Word et al. no longer have a clutter of shortcut bars that take up a quarter of your effective screen
The problem of effective screen real estate minimized by toolbars can easily be handled by having visible only those toolbars that are important (and by getting a larger screen).
Hiding the options behind tabs is not a good solution, because it increases the number of clicks it takes to move from one state of the ribbon to another.
no longer is there a series of pop up dialogs for every simple action
That was never the case. Microsoft Office had popup dialogs for the most complex tasks only, not for the simple tasks as you mention, and most popup dialogs remain the same in Office 2007.
The features you actually use are now one or two clicks away.
Except if you have clicked in another ribbon tab, in which case you should add another click to your list. Combine all those extra clicks, and suddenly you realize you have to push your mouse button more times than with the previous UI.
The UI even works on a laptop, with a much smaller screen.
No, it does not. The ribbon, in its default state (i.e. expanded), takes some serious space. It takes more space than a single menu bar and two tool bars with most Word options.
Most people are not curious any more about what makes up their surroundings, or envrionment, or space. They do not care about how the universe works. They only care about either having a good time or how to satisfy their "spiritual needs".
This is the result of the world turning into a chaotic place without clear definitions of who is the bad and who is the good guy. Before the fall of communism, things were clear: the West was the good guys, the East was the bad guys. Now, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and after 9/11, the world is a blurry place with no definitive bad and good guys. This makes people scared and introvert: they no longer want to reach out and explore the world, they want to stay back and get confy, dealing with things they are familiar with and not the unknown.
And since sci-fi is about the unknown, its populairity goes down the drain.
We could do it so if humanity wasn't so sort-sighted...all the resources spent in wars could have easily be used to built an Orion class spaceship in orbit with artificial gravity from rotating modules.
When the technological singularity is reached, no human will have a job. Everything will be done by machines. That's the price of technology. The Singularity will completely change our societies, to the point that socialism will be the only viable economic system.
Apple could have supported flash, if they wanted to, and simply have it deactivated unless the user demanded so, with a simple warning that "Flash is bad for your battery". In this way, all of the people that want to view Flash videos would be happy with their iOS device, whereas people that don't care about Flash video and applications would simply have not activated it.
By law of man, perhaps. I do not consider that to be a natural law. I didn't pay for the sun, but I enjoy its warmth. It costs no more to operate the sun whether I am here or not.
Stupid analogy. The Sun was not constructed by people; no one expects to get fed and pay bills by operating the Sun.
That is a stupid thing to say and you are a stupid person for saying it. That clearly deprives someone of something, whereas listening to music that I haven't paid for and never would have paid for deprives no one of anything.
Your action deprives someone of legally entitled profit.
The 'never would have paid for' argument is circular: you don't pay for something, and then you say that you would have never paid for it anyway to justify that you did not pay for it. For that reason, it is not a valid argument.
You're equivocating copyright infringement and murder and my morals have gone down the drain? You're not even fit for Soylent Green.
No, I am not making copyright infringement and murder equal. I made the murder reference to show you that your quote "If it can be copied, it will be copied" is invalid: just because something can happen, it does not mean that it should happen. That's exactly what morals are about.
There is nothing in Java that prevents this sort of thing. You can easily write a wrapper class which contains a reference to your array, then have this wrapper class duplicate the array the first time the array is modified.
Profit is added value. Taxing existing value instead of added value is stupid, because taxing existing value is like moving value from one place to the other without any increase in value, whereas taxing added value means that value is increased overall.
We live in an exchanged-based economy. Money is just an easier means to exchange goods. It seems lots of people have forgotten that.
If I wouldn't have paid for it whether I listen to it or not then you're not being deprived of any profit.
But the problem is exactly that: you didn't pay for it, so you are not entitled to listen to it.
Your reward for imagining that you should profit will be imagining you had money.
No, it's not imaginary money at all. Works of art, songs, video games and other similar things are real products, and therefore there is real money to be made from selling those products.
but that does not mean that there are none remaining
Feel free to say which are remaining.
It depends very much on your definition, doesn't it? If it can be copied, it will be copied. That is a kind of freedom.
