I really have never gotten a clear answer on how the new one is worse than the old one. I've seen some complaints about how typing "w" now gets a bunch of useless results due to "www", but you can easily avoid that by typing ".w" to get sites that start with a W
Oh yeah, typing.w is real intuitive. Don't see a problem there at all *rolls eyes*
Here's why it's worse.
- The old address bar worked just fine, and searched only my history. If I wished to remove everything I'd just need to clear my history.
- I don't want bookmarks being searched. I don't want my wife knowing that I've been searching for eternity rings for her at jewellery sites/stores. I don't need my friends knowing which bank i use. I don't need the local news website being displayed for my boss every time I type something into the address bar, as if to say all I ever do is goof off and look at these sites. When I mention this people automatically assume I bookmark porn. I personally have never bookmarked porn for a variety of reasons. However I know there are others that do, and that this has actually contributed to the proliferation of the Internet. Whether or not you agree with them doing so, they should not have their right to keep those bookmarks private overridden by some Firefox developer's sense of what the address bar should look like.
- The new address bar is inefficient. The old address bar just showed addresses. Most addresses I have visited or bookmarked I recognise and do not require 2 lines with an explanation of each site. If this were a default I could turn off as an advanced user, I'd say it would only be a small move backwards but...
-...it requires 2 extensions to turn off the new functionality and as I understand it it's a bit of a hack. It shouldn't be that hard to get back what worked well in the previous browser version. I have a real problem with developers deciding for me what I should and shouldn't be allowed to do in a new version of software. I have a problem with good useful features being replaced even when many users object.
So please stop telling us how you don't understand why people take issue with the new bar. If you don't agree with the above points, or you don't feel they affect you that's one thing, but stop deciding for others what should and shouldn't bother them.
You have to first show that Microsoft "harmed others" in some way. People only bought Microsoft software voluntarily, they won by out-competing other companies.
Just because someone agrees to something, perhaps not understanding the full ramifications, does not mean that they were not harmed. That of course is just one example. How about all the people who bought copies of software not realising the ramifications of licensing?
Oh please, Al Gore makes a shitty movie and suddenly oil products are the worst things ever. Let me remind you that without companies like Exxon we wouldn't have international air travel, plastics, synthetic fabrics and materials
Oh please. A shitty oil company does what it's suppose to and provides us with products that enable air travel, plastics, synthetic fabrics and materials, and I'm suppose to excuse them for gross negligence and misconduct? I suppose that because a company is successful I'm suppose to fall on my knees, praise them, and offer a headjob to the current CEO?
You can't retroactively decree oil the "worst thing ever" when our entire technological base
Talk about a fucking straw man! You got that from me criticising Exxon did you? For a start that's just one company not the whole oil industry.
I'm all for reducing our dependence on oil
Don't care. That wasn't my point at all. Go rant to someone else about your views on the oil industry.
Considering that last paragraph, do you honestly believe that the oil industry has harmed people or society? Or are you just following the latest fad with no understanding of history or technology?
You want to know what I believe? I believe it's very hard to do big business without harming people. I also believe that a company that puts profits ahead of minimising such harm even when they are breaking the law can and will do more harm than good, and shouldn't be tolerated. I believe that the Exxon Valdez incident, with no one at the wheel of the ship, was a suitable thing to allude to when referring to such companies. I believe that companies should be held responsible for the damage they do, even if they do enable society in some way. I believe that excusing large corporations of their misconduct will only lead to more and more of that misconduct. I believe your fixation on my reference to oil companies and your resulting rant, complete with straw men, is a clear demonstration that you are either incapable or unwilling to hold a rational argument on the original point that I discussed. I believe that this discussion is therefore over.
"Kindergarten interface" is probably the most subjective complaint possible
By "Kindergarten interface" I mean bright with big colours, made so a child could understand what's on the screen but hiding, making less accessible, or removing useful features that an adult using the product for serious work would want to see.
last time I checked, kindergartners don't write in a sans serif font face.
Last time I checked AC posters on/. were arrogant condescending prats.
