and the people who buy the $999 Facebook machines adapt their usage patterns to their computers, not vice versa.
Laptop open = I'm clothed, shaved, my mistress isn't there, I've cleaned away last nights pizza. I'm ready for video chat.
Laptop closed = If you really need me, I have a phone, where I can pretend not to be naked and covered in jam and sprinkles.
See, here I thought having a portable computer was so I could carry it around. Rather than carrying it in two hands like some holy relic ("But it's an Apple!" I know...), I like to close the screen and not have to worry about someone coming around a corner and knocking it around or breaking it. So why not be able to put this supposedly portable device in a designed carrying mode when carrying it around for brief periods without having to change its operating state twice in less than a minute?
Another thing to note. People are all different. Making the assumption that everyone should use a general purpose tool in a single way is inherently flawed. This thing is somewhat more complex than a hammer, and even that has at least two ways it can be used.
The point you're missing in this analogy, and which wasn't explicitly stated, is that the trespasser, the U.S. government, doesn't have a right to privacy. So yes, someone should be able to rifle through the trespassers records and see who they've trespassed against. It's generally referred to as 'checks and balances'. Those were the days...
We already have a system that consistently works better than the current crop of flu vaccines, works well against a variety of other viruses, and is vastly more cost-effective - washing your hands. Oh, right, it doesn't cost a billion dollars a year for big corporations, isn't sciencey enough for people to appreciate, and would require an education campaign on the scale required for seat belts to be truly effective. So let's skip it.
No guns drawn on us, but my wife and I, who really like Happy Jack's in Fort Erie, have lost a bit of desire to go there for lunch because of the assholes manning the US side of the border. On special occasions, we'll push our luck and go, and the Canadians are always cool about it. The Americans are almost always total power-tripping buttheads.
Canadian Customs and Immigration can be butt heads as well. I've had friends detained for hours because an official decided a Canadian could do the work (never mind he was teaching on a very specific subject and methodology that he had years of expertise implementing - and the work fell under NAFTA Professional Categorization). At one point it was looking like I was going to run the session and do the setup all by myself if my coworkers got sent back. We finally decided to simply move the future sessions to the US and avoid the hassle.
You seem to be suffering from the delusion that it is any easier for a Canadian instructor (with the same criteria you list) to perform his duties in the United States. Moreover, your clients may have the unsettling surprise of being refused departure if they don't answer the questions correctly, as well. Imagine the difficulties your instructor gets to experience, times 15. This issue occurs in both directions.
Please give a reason for why someone who has paid for their phone via their multi-year contract shouldn't be able to unlock their phone once the contract is complete? Please keep in mind that at this point even the carriers agree that you've bought and paid for your phone.
I thought pitchforks were made to stab and fling hay. Shovels were made to shovel manure.
Pitchforks have long sharp tines, and if someone armed himself with a pitchfork and said, GTFO. No one sane without a firearm would risk doing anything but giving that guy at least 10' of clearance. A pitchfork will easily send 4x 10" steel spikes right through you without hesitation. I've seen it happen. (Hey, I used to live in Lancaster, PA of course I saw a pitchfork stabbing).
There is no blocking a pitchfork. They can be pretty fearsome weapons and the only reason people don't use them more often is they are pretty obvious.
There are manure pitchforks. They typically have 11 to 15 tines, and are about as wide as a manure shovel. They aren't very good for hay, because they can grab more than you can easily lift, and the hay doesn't slide off as easily. A 3 to 5 tine pitchfork is fine for most hay applications.
If you want to stop someone with a pitchfork, adequate use of a stick, or other handled tool can be quite effective. Guns are generally easier since they have better range than your average pitchfork, and people just don't train enough with quarterstaves anymore. And you block a pitchfork just like any other polearm. Granted, most people don't know how to use or defend against polearms any more, not unlike swords (which most amateurs use for simple jabs or slashes and never parrying).
Make a little shield with a bit of foil and a coathanger. While tracking the incoming attempts, shield your WAP from various directions until it stops. Gives you a direction, and you can bend the coathanger into a little stand to hold the shield in place next to your WAP. It's likely to be in the direction of a near wall, isn't it?
Amazing stuff, tinfoil.
Not that this is insurmountable, but even if the WiFi router is in a corner of your house, shielding on the wall side will only have a 50% chance of blocking the signal. You may have to move the router to a different side of the house for this to be effective.
