Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.
Sure, and everyone eating Sauerkraut and wearing Lederhosen must be a German, if you see someone wearing a ten-gallon hat and chew chewing gum it must be an American, Asian in school uniform an naked? It's definitely a Japanese.
You lucky bastard. In Germany this does definitely not apply. And just you wait until those damn communist, fashist, hisbollaist, djihadist and whateverist terrorists start bombing your trains!
And while I'm at it, I live in Japan. Do you know of a convenient way to get from there to Germany by train in less than, say, two weeks?;-)
Well the masking/alphachanneling in Seashore is a complete disaster. Now we have an OS X native application with a really, really low feature set that should make the thing quite simple and somehow the developer has managed to make it almost as unintuitive as the GIMP.
No the thing is I have been able to become quite a Photoshop wizard and I never read the manual. I read a few Tips and Tricks articles when I was already quite fit with PS for the really advanced stuff, but even there was nothing much I couldn't have figured out myself in the end.
With the GIMP it's a struggle. It just isn't intuitive and some of the wording in the GIMP also doesn't help it either. I think especially on OS X it would help the GIMP a huge portion if someone could make a port to the native GTK+ on OS X, so it wouldn't suck as badly as it does right now, being X11 and everything. I can't cut an paste properly, I cannot use Japanese in X11, which is essential for me (I have struggled for weeks to get kinput and the likes running in X11 under OS X to no avail). However since most designers and artists are on OS X nowadays, and most I know do absolutely not like X11, this is probably the biggest reason why many designers and artists don't like the GIMP. It doesn't feel like an OS X app in any way.
If I could get the GIMP as an OS X app that uses native widgets, has its menu bar at the top of the screen, uses the COMMAND key for shortcuts and not the Control key (duh) and all in all behaves like a real OS X app (drag and drop, open save menues, using native OS X input methods for other languages, uses OS X native colour pickers, os X native font handling etc.) I would definitely sit down read a bunch of tutorials and put some effort into learning it once again. It's free and open and really want to like it. I could probably even live with it being not so intuitive and not supporting CMYK color and not really being able to work with proper colour profiles, since I'm recently mostly doing web related graphics stuff anyway. But with its current state being an X11 app, I really don't feel like using it for anything at all.
Maybe they were truthfully labeled "fake moon landing" and the janitor thought he could make some space by throwing those out. After all they're not the "real ones", so no one would miss them...
I'm afraid the stupid monkey, more often than not, sits in the CEO's chair. And you know how they hate it when their employees are more clever than they are...
That's the cracking point. So why don't people rather try to employ people with a brain? That might save costs beyond all the trojan issues etc. If businesses ask for stupid monkeys they get monkeys.
Well, then GTK+ just sucks as badly on OS X. That is really unfortunate, but it's also not only an issue of GTK+ and Qt to make these apps appeal to OS X users. Of course apps need to use native widgets to look "natural", but that alone does not an OS X application make.
I think it's a real shame, because looking at most of those apps and considering the functionality, they're really nice. But the UI is in most cases abysmally badly done. Geeks always think having more options means more power, however in most cases it first of all means being overwhelmed by too many options 95% of which one will never really use anyway.
People just don't get it that you can't just take an app with a typical Windows Office-like interface and port that 1:1 to OS X. For some reason most Linux apps try to imitate Windows apps because they are "easy to use". I don't know when Windows and M$ Office has become the benchmark of usability, but I think when it comes to GUI design the only thing you can learn from Windows apps in most cases is how not to do it. Not that Apple themselves are always producing apps that are the be all and end all of GUI design (they tend to ignore some of their own guidelines), but still they put much more effort into getting the UI right and it shows.
As soon as I see a dialogue box with "Yes" and "No" buttons I start considering deleting the application. If a programmer hasn't even taken the effort to learn the most basic rule to use verbs/actions for naming buttons in dialogue boxes, I start doubting that he has put any effort into making his app easy to use (and with that I do not mean dumbing it down). Also, though I'm not much of a "mouser". Having properly working drag & drop is very important on OS X. Most OSS apps don't give that functionality much consideration either.
Just for the same reasons. All apps written using Qt that I have seen running on OS X (AbiWord etc.) suck really hard. And they don't use most of the goodness that really makes OS X. No services, no spotlight support you name it.
They just look sort of OS X-ish, the widgets just don't feel quite right, because the shapes, the spacing between text and button edges etc. is different from native widgets. So in the end it just looks like some Linux app using an somewhat close but not good enough OS X theme.
And then there's the problem that programmers who are not familiar with the Mac and its UI guidelines, just just native widgets the wrong way, because they can't think outside of the (terrible) Windows UI convention paradigm.