If you're referring to multiple colors, there is scientific research to support such a change, but then again you consider research to be garbage so I don't see you taking much stock in that.
No, if you must use clown colours, go for it, though I have to doubt the value of doing thtat. 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.
It's also interesting how you reiterate "Change for the sake of change isn't good" with no new content despite that very point having been dealt with in the parent (repeating the same point verbatim is not actually a rebuttal).
It's also interesting how you attempt to discredit everything I say with a new straw man or similar misdirection. Re-stating one's position for emphasis does not invalidate the point.
All you've done is described why YOU don't like it in the vaguest possible terms you could manage.
I'm sure I could manage vaguer. Could you manage to be more condescending or dismissive? I think not!
While I don't have a problem with your personal taste in web browsers, I do find your critiques to be more of insults rather than critiques. If you don't like Firefox 3, that's fine, but making ignorant statements is a hard position to defend.
I made no ignorant statements whatsoever. You write like a politician. You say "If you don't like Firefox 3, that's fine" but you qualify it with words to the effect that it's not fine unless I shut up and keep it to myself.
Finally why post as AC? Is there something you're embarassed of here? Perhaps you wouldn't want such a childish attitude associated with your name?
It's pure garbage. I cannot believe that people defend having the address bar randomly pick through your bookmarks and display them in kindergarten writing - 2 lines each no less.
Office 2007 is another Kindergarten interface. I haven't got much experience with KDE4.
Change for the sake of change isn't good, especially when the changes are negative.
Do you want to take a look at the actual thread before you try blasting someone you troll? The argument I was responding to was that a software company being successful means criticism of it isn't valid. But then what can I expect from someone who struts around the net with a name like Your.Master. Have you considered Your.Mama? Or perhaps Your.Master.Baiter?
There's also a reason why some users stuck with Firefox 2.0. I was going to until I managed to regain control over the address bar with the oldbar and hide unvisted extensions. In fact if the fucking address bar evolves any further or if those extensions get blocked I'm going to move to another browser. Change for the sake of change is not good.
Now significant new features, which can be controlled without adding extensions? That I'd love to see. However it seems current Firefox policy is to ignore the end user and limit their options using the excuse that you don't want to clutter the options dialogs.
For me, Firefox ain't the shiny magic browser it once was. Years of memory bugs, extensions that require updating on every release, minor features breaking and now this maddness with the interface have soured me to it. I'll still keep using it until something better comes along but I'm no longer excited about new releases.
No, I don't run my own business. I don't need to run my own business to know that I consider someone who harms others to turn a profit an ass.
It worked from a financial perspective. So what. Exxon is wildly successful. Doesn't mean they aren't harmful. Hitler's Nazi party was wildly successful for a long time. Oops did I just invoke Godwin's law. I guess that means I "lose" the argument, regardless of the fact that I have a very good point. I put about as much stock in Godwin as I do in your argument that because a company is financially successful, it's a good thing and is to be loved and treated with awe. I'd rather see a business fail than harm people or society as a whole.
Please, I'm so tired of that sentiment on Slashdot.
Too bad. It's well deserved.
The point of psych research is to quantify.
There is a difference between quantifying something scientifically and assigning it a number.
It is rare that you find something that isn't obvious... in hindsight.
It is rare that you read about a psych study on/. where it wasn't obvious with foresight.
Furthermore, statistics doesn't "prove" anything--it just says how likely it is that something is not random. This is useful. It is useful to know that what we think is happening is indeed what's happening.
Yes you're right, a statistical correlation is just that. Proving causation is a different kettle of fish.
There are subjects that are worthy of study, and then there's garbage. For example I could easily do a statistical analysis of how much my toenails grow. Correlate it to the season, what I was eating, what I was watching. However a statistical study with a sample size of 10 (toes) isn't useful. Even with a much larger sample size, you have to have a goal. Are we studying toenail growth for a reason? Is there anything interesting at all that we've learnt from the study? Could the time and resources be better spent on other lines of enquiry.
You know, the scientific method.
Yes. Actually I have a Masters in Astronomy. What of it.
