What a convoluted attempt to make implementing a conditional UI checkbox or config-file option sound much harder and more involved than it is. Let me help you grandstand it even more: you forgot to mention that someone has to actually type several more characters using a keyboard! Oh the humanity!
Seriously. It's trivial, especially in context. Consider: it's already been done in at least one patch and one fork, each of which accomplished all that unthinkable effort you mentioned in a matter of hours.
Sorry if this reality offends you, but it really isn't rocket surgery.
Reading through the hilarious bugtracker-thread-turned-forum (google cache) I see a lot of pretty funnny back and forth along the lines of:
user: please allow us to resize text input window as in previous version
developer: no, the app now resizes for you on-the-fly, it's better, trust us!
user: no, really, please let us resize -- the constant resizing is visually jarrying and annoying
developer: no, this way is better, trust us. You'll get used to it.
user: no, really, please make it an option? even just as a plugin or compile-time option
developer: no, this way is better, trust us. You'll get used to it.
user who can code: fork you
developer: no, wait, please come back!
And, of course, it turns out the developers put up this stubborn and ridiculous facade of "this is better" to cover up their inability to get both ways to work together, even optionally (!):
03/04/2008 04:09:28 PM changed by deryni
jason0x21: Yes, it proved to be impossible to get both manual sizing and automatic resizing to work at the same time. We are trying to figure out if there is a way for the current mechanism to be usable by everyone, because that would be a *better* answer than simply adding a preference.
You don't need a reason beyond that to want it, you do need a reason beyond it to convince us that adding the preference is the only solution. Which is exactly why I keep asking for reasons. I'm more than happy to give in to them when they are given and reasonable.
"Impossible?" That's a strong word to describe something that they have working code for in each case. I mean, don't they know how to use an "IF" block? I reckon the Pidgin guys should stick to the backend and let some other folks work on the GUI, which is what's happening pretty much with this fork.
Well, that's some trolling you've got going there! As an AMD stockholder I take no pleasure in saying you're full of shit, an idiot, or both. "Only 30% apart?" First, 30% would be a huge difference between two current-gen CPUs of similar price point, but the chart you linked shows the Intel CPU taking 22s to do what the similarly-priced AMD chip does in 54s. 54 is 145% more than 22. 22 is 58% less than 54. However you look at it, it's a hell of a lot worse than "30%" for AMD.
Do you really think no one does any research into anything but silicon? Have you ever actually read a materials science journal?
You've posted several "anti-silicon" rants in this thread, each of which is totally devoid of fact, understanding of the sciences involved, or even critical thinking. I've never seen such an irrational response to an element before, so I have to ask: Did silicon kick your dog or rape your mother or something?
If nobody wants to spend that kind of capital now, can you imagine how much harder it will be in, say, another ten to twenty years time?
Why in the world would it be "harder" (what does that mean? more expensive?) to make a capital investment in new tech 10-20 years from now compared to now? Do you expect technology to get more expensive? Will we reduce our understanding in this time period? What is this mechanism that, for the first time ever in history, will make it harder to invest in new technology in the future?
What a load of nonsensical rubbish your entire post is (i.e., racetrack memory has nothing to do with silicon whatsoever,) but I'll just focus on your wholly unsubstantiated "conclusion" since the rest is so ridiculous as to not deserve further comment.
I thought it was kind of odd that he linked his own, un-cited journal post at a source for his claim. No big surprise it turned out to be false; thanks for clearing that up AC.
That's neat, but the guy you called effete didn't open a post with "le sigh." That was me. I'm not him. Please tell me which definition of "effete" would be relevant to one's use of cash?
1: no longer fertile
2 a: having lost character, vitality, or strength
b: marked by weakness or decadence
c: soft or delicate from or as if from a pampered existence
3: effeminate 1
Do women/gays not use cash? Are credit cards marked by weakness or decadence? Are those with credit cards soft and pampered? Sorry, I don't get it. Maybe to someone who can't get a credit card it's "decadent" or "soft" to have one? Hmm, odd.
Anyway, yeah, I own a small business, and know people who own other businesses. I think we all realize that credit card fees are a cost of doing business, which is usually more than compensated for by the convenience factor that tends to get more people to buy and buy more. If it doesn't, then obviously we wouldn't accept credit. Is that really hard to grasp?
And, you assume no one is recording serial numbers on bills. How you know know for sure?
The only mention I see of tape in this thread is my own post, which mentions "With a little tape," not "a bunch of tape."
Snopes has a thread and a page that mention this, but neither cites regulations or even suggests that the post office will not deliver it (because they will!) Snopes does say this won't reduce the amount of junk mail one gets, which is fine and not at all the goal.
Anthrax? What? Not sure what makes you think the PO would assume a large taped-up envelope or box would be full of anthrax. You know they see a lot of those kinds of things -- you know, packages and letters -- every day, right? And it only takes a little bit of anthrax to cause havoc, which could fit in even the thinnest/smallest envelope. I just don't get what you're trying to say there, sorry.
