be open and honest about how they're going to work.
"By 'private' we mean we won't intentionally share your message with other individual members until the next ToS change, but the contents are still fair game for us and our advertisers."
Fine, but don't call it "private" because that's not even close to what the word means.
I read two of her books and absolutely hated them, and both were highly recommended. I don't think I'd ever read anything of hers again. Too much stuff that's actually good out there.
A while back there was research out of MIT for new coatings to keep substances sticking to the walls of bottles. http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679878/mits-freaky-non-stick-coating-keeps-ketchup-flowing. How about something like this? For the thermometers. Not sure I want that stuff in my heart either.
It depends on who wrote those nine lines of code.
Who gives a shit about other people's feelings.
"You know it might just be possible that Swedish prisons were actually working to rehabilitate the prisoners. Victims of their own success?"
Sooooo... You're blaming the victims... ;)
Yes, yes I will be sorry. I'd rather have the $14 extra PER TICKET from seeing it on whatever screen it is playing on at the cheap-seats than going OOOOOOHHH for two hours.
I'm made plenty of mistakes with money. One that I no longer make is on entertainment, movies in particular. I'll get 95% of the enjoyment from seeing it on the small screen as I would on the large, and for a whole lot less. And, really, since I don't waste money on 3D, I really don't know what I'm missing, nor do I care.
Priorities: We all set different ones.
Sorry, I'm just not going to buy ebooks until they fix the pricing. When the role playing game industry went to direct digital distribution, it was understood that the product was 50% off. Amazon, however, thinks that not only do I need to shell out a couple hundred dollars for a proprietary device that allows them to remote delete my purchased products, but that they also get to charge a premium for the product itself. No thank you.
If I buy a used book through Amazon, odds are that I can find it for under 1 dollar. I can frequently find it for 1 cent. But I have to pay $3.99 for S&H for *each* book. Maybe the brick & mortar stores should sell said books for $2-$3, so that the total purchase price is less than Amazon + S&H. 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing, and that's what B&M stores are looking at.
There's an old mantra about getting bodies in the store. It's not that simple. They need to pull wallets out. If people are going into B&M stores to window shop, then purchasing online via Amazon, then the B&M stores need to lower their prices to be competitive, or offer some other reason for people to spend money there. It has to be something that Amazon can't offer. Drinking coffee is not going to cut it.
In a supposedly free country...
The consumer is at a disadvantage here. If everyone were honest, then no, maybe we shouldn't ban it. But that would required companies to not have laws and regulations written to their specs, allowing them to do things like claim 0.0g per 4oz serving to use the under 0.5g loophole. But because that's not the case, then someone needs to step in and regulate it fairly.
Beyond that, there are times when it really should not be up to the consumer. There is zero legitimate reason to be poisoning the food supply. "Because it tastes better" and "Because it's cheaper" and "Because it stores longer" are not legitimate reasons.
A friend of mine said that the acting and plot was so bad that it ruined all the tits and ass. He was right.
Mod parent up. That page should be required reading for anyone who wants to put their spin on why the book is bad and how the movie was a legitimate treatment.
About a year after the movie came out I was in the book store and found a book about the making of the SST movie. In it they talk about the guys who originally wrote the script wanting to make a movie about WW1 soldiers fighting bugs. They couldn't find any takers. Someone said they should look at SST because it was about soldiers fighting bugs. They did, liked it, convinced Virginia Heinlein to option the movie rights to them, and they managed to get Verhoeven involved. He wanted to make a movie that satirized his experiences with fascist states and took it in that direction, and repeatedly admitted that he never bothered reading the book. When the budget cuts came and it was a choice between power armor and bugs, bugs won out because that was the point of the movie. Total hatchet job.
You did a better job explaining it than I could. Mod parent up.