Like switching from a mouse to a trackball, most interface devices take a bit of time to get used to, but once you do they become second nature.
As to "preferring to click", Apple made that decision a long time ago, the rationale being that clicking up and down is fine on a flash-based player with a couple of dozen songs on it, but impractical as an interface to a hard drive-based system containing the thousands of tracks such a device could hold.
The extended battery life on the 5.5g iPod does demonstrate, however, that Apple is starting to realize that people want to actually USE their toys. I fully expected them to shrink the battery even smaller so they could announce the "new" iPod was again thinner than the old one.
You could always ignore the first touch and use it to "wake up" the interface (present the edge-of-screen guides), similar to the way in some UIs a click on an inactive window brings it to the front but isn't passed to the window's interface.
I expect most of your screen rationalization logic will be invalidated once Leopard ships with resolution-independent interface elements, at which point higher DPI screens will allow for crisper graphics and more readable fonts.
And no, it's not flamebait, it's the truth. Want cheap music? Buy used CDs from the local record store or half.com for pennies on the dollar, and toss the disc into a box in the garage.
It's cheap, legal, and if you get accused just bring in the box and dump it on their desk...
Now that's absolutely brilliant. The **AA is monitoring the web, so the solution is to trust a set of "anonymous" proxy servers run by some totally unknown group of people...
Did you think up that one all on your own, or did you have help?
Do they need to state that it can't, or isn't permitted, to run on a Sun, XBox, Atari, Apple//, Playstation, iPod, Mac II, Motorola RAZR, or a Lisa as well? How about the computer that runs your Camry?
Does an XBox game box list all of the consoles that game doesn't run on? No. It says, "For XBox."
Point out the shortcomings all you want, but at the end of the day people want the sites that are often essential to their businesses to work. Turning away potential customers that in the end keep the business alive and pay your salary because you don't want to implement an "evil" hack that would solve the problem is, to use a word... stupid. Especially when you know a solution exists that would probably take all of ten minutes to implement.
And the boss can still call MS and "tear them a new one" because their developers are spending their time fixing MS's problems...
"I can only imagine something like that coming to a small child...."
Half would say "ewwww" and half would start laughing, then they'd all turn on the TV or go out and play. Kids are not as fragile as we make them out to be, and most are terribly uninterested in all of that icky adult stuff.
Or to quote, "Stop. They're KISSING again. Go on to the fire swamp, that sounded good..."
Yeah, a show of hands of how many consultants who kept their jobs after they told their boss or the owner of the company that they weren't going to fix the corporate web site because doing so would be "evil"...
I agree that one of the drawbacks to the licensing schemes is the price, but really, that's unavoidable. In closed-source software, you have thousands, if not millions, of people who pay some small amount for the product and that, in turn, buys down the costs of support, maintenance, and R&D.
In an OSS project like mySQL, almost all of those people are using it for free. And without anyone to buy down the costs mentioned above, paid support costs and licenses must be higher, as the people who are there to provide those services have to be paid.
If you want free software and free/cheap on-demand support and maintenance and free/cheap licenses then I'm afraid you're engaged in wishful thinking. Because in that case even "free" software has costs...
Slashdot Mirror
Now if it only had a decent high-performance cross-platform engine beneath the hood...
"But yes IF that feature is in the Next OS then having higher resolution will always be better."
It's been confirmed/a>.
Like switching from a mouse to a trackball, most interface devices take a bit of time to get used to, but once you do they become second nature.
As to "preferring to click", Apple made that decision a long time ago, the rationale being that clicking up and down is fine on a flash-based player with a couple of dozen songs on it, but impractical as an interface to a hard drive-based system containing the thousands of tracks such a device could hold.
The extended battery life on the 5.5g iPod does demonstrate, however, that Apple is starting to realize that people want to actually USE their toys. I fully expected them to shrink the battery even smaller so they could announce the "new" iPod was again thinner than the old one.