I'm not sure what makes you think that, but my friend who works in the mailroom at Capitol One, from whom I got this idea, says he gets a few mega-stuffed business reply envelopes every week. Not only does the post office happily deliver them, they also charge extra for the weight and size. I have no information either way as to whether a brick would make it.
You know, every time you use that card, you're costing the merchant money. Credit card processing isn't free.
Oh no the poor merchant who is so dumb he or she accepts credit cards as payment and takes a loss. Wait, no they don't. They may make less profit, but so what? That's not "costing" them money, or they'd stop doing it.
In addition, cash is untracable. I'm no Luddite, but I like the idea that I don't leave a trail everywhere I go.
Really? Ever notice those serial numbers on your bills? You think payments are the only way to track someone?
Also, keeping cash around and having a reputation as a guy who usually pays cash can come in handy in certain situations.
Yeah, when selecting whom to rob.
Plus, you come across as an effete douchebag. It's sort of the same thing as people who loudly proclaim that they don't watch TV.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You should stop doing that. Instead, stuff all the spam back into the postage-paid business reply cards envelopes they send. With a little tape, you can really fit a lot of paper into one of those. They look like balloons when I mail them back. And the mail-spammer gets to pay the postage for the trash back to them! Free for me, helps the post office with a little revenue, and financially penalizes the mail spammers -- that's win/win/win!
Judging by the side-by-side shot in the article, I'd say your use of the word "exactly" is unwarranted. Moreover, I'd challenge you to show or describe a UI for such a simple chat tool that looks less like yours than the one google made.
Are you seriously surprised that some firefox2 extensions and themes, which have a max version coded in the rdf file, didn't work with FF3beta? That's amusing. I guess it would be nice if extension developers could magically see into the future and update their extensions in advance for you, but it's unlikely to happen, for betas or final releases. You can, however, try editing the rdf to increase max_version, which often makes an extension work with a new ff.
But instead of assessing ideas as good or bad, "left" and "right" become substitutes for good and bad and nothing needs to be said beyond that.
You say that as if the problem is easily solved by a simple shift in terminology. Of course, it can't be, since what is "good" and what is "bad" is subjective, and often varies depending on whether the evaluator tends to be "left" or "right" or somewhere in between. Social/political issues aren't math or physics or even a real science -- there's no way to have a controlled experiment, so no outcome can ever be certainly predicted. So people often, and understandably, disagree. For convenience, we can roughly group opinions into "right" and "left" yet remain fully aware that nothing is absolutely either, but rather lies somewhere in the middle.
I seriously don't see the difference. How is this simple math "marketing-speak?" "reduced by 98%" and "reduced to 2% of original" are mathematically and semantically equivalent, aren't they? What am I missing?
Dell, for example, is probably the largest manufacturer of 8bpp Super-IPS screens with wide color gamuts.
Dell doesn't manufacture LCD panels. They're an assembler and OEM. They buy LCD panels from Philips, LG, Samsung, etc but they don't make any of their own.
That would be great if it weren't for the simple fact that the apple website says "display: millions of colors". That clearly states that a characteristic of the display is thatit can show millions of colors. It cannot. It can fool most of the individuals in one particular species (which happens to be the target customer) into thinking they can see millions of colors on that display, but that's not the same as what they clearly claim.
No, it's not an issue of interpretation. Dithering does not make a new unique color from it's component colors. It's two different colors next to each other, or one pixel flashing between two colors. It's not a new color just like 1080i is not 1080p. And if you claim your display can show "millions of colors" it has to have more than 6-bits per color channel. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
What a convoluted attempt to make implementing a conditional UI checkbox or config-file option sound much harder and more involved than it is. Let me help you grandstand it even more: you forgot to mention that someone has to actually type several more characters using a keyboard! Oh the humanity!
Seriously. It's trivial, especially in context. Consider: it's already been done in at least one patch and one fork, each of which accomplished all that unthinkable effort you mentioned in a matter of hours.
Sorry if this reality offends you, but it really isn't rocket surgery.
Yes to the first, no to the second. Any more questions?
user: please allow us to resize text input window as in previous version
developer: no, the app now resizes for you on-the-fly, it's better, trust us!
user: no, really, please let us resize -- the constant resizing is visually jarrying and annoying
developer: no, this way is better, trust us. You'll get used to it.
user: no, really, please make it an option? even just as a plugin or compile-time option
developer: no, this way is better, trust us. You'll get used to it.
user who can code: fork you
developer: no, wait, please come back!
And, of course, it turns out the developers put up this stubborn and ridiculous facade of "this is better" to cover up their inability to get both ways to work together, even optionally (!):
"Impossible?" That's a strong word to describe something that they have working code for in each case. I mean, don't they know how to use an "IF" block? I reckon the Pidgin guys should stick to the backend and let some other folks work on the GUI, which is what's happening pretty much with this fork.
No, I'm certainly not. I hope you aren't either. Get some perspective.
Right. If no one gives you what you want, it doesn't exist. Idiot.