Psych is a mixed-class field. We pull from biology, sociology, neurology, and lots of mathematics.
A lot of Psych and Medicine is completely unscientific. I've seen doctors come to bone headed conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence laid before them. That doesn't make the study of medicine worthless, but it speaks volumes about the practioner. Likewise all I see here is a worthless study that comes to no good conlcusion and bears no new insight. Perhaps it was a null result in which case why report it on/. of all places. It's suppose to be news for nerds, not a catalogue of the boring and obvious.
Now are you done ranting? That and making assumptions about who you're talking to seem to be your fortes.
Cosmos wasn't very good - the idea was but he didn't pull it off. However the movie made a mockery of the book so I don't know how you could think that's better.
As for bad prose, you must be reading different books or focusing more on the words than the ideas. Demon haunted world is brilliant as a popular piece. Pale blue dot is excellent too.
Indeed. Apple, just like Dell, or any other company is charging "what the market will bear". If they can get away with charging twice as much for a component, then they will. Dell would do the same thing if they could.
Dell can charge twice as much, they'd just need to target a different market segment, which would mean competing differently. In fact Dell already do this with their laptops by selling different laptop lines. It's just very difficult to be charging one segment one price for service and another segment another, especially when the parts are often interoperable. Hence to stay in the lower end general consumer segment, they pay the price of offering the same low prices for service to all.
To put it another way... It's basically just as you would assume: You can get an idea of what someone is like based on what they present about themselves, but the picture is going to be far from complete.
Ahhhh psych studies. Using statistics to prove the bleeding obvious, and earning a living at it. Where do I sign up?
Joel on Software my arse. I do wish people would stop quoting that shill. He's a Microsoft apologist who in the past has managed to present Bill Gates' unprofessional attitude (swearing at staff etc) as some kind of misunderstood genius. No Joel, your boss was an unprofessional asshole.
As for this article. No intern should have been working on Microsoft's flagship product even 15 years ago. That's 1992 we're talking about, not 1982. It's entirely possible to write efficient code that isn't unreadable spaghetti and it's not always a good solution to use Office automation to read office documents.
Awfulbar is an abomination. It's a security risk. It has the potential to cause embarassment (and no, not just if you browse porn) and it's ugly and clunkly. The only reason I'm using Firefox 3 is that I found the oldbar + hide unvisited extensions which get rid of that turd of an address bar.
I want browser developers to stop foisting awful design on us, breaking existing functionality that works well, and then refusing to listen to people's concerns while ploughing ahead with their own agenda even if it makes no sense to anyone but them.
Ballmer has a severe case of verbal diarrhea, so we know how he feels about open source software. "Open source is a cancer...", "Linux infringes on over 200 Microsoft patents"
That's not how I saw it phrased in the MS propaganda^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hress release:
Open source cancer causes severe case of verbal dihorrea, infringes over 200 patents.
The upgrade from Firefox 2 to Firefox 3 comes with almost no visual differences aside from the looks of the buttons.
Only if you add the oldbar and hide unvisited extensions. I I hadn't found a way to retain sane behaviour in the address bar, I'd have stayed with Firefox 2 or started looking at Opera.
Porn is fiction. Replace "porn" with "action film" and "Sex" with "Shooting skills" and you get an idea of how ridiculous what you're saying is. Heck replace "porn" with "murder mystery" and "Sex" with "detective work"
I don't like what murder mysteries teach either:
-Detective work is easy to get and everybody's doing everybody else. Everybody but you. -It's not uncommon for 2 or 3 incredibly puzzling murders to occur around the same detective. Just not you. -There are literally thousands of murder investigations happening around the world. You're not invited.
and of course... -All detectives are are brilliant. When the morons are filtered out.
If the 8-year-old isn't physically ready for sex, his hormones haven't kicked in and it doesn't seem to me he'd express any sexual interest in any girls
Children will always want to imitate grown ups. A child who expresses interest in becoming a fire fighter or a pilot wouldn't necessarily have any interest in the real thing. The difference is a child's not usually allowed anywhere near fire engines and aircraft cockpits, but still has full access to their own body.
