It's evil because it violates your privacy, and there's really no easy way to opt-out
I'm using the Firefox extension Ghostery right now. On slashdot it shows up Google Analytics, Google Adsense and Doubleclick. Just being here, you're being tracked.
I encountered the same feeling when I walked into a Best Buy the other day. I don't generally go into places like that, so when I did and I saw all of the flat-scren TV's, my GF and I couldn't get over how BAD we thought they all looked. The looked too sharp and too bright. I need another TV but I'm having trouble finding anyone that sells good CRT's any more!
I don't know if you were going for sarcasm, or playing on the fact that CRTs are in fact better. They don't have a native resolution, and are more colour accurate. When they were available they were also a lot less expensive. The only down sides were the size of the box and the fact that they use more electricity than LCD (but less than plasma). You couldn't exactly bolt one onto a laptop.
Aw come on now. If you call this childish, what would you say to that Cat Agreeing to an EULA story that got nearly 1000 replies.
At least that story was kinda funny in a perverse way. The thought of someone taking legalese nonsense and trying to respond with their own nonsense sticks it to the legal profession and pokes fun at the corporations trying to control software this way. The only thing that makes it kinda sad is that it went beyond a joke and is wasting real life legal resources.
Today's story on the other hand isn't humorous. It's just a childish profane rant demanding a megacorp give away their sofware.
Yes.. which is why using group policy to 'block' application execution is kind of silly, it throws away useful information, that management could use to make better decisions. It's much better to 'monitor' unusual activity and send automated e-mails to their boss, when they run a program like 'winsol' from their home directory.
So you're saying instead of preventing your users from wasting time, spy on them, catch them out doing it, then reprimand or fire them. Yeah that'll do wonders for your business. I'm sure you'll attract the best of breed to that little sweat shop. Here's a better idea. Outsource your workers to the local salt mines.
Greed AND stupidity in equal measures...and people wonder why the economy is in tatters.
fully integrated as a replacement for all MS Office -- the only thing it doesn't do well are Excel macros, and that's for a reason: they're broken and easily replaced.
So many things wrong with that statement: 1) Companies have entire collections of complex Excel Macros written that need replacing. Often difficult to interpret and often with the original developer long gone. It's not just macros. Even charting is very different and doesn't convert over.
2) OO doesn't do everything Office does. I wish it did. I'd switch myself.
3) Sometimes it totally destroys the formatting on existing docs. Other times the destruction is more subtle when you convert, which can actually be worse. Try converting documents with formulae embedded etc., just for fun.
4) Bugs. I thought Office bugs were bad until I ran into the bug in Open Office 3 that would take down the application if you clicked on the File menu.
Try Visio. You can use kludges to create a document in Impress based on existing documents with parts that you can copy and paste. It'll take you about 30 minutes to do what Visio will let you do in 5 but it can be done. It's just not practical.
At best I think you could claim that for your own purposes, Open Office works well. For other people that do other things - like open other people's office documents, use formulae regularly, make extensive use of charting and Macros etc and don't have time to replace everything, Open Office isn't a viable option without significant investment. Care to build a business case for it?
The list can go on, and others here can easily tell you more applications, I only wanted to harp in on a few that you might be interested in (or didn't even think about.) The days of MS Office being the be-all-end-all of office application suites is over and has been for a while now.
Only if you never used anything more than the most basic of basic functionality, and don't care if you can't open other people's stuff.
You're not ready for Linux on your desktop but you're ready to trust your data to an 0.version file system driver on Windows??? Anyway, how difficult is it to copy data from NTFS to a new filesystem should the need ever arise? Your focus is all wrong. The real issue is the applications. There are so many applications out there that are Windows only that don't have a viable non-Windows replacement that it's not funny. Where there is a drop in replacement it's usually not feature complete. THAT is a much bigger problem. If I moved OS now, it'd be a pain to transfer data to a new FS but its nothing I couldn't do. I couldn't replace many of my apps though.
Mod parent UP. The OP is thinking about it wrong: ie how to manage unix in the style of windows. Don't give them root and they can't install software. Make sure the home directories an/tmp is moutes -noexec and there is NO WAY that they can run programs which aren't already installed.
Now they can have free run of the system and can't do anything harmful. Still not satisfied? Remove all executables that they shouldn't run, or make them a-rx g-rx, and don't have users in the group able to run them.
Much easier, just remove the computer from their desktop. I would suggest replacing it with pencil and paper but there's every chance the employee might take up sketching and then of course the universe would fall apart.