Well, that's some trolling you've got going there! As an AMD stockholder I take no pleasure in saying you're full of shit, an idiot, or both. "Only 30% apart?" First, 30% would be a huge difference between two current-gen CPUs of similar price point, but the chart you linked shows the Intel CPU taking 22s to do what the similarly-priced AMD chip does in 54s. 54 is 145% more than 22. 22 is 58% less than 54. However you look at it, it's a hell of a lot worse than "30%" for AMD.
Do you really think no one does any research into anything but silicon? Have you ever actually read a materials science journal?
You've posted several "anti-silicon" rants in this thread, each of which is totally devoid of fact, understanding of the sciences involved, or even critical thinking. I've never seen such an irrational response to an element before, so I have to ask: Did silicon kick your dog or rape your mother or something?
What a load of nonsensical rubbish your entire post is (i.e., racetrack memory has nothing to do with silicon whatsoever,) but I'll just focus on your wholly unsubstantiated "conclusion" since the rest is so ridiculous as to not deserve further comment.
I thought it was kind of odd that he linked his own, un-cited journal post at a source for his claim. No big surprise it turned out to be false; thanks for clearing that up AC.
That's neat, but the guy you called effete didn't open a post with "le sigh." That was me. I'm not him. Please tell me which definition of "effete" would be relevant to one's use of cash?
1: no longer fertile
2 a: having lost character, vitality, or strength
b: marked by weakness or decadence
c: soft or delicate from or as if from a pampered existence
3: effeminate 1
Do women/gays not use cash? Are credit cards marked by weakness or decadence? Are those with credit cards soft and pampered? Sorry, I don't get it. Maybe to someone who can't get a credit card it's "decadent" or "soft" to have one? Hmm, odd.
Anyway, yeah, I own a small business, and know people who own other businesses. I think we all realize that credit card fees are a cost of doing business, which is usually more than compensated for by the convenience factor that tends to get more people to buy and buy more. If it doesn't, then obviously we wouldn't accept credit. Is that really hard to grasp?
And, you assume no one is recording serial numbers on bills. How you know know for sure?
The only mention I see of tape in this thread is my own post, which mentions "With a little tape," not "a bunch of tape."
Snopes has a thread and a page that mention this, but neither cites regulations or even suggests that the post office will not deliver it (because they will!) Snopes does say this won't reduce the amount of junk mail one gets, which is fine and not at all the goal.
Anthrax? What? Not sure what makes you think the PO would assume a large taped-up envelope or box would be full of anthrax. You know they see a lot of those kinds of things -- you know, packages and letters -- every day, right? And it only takes a little bit of anthrax to cause havoc, which could fit in even the thinnest/smallest envelope. I just don't get what you're trying to say there, sorry.
I'm not sure what makes you think that, but my friend who works in the mailroom at Capitol One, from whom I got this idea, says he gets a few mega-stuffed business reply envelopes every week. Not only does the post office happily deliver them, they also charge extra for the weight and size. I have no information either way as to whether a brick would make it.
You should stop doing that. Instead, stuff all the spam back into the postage-paid business reply cards envelopes they send. With a little tape, you can really fit a lot of paper into one of those. They look like balloons when I mail them back. And the mail-spammer gets to pay the postage for the trash back to them! Free for me, helps the post office with a little revenue, and financially penalizes the mail spammers -- that's win/win/win!
I'd guess it isn't. If it is, I'd love their sucker^Wcustomer list.
Judging by the side-by-side shot in the article, I'd say your use of the word "exactly" is unwarranted. Moreover, I'd challenge you to show or describe a UI for such a simple chat tool that looks less like yours than the one google made.
Are you seriously surprised that some firefox2 extensions and themes, which have a max version coded in the rdf file, didn't work with FF3beta? That's amusing. I guess it would be nice if extension developers could magically see into the future and update their extensions in advance for you, but it's unlikely to happen, for betas or final releases. You can, however, try editing the rdf to increase max_version, which often makes an extension work with a new ff.
Put it back? On my firefox2 it never left. I'm pretty sure you can customize all button locations anyway.
I seriously don't see the difference. How is this simple math "marketing-speak?" "reduced by 98%" and "reduced to 2% of original" are mathematically and semantically equivalent, aren't they? What am I missing?
That's not cute. Unless maybe if you're a renfaire LARPer or something... oh, sorry. Carry on.
That would be great if it weren't for the simple fact that the apple website says "display: millions of colors". That clearly states that a characteristic of the display is thatit can show millions of colors. It cannot. It can fool most of the individuals in one particular species (which happens to be the target customer) into thinking they can see millions of colors on that display, but that's not the same as what they clearly claim.
Read it for yourself.
No, it's not an issue of interpretation. Dithering does not make a new unique color from it's component colors. It's two different colors next to each other, or one pixel flashing between two colors. It's not a new color just like 1080i is not 1080p. And if you claim your display can show "millions of colors" it has to have more than 6-bits per color channel. Period.
Bad thing apple's website lists the imac displays as showing "millions of colors" which is an outright lie.