PS Dads and kids surfing for porn together as sex education? What is with you people? If dad uses porn, there is no reason for the child to know
Dad and kid surfing porn together is vile and inappropriate.
Kid stumbling upon dad's collection, and instead of kid being yelled at, or dad going to jail, having a frank honest discussion about it, why it's there, what is and isn't appropriate, what is and isn't real...sounds like good parenting to me.
That's true of most adults as well. Nothing magic happens when you turn 18.
No it's not. An 8 year old isn't physically ready for sex. An 8 year old can't possibly understand the responsibility of being a parent.
You have to draw a cut off somewhere. You can argue anything from 13 to 25 if you like, but the fact that 18 is a good indication it's not too ridiculous. Where I live 16 year olds can consent, but only if their partner is no more than 2 years older. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with a 40 year old seducing a stupid 14 year old, but I don't know if I'd support jailing the son of a bitch. Months of community service perhaps? However if a 40 year old so much as touched an 8 year old I have no issue with them being jailed. They aren't physically ready, the 40 year old is taking advantage of their lack of experience and maturity, and they WILL be hurt by the experience. That guy needs to be put away before he harms more kids.
Others would disagree with me and argue that 14 is too young and that guy should go to ajill too, but those are the same people who think not teaching their child to cross the road with caution, and instead imposing ridiculous speed restrictions around the schools is the way to go. A 14 year old is capable of being taught the consequences.
I protection is used, why shouldn't children engage in sexual activity as soon as they express an interest in each other?
Perhaps because they don't understand the consequences and implications of what they're doing, the protection isn't 100% effective, their minds and bodies aren't ready to deal with the gamut of emotions, and because they're vulnerable to predation from adults who take advantage of this.
Kids need to learn about sex. The problem is that porn often teaches the wrong things about sex.
Isn't that what a parent is for? To explain the good and bad and put into context what the child is seeing? It's not very fashionable but it's called parenting.
I think you need both. Science needs to be entertaining to keep people's interest. What I can't stand is when the science is sacrificed FOR the sake of entertainment.
For example look at how unscientifically the Myth Buster's do their experiments. Their show would be a brilliant platform to drum in what the scientific method means and how to go about actually disproving or verifying a hypothesis. Instead they just blow shit up, and generally piss on the scientific method then come up with a conclusion that isn't supported by what they just did. In fact usually you could drive a truck through the holes in their experimental method. However instead of seeing this, people wonder why I'm so down on them and even here on slashdot I'm modded down if I bring this up. I'm not talking about wanting them to run boring studies either. They could do exactly what they do now but think of better ways of testing and come up with an estimate of how well they've proven or disproven what they set out to prove instead of just coming up with conclusions like the myth is busted based on a flawed experiment. The best they do is come up with "plausible" if they're not sure...
Then you have people like Sir David Attenborough. His documentaries and work are first rate. Unlike certain animal behaviour celebrities he actually studies and documents what the animals do and goes to some trouble to ensure that the filming process doesn't disturb them instead of walking up to them and handling them roughly then screaming "wwwoooooooo". However his presentation is let down by a voice that is a cure for insomnia, and a lot of pregnant pauses in the discussion while we just watch the animal. In other words he's not entertaining enough. He's boring, and as a result he's not as popular as the animal molesting morons that most kids think of when they think of animal docos.
You've got to have the right balance and almost no one does. It has to be exciting and entertaining and scientifically sound. I can count the number of shows that I'd personally call all 3 on one hand, and even then they're not interesting enough that my wife or extended will want to watch them.
If you enjoyed Cosmos, you really should read: Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark" (1996) Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space" (1994)
Biographies on famous scientists are always interesting too. There are plenty to choose from. I've read about the lives of Sagan, Feynman, Newton and Einstein. Very entertaining and a wonderful insight into their work as well as their characters (and their character flaws! Did you know the rumour is that Einstein would try to seduce women by letting his robe fall open....oops)
Slashdot Mirror
I really have never gotten a clear answer on how the new one is worse than the old one. I've seen some complaints about how typing "w" now gets a bunch of useless results due to "www", but you can easily avoid that by typing ".w" to get sites that start with a W
Oh yeah, typing .w is real intuitive. Don't see a problem there at all *rolls eyes*
Here's why it's worse.