Well, there is no way to recreate the original from a lossy compression. That's what lossless compression is there for (Apple lossless, FLAC etc.). Compression that makes it possible to recreate the original by 100% cannot be as rigorous in "reducing" information (with lossless compression it's more like simplifying repetitive or redundant information etc.), so lossless compression is less effective in reducing file size, sometimes by orders of magnitude.
Trying to recreate the original of a MP3 is a bit like trying to make a perfect repaint of a painting using only a polaroid photo. You can't see the brushstrokes (lost that detailed information through compression, so to speak), so there's no way to know about those details. What's not there isn't there and even worse, there's no way to know where the MP3 format has actually reduced or cut out information from the original, without having the original also for comparison.
Yes it would it's like saving an JPEG twice with the same compression settings.
You have the orginial image, it throws away some info that it thinks is "irrelevant". Now you have a slightly lower quality image. Next you perform the same action on the lower quality image, so of course since the image you start with is already different from the original, performing the same compression on the lower quality image will result in even lower quality, because the software will throw away yet some further "irrelevant" information.
The Al books we're the bix exception to the don't-buy-v1.0-products-from-Apple-rule, but then again, the AlBooks were the revision to the disaster that were the TiBooks... (I bought a 1st gen. AlBook, just to get rid of my awful TiBook and I did live happily ever after).
("Who are THEY?") Where have you seen Wikipedia quoted by everyone? What is your basis for blanket distrust in every one of Wikipedia's articles? What about the external references used to back up those articles? Do you wear your tinfoil hat when you sleep, or do you hang it on your bedpost? In the shower? In the car? Doesn't the metal roof provide enough protection?
In British English (which is the flavour of English I was taught in school, albeit my command of the language is far from perfect), you address entities that consist of many people in plural form ("the police are...", "Apple have done this and that..." etc.). THEY are the sum of people running and creating Wikipedia. No paranoia here, nothing to see, walk on.
Everyone and their dog are quoting Wikipedia. Really. Especially on slashdot, people tend to try to end a discussion with "facts" from Wikipedia, throwing Wikipedia URLs at you as if they were the final nail in the coffin of the opposite's argumentation.
I don't wear tinfoil equipment because it would intefere with my supernatural energies and severly disturb up some of the black magic I use against Slashdot readers. And a tinfoil hat would definitely scare the black chicken I keep in the backyard for sacrificial purposes.
Of course that's the whole point of the inquirer. They're sarcastic. They have an opinion and smack it right in your face. Nowhere does it say that they are even trying to be objective, which is perfectly alright with me, because at least that is honest. More honest than many other sites which try to sell you their subjective opinion pieces as objective journalism. As if something like this existed in the first place.
But I digress... I just find it amusing that recently everyone is quoting Wikipedia as if they were the be all and end all of objectivity and the final authority on everything and everyone. Nothing against Wikipedia. It's a great project and I do use it, too, on a regular basis, but I always take their entries with a grain of salt (and some garlic and anchovis maybe).
Trying and learning is often a nice way to get ahead, but when we're talking ads in mainstream media, it's all about your (or your product's) reputation and credibility. If you just try without knowing WTF you're doing, your reputation and credibility ist lost.
Of course you might have learned a bit, but the people looking at the catastrophical ad also learned from it that you have no credibility, and your reputation is down the drain. No second chance there.
If that was the main priority, man have they bloody failed on it. Their target was domination of the market, they give a fuck about user friendlyness. MS implements features so that they can add another item on their feature bragging list, they give a shit about whether the features make sense or they are in any way useful. The sole purpose of them adding features is that their marketing geeks can brag about it. MS never really truly cared about user friendlyness as long at it was barely usable at all, otherwise Windows wouldn't be such an inconsistent mess.
Oh, I see. So let's sell weapons to terrorists. You know it's how they use them which is evil not the weapons themselves. And why don't we start with selling nuclear power plants to Iran and while we're at it equip North Korea with some cool trans-continental rockets. It's just the same stuff as anyone else is using...
Slashdot Mirror
Cool, that way we'd also get rid of all those fuckin Vegans!
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.
g anisations.
Sure, and everyone eating Sauerkraut and wearing Lederhosen must be a German, if you see someone wearing a ten-gallon hat and chew chewing gum it must be an American, Asian in school uniform an naked? It's definitely a Japanese.
To adjust your splendid world view, here's some food for thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_or
The railroads still understand customer service
;-)
You lucky bastard. In Germany this does definitely not apply. And just you wait until those damn communist, fashist, hisbollaist, djihadist and whateverist terrorists start bombing your trains!
