I didn't miss your point. You didn't make it very well
Another ad hominem.
No it's not. You clearly don't know the meaning of the phrase. If I said you couldn't make an argument to save your life, that might qualify. What I said was you didn't make your point very well. That was clearly an attack on the argument, not on the man. If you're going to use latin phrases, try not to misuse them. It makes you look foolish.
Here fucking get a clue and read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#In_logic In general, ad hominem criticism of evidence cannot prove the negative of the proposition being claimed:
Another ad hominem. And I accused you of nothing. I merely stated the fact that you didn't respond to the point I was making which implies that you didn't understand
I love it. In the same post that you repeatedly accuse me of ad hominem attacks, misapplying the term left right and center, you then state "I accused you of nothing". Not to mention that you seem to think it's logically consistent to accuse me of ad hominem attacks, but excuse yourself of the same under almost exactly the same circumstances. All while attempting to lecture me on the rules of logic and a formal debate. You must be joking. No one could possibly be that fucking stupid. Actually I think what you've done is so irrational and nonsensical that the term "circular stupidity" comes to mind....and then you prattle on with more and more of the same. As if you feel the need to repeatedly emphasise the irony of your own stupidity.
I am merely following the rules of formal debate.
Buddy you wouldn't know the rules of a formal debate if they bit you on the arse. That most certainly is an ad hominem because quite frankly you're irritating me with your stupidity, arrogance and misuse of terminology.
In the meantime thanks for making me laugh. I needed that tonight, and believe me I'm laughing my arse off at what I'm sure you still consider to be a sound argument. I also get the pleasure of knowing that you have to live with yourself being that pompous and yet that incompetent. You must be fun at parties.
Whether you respond or not, I don't think I'll bother to read it. I'd sooner play chess with a mentally challenged sea otter.
You missed my point. I was referring to people who must context switch constantly in a single work session between a paper medium and a white on black computer screen.
I didn't miss your point. You didn't make it very well (if at all). Then I'm suppose to read your mind to work out what you're trying to say, and when I fail to, you accuse me of taking it out of context.
Since you're the one asserting that the vast majority of all the content on the internet has picked the incorrect color scheme (a not generally accepted position), the burden of proof lies on you, the asserter.
That's your interpretation of my assertion. This isn't a murder trial and there is no burden of proof. This is a discussion on an internet board. You're the one who wants cited references from me. That takes time and effort. Yet you were unwilling to provide the same yourself. Now that you have
http://hubel.sfasu.edu/research/survreslts.html
Did you even notice how close the results were for white on black vs black on white????? Are you trying to make my point for me? Go back and read what you wrote. Sweeping statements about almost no one (but basement dwellers) liking white on black.
http://www.office-ergo.com/setting.htm
Ahhh good old ergnomics theory that most office workers are forced to read so employers can avoid law suites when office work actually causes injury. All these things ever do is mix common sense with complete nonsense then force to in theory adopt the approach. In practice no one I know actually does everything that is required of their ergonomics training, and for good reason: If they were to take the general principles and apply it to their own situations, they'd find that they need to add a good dose of common sense.
You'll find there are people who'll have the opposite opinion
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200608/light_text_on_dark_background_vs_readability/ (...and we were doing so well. The other two were at least studies. This link is a rant by one individual about their own preference. It's actually worse as a reference than the Digg discussion.
In any case all I needed to prove was that there were other people who held similar views that light text on a dark background is easier for them to read. You asserted this was not the case. I've proven otherwise. (Hell you've helped me prove otherwise).
It's called a joke, as was spelled out in my original post. It's also a very common one on Slashdot. Since your account is older than mine and has many more posts than mine, I'd assumed you'd be familiar with it. I'd invoke the similar "you must be new here" joke at this time as well, but you might get irrationally offended by that too.;)
In the context of your original joke, it was used to marginalize and belittle my opinion. That's why I was offended. Now you're belittling me for getting offended. You continually bring up these jokes while saying that you could reference them but you won't, as if that somehow means you in actuality haven't made the reference. This is no more than a bad attempt at what becomes a weak and childish attack. I suggest you either make the joke or don't make it.
I never suggested you were alone. I suggested you are in the vast minority. Which you are.
Your very own link proves that I'm not in the minority at all. You can state something as if it is a fact until you go blue, but when your own evidence points the other way all you succeed in doing is looking like a ranting loon.
as you can read here in an article posted today, denying the Bavarian request to use it for other crimes not directly related to terrorism.