- The old address bar worked just fine, and searched only my history. If I wished to remove everything I'd just need to clear my history.
- I don't want bookmarks being searched. I don't want my wife knowing that I've been searching for eternity rings for her at jewellery sites/stores. I don't need my friends knowing which bank i use. I don't need the local news website being displayed for my boss every time I type something into the address bar, as if to say all I ever do is goof off and look at these sites. When I mention this people automatically assume I bookmark porn. I personally have never bookmarked porn for a variety of reasons. However I know there are others that do, and that this has actually contributed to the proliferation of the Internet. Whether or not you agree with them doing so, they should not have their right to keep those bookmarks private overridden by some Firefox developer's sense of what the address bar should look like.
- The new address bar is inefficient. The old address bar just showed addresses. Most addresses I have visited or bookmarked I recognise and do not require 2 lines with an explanation of each site. If this were a default I could turn off as an advanced user, I'd say it would only be a small move backwards but...
- ...it requires 2 extensions to turn off the new functionality and as I understand it it's a bit of a hack. It shouldn't be that hard to get back what worked well in the previous browser version. I have a real problem with developers deciding for me what I should and shouldn't be allowed to do in a new version of software. I have a problem with good useful features being replaced even when many users object.
So please stop telling us how you don't understand why people take issue with the new bar. If you don't agree with the above points, or you don't feel they affect you that's one thing, but stop deciding for others what should and shouldn't bother them.
You have to first show that Microsoft "harmed others" in some way. People only bought Microsoft software voluntarily, they won by out-competing other companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kildall
Just because someone agrees to something, perhaps not understanding the full ramifications, does not mean that they were not harmed. That of course is just one example. How about all the people who bought copies of software not realising the ramifications of licensing?
Oh please, Al Gore makes a shitty movie and suddenly oil products are the worst things ever. Let me remind you that without companies like Exxon we wouldn't have international air travel, plastics, synthetic fabrics and materials
Oh please. A shitty oil company does what it's suppose to and provides us with products that enable air travel, plastics, synthetic fabrics and materials, and I'm suppose to excuse them for gross negligence and misconduct? I suppose that because a company is successful I'm suppose to fall on my knees, praise them, and offer a headjob to the current CEO?
You can't retroactively decree oil the "worst thing ever" when our entire technological base
Talk about a fucking straw man! You got that from me criticising Exxon did you? For a start that's just one company not the whole oil industry.
I'm all for reducing our dependence on oil
Don't care. That wasn't my point at all. Go rant to someone else about your views on the oil industry.
Considering that last paragraph, do you honestly believe that the oil industry has harmed people or society? Or are you just following the latest fad with no understanding of history or technology?
You want to know what I believe? I believe it's very hard to do big business without harming people. I also believe that a company that puts profits ahead of minimising such harm even when they are breaking the law can and will do more harm than good, and shouldn't be tolerated. I believe that the Exxon Valdez incident, with no one at the wheel of the ship, was a suitable thing to allude to when referring to such companies. I believe that companies should be held responsible for the damage they do, even if they do enable society in some way. I believe that excusing large corporations of their misconduct will only lead to more and more of that misconduct. I believe your fixation on my reference to oil companies and your resulting rant, complete with straw men, is a clear demonstration that you are either incapable or unwilling to hold a rational argument on the original point that I discussed. I believe that this discussion is therefore over.
"Kindergarten interface" is probably the most subjective complaint possible
By "Kindergarten interface" I mean bright with big colours, made so a child could understand what's on the screen but hiding, making less accessible, or removing useful features that an adult using the product for serious work would want to see.
last time I checked, kindergartners don't write in a sans serif font face.
Last time I checked AC posters on /. were arrogant condescending prats.
If you're referring to multiple colors, there is scientific research to support such a change, but then again you consider research to be garbage so I don't see you taking much stock in that.
No, if you must use clown colours, go for it, though I have to doubt the value of doing thtat. 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.