I don't hate Windows 8 with the passion some people do. I can see it's broken and have spent a lot of time pointing out the flaws. But neither do I think it is irretrievably bad either. I think Microsoft in their zeal to get to tablet land cut corners on the desktop experience knowing they could fix them later and I hope that the Blue refresh or whatever it ends up being called will do just that.
So what you're saying is that they're okay with the idea of intentionally screwing over the only strong user base they currently have in the rush to try to gain a new user base in a competitive market. That's like trying to fly by taping on a pair of plastic wings and then shooting your legs off to get rid of the dead weight. And for some reason, people find this misguided.
I read that and the first thought that popped into my head was: Somewhere out there is a universe where Sheldon said, "You know what, you're right. The only reason an engineer needs a doctorate is to teach engineering. You decided, 'Screw that, I don't want to teach a bunch of idiots. I want to make some really cool stuff.' Good for you!"
The ideas behind Windows Vista were sound, they were just badly implemented until about SP2. Windows 7 was Vista done properly.
The difference with Windows 8 is that the whole idea of having a single interface for both tablets and desktops was wrong. It's not that there are some annoying bugs that need to be fixed, the whole specification of it is flawed. For Windows 9, Microsoft will need to either go back to the drawing board, or alternatively release a Windows 7.1 that brings any new under-the-hood stuff to the Windows 7 UI.
Yeah, that's pretty much my sentiment. Why can't they just release an update, let you use the old interface if you want it, and the new one if you don't? It can certainly be done - third parties already have. I'm not even saying Metro is bad - it's just painful without a touch interface. I imagine it would be at least adequate for a touch interface. So let the people choose, and get even more people on the Win8 bandwagon.
Of course, for that to happen, two other things will have to happen first. They will have to admit they really screwed up, and they will have to allow Win8 users to not have to see what they've built into their apps store. I think they will resist both of those quite strongly.
Sounds like Google has good lawyers. "To be honest, you'll spend more defending yourself against these guys than they'll ever fine you for. Your best bet is to assign someone in AP to pay this off as close to the deadline as possible, so that you can at least save the interest. Now, on to something that's actually important..."
Before somebody says, "well your answer is wrong", remember this. If you had infinite sums of money could the patent be defended? Yes. Thus the problem is not the patent system per say, but the courts that cause these problems. Simply put what needs to be fixed is the fact that lawyers with big sums of money do not have an advantage that lawyers with small sums of money.
This is akin to saying, "There's nothing wrong with your car, per se, it's just a fundamental problem with the brakes." And yet my car is still wrapped around the tree. In other words, the legal process of dealing with patent disputes is part of the patent system.
Or as one knows the other is guilty you up the anti. You charge them both with perverting the course of Justice
It's only one case. Chimerism is another challenge. There was a recent story of a lady who had different DNA in her ovaries than in her saliva. The child custody issues took years (and having another child!) to resolve. Then there's marrow transfusions, as well as simple blood transfusions, and transplants. All kinds of edge cases where simple DNA tests are poor, and even complex DNA tests may not be helpful if not thoroughly thought out. And if the only evidence is DNA, things just got a lot more difficult.
The range estimation reminds me of the progress bar article earlier this week. So many things will affect range that all you can give is an estimate. Hilly terrain? Reduced range. Cold weather? Reduced range, exacerbated by speed (stationary with cabin heat will have a similar impact to idling with an ICE car). Excessive acceleration and deceleration? Reduced range, mitigated by regenerative braking. Excessive speeds? Reduced range. How can you take all this into account without being overly conservative or just plain wrong. Even my GPS can't give an accurate time estimate at the beginning of a trip, and that's just one dimension.
I think anyone who knows anything about electric vehicles would know that start-and-stop driving (Manhattan detour) in the winter is the dumbest idea in the world on an endurance run, just like it would be in an ICE car. We all accept this in the case of ICE cars - idling kills gas mileage - but it's not as intuitive for electric cars. Which is why he should have followed the instructions. Also, anyone who thinks that stop-and-start is going to have a net benefit to charge levels doesn't qualify as an expert in anything to do with efficiency. Violating basic physics just doesn't happen every day.
I agree with the overall tone of your comment, but have to say a few things about what I don't quite agree with.