So the police requested that it be used for other crimes, and because that request was denied, you ridicule it as some sort of paranoid fantasy that more and more countries are beginning to be run as police states. I find the fact that the police asked for this law to be passed at all disturbing.
Anyone who has had to switch from reading printed text to a white on black screen over and over again would appreciate the consistency.
"Anyone" huh? So what now I'm a nobody? There are plenty of people out there that go to great lengths to switch back to a black background. Take a look at the VIM colour schemes people create.
This implies that if it costs were equal to print white on black, that would be the overwhelming majority preference. Substantiation?
Historically to print something white on black you'd need to use all your ink turning the rest of the paper black. Even if you could start with black paper so you didn't have to print the negative image, you'd still need to find a dye or ink that'd work well and be available in quantity. Neither black white ink nor black paper were easy to come by a hundred or so years ago, let alone when books were first written or when the printing press became common. I'm not sure what you're looking for in substantiation.
Don't be lazy. You can do better than that. Cite at least one valid advantage of white on black and substantiate it
Fuck off. Cite your own sources before accusing others of being lazy for not doing so. Hypocrite. This is slashdot, not a thesis defence.
Looking foolish is taking something personally that wasn't meant to be.
Oh gimme a break and stop being so dishonest. You can't get more personal that suggesting tht someone is happy with an inferior solution because they're a basement dweller with no social skills.
Your condescension would be far more effective if you actually substantiated any of these "facts" you cite, instead of acting as if they should be obvious to the entire universe.
Go ahead, prove me wrong. I'm waiting.
I'll start citing references to counter your trolling, when you find me references to substantiate what you're saying. Why should I spend the time and effort digging up references for you? Go Google it if you think it's worth your time
Or maybe Slashdot and almost every other site on the internet chooses black on white because it's more readable for the vast majority of users?
I'd say it has more to do with trying to make it look like printed text, which is silly. It costs a lot of money to print black on white. It costs less and is easier to print white on black, which is why books and printed presses went for that in the first place. Then when we got computers, people wanted them to look more familiar. Has nothing to do with a statistical analysis of who finds what more readable. But don't let facts get in your way. This is after all/.
Last I checked, the only advantage white on black has is when your computer screen is your only source of light in a room.
Then check again, because you have it wrong.
Barring the "get out of your mom's basement" joke, I don't think most of us are using computers in complete darkness most of the time.
I don't have a basement. I have a study. I don't live with my mother. I live with my wife (and will soon be living with a son). Most of my time in front of the computer is spent in a well lit office. My personal timeis largely on a laptop in the train (and the reflective screen makes that a difficult lighting situation). I love how you allude to a joke and try to belittle a bloke by making assumptions that just make you look foolish. Oh wait, I forgot you said "barring" that joke...which is why you felt the need to mention it.
It's all about matching brightness with your surroundings. For most people white on black is NOT it.
Oh? Is it? Is that why the majority of monitors automatically compensates for changes in ambient light? Oh wait, they don't.
For me personally, there's only really one way to deal with this nonsense. I haven't used Paypal for a long time after I had what I consider to be a very bad experience (luckily I didn't lose too much money on the deal). I closed my account then, and I'm not opening one up again. If I can't pay by bank deposit or COD, I don't bid. In the long run I won't be using Ebay. I don't find bargains there nearly as much as I use to.
They're destroyed to remove the conflict of interest/incentive for empoyees in charge of returning them. Whether that's perceived or actual...who knows. I'll bet they're not all destroyed though. I bet there's some corruption somewhere and someone who sees the waste and decides "I'll have that then".
But still, what kind of moron loses their laptop while traveling? I can't imagine letting it out of my sight or even out of my reach.
It doesn't take a moron. It takes someone who's momentarily distracted, tired, or asleep.
I could say it takes an uncompassionate git to make such a sweeping statement with no regard for the wide variety of circumstances under which people that travel.
First of all if you think it's going to stay at $70/year you're smoking something. Few services I've ever used have failed to increase cost every year.
Second you forgot to compare it to the open office model, and the pirate bay or getting it off your shonky neighbour model. Both have a cost of Total for 3 years: $0 (unless you get caught for piracy, but many people don't consider that a big risk)
Third you're only considering what it's like over 3 years. Most people I know who aren't hobbyists buy a computer once every 5 years or more.
Fourth you're not considering that you've just given a company the ability to force you into an upgrade that won't open your old documents, or that might be a lot buggier than your old version.
Fifth you're not considering the problems that arise with DRM and activation, which may be far from perfect in the first place and which may make it difficult to move your software between computers
Lastly, as for onenote, I think you're smoking something.