And while I'm at it, I live in Japan. Do you know of a convenient way to get from there to Germany by train in less than, say, two weeks?
Well the masking/alphachanneling in Seashore is a complete disaster. Now we have an OS X native application with a really, really low feature set that should make the thing quite simple and somehow the developer has managed to make it almost as unintuitive as the GIMP.
amazing.
No the thing is I have been able to become quite a Photoshop wizard and I never read the manual. I read a few Tips and Tricks articles when I was already quite fit with PS for the really advanced stuff, but even there was nothing much I couldn't have figured out myself in the end.
With the GIMP it's a struggle. It just isn't intuitive and some of the wording in the GIMP also doesn't help it either. I think especially on OS X it would help the GIMP a huge portion if someone could make a port to the native GTK+ on OS X, so it wouldn't suck as badly as it does right now, being X11 and everything. I can't cut an paste properly, I cannot use Japanese in X11, which is essential for me (I have struggled for weeks to get kinput and the likes running in X11 under OS X to no avail). However since most designers and artists are on OS X nowadays, and most I know do absolutely not like X11, this is probably the biggest reason why many designers and artists don't like the GIMP. It doesn't feel like an OS X app in any way.
If I could get the GIMP as an OS X app that uses native widgets, has its menu bar at the top of the screen, uses the COMMAND key for shortcuts and not the Control key (duh) and all in all behaves like a real OS X app (drag and drop, open save menues, using native OS X input methods for other languages, uses OS X native colour pickers, os X native font handling etc.) I would definitely sit down read a bunch of tutorials and put some effort into learning it once again. It's free and open and really want to like it. I could probably even live with it being not so intuitive and not supporting CMYK color and not really being able to work with proper colour profiles, since I'm recently mostly doing web related graphics stuff anyway. But with its current state being an X11 app, I really don't feel like using it for anything at all.
Well, not anymore, by posting here you just reversed your modding.
Maybe they were truthfully labeled "fake moon landing" and the janitor thought he could make some space by throwing those out. After all they're not the "real ones", so no one would miss them...
I'm afraid the stupid monkey, more often than not, sits in the CEO's chair. And you know how they hate it when their employees are more clever than they are...
relies on user stupidity.
That's the cracking point. So why don't people rather try to employ people with a brain? That might save costs beyond all the trojan issues etc. If businesses ask for stupid monkeys they get monkeys.
Well, then GTK+ just sucks as badly on OS X. That is really unfortunate, but it's also not only an issue of GTK+ and Qt to make these apps appeal to OS X users. Of course apps need to use native widgets to look "natural", but that alone does not an OS X application make.
I think it's a real shame, because looking at most of those apps and considering the functionality, they're really nice. But the UI is in most cases abysmally badly done. Geeks always think having more options means more power, however in most cases it first of all means being overwhelmed by too many options 95% of which one will never really use anyway.
People just don't get it that you can't just take an app with a typical Windows Office-like interface and port that 1:1 to OS X. For some reason most Linux apps try to imitate Windows apps because they are "easy to use". I don't know when Windows and M$ Office has become the benchmark of usability, but I think when it comes to GUI design the only thing you can learn from Windows apps in most cases is how not to do it. Not that Apple themselves are always producing apps that are the be all and end all of GUI design (they tend to ignore some of their own guidelines), but still they put much more effort into getting the UI right and it shows.
As soon as I see a dialogue box with "Yes" and "No" buttons I start considering deleting the application. If a programmer hasn't even taken the effort to learn the most basic rule to use verbs/actions for naming buttons in dialogue boxes, I start doubting that he has put any effort into making his app easy to use (and with that I do not mean dumbing it down).
Also, though I'm not much of a "mouser". Having properly working drag & drop is very important on OS X. Most OSS apps don't give that functionality much consideration either.
I actually was talking about vaginas, maybe you've heard about them before...
Just for the same reasons. All apps written using Qt that I have seen running on OS X (AbiWord etc.) suck really hard. And they don't use most of the goodness that really makes OS X. No services, no spotlight support you name it.
They just look sort of OS X-ish, the widgets just don't feel quite right, because the shapes, the spacing between text and button edges etc. is different from native widgets. So in the end it just looks like some Linux app using an somewhat close but not good enough OS X theme.
And then there's the problem that programmers who are not familiar with the Mac and its UI guidelines, just just native widgets the wrong way, because they can't think outside of the (terrible) Windows UI convention paradigm.
Well, you know I have learned that there are things beyond clits that are way more fun to tinker with...