It's also interesting how you reiterate "Change for the sake of change isn't good" with no new content despite that very point having been dealt with in the parent (repeating the same point verbatim is not actually a rebuttal).
It's also interesting how you attempt to discredit everything I say with a new straw man or similar misdirection. Re-stating one's position for emphasis does not invalidate the point.
All you've done is described why YOU don't like it in the vaguest possible terms you could manage.
I'm sure I could manage vaguer. Could you manage to be more condescending or dismissive? I think not!
While I don't have a problem with your personal taste in web browsers, I do find your critiques to be more of insults rather than critiques. If you don't like Firefox 3, that's fine, but making ignorant statements is a hard position to defend.
I made no ignorant statements whatsoever. You write like a politician. You say "If you don't like Firefox 3, that's fine" but you qualify it with words to the effect that it's not fine unless I shut up and keep it to myself.
Finally why post as AC? Is there something you're embarassed of here? Perhaps you wouldn't want such a childish attitude associated with your name?
and some knob modded this trash as insightful.
It's pure garbage. I cannot believe that people defend having the address bar randomly pick through your bookmarks and display them in kindergarten writing - 2 lines each no less.
Office 2007 is another Kindergarten interface. I haven't got much experience with KDE4.
Change for the sake of change isn't good, especially when the changes are negative.
Do you want to take a look at the actual thread before you try blasting someone you troll? The argument I was responding to was that a software company being successful means criticism of it isn't valid. But then what can I expect from someone who struts around the net with a name like Your.Master. Have you considered Your.Mama? Or perhaps Your.Master.Baiter?
There's a reason IE6 is entrenched.
There's also a reason why some users stuck with Firefox 2.0. I was going to until I managed to regain control over the address bar with the oldbar and hide unvisted extensions. In fact if the fucking address bar evolves any further or if those extensions get blocked I'm going to move to another browser. Change for the sake of change is not good.
Now significant new features, which can be controlled without adding extensions? That I'd love to see. However it seems current Firefox policy is to ignore the end user and limit their options using the excuse that you don't want to clutter the options dialogs.
For me, Firefox ain't the shiny magic browser it once was. Years of memory bugs, extensions that require updating on every release, minor features breaking and now this maddness with the interface have soured me to it. I'll still keep using it until something better comes along but I'm no longer excited about new releases.
No, I don't run my own business. I don't need to run my own business to know that I consider someone who harms others to turn a profit an ass.
It worked from a financial perspective. So what. Exxon is wildly successful. Doesn't mean they aren't harmful. Hitler's Nazi party was wildly successful for a long time. Oops did I just invoke Godwin's law. I guess that means I "lose" the argument, regardless of the fact that I have a very good point. I put about as much stock in Godwin as I do in your argument that because a company is financially successful, it's a good thing and is to be loved and treated with awe. I'd rather see a business fail than harm people or society as a whole.
Please, I'm so tired of that sentiment on Slashdot.
Too bad. It's well deserved.
The point of psych research is to quantify.
There is a difference between quantifying something scientifically and assigning it a number.
It is rare that you find something that isn't obvious... in hindsight.
It is rare that you read about a psych study on /. where it wasn't obvious with foresight.
Furthermore, statistics doesn't "prove" anything--it just says how likely it is that something is not random. This is useful. It is useful to know that what we think is happening is indeed what's happening.
Yes you're right, a statistical correlation is just that. Proving causation is a different kettle of fish.
There are subjects that are worthy of study, and then there's garbage. For example I could easily do a statistical analysis of how much my toenails grow. Correlate it to the season, what I was eating, what I was watching. However a statistical study with a sample size of 10 (toes) isn't useful. Even with a much larger sample size, you have to have a goal. Are we studying toenail growth for a reason? Is there anything interesting at all that we've learnt from the study? Could the time and resources be better spent on other lines of enquiry.
You know, the scientific method.
Yes. Actually I have a Masters in Astronomy. What of it.
Psych is a mixed-class field. We pull from biology, sociology, neurology, and lots of mathematics.