2) Similarly, if you compare the graphs, you'll see that at about the time he dropped his heating down to its lowest setting, his speed also dropped down to around 54 miles per hour, again, as he claimed. That said, he seemed to imply in the article that he maintained that speed for quite some time. What the logs show is that he only maintained that speed for a short period of time, before resuming his typical driving habits that had him in the mid-60s for his speed. He conveniently neglected to mention how long he maintained that speed, leaving it to the reader to assume that he maintained it until his next stop, which was untrue.
Here's what he said in his article: "I turned the climate control to low — the temperature was still in the 30s — and planted myself in the far right lane with the cruise control set at 54 miles per hour (the speed limit is 65). Buicks and 18-wheelers flew past, their drivers staring at the nail-polish-red wondercar with California dealer plates." I don't know about you, but I don't set the cruise control to a different value just to change the temperature, and the overall tone was that he was trying to reduce energy usage. Anyone being reasonable at all would assume that you would have to do that for more than a few minutes to have any reasonable impact.
3) Tesla disputes the time that Broder claims he spent charging at Milford (the Times' picture claimed 58 minutes, Broder's article says "nearly an hour", but Tesla claims 47 minutes). It's possible this was a simple case of misunderstanding, where he was in the service station for 58 minutes (including the rather shady 5 minutes driving around the lot to seemingly try and kill the battery) but actually only spent 47 minutes charging. Either way, there's no dispute that his range read 185 miles when he stopped charging the car before it was done. Tesla suggests that it's his fault for not charging it to full, even though the reported range was 60 miles greater than what was necessary to reach his next stop.
Given that the screen cap in Musks rebuttal says "Charged for 58 minutes", this isn't a misunderstanding. Broder is either lying or engaging in shoddy journalism, or Musk is fabricating the screen cap.
5) Broder never mentions in the article what the estimated range was after his last stop, instead merely saying that "after an hour they [Tesla] cleared me to resume the trip". Since he says he woke up a Tesla official on the west coats to ask for instructions and this was not his scheduled stop, it's quite possible he got someone half-asleep or unfamiliar with the fact that he had stopped at a non-Supercharger station, meaning that they cleared him after the hour that the Supercharger would have taken, rather than the several hours necessary at the station he was at. Either way, he was definitively not charged enough (which he clearly knew), since both Musk's notes and the Times' own map indicate that he had around 32-35 miles of reported range after he had charged, which was nowhere close to the 51 necessary to reach his destination.
I suspect the instructions were simply because Tesla's assumption was different that what actually happened. They were under the impression that the goal was to test the supercharger network, not how well the car reported charge estimates. In this scenario, a full charge at every stop only makes sense. Quoting Musk: "When Tesla first approached The New York Times about doing this story, it was supposed to be focused on future advancements in our Supercharger technology."
There are some speculative points that you mention as well, but there simply isn't enough information for it to be any thing but speculation. Certainly, Musk is glossing over some facts. There may have even been a serious glitch with the charge loss that one night. But the overall tr
I'm pretty sure the other poster understood that, as did I. What he's proposing is that there could be more than one law for what you did wrong that ends with "with the use of a computer". Like the difference between vandalism (shooting out a window of an empty building) and multiple counts of homicide (using a gun to kill a room full of people).
An, in general, what the fuck is going on with people designing user interfaces these days? It seems everywhere you go there's yet another abortion of a user interface.
Seriously...
So nothing's changed. Seriously, almost all of the interfaces are crap. Some are less crap, some are even nice, but most have the only advantage of being familiar, and then inevitably get replaced by the producer for something new and shiny. Unfortunately, you won't find anything better without some broad user testing (after all, I'm sure focus groups were involved with Metro).
Thanks, Slashdot, for helping identify another poor interface. Please don't stop.
Slashdot Mirror
and the people who buy the $999 Facebook machines adapt their usage patterns to their computers, not vice versa.
Laptop open = I'm clothed, shaved, my mistress isn't there, I've cleaned away last nights pizza. I'm ready for video chat.
Laptop closed = If you really need me, I have a phone, where I can pretend not to be naked and covered in jam and sprinkles.
See, here I thought having a portable computer was so I could carry it around. Rather than carrying it in two hands like some holy relic ("But it's an Apple!" I know...), I like to close the screen and not have to worry about someone coming around a corner and knocking it around or breaking it. So why not be able to put this supposedly portable device in a designed carrying mode when carrying it around for brief periods without having to change its operating state twice in less than a minute?