Actually I do occasionally mix letters like that but I've never had trouble reading and have never been diagnosed with dyslexia. I have from time to time wondered if I have a mild form of dyslexia but I suspect I'm just lazy and not an intuitive speller.
Whoa... It's pretty gutsy to call slashdot (and almost all webistes) "just stupid".
Whoa, I wasn't trying to call slashdot and almost all websites "just stupid" in the sense that you seem to think. I'm saying we've gotten use to conventions that are problematic.
Actually I have friends and family with dyslexia. Each person responds differently. They are actually procedures now to work out which colours work best for each person. The result is a perscription for glasses with coloured tinting. I know one person who learnt to read in her teens using these, and has now been a primary school teacher for some years (and a very good one at that). For whatever reason she struggles less with dyslexia now and no longer requires the glasses.
Personally I find the above best. I can cope with green or yellow text, but find white best, followed by cyan. This whole idea of the modern WYSIWYG desktop trying to emulate paper and thus having a white background is just stupid. Paper is a reflective medium. Screens emit and therefore looking at a white screen is going to give you the office worker's equivalent of snow blindness. Print preview should have a white background, and it should be an easy thing to switch it on for typing up a text document (for true WYSIWYG) but we really shouldn't be using it all day.
Subscription services don't tend to get cheaper over time. In fact if lots of people take this up, demand increases and within a handful of years people will be paying the same amount to rent office for a year that they pay now to buy a non-terminating license.
I hate anything as a service. Another regular bill, and another dependency on another company I probably don't like, because my alternative is to go without. Fuck that for a bag of chips.
What's not to get here. Whether you work for Google or MS, if you're working 6 and sometimes 7 days a week for 14-18 hours a day you'll eventually burn out. Google may or may not be as good as it once was as an employer but that's not the only reason people change jobs. They get burnt out. They look for something exciting or a change. They find that they can't move forward or get a promotion as easily without changing employer.
When I was a young single bloke, I'm sure I'd have enjoyed long hours working on products that could change the world. Now, I'd still like to work on interesting stuff but I have a family, and I have other interests. I'm not going to do ridiculous hours just to compete, or just so I'm picked to work on something exciting. Despite this I think I'm a better coder now than I ever was, and I think I have higher output than I ever did. That's why I work somewhere where that is recognised instead of trying to compete on hours. Based only on the stories I've heard (as I've never worked at either), if I was working at Google or MS, I don't think that would be recognised, or if it was, I'd still be expected to put in more hours on top fo that. So I wouldn't last very long there. As long as I can find good work elsewhere, that's fine with me.
You are right in that doctors still screw up, and some are more likely to screw up than others. However the licensing is still important so that when they do screw up consistently they can no longer be doctors. I hope you reported each case you mentioned to the relevant professional body.
You have way way way too much faith in the licensing process. Complaining or making a fuss will get you labelled a malingerer on your records, or get you labelled a psych patient. In order for anything to actually happen there have to be years of complaints against a doctor. For example take a look at the "Butcher of Bega"
Years of abuse. Mutilating and castrating women left right and center. Officially stricken off. Yet still allowed to practice.
If I had any faith whatsoever in the complaints process I'd complain in a heartbeat. As it stands all complaining will do is get you is sicker, in a psych ward, or dead. If family complain, they end up with "Do not interview with" family member on their records, claiming you may be abusive.
In every case above, other doctors have been aware of what has happened and kept their mouth shut. It seems the establishment can turn against them too. I'm aware of one case (not mine) where a local GP complained to a hospital in writing about an overdose of medication being given to a patient. I only have the doctor's word on that case and no specifics, but that doctor says that letter was ignored. No response whatsoever. Probably hospital policy to avoid being sued. Speaking of which, I was shocked to find out I couldn't video tape my wife's upcoming c-section. It's a private hospital. They don't allow surgery to be video taped as it can be used in evidence if something goes wrong with the procedure. I'm told all hospitals take that approach now, but I haven't checked around myself. One thing is for sure. The medical establishment is steeped in a culture of pseudo-scientific ineptitude, arrogance and corruption.
For obvious reasons, I don't want to name doctors or hospitals. However I will say me and mine have received care from all over Sydney and one of the best doctors I know bulk bills (and is therefore our family doctor), while some of the specialists I was talking about were in Sydney's posher suburbs. I find that unless you require special equipment, the care you get depends more on the individual physician you get than on the hospital.