(1) Don't install any solitaire program. Mount users' home directories noexec, don't give users root access. They won't be playing solitaire. This also prevents them from downloading solitaire off the web... blocking winsol.exe in Windows group policy doesn't stop any of this, and doesn't stop users from copying winsol.exe to some innocuous filename like C:\excel.exe
If your users are trying THAT HARD to avoid work, it says something. It doesn't matter what you lock down or disallow, employees like that will find a way of wasting time, even if it's just "spacing out". In this situation you need to be asking hard questions about the nature of the work and the nature of the people you're employing.
Distribution of physical media is expensive and, given that nearly every PC worth speaking of will be on the 'net, why bother with shrinkwrap distribution at all? Online distribution channels such as Valve's Steam and Stardock's Impulse allow you to skip over the brick and mortar middleman completely
I'll tell you why. Not everyone has that much bandwidth. For instance I have a 10GB a month limit before I'm slowed to dialup speeds. It would cost quite a bit to get more bandwidth here. (Yes I'm in Australia. No this isn't the only place that has limits around 10-20GB).
Heh. Just *how* long have you spent sniping at me and other members of this forum? Your credulity has worn thin.
No where near a fraction of a percentage of the amount of time it would take to contribute to open source software, let alone sway the primary dev's opinions. I type fast. I've probably wasted a total of 20 minutes on you.
Negatory. My line of logic is this: "The only argument that you've presented hinges on a matter of subjective taste. If you don't care to figure out why people's tastes differ from yours on this matter (and -by extension- why their opinions differ from yours), then you're wasting everyone's time when you bring up such issues." Don't you have a family to raise and job to do?
How are the facts that I've presented subjective. Fact: Devs took away functionality. Fact: They worked hard to ensure that even through advanced settings it couldn't be restored. Fact: People who weren't closely following development were taken by surprise. Fact: Your old links, not visited in years will show up as you type anything into "awesomebar". Fact: This means anyone looking over your shoulder gets fantastic insight into your bookmarks. Fact: The "awesomebar" takes up much more screen real estate than the old tried and true address bar.
Nothing subjective about any of the above. You have trouble separate subjective from objective.
No. You are wrong. There is a need for AwesomeBar. You are -evidently- not its target audience, so you are incapable of understanding that need.
For someone that wants arguments clearly spelled out, that's an incredibly stupid way of putting things. You haven't specified what the need is. I'd argue that the "target audience" doesn't use bookmarks and showing them unvisited ones does them no good. Meanwhile people who do bookmark things get their bookmarks broadcast to anyone looking over their shoulder which is detrimental. Never mind. I'd have been fine if there was a way to turn it off that didn't involve a 3rd party extension that is essentially a hack.
You see it's not good enough. You can't just ask someone to present clear and logical arguments while you present nothing but conceited and condescending waffle.
I don't. You seem to enjoy jumping to conclusions. Go back to the graph that I linked you to. Click on the "Help" link in the top right. You get the story behind the statistics. No mailing lists required.:)
Those stats prove nothing pertinent to the main point of my complaint. Harping on the fact that a few people were able to download a little known extension on the day the browser was released and making that your basis for attacks against my credibility is simple minded and childish.
If you investigated how the stats were calculated, you'd understand just exactly how accurate they are....and if I have other things to do with my time...like for instance raise a family?...You seem to assume every user is interested in FF development. I just want something that doesn't break or change at someone else's whim.
The dev of the oldbar extension probably read the mailing lists where the FF devs gave the Extension devs the heads-up that AwesomeBar was going to be the default, and the about:config option to switch back to the previous behaviour was gonna be removed. There's no conspiracy here, just clued-in developers....and I've already stated my opinion on that FF dev decision. There was no need for any of this. They should have left the option in place.
Then you don't care if anyone listens to your arguments.
So your line of logic is that if I don't care about your opinion, I don't care if anyone listens to me. Are you serious? If so I have to say you think rather highly of yourself.
If you are, let's start over. State your argument as clearly as you can. State all of the primary points of your argument as clearly as you can.
Ah, an offer to start this all again. No thanks. I have better things to do with my time than repeat myself. My arguments have been quite clear. You've just chosen to be dismissive of them. That won't change a second time round, and you know that quite well. Your offer is therefore disingenuous.
If neither person's opinion can be swayed, or either person's argument hinges on matters of taste, then we shall terminate the conversation and go our separate ways.
I think it's safe to say neither of us will be swayed.
Do you pay the Firefox team for their work? Do you have a contract with them for delivery of a browser with a Firefox 2.x styled location bar? If you do, then you have a valid complaint. If not, then they're free to do whatever their steering committee has found to be best for the browser.
How many things do you rely on that you don't pay for you hypocritical fool? This is a good argument for never using free software. Is that what you're suggesting? That free software is garbage that should never be used.
No if they ask for my patronage and provide a good version 1.0 product then bait and switch with progressively degraded rubbish in 2 and 3 while pulling the good product I have a legimate gripe. I can't sue them for money but I can point out that their new browser sucks, which is all I've done.