Another thing to note. People are all different. Making the assumption that everyone should use a general purpose tool in a single way is inherently flawed. This thing is somewhat more complex than a hammer, and even that has at least two ways it can be used.
If you think that bozo who had your job before you was bad at spaghetti code, just you wait until you see what His Noodliness has in store for you.
I think code written up on little twisted strings of material pretty much by definition has to be spaghetti code.
The point you're missing in this analogy, and which wasn't explicitly stated, is that the trespasser, the U.S. government, doesn't have a right to privacy. So yes, someone should be able to rifle through the trespassers records and see who they've trespassed against. It's generally referred to as 'checks and balances'. Those were the days...
Got a better idea, bozo? No? Thought not.
We already have a system that consistently works better than the current crop of flu vaccines, works well against a variety of other viruses, and is vastly more cost-effective - washing your hands. Oh, right, it doesn't cost a billion dollars a year for big corporations, isn't sciencey enough for people to appreciate, and would require an education campaign on the scale required for seat belts to be truly effective. So let's skip it.
No guns drawn on us, but my wife and I, who really like Happy Jack's in Fort Erie, have lost a bit of desire to go there for lunch because of the assholes manning the US side of the border. On special occasions, we'll push our luck and go, and the Canadians are always cool about it. The Americans are almost always total power-tripping buttheads.
Canadian Customs and Immigration can be butt heads as well. I've had friends detained for hours because an official decided a Canadian could do the work (never mind he was teaching on a very specific subject and methodology that he had years of expertise implementing - and the work fell under NAFTA Professional Categorization). At one point it was looking like I was going to run the session and do the setup all by myself if my coworkers got sent back. We finally decided to simply move the future sessions to the US and avoid the hassle.
You seem to be suffering from the delusion that it is any easier for a Canadian instructor (with the same criteria you list) to perform his duties in the United States. Moreover, your clients may have the unsettling surprise of being refused departure if they don't answer the questions correctly, as well. Imagine the difficulties your instructor gets to experience, times 15. This issue occurs in both directions.
Please give a reason for why someone who has paid for their phone via their multi-year contract shouldn't be able to unlock their phone once the contract is complete? Please keep in mind that at this point even the carriers agree that you've bought and paid for your phone.
I thought pitchforks were made to stab and fling hay. Shovels were made to shovel manure.
Pitchforks have long sharp tines, and if someone armed himself with a pitchfork and said, GTFO. No one sane without a firearm would risk doing anything but giving that guy at least 10' of clearance. A pitchfork will easily send 4x 10" steel spikes right through you without hesitation. I've seen it happen. (Hey, I used to live in Lancaster, PA of course I saw a pitchfork stabbing).
There is no blocking a pitchfork. They can be pretty fearsome weapons and the only reason people don't use them more often is they are pretty obvious.
There are manure pitchforks. They typically have 11 to 15 tines, and are about as wide as a manure shovel. They aren't very good for hay, because they can grab more than you can easily lift, and the hay doesn't slide off as easily. A 3 to 5 tine pitchfork is fine for most hay applications.
If you want to stop someone with a pitchfork, adequate use of a stick, or other handled tool can be quite effective. Guns are generally easier since they have better range than your average pitchfork, and people just don't train enough with quarterstaves anymore. And you block a pitchfork just like any other polearm. Granted, most people don't know how to use or defend against polearms any more, not unlike swords (which most amateurs use for simple jabs or slashes and never parrying).
When you say "Japanese Probe" I had an entirely different idea in my head regarding what this story was about.
Miswiring sounds like it would be just as dangerous, either way.
Make a little shield with a bit of foil and a coathanger. While tracking the incoming attempts, shield your WAP from various directions until it stops. Gives you a direction, and you can bend the coathanger into a little stand to hold the shield in place next to your WAP. It's likely to be in the direction of a near wall, isn't it?
Amazing stuff, tinfoil.
Not that this is insurmountable, but even if the WiFi router is in a corner of your house, shielding on the wall side will only have a 50% chance of blocking the signal. You may have to move the router to a different side of the house for this to be effective.
I don't hate Windows 8 with the passion some people do. I can see it's broken and have spent a lot of time pointing out the flaws. But neither do I think it is irretrievably bad either. I think Microsoft in their zeal to get to tablet land cut corners on the desktop experience knowing they could fix them later and I hope that the Blue refresh or whatever it ends up being called will do just that.
