I suspect it has a lot to do with Apple's philosophy of not including functionality until they have it all working smoothly. Backing up to an external drive is pretty fool-proof, and I think Apple decided that that is good enough until they come up with a networking solution. Sure as hell beats having a bug in your back-up functionality. I'm also not aware of any restrictions on the bus type for backing up -- I'd be surprised if it only works with Firewire and not USB.
I'm not sure why you would want your Aperture library on a Windows computer -- that is just asking for trouble. Do you want to retrieve the photos from it and stop using Aperture? You can export masters from inside Aperture.
That's just one philosophy, though. Take the iPhone, for example, that's a good case where the OS should have more control over the applications. Obviously, if we're talking about setting up a Linux server, that is something else. What the OS should do or not, if it's very basic or extremely bloated, really depends on what it's going to be used for.
People like to point to GUI design studies as if they're fact. If they're supposed to be actual fact, then one counterexample is enough to disprove said "fact". If they're not supposed to be actual fact, then they don't really have any meaningful use when you're discussing if a GUI is good or bad.
You're simplifying the whole thing too much. You can't take a complex field of study such as interface or interaction design and say it's either all facts or not. It makes no sense to even bring up facts and counterexamples unless you are talking about a specific example of something. GUI design is just one stage, one part of the field, because usability studies can certainly prove a point.
In either case, the study of GUI design isn't something you can call upon to prove your point when discussing the usefulness of a program's GUI.
If we are talking absolute proof here, then you should know that even in science, there is no such thing. Proof belongs in the realms of mathematics and logic. For all intents and purposes, science is good enough. But because of that, the usefulness or accuracy of the end results can vary. But that does not mean it is of no value.
Do you still think that GUI studies do not help improve the interface, that usability tests do not show trends that are useful for consideration in the design of GUIs?
The mouse isn't going anywhere for a while -- it's cheap, accurate, and everyone already knows how to use it. Touchscreens are great for somethings -- horrible for others. And as for facial recognition -- are they joking? Eyeball or direct neurological interaction sounds more likely, and they're still a while away from becoming mainstream.
I know that how efficiently someone works is almost always a very personalized thing.
And what is this based on? Your personal experience? What context are you talking about exactly? And assuming it is true, have you considered why things might appear that way? Habit and familiarity play a large role in your perception of what works and what doesn't. How can you separate that out without some kind of objective recording? How many more times do I have to point out that your personal experience may be quite self deceptive? If you don't even know that and are not prepared to question your own theories, then you are not being objective or scientific at all.
Very rarely will two people work at peak efficiency the same way. And you expect me to believe that people that study GUI design (whose goal is to maximize efficiency) can achieve a result which is optimum for everyone?
It's not just about peak efficiency, it's also about designing something that works well across the most number of people -- part of it is about designing something that is intuitive and consistent.
Look at OS X, whose GUI is lauded for being "objectively" great. Yet, I find it to be less efficient than other GUIs. That means that the "facts" people are using to evaluate it aren't facts at all.
No, that is your experience. How can you seriously think that your personal thought process is close enough to everyone else's (even though you accept they differ) to make judgments on how effective OS X's GUI is? You have said that people work in different ways, yet you still seem to think that your own subjective experience is somehow absolute. That makes no sense unless you really think you know better than everyone else.
That you think your own experience is more correct that many other people who work in the field seems a bit delusional. Are your opinions from personal experience fact? No, therefore they are worthless, as you said. Have you even read anything about interaction or interface design? Which books or sites? If you can't name any, then how could you know they are bullshit or unscientific?
Interaction design. Lots of scientific papers in that area including all sorts of cool toys such as tracking a user's eyeball movements etc. And in this area, how people (even experts with lots of experience) think something should work best is often not the case. You can't just go by what makes sense to you, you need to do proper research and testing. If you think GUI design is just about pretty colours, you are very wrong. Apple seem do more testing in this area. In fact, they were the first to really take it seriously -- Windows (and therefore Linux) just copied them and made a few seemingly arbitrary changes in the process to make it seem different enough from Mac OS. Why do you think the iPod is so damn popular? It's not just the looks or clever marketing, it was the first to have a GUI that wasn't clunky or full of little annoyances. Same goes for the iPhone. Are you really saying that your own personal experience is more correct than Apple's R&D team? Do you really think all those people using Apple products are just zealots or people with too much money? I know a few Mac users and none of them fit either of those stereotypes.
My response is that removing people from society protects society.
