Enlighten me: why does it do that? I can see the difficulty of doing it without application support, but why not offer applications a way of registering an event handler for a taskbar drag and drop event? (Sorry for using what might not be proper vocabulary.) Or you could pretend that dropping it on a taskbar button is the same as dropping it on the window's title bar.
It depends on whether the application supports it. Few do. Opera doesn't - you can even drag-and-drop text selections within the app. OpenOffice Writer doesn't support it, you get the "forbidden target" cursor you describe. Firefox is the same. MS Word assumedly does it, I don't have it installed anymore (despite this lack of a crucial feature on OOOs side). Finally WordPad (aka write.exe), available with pretty much every Windows install since 95, does support it.
That's the crucial difference between Alt-Tab and Expose. It really doesn't matter if Alt-Tab has window thumbnails or read out audio descriptions recorded by Bill Gates himself - in most cases the window name displayed by standard Alt-Tab is sufficient to determine what window it is, anyway. And none of it changes the fact that you need to Tab-Tab linearly through the windows until you find the one you want. You can't even click in the Alt-Tab list... Or use cursor keys, or the mouse wheel. (Does the Powertoy enable any such functionality?)
"You cannot drop an item onto a button on the taskbar. However, if you drag the item over a button without releasing the mouse button, the window will open after a moment, allowing you to drop the item inside the window."
Took me about 5 minutes between sitting in front of Windows (95, mind you) for the first time and getting this message. If it happens so often that you feel the need to design a message box around this user behaviour, well gee maybe users really do want to be able to drop items onto taskbar buttons and you should just let them? Morons.
(Yes, I'm aware that you said hovering until it becomes the active window. It's still a stupid interface design.)
Regarding the disambiguation pages, that is exactly the example the original poster referred to: on a Wikipedia page, linking to a disambiguation page is usually not the right thing, instead you want to link to the actual page relevant to the article. That is, on a page on chemistry, you might want to link to Atomic orbital while on a page on electronic music you might want to link to Orbital (band). In neither case you should link to Orbital, which is a disambiguation page, or "multi-link" to all of them because the band Orbital isn't really relevant in the context of chemistry. This is what the original poster refers to as context sensitivity.
That's nice, but totally different. I'm not reading the Google Cache of the NYT article. It's just that NYT doesn't require you to have a log in if you get there by the way of a link from Google (ie your HTTP referrer URL is from there).
I find it easier to just copy-paste the link into a Google search, readily accessible in most browsers. Google will pick up that it's an URL and offer it back to you as a hyperlink. Click it and, voila, there's the article, courtesy of the NYT and a Google referrer address. The downside is that you have to repeat the procedure for every page.
It sounds like an Easter Egg not a mod: "cannot be accessed without entering a long string of cheat codes, and takes several hours of effort to access".
That's what it sounded to me, too, so I read TFA. It's not a long string of cheat codes, it's manipulation of internal variables using Action Replay, ie an external tool. In my eyes, that makes all the difference.
The sex scenes/mini-games are in the product but turned off by a boolean flag.
A flag that there is no way of controlling without external tools. In other words, the sex mini game is not part of the game, or, briefly, it is not in the game.
It'd be great if the numbers were reliable. They apparently aren't for Valve's games: http://www.steampowered.com/status/game_stats.html Of course Valve might inflate their own games, but at least technically they should be able to determine pretty much exactly how many people are playing currently.
You're right, he does, although he doesn't use those words exactly. It's still all on a very low level, really just extremely common sense stuff. This is what I consider a real article about airflow strategy.
That's probably not a problem. The CPU can stand that. Not way more than that, but my computer routinely used to peak at up to 79, 80C (I have since cleaned the path somewhat). Of course the temperature reporting is notoriously inaccurate. Anyway, whatever the article might say, you don't need an insane airflow in a modern computer. Since airflow is typically proportional to noise, it's not a bad idea to have only just enough airflow to get your temperature (well, maybe 5C or so less for good measure). Eh, I just checked the article briefly, and it's terrible anyway. I don't think the guy has even heard about positive or negative pressure airflow. Most hardware forums have posters that know their stuff better than this.
Broadcasted 8 years ago, I heard about 4 weeks ago, downloaded it 3 weeks ago, finished watching the last episode 2 weeks ago. I love the internet. There's no chance whatsoever I would have even heard about it without the net.
"To ensure the anonymity of the 15-year-olds we replaced each of them with three 5-year-olds. None of them had ever used drugs."
(and it was/is illegal to sell a book - even second hand - without it's cover)
I'm not sure if it's related, but some books I've read had a note on one of the first pages saying that store owners sometimes cut off the covers and ship them back to the publisher as a proof that the books were not sold (entitling them for a refund). Apparently destroying the books and shipping just the cover was cheaper than shipping the whole book back. Obviously, the note went on to say that if you were sold a book without a cover, the store cheated the publisher by selling the book and still claiming a refund.