Are you insane man? You just made public a very detailed walkthrough of how security works in your building. On a site that is indexed by Internet search engines, no less. In your effort to boast about security, you've just broken a cardinal rule and provided the exact information that a thief needs. I'm guessing you probably violated your employment agreement and perhaps Federal law in the process.
No argument there. I certainly expect my doctor to have medical training
Actually, and I'm being quite serious, I've found that assumption to be dangerous. Personal experience with myself and immediate family.
- Neurologist prescribing a medication for seizures, then continually increasing the dosage when one of the contraindications for giving it is seizures. Patient went from an occasional seizure to seizing on average every 2 days. When he was shown this information he replied, "oh okay, maybe it's contributing, let's cut it out" without bothering to read that immediately cutting out this med has been known to make normal patients suicidal. Thank fuck for Google. Anyone who says you shouldn't self-diagnose can go fuck themselves.
- 2 lung specialist doctors insisting that wheezing flemy pregnant woman with bronchitis has just picked up "bad breathing techniques". The shallow breathing couldn't possibly be caused by the pregnancy. The woman couldn't possibly be emotional because she's had to sleep sitting up for weeks lest she cough and splutter. While you're at it have a dig at the patient's weight despite her recent injury (hit by a car, bulging disc and nerve damage) and pregnancy. Yeah really wonder why she might get emotional.
- Head orthopod at a large suburban hospital insisting a shoulder isn't dislocated despite an obvious bulge because he's failed to take an axial view (required to show posterior dislocations, and the patient had a long history of them).
- Hearing specialist refusing to believe there is a hearing problem and instead blaming it on being in the patient's head because he couldn't get a consistent reading asking her to listen to tones. Turns out when he did a hearing test that did not require the patient to tell him when tones sounded there was a significant hearing loss. But hey it's easier to suggest your patient sees a psychiatrist.
- Dentist doing such a poor job on a root canal that another detentist was horrified. The tooth was lost (after a couple of thousand spent on the procedures).
- Patient's first visit with a doctor. First high blood pressure reading found. Patient is overweight and has an ankle injury. Suggestion isn't blood pressure meds and exploring moderate weight loss options. No within 5 minutes of seeing this patient the doctor wants to do stomach banding.
That's just in the last 5 years. Guess what country I live in? No it's not 3rd world. It's Australia. Private health cover too in several instances above. If you complain you risk getting no care when you need it. Best bet is to not get sick. Failing that check everything you're told and make sure you're earning big money because you may end up with a few $300+ bills for a 15 minute chat and a misdiagnosis or an insult.
I said: I'm referring to moving from a tried and true familiar interface, to one where options are hidden or removed making the product less useful and requiring retraining.
You responded: So just to be clear, you're arguing against any change what so ever unless there is a clear defect in the code.
Either your lack of comprehension is astounding, or you're just trolling. You simply can't go from what I said to your interpretation using any form of honest logic. The rest of your message is more of the same. As for your "good feedback" about the address bar, there are pages of complaints and 2 shiny new extensions to turn it off that show up what you say as a complete nonsense. You are either a Firefox developer in disguise, or more likely a fanboi.
Either way, I've concluded replying to your tripe trolling crap is a complete waste of my time. The challenge isn't to come up with a persuasive argument - it's too counter every purposeful misinterpretation you can come up with. No thanks. Have a nice life, don't let the door hit your arse on the way out, and enjoy the validation that being modded up seems to give you.
What I want to know is what moron decided that starting a similar scam would be a good way to get funding. Any credible astronomer will denounce such nonsense as the star registry so for a credible organisation to start doing this is madness. Someone with too much marketing training and too little scientific training needs to get the sack (or at least a severe reprimand).
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't miss your point. You didn't make it very well
Another ad hominem.
No it's not. You clearly don't know the meaning of the phrase. If I said you couldn't make an argument to save your life, that might qualify. What I said was you didn't make your point very well. That was clearly an attack on the argument, not on the man. If you're going to use latin phrases, try not to misuse them. It makes you look foolish.
Here fucking get a clue and read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#In_logic
In general, ad hominem criticism of evidence cannot prove the negative of the proposition being claimed:
Another ad hominem. And I accused you of nothing. I merely stated the fact that you didn't respond to the point I was making which implies that you didn't understand
I love it. In the same post that you repeatedly accuse me of ad hominem attacks, misapplying the term left right and center, you then state "I accused you of nothing". Not to mention that you seem to think it's logically consistent to accuse me of ad hominem attacks, but excuse yourself of the same under almost exactly the same circumstances. All while attempting to lecture me on the rules of logic and a formal debate. You must be joking. No one could possibly be that fucking stupid. Actually I think what you've done is so irrational and nonsensical that the term "circular stupidity" comes to mind. ...and then you prattle on with more and more of the same. As if you feel the need to repeatedly emphasise the irony of your own stupidity.