*snort*
Snort it up, big boy!
Agreed. I have yet to get "caught out", though.
Must be nice to be perfect and never get caught out. You're in the minority though.
I authored none of the documents that I have linked to in this thread. Half of the links that I have posted were not for your consumption. The other half pointed you to FF 1.0 and a warning from the devs about using old browsers. Care to explain how you've come to your conclusion?
You can't have it both ways. Should I use the old browser or not? If you're arguing I should, then stop pointing to material that suggests I'd be foolish to do so as it's not helping your case. If you're arguing I shouldn't then stop telling me that if I don't like it I can stick with the old browser. You may want to try learning to make a logically consistent argument. Even as a troll this might come in handy on occassion.
You first, sir.
More throwing my arguments back at me even if they don't make sense to turn back because clearly you can't make a decent argument to save your life. I've not been dismissive of you. I'm not the one telling you to shut up and stop complaining am I now? Grow the fuck up and get a life.
How often do you create a profile, boss? (Also, why are you creating profiles so often that this creates a problem? [Also, why are you running everyday things as a root user?])
Not often at all. It was suggested as one possible solution to my issues with Awesomebar on this very thread. That means a simple mistake of omission results in me losing control of my software environment, which isn't good enough. You may be a robot that never makes such mistakes, but some of us are flesh and blood human beings.
When I configure Firefox to ask me before upgrading, or never upgrade, it does just that. I have never seen Firefox "forget" this setting. (I've also been using Firefox from the 1.0 days.)
You must configure this setting on each and every profile, and if you create a new profile or install without doing this, you'll get an automatic upgrade for your trouble. It was a very simple point I was making. You must be a pleasure to live with if you turn every little point into some argument in real life.
Oldbar and hideunvisited *were* available on the day that Firefox 3.0 shipped.
1) I have no idea how accurate those stats are. See point 4.
2) I have no idea how many people even knew about the differences between 2 and 3 on the day the first downloaded it. I know I didn't. Feel free to bash me for having better things to do with my life than follow FF development.
3) I know for a fact that MOST FF users *STILL* don't know about these extensions and why they might want them
4) The FF devs certain did not publicize the availability of these extensions. In fact 3.0 betas included options in about:config that meant these extensions weren't necessary. So how is it that they were released on day 1?
I respectfully request that you retract this statement.
Yeah you've been real respectful. Request denied.\
. All you've done in this thread is rail endlessly about how much the AwesomeBar sucks and how it's the death of Firefox. *I* *don't* *agree* *with* *you*. If you have other examples, you need to start bringing them out. This one example is very weak, as it's based on matters of taste.
I don't care if you agree with me. Forcing your own tastes on others is neither a weak example, nor is it just a matter of taste. Awesomebar is less efficient and is more invasive of your privacy. You can rant about how much you don't care about that, but it doesn't change those 2 facts.
I think I covered most things. Honestly I've watched the PC gaming market spelled out for freaking years now. It's gotten to the point that I wonder if people understand the difference between change and death.
I tell you what I do understand. I understand going to my local games shop and seeing one shelf of PC games instead of 8. I understand almost all the games advertised on TV being for consoles. I understand newer operating systems being less developer friendly and a lot more work to code for, not to mention not running older titles. PC gaming isn't just changing. A significant portion of the industry has shifted away from the PC. It'll only get worse as the DRM gets more draconian and it's less and less likely that the game you buy for PC will run without big headaches. I also understand newer titles costing double what old titles use to cost when they were new. Inflation over the last 7-10 years isn't 50%.
Lets see. Shrek (various games). Fantastic 4. The Incredibles. That's just the ones I own in that kind of co-op genre (which isnt my favourite).
Try doing flight simulation on a console. MS Flight Sim 2004 or X will allow you to participate in massive online environments. X even lets you pilot and copilot
Prime reason to avoid online office suites and the like. Another good reason is that even these days Internet access is not a given 24x7 every place you want to be.
- I can legally run software others wrote, even contribute to a commerical game (which I have done as a content author though not as a programmer). The mods for PC games are much more extensive and varied.
- No semi-legal or legally grey mod chips or other workarounds. Game playing is not worth even a tiny risk of going to jail for some sort of copyright infringement
- The most accurate true to life simulation - eg. flight simulation - compared to arcade games on most consoles
- I can take my laptop complete with 17" screen and mobile Nvida 8800GT, and it's not just good for games and media. I can develop code, run scientific apps...the sky's the limit
Pity new games releases for the PC are dying off. Fortunately there are still lots of games released in the last 15 years that I haven't explored. I dread "upgrading" to Vista though because I know that will kill off some of the games I now enjoy using.
First, there can be technically incompetent physicians who miss diagnoses or prescribe outdated treatments, but they're loved by their patients.