What do I think? I think the TOR network doesn't want to handle P2P traffic due to political reason and the TOR network isn't able to handle P2P traffice due to technical reasons. I don't think the choice of end user client factors into it - whether you use Azureus, BitComet or a browser-embedded client is totally irrelevant.
This isn't the first time Game Tunnel was mentioned on Slashdot (far from it, I guess). I discovered the site via Slashdot, and regularly read it now. Their layout is terrible, but it's a nice resource, and the indie games are always fun for a short while.
I disagree. I prefer it the way it is. If that results in some idiots getting their file sharing wrong, so be it. I doubt it's an issue, most lusers I know (quite a few) wouldn't even dare going anywhere near the file sharing settings in the first place.
Of course, the intelligent solution is to simply share your music through iTunes, in your particular example--for OS X OR Windows.
Maybe - if and only if you're already using it 24/7.
OS X Server (the closest analogy to XP Professional) supports ACLs. Haha.
First off, I never said that OS X has bad file permission capabilities, I just called down the preposterous claim that Windows XP's are trivial.
Apart from that, I would argue that there is no direct counterpart to the XP Home/Pro division in the Mac world, OS X as I know it serves both the Home and the Pro role quite well. The server products are seperate from that, the counterpart to OS X Server is Windows 2003 Server and the such.
Oh I agree that Apples are easy to distinguish from other laptops. The sort of branding I had in mind was, hm, the bad one like the horrible Intel and Windows stickers my laptop still sports because they're a bitch to remove. Even though it lights up, the trademark "apple" on the back of the laptop is fairly subtle in my view, at least relatively compared to what some manufacturers have come up.
I'm not surprised you feel like have to adjust. The shareware scene on the Apple always was different from the other platforms - way more dominant, but the applications were also way, way better. I know back when I was an Apple user (8 or 10 years ago or so) we proudly asserted that most shareware for System 7 was better written than the commercial software for Windows - and we were right! Shareware games weren't as abundant as commercial games for x86, but a number of them was absolutely excellent - games such as Escape Velocity and Realmz were easily as good as anything the PC had to offer at the time, and I still fondly remember them.
Slashdot Mirror
Enlighten me: why does it do that? I can see the difficulty of doing it without application support, but why not offer applications a way of registering an event handler for a taskbar drag and drop event? (Sorry for using what might not be proper vocabulary.) Or you could pretend that dropping it on a taskbar button is the same as dropping it on the window's title bar.
It depends on whether the application supports it. Few do. Opera doesn't - you can even drag-and-drop text selections within the app. OpenOffice Writer doesn't support it, you get the "forbidden target" cursor you describe. Firefox is the same. MS Word assumedly does it, I don't have it installed anymore (despite this lack of a crucial feature on OOOs side). Finally WordPad (aka write.exe), available with pretty much every Windows install since 95, does support it.
...and only one window is visible at once.
That's the crucial difference between Alt-Tab and Expose. It really doesn't matter if Alt-Tab has window thumbnails or read out audio descriptions recorded by Bill Gates himself - in most cases the window name displayed by standard Alt-Tab is sufficient to determine what window it is, anyway. And none of it changes the fact that you need to Tab-Tab linearly through the windows until you find the one you want. You can't even click in the Alt-Tab list... Or use cursor keys, or the mouse wheel. (Does the Powertoy enable any such functionality?)
"You cannot drop an item onto a button on the taskbar. However, if you drag the item over a button without releasing the mouse button, the window will open after a moment, allowing you to drop the item inside the window."
Took me about 5 minutes between sitting in front of Windows (95, mind you) for the first time and getting this message. If it happens so often that you feel the need to design a message box around this user behaviour, well gee maybe users really do want to be able to drop items onto taskbar buttons and you should just let them? Morons.
(Yes, I'm aware that you said hovering until it becomes the active window. It's still a stupid interface design.)
Regarding the disambiguation pages, that is exactly the example the original poster referred to: on a Wikipedia page, linking to a disambiguation page is usually not the right thing, instead you want to link to the actual page relevant to the article. That is, on a page on chemistry, you might want to link to Atomic orbital while on a page on electronic music you might want to link to Orbital (band). In neither case you should link to Orbital, which is a disambiguation page, or "multi-link" to all of them because the band Orbital isn't really relevant in the context of chemistry. This is what the original poster refers to as context sensitivity.
You're roughly describing the attribute system of Ultima Online and Asheron's Call...
What gives you the idea that top end computers aren't capable of this?
That's nice, but totally different. I'm not reading the Google Cache of the NYT article. It's just that NYT doesn't require you to have a log in if you get there by the way of a link from Google (ie your HTTP referrer URL is from there).
I find it easier to just copy-paste the link into a Google search, readily accessible in most browsers. Google will pick up that it's an URL and offer it back to you as a hyperlink. Click it and, voila, there's the article, courtesy of the NYT and a Google referrer address. The downside is that you have to repeat the procedure for every page.