And I'm saying that you can't just remove whoever you want from society without a very good reason, and that eventually, many of them will be released, anyway. What is your solution to that?.
PUNISHMENT PREVENTS CRIMES BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE IN JAIL.
Jail prevents crimes because they are in jail. Punishment is something else, and so is prevention.
Unless you post under your real account, I consider this over.
You don't know that and that is the very point I'm trying to make. You have seen just one event in this kid's life and you are a fool to judge someone based on what you've read in news. You don't really know much about the situation. You are being prejudice.
I thought an OS should do as many things as it needs to keep the system operating. Whether an OS can determine if an application installs the correct way is really down to the philosophy of the OS developers. Just because things aren't like that, doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be.
That's funny, because the UI is what many people like so much. So unless you have any proof, such as usability studies to back that up with, its just an opinion or personal taste.
No, what I mean is it still sounds like the defense could be using a loop-hole, or not representing things accurately. Or are radar guns really that inaccurate?
And someone who grows pot is really a harm to society? A troubled youth who stole a single car stereo needs to be in prison, at the taxpayer's expense, where he will just be make into more of a criminal, eventually to be released? Or do you think people like that should be in there forever, or perhaps you favor capital punishment? The only person being childish here is the one who won't even post with a real account.
My main problem with that little ball is that when I click on it, sometimes I scroll up a few lines and miss the link unless I press it the right way (I have it setup to open a link in a new window). It doesn't happen often enough to make me ditch the mouse, though. I prefer the scroll wheel in the older MS mice, but I find MS mice too big. And although right clicking can sometimes miss, I prefer the tactical feedback of the "whole mouse as button" concept -- using anything else feels like pressing down on flimsy popsical sticks or something. I'm sticking with mine for now, but I can see how others can't stand it.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, we're all self-centered.
We are? I know some people are, but there are many who aren't. Sounds like you're just making excuses for yourself.
The other thing it doesn't do in general is take any .vob file(s) that isn't part of a full DVD rip.
Except if you use the x264 option, which I have no idea of how it affects this issue.
Those adds are new. Apple as been around for quite a while. Things change. Not saying Apple coined the term...
I suspect it has a lot to do with Apple's philosophy of not including functionality until they have it all working smoothly. Backing up to an external drive is pretty fool-proof, and I think Apple decided that that is good enough until they come up with a networking solution. Sure as hell beats having a bug in your back-up functionality. I'm also not aware of any restrictions on the bus type for backing up -- I'd be surprised if it only works with Firewire and not USB.
I'm not sure why you would want your Aperture library on a Windows computer -- that is just asking for trouble. Do you want to retrieve the photos from it and stop using Aperture? You can export masters from inside Aperture.
That's just one philosophy, though. Take the iPhone, for example, that's a good case where the OS should have more control over the applications. Obviously, if we're talking about setting up a Linux server, that is something else. What the OS should do or not, if it's very basic or extremely bloated, really depends on what it's going to be used for.
Yeah, those 100's of high-quality injection mold machines, the automated storage and packaging, all pretty cheap to setup and keep running.
I guess that just means you'll need to use more imagination to come up with new ideas for those specialised pieces.
People like to point to GUI design studies as if they're fact. If they're supposed to be actual fact, then one counterexample is enough to disprove said "fact". If they're not supposed to be actual fact, then they don't really have any meaningful use when you're discussing if a GUI is good or bad.
You're simplifying the whole thing too much. You can't take a complex field of study such as interface or interaction design and say it's either all facts or not. It makes no sense to even bring up facts and counterexamples unless you are talking about a specific example of something. GUI design is just one stage, one part of the field, because usability studies can certainly prove a point.
In either case, the study of GUI design isn't something you can call upon to prove your point when discussing the usefulness of a program's GUI.
If we are talking absolute proof here, then you should know that even in science, there is no such thing. Proof belongs in the realms of mathematics and logic. For all intents and purposes, science is good enough. But because of that, the usefulness or accuracy of the end results can vary. But that does not mean it is of no value.
Do you still think that GUI studies do not help improve the interface, that usability tests do not show trends that are useful for consideration in the design of GUIs?
But designing a GUI is not like math theorem, so it doesn't even make sense for a "counterexample" to necessarily disprove anything.
The mouse isn't going anywhere for a while -- it's cheap, accurate, and everyone already knows how to use it. Touchscreens are great for somethings -- horrible for others. And as for facial recognition -- are they joking? Eyeball or direct neurological interaction sounds more likely, and they're still a while away from becoming mainstream.