Good people skills are necessary but not sufficient. You also have to have the technical skill, but neither replaces the other.
A second, more subtle, issue is that sometimes being a good doctor requires you to do things that will make your patient unhappy. For example, a good primary care physician will bug his/her patients to quit smoking and lose weight. Those are things that annoy people, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that sometimes it's easier to make the patient happy than it is to do the right thing and come off looking like a bad guy.
Be honest. When's the last time you were able to force a patient to make a life style choice like quitting smoking or losing weight by nagging them? Also are patients that dislike and mistrust you more likely to follow such advice or less likely?
Being nice does not mean always telling people what they want to hear. It means doing it with respect and sensitivity. You must understand this. You've probably had to tell people they're dying, haven't you? Getting back to the weight loss example, you can say "lose weight you fat bastard or you'll have a heart attack" or you can show the patient the stats, not talk down to them and let them make a decision knowing full well what the long term weight loss stats are like and how hard that actually is to do.
For example, people come in all the time demanding antibiotics for viral upper respiratory infections. Giving those patients antibiotics is doing them a disservice, as it breeds resistant organisms
So you don't prescribe them, and you explain exactly why. Then you offer the patient what support you can by telling them what else they can do and how long their illness is likely to last. It's a trust issue. The reason patients demand antibiotics is that they don't believe their doctors when their doctors say they won't work. All the more reason to be "nice". People don't trust other people they think are assholes.
As far as I'm concerned, that sort of pandering is cowardice pure and simple, but physicians are human too, and it's hard to be the bad guy.
You don't need to be the bad guy. You can be very nice about telling them that you believe this will harm them and others and do them no good and that you can't in good conscience prescribe the meds.
Finally, posting random stuff on a web site is just not a reliable way to evaluate anyone. Mostly you'll just get a few posts from a tiny, disgruntled fraction of the patients a doctor sees.
The way the medical profession works I promise you it's not just a tiny fraction of patients that are disgruntled. You're seeing evidence of this in the fact they don't rrust you enough to believe that your refusal to prescribe meds is in their best interest.
And in most of those cases, the complaint says more about the patient than the doctor.
That's simply not true. The amount of medical incompetence I've witnessed first hand is astounding. An irritible bowel patient given a diet plan, when they're obstructed and haven't eaten for 2 days. A pregnant asthmatic woman who had been hit by a car diagnosed as "breathing wrong" and being a head case when then being told to excercise all while she's hospitalized hacking up litres of flem every day (a simple case of maternal asthma for fuck sake). Repeated misdiagnoses of shoulder dislocations because the medical profession is all geared up to scan for anterior dislocations when this is posterior (the shoulder was actually left dislocated for 6 months in the first instance which completely ruined it. It took 4 reconstructions to regain some stability). 2 GPs and 1 specialist prescribing then continually increasing the dosage on a medication prescribed for seizures when seizures were a contraindication. By the time I (without any medical training) picked this one up the patient was having a seiz
Replace "doctor" with "lawyer", "manager", "programmer" or "recruiter", and it still makes sense.
People skills are important, but seeming "nice" is not the only people skill that matters. There are plenty of people who are honest, but a bit rude (all good surgeons, for starters), but it doesn't mean patients would like them.
If you seem like an ass, you're not going to get all the relevant information to base your decisions from because people don't open up to assholes. It's that simple. It doesn't matter how good you are technically, if you're basing your information on partial data.
There are many religious people who value the bible yet don't consider it to be a literal encyclopedia of how the universe works.
There are lots of people who value comic books yet don't consider them to be a literal encyclopedia of how the universe works. The difference is that anyone who did consider a comic book to be literally true would be committed, whereas it is accepted that some people believe in the literal truth of the Bible.
They're sending a strongly worded letter. That's it. This is a complete non-story
So the guy paying your bills sends a "strongly worded letter" advising you not to do something and you're saying it's no big deal? There's an implicit threat there.
As to your "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" and "no real" remarks - whether God is or is not real (and I believe that he is), is it really such a big deal that people want something to believe in, even if you don't particularly want or need that?
For a fantastic explanation why incorrect beliefs are harmful, read "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark" by Carl Sagan.
Short version: Making decisions for yourself and others based on non-truths means you are not using the best actual knowledge you have, often in matters of life and death (or quality of life) of large numbers of people. You still have to contend with reality and reap the consequences of your actions. For example if you decide to consult a mystic to decide what you do on a particular day, it might be very bad, if you're in a position of power. E.g. if you're the US president and what you do for the day is decide whether or not to start WWIII.
Slashdot Mirror
It's evil because it violates your privacy, and there's really no easy way to opt-out
I'm using the Firefox extension Ghostery right now. On slashdot it shows up Google Analytics, Google Adsense and Doubleclick. Just being here, you're being tracked.