I am merely following the rules of formal debate.
Buddy you wouldn't know the rules of a formal debate if they bit you on the arse. That most certainly is an ad hominem because quite frankly you're irritating me with your stupidity, arrogance and misuse of terminology.
In the meantime thanks for making me laugh. I needed that tonight, and believe me I'm laughing my arse off at what I'm sure you still consider to be a sound argument. I also get the pleasure of knowing that you have to live with yourself being that pompous and yet that incompetent. You must be fun at parties.
Whether you respond or not, I don't think I'll bother to read it. I'd sooner play chess with a mentally challenged sea otter.
You missed my point. I was referring to people who must context switch constantly in a single work session between a paper medium and a white on black computer screen.
I didn't miss your point. You didn't make it very well (if at all). Then I'm suppose to read your mind to work out what you're trying to say, and when I fail to, you accuse me of taking it out of context.
Since you're the one asserting that the vast majority of all the content on the internet has picked the incorrect color scheme (a not generally accepted position), the burden of proof lies on you, the asserter.
That's your interpretation of my assertion. This isn't a murder trial and there is no burden of proof. This is a discussion on an internet board. You're the one who wants cited references from me. That takes time and effort. Yet you were unwilling to provide the same yourself. Now that you have
http://hubel.sfasu.edu/research/survreslts.html
Did you even notice how close the results were for white on black vs black on white????? Are you trying to make my point for me? Go back and read what you wrote. Sweeping statements about almost no one (but basement dwellers) liking white on black.
http://www.office-ergo.com/setting.htm
Ahhh good old ergnomics theory that most office workers are forced to read so employers can avoid law suites when office work actually causes injury. All these things ever do is mix common sense with complete nonsense then force to in theory adopt the approach. In practice no one I know actually does everything that is required of their ergonomics training, and for good reason: If they were to take the general principles and apply it to their own situations, they'd find that they need to add a good dose of common sense.
You'll find there are people who'll have the opposite opinion
http://xpt.sourceforge.net/techdocs/misc/ce01-DarkBackgroundIsGoodForYou/ar01s03.html
"Light text on dark backgrounds is easier on the eyes than the traditional black text on white backgrounds. That is why the classic Windows Accessibility color scheme recolors Windows to have large light text on black backgrounds."
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200608/light_text_on_dark_background_vs_readability/ ( ...and we were doing so well. The other two were at least studies. This link is a rant by one individual about their own preference. It's actually worse as a reference than the Digg discussion.
In any case all I needed to prove was that there were other people who held similar views that light text on a dark background is easier for them to read. You asserted this was not the case. I've proven otherwise. (Hell you've helped me prove otherwise).
It's called a joke, as was spelled out in my original post. It's also a very common one on Slashdot. Since your account is older than mine and has many more posts than mine, I'd assumed you'd be familiar with it. I'd invoke the similar "you must be new here" joke at this time as well, but you might get irrationally offended by that too. ;)
In the context of your original joke, it was used to marginalize and belittle my opinion. That's why I was offended. Now you're belittling me for getting offended. You continually bring up these jokes while saying that you could reference them but you won't, as if that somehow means you in actuality haven't made the reference. This is no more than a bad attempt at what becomes a weak and childish attack. I suggest you either make the joke or don't make it.
I never suggested you were alone. I suggested you are in the vast minority. Which you are.
Your very own link proves that I'm not in the minority at all. You can state something as if it is a fact until you go blue, but when your own evidence points the other way all you succeed in doing is looking like a ranting loon.
Which proves what
as you can read here in an article posted today, denying the Bavarian request to use it for other crimes not directly related to terrorism.
So the police requested that it be used for other crimes, and because that request was denied, you ridicule it as some sort of paranoid fantasy that more and more countries are beginning to be run as police states. I find the fact that the police asked for this law to be passed at all disturbing.
Anyone who has had to switch from reading printed text to a white on black screen over and over again would appreciate the consistency.
"Anyone" huh? So what now I'm a nobody? There are plenty of people out there that go to great lengths to switch back to a black background. Take a look at the VIM colour schemes people create.
This implies that if it costs were equal to print white on black, that would be the overwhelming majority preference. Substantiation?