No mouse pointer in the middle of the keyboard like is found on the Thinkpads or the Toshiba Tecra line.
Oooh, I would never trust a computer with a clit.
Well, there is no way to recreate the original from a lossy compression. That's what lossless compression is there for (Apple lossless, FLAC etc.). Compression that makes it possible to recreate the original by 100% cannot be as rigorous in "reducing" information (with lossless compression it's more like simplifying repetitive or redundant information etc.), so lossless compression is less effective in reducing file size, sometimes by orders of magnitude.
Trying to recreate the original of a MP3 is a bit like trying to make a perfect repaint of a painting using only a polaroid photo. You can't see the brushstrokes (lost that detailed information through compression, so to speak), so there's no way to know about those details. What's not there isn't there and even worse, there's no way to know where the MP3 format has actually reduced or cut out information from the original, without having the original also for comparison.
Yes it would it's like saving an JPEG twice with the same compression settings.
You have the orginial image, it throws away some info that it thinks is "irrelevant". Now you have a slightly lower quality image. Next you perform the same action on the lower quality image, so of course since the image you start with is already different from the original, performing the same compression on the lower quality image will result in even lower quality, because the software will throw away yet some further "irrelevant" information.
The Al books we're the bix exception to the don't-buy-v1.0-products-from-Apple-rule, but then again, the AlBooks were the revision to the disaster that were the TiBooks...
(I bought a 1st gen. AlBook, just to get rid of my awful TiBook and I did live happily ever after).
("Who are THEY?") Where have you seen Wikipedia quoted by everyone? What is your basis for blanket distrust in every one of Wikipedia's articles? What about the external references used to back up those articles? Do you wear your tinfoil hat when you sleep, or do you hang it on your bedpost? In the shower? In the car? Doesn't the metal roof provide enough protection?
In British English (which is the flavour of English I was taught in school, albeit my command of the language is far from perfect), you address entities that consist of many people in plural form ("the police are...", "Apple have done this and that..." etc.). THEY are the sum of people running and creating Wikipedia. No paranoia here, nothing to see, walk on.
Everyone and their dog are quoting Wikipedia. Really. Especially on slashdot, people tend to try to end a discussion with "facts" from Wikipedia, throwing Wikipedia URLs at you as if they were the final nail in the coffin of the opposite's argumentation.
I don't wear tinfoil equipment because it would intefere with my supernatural energies and severly disturb up some of the black magic I use against Slashdot readers. And a tinfoil hat would definitely scare the black chicken I keep in the backyard for sacrificial purposes.
Of course that's the whole point of the inquirer. They're sarcastic. They have an opinion and smack it right in your face. Nowhere does it say that they are even trying to be objective, which is perfectly alright with me, because at least that is honest. More honest than many other sites which try to sell you their subjective opinion pieces as objective journalism. As if something like this existed in the first place.
But I digress... I just find it amusing that recently everyone is quoting Wikipedia as if they were the be all and end all of objectivity and the final authority on everything and everyone. Nothing against Wikipedia. It's a great project and I do use it, too, on a regular basis, but I always take their entries with a grain of salt (and some garlic and anchovis maybe).
Trying and learning is often a nice way to get ahead, but when we're talking ads in mainstream media, it's all about your (or your product's) reputation and credibility. If you just try without knowing WTF you're doing, your reputation and credibility ist lost.
Of course you might have learned a bit, but the people looking at the catastrophical ad also learned from it that you have no credibility, and your reputation is down the drain. No second chance there.
they made their OS as easy to use as possible.
If that was the main priority, man have they bloody failed on it.
Their target was domination of the market, they give a fuck about user friendlyness. MS implements features so that they can add another item on their feature bragging list, they give a shit about whether the features make sense or they are in any way useful. The sole purpose of them adding features is that their marketing geeks can brag about it. MS never really truly cared about user friendlyness as long at it was barely usable at all, otherwise Windows wouldn't be such an inconsistent mess.
I wonder when the last time someone addressed the queen as "Liz" was...
;-)
Supposedly 9 months before she gave birth to her son. Well, anyway I don't even recall what century that must have been.
Well if Wikipedia says it then it must be true.
Oh, I see. So let's sell weapons to terrorists. You know it's how they use them which is evil not the weapons themselves. And why don't we start with selling nuclear power plants to Iran and while we're at it equip North Korea with some cool trans-continental rockets. It's just the same stuff as anyone else is using...
Man, what a flashback, I could hear the music!
You just made me want to rebuy "Tales from topographic oceans" on CD, because I don't have a record player to play the LPs anymore...
Damn you, I bet you get commission for this!