I encountered the same feeling when I walked into a Best Buy the other day. I don't generally go into places like that, so when I did and I saw all of the flat-scren TV's, my GF and I couldn't get over how BAD we thought they all looked. The looked too sharp and too bright. I need another TV but I'm having trouble finding anyone that sells good CRT's any more!
I don't know if you were going for sarcasm, or playing on the fact that CRTs are in fact better. They don't have a native resolution, and are more colour accurate. When they were available they were also a lot less expensive. The only down sides were the size of the box and the fact that they use more electricity than LCD (but less than plasma). You couldn't exactly bolt one onto a laptop.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 7 or 8 times, shame on me ;-)
Aw come on now. If you call this childish, what would you say to that Cat Agreeing to an EULA story that got nearly 1000 replies.
At least that story was kinda funny in a perverse way. The thought of someone taking legalese nonsense and trying to respond with their own nonsense sticks it to the legal profession and pokes fun at the corporations trying to control software this way. The only thing that makes it kinda sad is that it went beyond a joke and is wasting real life legal resources.
Today's story on the other hand isn't humorous. It's just a childish profane rant demanding a megacorp give away their sofware.
Yes.. which is why using group policy to 'block' application execution is kind of silly, it throws away useful information, that management could use to make better decisions. It's much better to 'monitor' unusual activity and send automated e-mails to their boss, when they run a program like 'winsol' from their home directory.
So you're saying instead of preventing your users from wasting time, spy on them, catch them out doing it, then reprimand or fire them. Yeah that'll do wonders for your business. I'm sure you'll attract the best of breed to that little sweat shop. Here's a better idea. Outsource your workers to the local salt mines.
Greed AND stupidity in equal measures...and people wonder why the economy is in tatters.
fully integrated as a replacement for all MS Office -- the only thing it doesn't do well are Excel macros, and that's for a reason: they're broken and easily replaced.
So many things wrong with that statement:
1) Companies have entire collections of complex Excel Macros written that need replacing. Often difficult to interpret and often with the original developer long gone. It's not just macros. Even charting is very different and doesn't convert over.
2) OO doesn't do everything Office does. I wish it did. I'd switch myself.
3) Sometimes it totally destroys the formatting on existing docs. Other times the destruction is more subtle when you convert, which can actually be worse. Try converting documents with formulae embedded etc., just for fun.
4) Bugs. I thought Office bugs were bad until I ran into the bug in Open Office 3 that would take down the application if you clicked on the File menu.
5) You might also have some issues if you want to save to Office 2007 format
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=14253#p66736
What MS Office drawing app are you referring to?
Try Visio. You can use kludges to create a document in Impress based on existing documents with parts that you can copy and paste. It'll take you about 30 minutes to do what Visio will let you do in 5 but it can be done. It's just not practical.
At best I think you could claim that for your own purposes, Open Office works well. For other people that do other things - like open other people's office documents, use formulae regularly, make extensive use of charting and Macros etc and don't have time to replace everything, Open Office isn't a viable option without significant investment. Care to build a business case for it?
The list can go on, and others here can easily tell you more applications, I only wanted to harp in on a few that you might be interested in (or didn't even think about.) The days of MS Office being the be-all-end-all of office application suites is over and has been for a while now.
Only if you never used anything more than the most basic of basic functionality, and don't care if you can't open other people's stuff.
You're not ready for Linux on your desktop but you're ready to trust your data to an 0.version file system driver on Windows??? Anyway, how difficult is it to copy data from NTFS to a new filesystem should the need ever arise? Your focus is all wrong. The real issue is the applications. There are so many applications out there that are Windows only that don't have a viable non-Windows replacement that it's not funny. Where there is a drop in replacement it's usually not feature complete. THAT is a much bigger problem. If I moved OS now, it'd be a pain to transfer data to a new FS but its nothing I couldn't do. I couldn't replace many of my apps though.
Mod parent UP. The OP is thinking about it wrong: ie how to manage unix in the style of windows. Don't give them root and they can't install software. Make sure the home directories an /tmp is moutes -noexec and there is NO WAY that they can run programs which aren't already installed.
Now they can have free run of the system and can't do anything harmful. Still not satisfied? Remove all executables that they shouldn't run, or make them a-rx g-rx, and don't have users in the group able to run them.
Much easier, just remove the computer from their desktop. I would suggest replacing it with pencil and paper but there's every chance the employee might take up sketching and then of course the universe would fall apart.
(1) Don't install any solitaire program. Mount users' home directories noexec, don't give users root access. They won't be playing solitaire. This also prevents them from downloading solitaire off the web... blocking winsol.exe in Windows group policy doesn't stop any of this, and doesn't stop users from copying winsol.exe to some innocuous filename like C:\excel.exe
If your users are trying THAT HARD to avoid work, it says something. It doesn't matter what you lock down or disallow, employees like that will find a way of wasting time, even if it's just "spacing out". In this situation you need to be asking hard questions about the nature of the work and the nature of the people you're employing.