It sounds like an Easter Egg not a mod: "cannot be accessed without entering a long string of cheat codes, and takes several hours of effort to access".
That's what it sounded to me, too, so I read TFA. It's not a long string of cheat codes, it's manipulation of internal variables using Action Replay, ie an external tool. In my eyes, that makes all the difference.
The sex scenes/mini-games are in the product but turned off by a boolean flag.
A flag that there is no way of controlling without external tools. In other words, the sex mini game is not part of the game, or, briefly, it is not in the game.
It'd be great if the numbers were reliable. They apparently aren't for Valve's games: http://www.steampowered.com/status/game_stats.html Of course Valve might inflate their own games, but at least technically they should be able to determine pretty much exactly how many people are playing currently.
Yes, if only LCD/OLEDs weren't so heavy, they sure would be useful to have on mobile devices...
You're right, he does, although he doesn't use those words exactly. It's still all on a very low level, really just extremely common sense stuff. This is what I consider a real article about airflow strategy.
That's probably not a problem. The CPU can stand that. Not way more than that, but my computer routinely used to peak at up to 79, 80C (I have since cleaned the path somewhat). Of course the temperature reporting is notoriously inaccurate. Anyway, whatever the article might say, you don't need an insane airflow in a modern computer. Since airflow is typically proportional to noise, it's not a bad idea to have only just enough airflow to get your temperature (well, maybe 5C or so less for good measure). Eh, I just checked the article briefly, and it's terrible anyway. I don't think the guy has even heard about positive or negative pressure airflow. Most hardware forums have posters that know their stuff better than this.
Are all the apps on your system that have zlib compiled into them statically patched, too? (Although I'm not sure if that's even an issue.)
Broadcasted 8 years ago, I heard about 4 weeks ago, downloaded it 3 weeks ago, finished watching the last episode 2 weeks ago. I love the internet. There's no chance whatsoever I would have even heard about it without the net.
"To ensure the anonymity of the 15-year-olds we replaced each of them with three 5-year-olds. None of them had ever used drugs."
(and it was/is illegal to sell a book - even second hand - without it's cover)
I'm not sure if it's related, but some books I've read had a note on one of the first pages saying that store owners sometimes cut off the covers and ship them back to the publisher as a proof that the books were not sold (entitling them for a refund). Apparently destroying the books and shipping just the cover was cheaper than shipping the whole book back. Obviously, the note went on to say that if you were sold a book without a cover, the store cheated the publisher by selling the book and still claiming a refund.
Just FYI, this is actually done here in Germany. Prices for new books are fixed. For better of for worse, obviously it's somewhat controversial.
Yes! Awesome! Can't wait for 2006!
What do I think? I think the TOR network doesn't want to handle P2P traffic due to political reason and the TOR network isn't able to handle P2P traffice due to technical reasons. I don't think the choice of end user client factors into it - whether you use Azureus, BitComet or a browser-embedded client is totally irrelevant.
This isn't the first time Game Tunnel was mentioned on Slashdot (far from it, I guess). I discovered the site via Slashdot, and regularly read it now. Their layout is terrible, but it's a nice resource, and the indie games are always fun for a short while.
Not good enough.
I disagree. I prefer it the way it is. If that results in some idiots getting their file sharing wrong, so be it. I doubt it's an issue, most lusers I know (quite a few) wouldn't even dare going anywhere near the file sharing settings in the first place.
Of course, the intelligent solution is to simply share your music through iTunes, in your particular example--for OS X OR Windows.
Maybe - if and only if you're already using it 24/7.
OS X Server (the closest analogy to XP Professional) supports ACLs. Haha.
First off, I never said that OS X has bad file permission capabilities, I just called down the preposterous claim that Windows XP's are trivial.
Apart from that, I would argue that there is no direct counterpart to the XP Home/Pro division in the Mac world, OS X as I know it serves both the Home and the Pro role quite well. The server products are seperate from that, the counterpart to OS X Server is Windows 2003 Server and the such.
Oh I agree that Apples are easy to distinguish from other laptops. The sort of branding I had in mind was, hm, the bad one like the horrible Intel and Windows stickers my laptop still sports because they're a bitch to remove. Even though it lights up, the trademark "apple" on the back of the laptop is fairly subtle in my view, at least relatively compared to what some manufacturers have come up.
I'm not surprised you feel like have to adjust. The shareware scene on the Apple always was different from the other platforms - way more dominant, but the applications were also way, way better. I know back when I was an Apple user (8 or 10 years ago or so) we proudly asserted that most shareware for System 7 was better written than the commercial software for Windows - and we were right! Shareware games weren't as abundant as commercial games for x86, but a number of them was absolutely excellent - games such as Escape Velocity and Realmz were easily as good as anything the PC had to offer at the time, and I still fondly remember them.