So what you're saying is that they're okay with the idea of intentionally screwing over the only strong user base they currently have in the rush to try to gain a new user base in a competitive market. That's like trying to fly by taping on a pair of plastic wings and then shooting your legs off to get rid of the dead weight. And for some reason, people find this misguided.
I read that and the first thought that popped into my head was: Somewhere out there is a universe where Sheldon said, "You know what, you're right. The only reason an engineer needs a doctorate is to teach engineering. You decided, 'Screw that, I don't want to teach a bunch of idiots. I want to make some really cool stuff.' Good for you!"
Windows 2000 was also a win.
The ideas behind Windows Vista were sound, they were just badly implemented until about SP2. Windows 7 was Vista done properly.
The difference with Windows 8 is that the whole idea of having a single interface for both tablets and desktops was wrong. It's not that there are some annoying bugs that need to be fixed, the whole specification of it is flawed. For Windows 9, Microsoft will need to either go back to the drawing board, or alternatively release a Windows 7.1 that brings any new under-the-hood stuff to the Windows 7 UI.
Yeah, that's pretty much my sentiment. Why can't they just release an update, let you use the old interface if you want it, and the new one if you don't? It can certainly be done - third parties already have. I'm not even saying Metro is bad - it's just painful without a touch interface. I imagine it would be at least adequate for a touch interface. So let the people choose, and get even more people on the Win8 bandwagon.
Of course, for that to happen, two other things will have to happen first. They will have to admit they really screwed up, and they will have to allow Win8 users to not have to see what they've built into their apps store. I think they will resist both of those quite strongly.
Sounds like Google has good lawyers. "To be honest, you'll spend more defending yourself against these guys than they'll ever fine you for. Your best bet is to assign someone in AP to pay this off as close to the deadline as possible, so that you can at least save the interest. Now, on to something that's actually important..."
Before somebody says, "well your answer is wrong", remember this. If you had infinite sums of money could the patent be defended? Yes. Thus the problem is not the patent system per say, but the courts that cause these problems. Simply put what needs to be fixed is the fact that lawyers with big sums of money do not have an advantage that lawyers with small sums of money.
This is akin to saying, "There's nothing wrong with your car, per se, it's just a fundamental problem with the brakes." And yet my car is still wrapped around the tree. In other words, the legal process of dealing with patent disputes is part of the patent system.
Wow, such willful ignorance. That's equivalent to reinforcing your roof to withstand a nuclear bomb, moron.
Not all meteorites are that powerful. Of course, since those it would help with are so unlikely, why opt for individual protection anyway?
Or as one knows the other is guilty you up the anti. You charge them both with perverting the course of Justice
It's only one case. Chimerism is another challenge. There was a recent story of a lady who had different DNA in her ovaries than in her saliva. The child custody issues took years (and having another child!) to resolve. Then there's marrow transfusions, as well as simple blood transfusions, and transplants. All kinds of edge cases where simple DNA tests are poor, and even complex DNA tests may not be helpful if not thoroughly thought out. And if the only evidence is DNA, things just got a lot more difficult.
What if they are both guilty?
Then you've found a system where two criminals can easily manufacture reasonable doubt.
It was a tough call for me, so I took the conservative approach. On that note, you might appreciate this.
The range estimation reminds me of the progress bar article earlier this week. So many things will affect range that all you can give is an estimate. Hilly terrain? Reduced range. Cold weather? Reduced range, exacerbated by speed (stationary with cabin heat will have a similar impact to idling with an ICE car). Excessive acceleration and deceleration? Reduced range, mitigated by regenerative braking. Excessive speeds? Reduced range. How can you take all this into account without being overly conservative or just plain wrong. Even my GPS can't give an accurate time estimate at the beginning of a trip, and that's just one dimension.
I think anyone who knows anything about electric vehicles would know that start-and-stop driving (Manhattan detour) in the winter is the dumbest idea in the world on an endurance run, just like it would be in an ICE car. We all accept this in the case of ICE cars - idling kills gas mileage - but it's not as intuitive for electric cars. Which is why he should have followed the instructions. Also, anyone who thinks that stop-and-start is going to have a net benefit to charge levels doesn't qualify as an expert in anything to do with efficiency. Violating basic physics just doesn't happen every day.