Distribution of physical media is expensive and, given that nearly every PC worth speaking of will be on the 'net, why bother with shrinkwrap distribution at all? Online distribution channels such as Valve's Steam and Stardock's Impulse allow you to skip over the brick and mortar middleman completely
I'll tell you why. Not everyone has that much bandwidth. For instance I have a 10GB a month limit before I'm slowed to dialup speeds. It would cost quite a bit to get more bandwidth here. (Yes I'm in Australia. No this isn't the only place that has limits around 10-20GB).
Heh. Just *how* long have you spent sniping at me and other members of this forum? Your credulity has worn thin.
No where near a fraction of a percentage of the amount of time it would take to contribute to open source software, let alone sway the primary dev's opinions. I type fast. I've probably wasted a total of 20 minutes on you.
Negatory. My line of logic is this: "The only argument that you've presented hinges on a matter of subjective taste. If you don't care to figure out why people's tastes differ from yours on this matter (and -by extension- why their opinions differ from yours), then you're wasting everyone's time when you bring up such issues." Don't you have a family to raise and job to do?
How are the facts that I've presented subjective. Fact: Devs took away functionality. Fact: They worked hard to ensure that even through advanced settings it couldn't be restored. Fact: People who weren't closely following development were taken by surprise. Fact: Your old links, not visited in years will show up as you type anything into "awesomebar". Fact: This means anyone looking over your shoulder gets fantastic insight into your bookmarks. Fact: The "awesomebar" takes up much more screen real estate than the old tried and true address bar.
Nothing subjective about any of the above. You have trouble separate subjective from objective.
No. You are wrong. There is a need for AwesomeBar. You are -evidently- not its target audience, so you are incapable of understanding that need.
For someone that wants arguments clearly spelled out, that's an incredibly stupid way of putting things. You haven't specified what the need is. I'd argue that the "target audience" doesn't use bookmarks and showing them unvisited ones does them no good. Meanwhile people who do bookmark things get their bookmarks broadcast to anyone looking over their shoulder which is detrimental. Never mind. I'd have been fine if there was a way to turn it off that didn't involve a 3rd party extension that is essentially a hack.
You see it's not good enough. You can't just ask someone to present clear and logical arguments while you present nothing but conceited and condescending waffle.
I don't. You seem to enjoy jumping to conclusions. Go back to the graph that I linked you to. Click on the "Help" link in the top right. You get the story behind the statistics. No mailing lists required. :)
Those stats prove nothing pertinent to the main point of my complaint. Harping on the fact that a few people were able to download a little known extension on the day the browser was released and making that your basis for attacks against my credibility is simple minded and childish.
Anyway, adieu. May we never meet again.
Yes.
If you investigated how the stats were calculated, you'd understand just exactly how accurate they are. ...and if I have other things to do with my time...like for instance raise a family?...You seem to assume every user is interested in FF development. I just want something that doesn't break or change at someone else's whim.
The dev of the oldbar extension probably read the mailing lists where the FF devs gave the Extension devs the heads-up that AwesomeBar was going to be the default, and the about:config option to switch back to the previous behaviour was gonna be removed. There's no conspiracy here, just clued-in developers. ...and I've already stated my opinion on that FF dev decision. There was no need for any of this. They should have left the option in place.
Then you don't care if anyone listens to your arguments.
So your line of logic is that if I don't care about your opinion, I don't care if anyone listens to me. Are you serious? If so I have to say you think rather highly of yourself.
If you are, let's start over. State your argument as clearly as you can. State all of the primary points of your argument as clearly as you can.
Ah, an offer to start this all again. No thanks. I have better things to do with my time than repeat myself. My arguments have been quite clear. You've just chosen to be dismissive of them. That won't change a second time round, and you know that quite well. Your offer is therefore disingenuous.
If neither person's opinion can be swayed, or either person's argument hinges on matters of taste, then we shall terminate the conversation and go our separate ways.
I think it's safe to say neither of us will be swayed.
Do you pay the Firefox team for their work? Do you have a contract with them for delivery of a browser with a Firefox 2.x styled location bar? If you do, then you have a valid complaint. If not, then they're free to do whatever their steering committee has found to be best for the browser.
How many things do you rely on that you don't pay for you hypocritical fool? This is a good argument for never using free software. Is that what you're suggesting? That free software is garbage that should never be used.
No if they ask for my patronage and provide a good version 1.0 product then bait and switch with progressively degraded rubbish in 2 and 3 while pulling the good product I have a legimate gripe. I can't sue them for money but I can point out that their new browser sucks, which is all I've done.