A lot of Psych and Medicine is completely unscientific. I've seen doctors come to bone headed conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence laid before them. That doesn't make the study of medicine worthless, but it speaks volumes about the practioner. Likewise all I see here is a worthless study that comes to no good conlcusion and bears no new insight. Perhaps it was a null result in which case why report it on /. of all places. It's suppose to be news for nerds, not a catalogue of the boring and obvious.
Now are you done ranting? That and making assumptions about who you're talking to seem to be your fortes.
Cosmos wasn't very good - the idea was but he didn't pull it off. However the movie made a mockery of the book so I don't know how you could think that's better.
As for bad prose, you must be reading different books or focusing more on the words than the ideas. Demon haunted world is brilliant as a popular piece. Pale blue dot is excellent too.
Indeed. Apple, just like Dell, or any other company is charging "what the market will bear". If they can get away with charging twice as much for a component, then they will. Dell would do the same thing if they could.
Dell can charge twice as much, they'd just need to target a different market segment, which would mean competing differently. In fact Dell already do this with their laptops by selling different laptop lines. It's just very difficult to be charging one segment one price for service and another segment another, especially when the parts are often interoperable. Hence to stay in the lower end general consumer segment, they pay the price of offering the same low prices for service to all.
To put it another way... It's basically just as you would assume: You can get an idea of what someone is like based on what they present about themselves, but the picture is going to be far from complete.
Ahhhh psych studies. Using statistics to prove the bleeding obvious, and earning a living at it. Where do I sign up?
http://www.dltk-kids.com/world/japan/mfortune-teller.htm
Joel on Software my arse. I do wish people would stop quoting that shill. He's a Microsoft apologist who in the past has managed to present Bill Gates' unprofessional attitude (swearing at staff etc) as some kind of misunderstood genius. No Joel, your boss was an unprofessional asshole.
As for this article. No intern should have been working on Microsoft's flagship product even 15 years ago. That's 1992 we're talking about, not 1982. It's entirely possible to write efficient code that isn't unreadable spaghetti and it's not always a good solution to use Office automation to read office documents.
Awfulbar is an abomination. It's a security risk. It has the potential to cause embarassment (and no, not just if you browse porn) and it's ugly and clunkly. The only reason I'm using Firefox 3 is that I found the oldbar + hide unvisited extensions which get rid of that turd of an address bar.
I want browser developers to stop foisting awful design on us, breaking existing functionality that works well, and then refusing to listen to people's concerns while ploughing ahead with their own agenda even if it makes no sense to anyone but them.
Ballmer has a severe case of verbal diarrhea, so we know how he feels about open source software. "Open source is a cancer...", "Linux infringes on over 200 Microsoft patents"
That's not how I saw it phrased in the MS propaganda^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hress release:
Open source cancer causes severe case of verbal dihorrea, infringes over 200 patents.
The upgrade from Firefox 2 to Firefox 3 comes with almost no visual differences aside from the looks of the buttons.
Only if you add the oldbar and hide unvisited extensions. I I hadn't found a way to retain sane behaviour in the address bar, I'd have stayed with Firefox 2 or started looking at Opera.
Porn is fiction. Replace "porn" with "action film" and "Sex" with "Shooting skills" and you get an idea of how ridiculous what you're saying is. Heck replace "porn" with "murder mystery" and "Sex" with "detective work"
I don't like what murder mysteries teach either:
-Detective work is easy to get and everybody's doing everybody else.
Everybody but you.
-It's not uncommon for 2 or 3 incredibly puzzling murders to occur around the same detective.
Just not you.
-There are literally thousands of murder investigations happening around the world.
You're not invited.
and of course...
-All detectives are are brilliant.
When the morons are filtered out.
If the 8-year-old isn't physically ready for sex, his hormones haven't kicked in and it doesn't seem to me he'd express any sexual interest in any girls
Children will always want to imitate grown ups. A child who expresses interest in becoming a fire fighter or a pilot wouldn't necessarily have any interest in the real thing. The difference is a child's not usually allowed anywhere near fire engines and aircraft cockpits, but still has full access to their own body.