I know that how efficiently someone works is almost always a very personalized thing.
And what is this based on? Your personal experience? What context are you talking about exactly? And assuming it is true, have you considered why things might appear that way? Habit and familiarity play a large role in your perception of what works and what doesn't. How can you separate that out without some kind of objective recording? How many more times do I have to point out that your personal experience may be quite self deceptive? If you don't even know that and are not prepared to question your own theories, then you are not being objective or scientific at all.
Very rarely will two people work at peak efficiency the same way. And you expect me to believe that people that study GUI design (whose goal is to maximize efficiency) can achieve a result which is optimum for everyone?
It's not just about peak efficiency, it's also about designing something that works well across the most number of people -- part of it is about designing something that is intuitive and consistent.
Look at OS X, whose GUI is lauded for being "objectively" great. Yet, I find it to be less efficient than other GUIs. That means that the "facts" people are using to evaluate it aren't facts at all.
No, that is your experience. How can you seriously think that your personal thought process is close enough to everyone else's (even though you accept they differ) to make judgments on how effective OS X's GUI is? You have said that people work in different ways, yet you still seem to think that your own subjective experience is somehow absolute. That makes no sense unless you really think you know better than everyone else.
That you think your own experience is more correct that many other people who work in the field seems a bit delusional. Are your opinions from personal experience fact? No, therefore they are worthless, as you said. Have you even read anything about interaction or interface design? Which books or sites? If you can't name any, then how could you know they are bullshit or unscientific?
Interaction design. Lots of scientific papers in that area including all sorts of cool toys such as tracking a user's eyeball movements etc. And in this area, how people (even experts with lots of experience) think something should work best is often not the case. You can't just go by what makes sense to you, you need to do proper research and testing. If you think GUI design is just about pretty colours, you are very wrong. Apple seem do more testing in this area. In fact, they were the first to really take it seriously -- Windows (and therefore Linux) just copied them and made a few seemingly arbitrary changes in the process to make it seem different enough from Mac OS. Why do you think the iPod is so damn popular? It's not just the looks or clever marketing, it was the first to have a GUI that wasn't clunky or full of little annoyances. Same goes for the iPhone. Are you really saying that your own personal experience is more correct than Apple's R&D team? Do you really think all those people using Apple products are just zealots or people with too much money? I know a few Mac users and none of them fit either of those stereotypes.
Guess you need to do your research, then.
My response is that removing people from society protects society.
And I'm saying that you can't just remove whoever you want from society without a very good reason, and that eventually, many of them will be released, anyway. What is your solution to that?.
PUNISHMENT PREVENTS CRIMES BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE IN JAIL.
Jail prevents crimes because they are in jail. Punishment is something else, and so is prevention.
Unless you post under your real account, I consider this over.
The kid is an asshole.
You don't know that and that is the very point I'm trying to make. You have seen just one event in this kid's life and you are a fool to judge someone based on what you've read in news. You don't really know much about the situation. You are being prejudice.
I thought an OS should do as many things as it needs to keep the system operating. Whether an OS can determine if an application installs the correct way is really down to the philosophy of the OS developers. Just because things aren't like that, doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be.
That's funny, because the UI is what many people like so much. So unless you have any proof, such as usability studies to back that up with, its just an opinion or personal taste.
No, what I mean is it still sounds like the defense could be using a loop-hole, or not representing things accurately. Or are radar guns really that inaccurate?
But that goes against Batman, doesn't it? He suffered childhood trauma, yet he refused to kill someone for those sorts of reasons.
That still doesn't seem very clear.
Better average velocity, or better peak velocity? That is what I mean. How many readings per minuet or second would a GPS system like that do?
And someone who grows pot is really a harm to society? A troubled youth who stole a single car stereo needs to be in prison, at the taxpayer's expense, where he will just be make into more of a criminal, eventually to be released? Or do you think people like that should be in there forever, or perhaps you favor capital punishment? The only person being childish here is the one who won't even post with a real account.
My main problem with that little ball is that when I click on it, sometimes I scroll up a few lines and miss the link unless I press it the right way (I have it setup to open a link in a new window). It doesn't happen often enough to make me ditch the mouse, though. I prefer the scroll wheel in the older MS mice, but I find MS mice too big. And although right clicking can sometimes miss, I prefer the tactical feedback of the "whole mouse as button" concept -- using anything else feels like pressing down on flimsy popsical sticks or something. I'm sticking with mine for now, but I can see how others can't stand it.