*snort*
Snort it up, big boy!
Agreed. I have yet to get "caught out", though.
Must be nice to be perfect and never get caught out. You're in the minority though.
I authored none of the documents that I have linked to in this thread. Half of the links that I have posted were not for your consumption. The other half pointed you to FF 1.0 and a warning from the devs about using old browsers. Care to explain how you've come to your conclusion?
You can't have it both ways. Should I use the old browser or not? If you're arguing I should, then stop pointing to material that suggests I'd be foolish to do so as it's not helping your case. If you're arguing I shouldn't then stop telling me that if I don't like it I can stick with the old browser. You may want to try learning to make a logically consistent argument. Even as a troll this might come in handy on occassion.
You first, sir.
More throwing my arguments back at me even if they don't make sense to turn back because clearly you can't make a decent argument to save your life. I've not been dismissive of you. I'm not the one telling you to shut up and stop complaining am I now? Grow the fuck up and get a life.
How often do you create a profile, boss? (Also, why are you creating profiles so often that this creates a problem? [Also, why are you running everyday things as a root user?])
Not often at all. It was suggested as one possible solution to my issues with Awesomebar on this very thread. That means a simple mistake of omission results in me losing control of my software environment, which isn't good enough. You may be a robot that never makes such mistakes, but some of us are flesh and blood human beings.
When I configure Firefox to ask me before upgrading, or never upgrade, it does just that. I have never seen Firefox "forget" this setting. (I've also been using Firefox from the 1.0 days.)
You must configure this setting on each and every profile, and if you create a new profile or install without doing this, you'll get an automatic upgrade for your trouble. It was a very simple point I was making. You must be a pleasure to live with if you turn every little point into some argument in real life.
Oldbar and hideunvisited *were* available on the day that Firefox 3.0 shipped.
1) I have no idea how accurate those stats are. See point 4.
2) I have no idea how many people even knew about the differences between 2 and 3 on the day the first downloaded it. I know I didn't. Feel free to bash me for having better things to do with my life than follow FF development.
3) I know for a fact that MOST FF users *STILL* don't know about these extensions and why they might want them
4) The FF devs certain did not publicize the availability of these extensions. In fact 3.0 betas included options in about:config that meant these extensions weren't necessary. So how is it that they were released on day 1?
I respectfully request that you retract this statement.
Yeah you've been real respectful. Request denied.\
. All you've done in this thread is rail endlessly about how much the AwesomeBar sucks and how it's the death of Firefox. *I* *don't* *agree* *with* *you*. If you have other examples, you need to start bringing them out. This one example is very weak, as it's based on matters of taste.
I don't care if you agree with me. Forcing your own tastes on others is neither a weak example, nor is it just a matter of taste. Awesomebar is less efficient and is more invasive of your privacy. You can rant about how much you don't care about that, but it doesn't change those 2 facts.
I think I covered most things. Honestly I've watched the PC gaming market spelled out for freaking years now. It's gotten to the point that I wonder if people understand the difference between change and death.
I tell you what I do understand. I understand going to my local games shop and seeing one shelf of PC games instead of 8. I understand almost all the games advertised on TV being for consoles. I understand newer operating systems being less developer friendly and a lot more work to code for, not to mention not running older titles. PC gaming isn't just changing. A significant portion of the industry has shifted away from the PC. It'll only get worse as the DRM gets more draconian and it's less and less likely that the game you buy for PC will run without big headaches. I also understand newer titles costing double what old titles use to cost when they were new. Inflation over the last 7-10 years isn't 50%.
Lets see. Shrek (various games). Fantastic 4. The Incredibles. That's just the ones I own in that kind of co-op genre (which isnt my favourite).
Try doing flight simulation on a console. MS Flight Sim 2004 or X will allow you to participate in massive online environments. X even lets you pilot and copilot
Prime reason to avoid online office suites and the like. Another good reason is that even these days Internet access is not a given 24x7 every place you want to be.
There's no home brew better than PC home brew
- I can legally run software others wrote, even contribute to a commerical game (which I have done as a content author though not as a programmer). The mods for PC games are much more extensive and varied.
- No semi-legal or legally grey mod chips or other workarounds. Game playing is not worth even a tiny risk of going to jail for some sort of copyright infringement
- The most accurate true to life simulation - eg. flight simulation - compared to arcade games on most consoles
- I can take my laptop complete with 17" screen and mobile Nvida 8800GT, and it's not just good for games and media. I can develop code, run scientific apps...the sky's the limit
Pity new games releases for the PC are dying off. Fortunately there are still lots of games released in the last 15 years that I haven't explored. I dread "upgrading" to Vista though because I know that will kill off some of the games I now enjoy using.