Hey, give the guy a break - those high-class hookers are expensive!
If you think hookers are expensive, try getting married!
I don't know about "this car" since it's so dang expensive. However, *an* electric would be sweet!
-l
Then I have good news for you! Tesla is planning on releasing a $30k car in 2105.
I agree with the overall tone of your comment, but have to say a few things about what I don't quite agree with.
2) Similarly, if you compare the graphs, you'll see that at about the time he dropped his heating down to its lowest setting, his speed also dropped down to around 54 miles per hour, again, as he claimed. That said, he seemed to imply in the article that he maintained that speed for quite some time. What the logs show is that he only maintained that speed for a short period of time, before resuming his typical driving habits that had him in the mid-60s for his speed. He conveniently neglected to mention how long he maintained that speed, leaving it to the reader to assume that he maintained it until his next stop, which was untrue.
Here's what he said in his article: "I turned the climate control to low — the temperature was still in the 30s — and planted myself in the far right lane with the cruise control set at 54 miles per hour (the speed limit is 65). Buicks and 18-wheelers flew past, their drivers staring at the nail-polish-red wondercar with California dealer plates." I don't know about you, but I don't set the cruise control to a different value just to change the temperature, and the overall tone was that he was trying to reduce energy usage. Anyone being reasonable at all would assume that you would have to do that for more than a few minutes to have any reasonable impact.
3) Tesla disputes the time that Broder claims he spent charging at Milford (the Times' picture claimed 58 minutes, Broder's article says "nearly an hour", but Tesla claims 47 minutes). It's possible this was a simple case of misunderstanding, where he was in the service station for 58 minutes (including the rather shady 5 minutes driving around the lot to seemingly try and kill the battery) but actually only spent 47 minutes charging. Either way, there's no dispute that his range read 185 miles when he stopped charging the car before it was done. Tesla suggests that it's his fault for not charging it to full, even though the reported range was 60 miles greater than what was necessary to reach his next stop.
Given that the screen cap in Musks rebuttal says "Charged for 58 minutes", this isn't a misunderstanding. Broder is either lying or engaging in shoddy journalism, or Musk is fabricating the screen cap.
5) Broder never mentions in the article what the estimated range was after his last stop, instead merely saying that "after an hour they [Tesla] cleared me to resume the trip". Since he says he woke up a Tesla official on the west coats to ask for instructions and this was not his scheduled stop, it's quite possible he got someone half-asleep or unfamiliar with the fact that he had stopped at a non-Supercharger station, meaning that they cleared him after the hour that the Supercharger would have taken, rather than the several hours necessary at the station he was at. Either way, he was definitively not charged enough (which he clearly knew), since both Musk's notes and the Times' own map indicate that he had around 32-35 miles of reported range after he had charged, which was nowhere close to the 51 necessary to reach his destination.
I suspect the instructions were simply because Tesla's assumption was different that what actually happened. They were under the impression that the goal was to test the supercharger network, not how well the car reported charge estimates. In this scenario, a full charge at every stop only makes sense. Quoting Musk: "When Tesla first approached The New York Times about doing this story, it was supposed to be focused on future advancements in our Supercharger technology."
There are some speculative points that you mention as well, but there simply isn't enough information for it to be any thing but speculation. Certainly, Musk is glossing over some facts. There may have even been a serious glitch with the charge loss that one night. But the overall tr
I'm pretty sure the other poster understood that, as did I. What he's proposing is that there could be more than one law for what you did wrong that ends with "with the use of a computer". Like the difference between vandalism (shooting out a window of an empty building) and multiple counts of homicide (using a gun to kill a room full of people).
What the fuck were you guys thinking?
An, in general, what the fuck is going on with people designing user interfaces these days? It seems everywhere you go there's yet another abortion of a user interface.
Seriously...
So nothing's changed. Seriously, almost all of the interfaces are crap. Some are less crap, some are even nice, but most have the only advantage of being familiar, and then inevitably get replaced by the producer for something new and shiny. Unfortunately, you won't find anything better without some broad user testing (after all, I'm sure focus groups were involved with Metro).
Thanks, Slashdot, for helping identify another poor interface. Please don't stop.
Windows 8 looks suprisingly like Windows 1.
ROFL! I never thought about it until I read that.
Thanks to you, Windows 8 has finally made me smile.