You could always ignore the first touch and use it to "wake up" the interface (present the edge-of-screen guides), similar to the way in some UIs a click on an inactive window brings it to the front but isn't passed to the window's interface.
Apple rated the old version at 4.5 hours max. The new one is rated for 5, while the 17" version is 5.5.
What we really need to do is to convince Belkin to make this product work on a Mac.
I expect most of your screen rationalization logic will be invalidated once Leopard ships with resolution-independent interface elements, at which point higher DPI screens will allow for crisper graphics and more readable fonts.
Wow, you'd think someone insulted Linux or something...
Too bad there's not a moderation rating for "Apologist".
"Many people, and many /.ers, assume user-created content is valueless and cannot be the center of a viable online business model..."
Sort of breaks down that "infinite" supply of free content meme, doesn't it...
I know that. What I want to know is how Google "flopped" when YouTube complied with a reasonable request...
What's Google got to do with this, exactly?
It looks like Viacom made a request to YouTube to remove copywritten material. YouTube complied. End of story.
And no, it's not flamebait, it's the truth. Want cheap music? Buy used CDs from the local record store or half.com for pennies on the dollar, and toss the disc into a box in the garage.
It's cheap, legal, and if you get accused just bring in the box and dump it on their desk...
Now that's absolutely brilliant. The **AA is monitoring the web, so the solution is to trust a set of "anonymous" proxy servers run by some totally unknown group of people...
Did you think up that one all on your own, or did you have help?
Didn't we just have the story about the moron who wipped and defragged his drive after it was requested for examination? And judged guilty?
Want deniability? Just don't download the crap in the first place.
Do they need to state that it can't, or isn't permitted, to run on a Sun, XBox, Atari, Apple //, Playstation, iPod, Mac II, Motorola RAZR, or a Lisa as well? How about the computer that runs your Camry?
Does an XBox game box list all of the consoles that game doesn't run on? No. It says, "For XBox."
It's designed to play music when you're away from your computer. If you're at your computer you could, like, you know, use your computer...
Linux boxes CAN play music, can't they???
Point out the shortcomings all you want, but at the end of the day people want the sites that are often essential to their businesses to work. Turning away potential customers that in the end keep the business alive and pay your salary because you don't want to implement an "evil" hack that would solve the problem is, to use a word... stupid. Especially when you know a solution exists that would probably take all of ten minutes to implement.
And the boss can still call MS and "tear them a new one" because their developers are spending their time fixing MS's problems...
"I can only imagine something like that coming to a small child...."
Half would say "ewwww" and half would start laughing, then they'd all turn on the TV or go out and play. Kids are not as fragile as we make them out to be, and most are terribly uninterested in all of that icky adult stuff.
Or to quote, "Stop. They're KISSING again. Go on to the fire swamp, that sounded good..."
Yeah, a show of hands of how many consultants who kept their jobs after they told their boss or the owner of the company that they weren't going to fix the corporate web site because doing so would be "evil"...
Forget that, what about "demerging"? I don't think that word means what they think it means...
demerge: \De*merge"\, v. t. [L. demergere.] To plunge down into; to sink; to immerse.
"If they could make 17 inch laptops really thin and light..."
A 17" MacBook Pro is 1" thin, 6.8 lbs (1.2 more than a 15"), and get upto 5.5 hours/battery.
I agree that one of the drawbacks to the licensing schemes is the price, but really, that's unavoidable. In closed-source software, you have thousands, if not millions, of people who pay some small amount for the product and that, in turn, buys down the costs of support, maintenance, and R&D.
In an OSS project like mySQL, almost all of those people are using it for free. And without anyone to buy down the costs mentioned above, paid support costs and licenses must be higher, as the people who are there to provide those services have to be paid.
If you want free software and free/cheap on-demand support and maintenance and free/cheap licenses then I'm afraid you're engaged in wishful thinking. Because in that case even "free" software has costs...
I've downloaded and installed updates to Safari, and installed Firefox and Opera, all without needing a restart.