First, there can be technically incompetent physicians who miss diagnoses or prescribe outdated treatments, but they're loved by their patients.
Good people skills are necessary but not sufficient. You also have to have the technical skill, but neither replaces the other.
A second, more subtle, issue is that sometimes being a good doctor requires you to do things that will make your patient unhappy. For example, a good primary care physician will bug his/her patients to quit smoking and lose weight. Those are things that annoy people, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that sometimes it's easier to make the patient happy than it is to do the right thing and come off looking like a bad guy.
Be honest. When's the last time you were able to force a patient to make a life style choice like quitting smoking or losing weight by nagging them? Also are patients that dislike and mistrust you more likely to follow such advice or less likely?
Being nice does not mean always telling people what they want to hear. It means doing it with respect and sensitivity. You must understand this. You've probably had to tell people they're dying, haven't you? Getting back to the weight loss example, you can say "lose weight you fat bastard or you'll have a heart attack" or you can show the patient the stats, not talk down to them and let them make a decision knowing full well what the long term weight loss stats are like and how hard that actually is to do.
For example, people come in all the time demanding antibiotics for viral upper respiratory infections. Giving those patients antibiotics is doing them a disservice, as it breeds resistant organisms
So you don't prescribe them, and you explain exactly why. Then you offer the patient what support you can by telling them what else they can do and how long their illness is likely to last. It's a trust issue. The reason patients demand antibiotics is that they don't believe their doctors when their doctors say they won't work. All the more reason to be "nice". People don't trust other people they think are assholes.
As far as I'm concerned, that sort of pandering is cowardice pure and simple, but physicians are human too, and it's hard to be the bad guy.
You don't need to be the bad guy. You can be very nice about telling them that you believe this will harm them and others and do them no good and that you can't in good conscience prescribe the meds.
Finally, posting random stuff on a web site is just not a reliable way to evaluate anyone. Mostly you'll just get a few posts from a tiny, disgruntled fraction of the patients a doctor sees.
The way the medical profession works I promise you it's not just a tiny fraction of patients that are disgruntled. You're seeing evidence of this in the fact they don't rrust you enough to believe that your refusal to prescribe meds is in their best interest.
And in most of those cases, the complaint says more about the patient than the doctor.
That's simply not true. The amount of medical incompetence I've witnessed first hand is astounding. An irritible bowel patient given a diet plan, when they're obstructed and haven't eaten for 2 days. A pregnant asthmatic woman who had been hit by a car diagnosed as "breathing wrong" and being a head case when then being told to excercise all while she's hospitalized hacking up litres of flem every day (a simple case of maternal asthma for fuck sake). Repeated misdiagnoses of shoulder dislocations because the medical profession is all geared up to scan for anterior dislocations when this is posterior (the shoulder was actually left dislocated for 6 months in the first instance which completely ruined it. It took 4 reconstructions to regain some stability). 2 GPs and 1 specialist prescribing then continually increasing the dosage on a medication prescribed for seizures when seizures were a contraindication. By the time I (without any medical training) picked this one up the patient was having a seiz
Replace "doctor" with "lawyer", "manager", "programmer" or "recruiter", and it still makes sense.
People skills are important, but seeming "nice" is not the only people skill that matters. There are plenty of people who are honest, but a bit rude (all good surgeons, for starters), but it doesn't mean patients would like them.
If you seem like an ass, you're not going to get all the relevant information to base your decisions from because people don't open up to assholes. It's that simple. It doesn't matter how good you are technically, if you're basing your information on partial data.
There are many religious people who value the bible yet don't consider it to be a literal encyclopedia of how the universe works.
There are lots of people who value comic books yet don't consider them to be a literal encyclopedia of how the universe works. The difference is that anyone who did consider a comic book to be literally true would be committed, whereas it is accepted that some people believe in the literal truth of the Bible.
They're sending a strongly worded letter. That's it. This is a complete non-story
So the guy paying your bills sends a "strongly worded letter" advising you not to do something and you're saying it's no big deal? There's an implicit threat there.
As to your "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" and "no real" remarks - whether God is or is not real (and I believe that he is), is it really such a big deal that people want something to believe in, even if you don't particularly want or need that?
For a fantastic explanation why incorrect beliefs are harmful, read "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark" by Carl Sagan.
Short version: Making decisions for yourself and others based on non-truths means you are not using the best actual knowledge you have, often in matters of life and death (or quality of life) of large numbers of people. You still have to contend with reality and reap the consequences of your actions. For example if you decide to consult a mystic to decide what you do on a particular day, it might be very bad, if you're in a position of power. E.g. if you're the US president and what you do for the day is decide whether or not to start WWIII.
You kidding me? I've never seen a blurry photograph of God running through the woods.
You need to go watch "Life of Brian" again.