Historically to print something white on black you'd need to use all your ink turning the rest of the paper black. Even if you could start with black paper so you didn't have to print the negative image, you'd still need to find a dye or ink that'd work well and be available in quantity. Neither black white ink nor black paper were easy to come by a hundred or so years ago, let alone when books were first written or when the printing press became common. I'm not sure what you're looking for in substantiation.
Don't be lazy. You can do better than that. Cite at least one valid advantage of white on black and substantiate it
Fuck off. Cite your own sources before accusing others of being lazy for not doing so. Hypocrite. This is slashdot, not a thesis defence.
Looking foolish is taking something personally that wasn't meant to be.
Oh gimme a break and stop being so dishonest. You can't get more personal that suggesting tht someone is happy with an inferior solution because they're a basement dweller with no social skills.
Your condescension would be far more effective if you actually substantiated any of these "facts" you cite, instead of acting as if they should be obvious to the entire universe.
Go ahead, prove me wrong. I'm waiting.
I'll start citing references to counter your trolling, when you find me references to substantiate what you're saying. Why should I spend the time and effort digging up references for you? Go Google it if you think it's worth your time
I'll tell you what. Here's just one. Count the number of dark colour schemes.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~maverick/VimColorSchemeTest/index-pl.html
Here's another discussion where others prefer light on dark colours. It's on Digg so it should be right at your level. That at least makes you a liar for suggesting I'm alone.
http://digg.com/design/Light_text_on_dark_background_vs_readability
If it gives you such pleasure being a childish troll, I pity you.
Or maybe Slashdot and almost every other site on the internet chooses black on white because it's more readable for the vast majority of users?
I'd say it has more to do with trying to make it look like printed text, which is silly. It costs a lot of money to print black on white. It costs less and is easier to print white on black, which is why books and printed presses went for that in the first place. Then when we got computers, people wanted them to look more familiar. Has nothing to do with a statistical analysis of who finds what more readable. But don't let facts get in your way. This is after all /.
Last I checked, the only advantage white on black has is when your computer screen is your only source of light in a room.
Then check again, because you have it wrong.
Barring the "get out of your mom's basement" joke, I don't think most of us are using computers in complete darkness most of the time.
I don't have a basement. I have a study. I don't live with my mother. I live with my wife (and will soon be living with a son). Most of my time in front of the computer is spent in a well lit office. My personal timeis largely on a laptop in the train (and the reflective screen makes that a difficult lighting situation). I love how you allude to a joke and try to belittle a bloke by making assumptions that just make you look foolish. Oh wait, I forgot you said "barring" that joke...which is why you felt the need to mention it.
It's all about matching brightness with your surroundings. For most people white on black is NOT it.
Oh? Is it? Is that why the majority of monitors automatically compensates for changes in ambient light? Oh wait, they don't.
You're right, but I don't think it's working:
"eBay still 'forcing' sellers to use PayPal"
http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/ebay-blasted-for-strongarm-tactics/2008/07/04/1214951011001.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
For me personally, there's only really one way to deal with this nonsense. I haven't used Paypal for a long time after I had what I consider to be a very bad experience (luckily I didn't lose too much money on the deal). I closed my account then, and I'm not opening one up again. If I can't pay by bank deposit or COD, I don't bid. In the long run I won't be using Ebay. I don't find bargains there nearly as much as I use to.
They're destroyed to remove the conflict of interest/incentive for empoyees in charge of returning them. Whether that's perceived or actual...who knows. I'll bet they're not all destroyed though. I bet there's some corruption somewhere and someone who sees the waste and decides "I'll have that then".
But still, what kind of moron loses their laptop while traveling? I can't imagine letting it out of my sight or even out of my reach.
It doesn't take a moron. It takes someone who's momentarily distracted, tired, or asleep.
I could say it takes an uncompassionate git to make such a sweeping statement with no regard for the wide variety of circumstances under which people that travel.
Now THAT is a summary (perhaps with the exception of point 4 which gets -1:redundant). Take note slashdot editors.
I might as well be asking for millions of dollars to fall out of the sky.
Too bad I can't mod you up.
So many things wrong with what you've written.
First of all if you think it's going to stay at $70/year you're smoking something. Few services I've ever used have failed to increase cost every year.
Second you forgot to compare it to the open office model, and the pirate bay or getting it off your shonky neighbour model. Both have a cost of Total for 3 years: $0 (unless you get caught for piracy, but many people don't consider that a big risk)
Third you're only considering what it's like over 3 years. Most people I know who aren't hobbyists buy a computer once every 5 years or more.