I guess it's now so accepted that people forget it's beginnings as a DARPA experiment. Or perhaps it's just outgrown it's experimental status.
PS Dads and kids surfing for porn together as sex education? What is with you people? If dad uses porn, there is no reason for the child to know
Dad and kid surfing porn together is vile and inappropriate.
Kid stumbling upon dad's collection, and instead of kid being yelled at, or dad going to jail, having a frank honest discussion about it, why it's there, what is and isn't appropriate, what is and isn't real...sounds like good parenting to me.
That's true of most adults as well. Nothing magic happens when you turn 18.
No it's not. An 8 year old isn't physically ready for sex. An 8 year old can't possibly understand the responsibility of being a parent.
You have to draw a cut off somewhere. You can argue anything from 13 to 25 if you like, but the fact that 18 is a good indication it's not too ridiculous. Where I live 16 year olds can consent, but only if their partner is no more than 2 years older. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with a 40 year old seducing a stupid 14 year old, but I don't know if I'd support jailing the son of a bitch. Months of community service perhaps? However if a 40 year old so much as touched an 8 year old I have no issue with them being jailed. They aren't physically ready, the 40 year old is taking advantage of their lack of experience and maturity, and they WILL be hurt by the experience. That guy needs to be put away before he harms more kids.
Others would disagree with me and argue that 14 is too young and that guy should go to ajill too, but those are the same people who think not teaching their child to cross the road with caution, and instead imposing ridiculous speed restrictions around the schools is the way to go. A 14 year old is capable of being taught the consequences.
I protection is used, why shouldn't children engage in sexual activity as soon as they express an interest in each other?
Perhaps because they don't understand the consequences and implications of what they're doing, the protection isn't 100% effective, their minds and bodies aren't ready to deal with the gamut of emotions, and because they're vulnerable to predation from adults who take advantage of this.
Kids need to learn about sex. The problem is that porn often teaches the wrong things about sex.
Isn't that what a parent is for? To explain the good and bad and put into context what the child is seeing? It's not very fashionable but it's called parenting.
I think you need both. Science needs to be entertaining to keep people's interest. What I can't stand is when the science is sacrificed FOR the sake of entertainment.
For example look at how unscientifically the Myth Buster's do their experiments. Their show would be a brilliant platform to drum in what the scientific method means and how to go about actually disproving or verifying a hypothesis. Instead they just blow shit up, and generally piss on the scientific method then come up with a conclusion that isn't supported by what they just did. In fact usually you could drive a truck through the holes in their experimental method. However instead of seeing this, people wonder why I'm so down on them and even here on slashdot I'm modded down if I bring this up. I'm not talking about wanting them to run boring studies either. They could do exactly what they do now but think of better ways of testing and come up with an estimate of how well they've proven or disproven what they set out to prove instead of just coming up with conclusions like the myth is busted based on a flawed experiment. The best they do is come up with "plausible" if they're not sure...
Then you have people like Sir David Attenborough. His documentaries and work are first rate. Unlike certain animal behaviour celebrities he actually studies and documents what the animals do and goes to some trouble to ensure that the filming process doesn't disturb them instead of walking up to them and handling them roughly then screaming "wwwoooooooo". However his presentation is let down by a voice that is a cure for insomnia, and a lot of pregnant pauses in the discussion while we just watch the animal. In other words he's not entertaining enough. He's boring, and as a result he's not as popular as the animal molesting morons that most kids think of when they think of animal docos.
You've got to have the right balance and almost no one does. It has to be exciting and entertaining and scientifically sound. I can count the number of shows that I'd personally call all 3 on one hand, and even then they're not interesting enough that my wife or extended will want to watch them.
If you enjoyed Cosmos, you really should read:
Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark" (1996)
Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space" (1994)
Biographies on famous scientists are always interesting too. There are plenty to choose from. I've read about the lives of Sagan, Feynman, Newton and Einstein. Very entertaining and a wonderful insight into their work as well as their characters (and their character flaws! Did you know the rumour is that Einstein would try to seduce women by letting his robe fall open....oops)