Fourth you're not considering that you've just given a company the ability to force you into an upgrade that won't open your old documents, or that might be a lot buggier than your old version.
Fifth you're not considering the problems that arise with DRM and activation, which may be far from perfect in the first place and which may make it difficult to move your software between computers
Lastly, as for onenote, I think you're smoking something.
Cheap shot! Funny! But cheap shot :-)
Actually I do occasionally mix letters like that but I've never had trouble reading and have never been diagnosed with dyslexia. I have from time to time wondered if I have a mild form of dyslexia but I suspect I'm just lazy and not an intuitive speller.
Whoa ... It's pretty gutsy to call slashdot (and almost all webistes) "just stupid".
Whoa, I wasn't trying to call slashdot and almost all websites "just stupid" in the sense that you seem to think. I'm saying we've gotten use to conventions that are problematic.
Actually I have friends and family with dyslexia. Each person responds differently. They are actually procedures now to work out which colours work best for each person. The result is a perscription for glasses with coloured tinting. I know one person who learnt to read in her teens using these, and has now been a primary school teacher for some years (and a very good one at that). For whatever reason she struggles less with dyslexia now and no longer requires the glasses.
Take a look here. Some nifty javascript if you hover your mouse over the background colours at the top of the page.
http://www.dyslexia-test.com/color.html
Pink text on green background.
Let me guess, you taught HTML for dummies courses using Hotdog and Netscape Navigator Gold in the mid to late 90s.
This comes up all the time.
Personally I find the above best. I can cope with green or yellow text, but find white best, followed by cyan. This whole idea of the modern WYSIWYG desktop trying to emulate paper and thus having a white background is just stupid. Paper is a reflective medium. Screens emit and therefore looking at a white screen is going to give you the office worker's equivalent of snow blindness. Print preview should have a white background, and it should be an easy thing to switch it on for typing up a text document (for true WYSIWYG) but we really shouldn't be using it all day.
Subscription services don't tend to get cheaper over time. In fact if lots of people take this up, demand increases and within a handful of years people will be paying the same amount to rent office for a year that they pay now to buy a non-terminating license.
I hate anything as a service. Another regular bill, and another dependency on another company I probably don't like, because my alternative is to go without. Fuck that for a bag of chips.
What's not to get here. Whether you work for Google or MS, if you're working 6 and sometimes 7 days a week for 14-18 hours a day you'll eventually burn out. Google may or may not be as good as it once was as an employer but that's not the only reason people change jobs. They get burnt out. They look for something exciting or a change. They find that they can't move forward or get a promotion as easily without changing employer.
When I was a young single bloke, I'm sure I'd have enjoyed long hours working on products that could change the world. Now, I'd still like to work on interesting stuff but I have a family, and I have other interests. I'm not going to do ridiculous hours just to compete, or just so I'm picked to work on something exciting. Despite this I think I'm a better coder now than I ever was, and I think I have higher output than I ever did. That's why I work somewhere where that is recognised instead of trying to compete on hours. Based only on the stories I've heard (as I've never worked at either), if I was working at Google or MS, I don't think that would be recognised, or if it was, I'd still be expected to put in more hours on top fo that. So I wouldn't last very long there. As long as I can find good work elsewhere, that's fine with me.
You are right in that doctors still screw up, and some are more likely to screw up than others. However the licensing is still important so that when they do screw up consistently they can no longer be doctors. I hope you reported each case you mentioned to the relevant professional body.
You have way way way too much faith in the licensing process. Complaining or making a fuss will get you labelled a malingerer on your records, or get you labelled a psych patient. In order for anything to actually happen there have to be years of complaints against a doctor. For example take a look at the "Butcher of Bega"
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23277079-2,00.html
Years of abuse. Mutilating and castrating women left right and center. Officially stricken off. Yet still allowed to practice.
If I had any faith whatsoever in the complaints process I'd complain in a heartbeat. As it stands all complaining will do is get you is sicker, in a psych ward, or dead. If family complain, they end up with "Do not interview with" family member on their records, claiming you may be abusive.
In every case above, other doctors have been aware of what has happened and kept their mouth shut. It seems the establishment can turn against them too. I'm aware of one case (not mine) where a local GP complained to a hospital in writing about an overdose of medication being given to a patient. I only have the doctor's word on that case and no specifics, but that doctor says that letter was ignored. No response whatsoever. Probably hospital policy to avoid being sued. Speaking of which, I was shocked to find out I couldn't video tape my wife's upcoming c-section. It's a private hospital. They don't allow surgery to be video taped as it can be used in evidence if something goes wrong with the procedure. I'm told all hospitals take that approach now, but I haven't checked around myself. One thing is for sure. The medical establishment is steeped in a culture of pseudo-scientific ineptitude, arrogance and corruption.
I didn't realize Sydney was the outback.
For obvious reasons, I don't want to name doctors or hospitals. However I will say me and mine have received care from all over Sydney and one of the best doctors I know bulk bills (and is therefore our family doctor), while some of the specialists I was talking about were in Sydney's posher suburbs. I find that unless you require special equipment, the care you get depends more on the individual physician you get than on the hospital.
None of that crap would pan out where I work.
Are you insane man? You just made public a very detailed walkthrough of how security works in your building. On a site that is indexed by Internet search engines, no less. In your effort to boast about security, you've just broken a cardinal rule and provided the exact information that a thief needs. I'm guessing you probably violated your employment agreement and perhaps Federal law in the process.
No argument there. I certainly expect my doctor to have medical training
Actually, and I'm being quite serious, I've found that assumption to be dangerous. Personal experience with myself and immediate family.
- Neurologist prescribing a medication for seizures, then continually increasing the dosage when one of the contraindications for giving it is seizures. Patient went from an occasional seizure to seizing on average every 2 days. When he was shown this information he replied, "oh okay, maybe it's contributing, let's cut it out" without bothering to read that immediately cutting out this med has been known to make normal patients suicidal. Thank fuck for Google. Anyone who says you shouldn't self-diagnose can go fuck themselves.
- 2 lung specialist doctors insisting that wheezing flemy pregnant woman with bronchitis has just picked up "bad breathing techniques". The shallow breathing couldn't possibly be caused by the pregnancy. The woman couldn't possibly be emotional because she's had to sleep sitting up for weeks lest she cough and splutter. While you're at it have a dig at the patient's weight despite her recent injury (hit by a car, bulging disc and nerve damage) and pregnancy. Yeah really wonder why she might get emotional.
- Head orthopod at a large suburban hospital insisting a shoulder isn't dislocated despite an obvious bulge because he's failed to take an axial view (required to show posterior dislocations, and the patient had a long history of them).
- Hearing specialist refusing to believe there is a hearing problem and instead blaming it on being in the patient's head because he couldn't get a consistent reading asking her to listen to tones. Turns out when he did a hearing test that did not require the patient to tell him when tones sounded there was a significant hearing loss. But hey it's easier to suggest your patient sees a psychiatrist.
- Dentist doing such a poor job on a root canal that another detentist was horrified. The tooth was lost (after a couple of thousand spent on the procedures).
- Patient's first visit with a doctor. First high blood pressure reading found. Patient is overweight and has an ankle injury. Suggestion isn't blood pressure meds and exploring moderate weight loss options. No within 5 minutes of seeing this patient the doctor wants to do stomach banding.
That's just in the last 5 years. Guess what country I live in? No it's not 3rd world. It's Australia. Private health cover too in several instances above. If you complain you risk getting no care when you need it. Best bet is to not get sick. Failing that check everything you're told and make sure you're earning big money because you may end up with a few $300+ bills for a 15 minute chat and a misdiagnosis or an insult.
I said:
I'm referring to moving from a tried and true familiar interface, to one where options are hidden or removed making the product less useful and requiring retraining.
You responded:
So just to be clear, you're arguing against any change what so ever unless there is a clear defect in the code.
Either your lack of comprehension is astounding, or you're just trolling. You simply can't go from what I said to your interpretation using any form of honest logic. The rest of your message is more of the same. As for your "good feedback" about the address bar, there are pages of complaints and 2 shiny new extensions to turn it off that show up what you say as a complete nonsense. You are either a Firefox developer in disguise, or more likely a fanboi.
Either way, I've concluded replying to your tripe trolling crap is a complete waste of my time. The challenge isn't to come up with a persuasive argument - it's too counter every purposeful misinterpretation you can come up with. No thanks. Have a nice life, don't let the door hit your arse on the way out, and enjoy the validation that being modded up seems to give you.
What I want to know is what moron decided that starting a similar scam would be a good way to get funding. Any credible astronomer will denounce such nonsense as the star registry so for a credible organisation to start doing this is madness. Someone with too much marketing training and too little scientific training needs to get the sack (or at least a severe reprimand).
I find the idea of doing this to receive a free PC a fantastic irony, don't you?