So, If I can kill you, then I will kill you? and that is acceptable?
Your comment shows exactly what's wrong with society nowadays: morals have gone down the drain. People will form any possible excuse to get what they desire, without any moral constraints.
The pro-nuclear slashdot crowd says that modern reactors are safe and will withstand disasters like the one in Japan. But they are untested; they are not implemented yet anywhere.
I'll believe they are safe when there are in use and they have no problem after a big natural disaster.
Congrats to you sir. I intented to write a post exactly like yours. You speak the truth and you should have been modded 5, interesting for everyone to see your post.
The sad fact is that most of the people support crap ideas like DRM being the reason to pirate software, content ownership is changing etc because they want excuses for stealing stuff. I wish they have a cool idea someday that is pirated as hell, just to see how they react.
First of all, if I put my own content on the cloud, then it is still my own content, and not the host's. I would certainly keep the content locally in case the cloud goes away some day.
Secontly, let's please cut the crap about piracy not being theft, alright? piracy is theft of profit: when you enjoy something I created and you did not pay for, I am deprived of some legitimate profit. Also, copyright does not limit innovation in any way, we are free to produce the greatest works and deliver it for free, if we can.
Almost everyday there is a slashdot article about how copyright needs to be reformed and how content ownership is changing...that's complete bullshit. It is the bullshit of a generation addicted to enoying stuff for free, thinking that all movies and songs and games are theirs for the taking. Well, these things are not free, sorry. And no matter how you put it, what one creates is not free and it will never be unless he/she explicitly say so.
All that he needs is to understand the underlying concepts, which can be explained to him in terms of other analogies he understands.
For example, translation to byte code can be presented as a grocery list written in a foreign language; the person that is to go to the grocery and buy the stuff will have to translate the list to his native language, either one time (JIT compilation) or one item at a time (interpreter).
Here is an idea: a GUI application that allows the user to select one or more CLI commands via the mouse, then select the appropriate parameters from a list presented via the GUI, and then optionally linking commands together by drag-n-drop. The GUI could present previews of commands where possible, and allow the user to do an interactive modification of commands.
But your imaginary syntax would also need to be documented and people would also need to learn it, because the computer would not be able to understand the exact words spoken by a human.
The CLI is like talking. Intent is expressed as a series of written phrases which could have been orally communicated to the computer provided that speech recognition worked effectively.
The GUI is like painting: Intent is expressed via a series of pictures and gestures.
Both ways have their pros and cons. They are complementary to each other.
A good GUI can do things the CLI does not offer, and the CLI can do things that are difficult to express via a GUI.
Slashdot Mirror
Word et al. no longer have a clutter of shortcut bars that take up a quarter of your effective screen
The problem of effective screen real estate minimized by toolbars can easily be handled by having visible only those toolbars that are important (and by getting a larger screen).
Hiding the options behind tabs is not a good solution, because it increases the number of clicks it takes to move from one state of the ribbon to another.
no longer is there a series of pop up dialogs for every simple action
That was never the case. Microsoft Office had popup dialogs for the most complex tasks only, not for the simple tasks as you mention, and most popup dialogs remain the same in Office 2007.
The features you actually use are now one or two clicks away.
Except if you have clicked in another ribbon tab, in which case you should add another click to your list. Combine all those extra clicks, and suddenly you realize you have to push your mouse button more times than with the previous UI.
The UI even works on a laptop, with a much smaller screen.
No, it does not. The ribbon, in its default state (i.e. expanded), takes some serious space. It takes more space than a single menu bar and two tool bars with most Word options.
Well, the brain is a massively parallel computer, so the only way such a massive parallel computer can be done is by imitating its structure.
Most people are not curious any more about what makes up their surroundings, or envrionment, or space. They do not care about how the universe works. They only care about either having a good time or how to satisfy their "spiritual needs".
This is the result of the world turning into a chaotic place without clear definitions of who is the bad and who is the good guy. Before the fall of communism, things were clear: the West was the good guys, the East was the bad guys. Now, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and after 9/11, the world is a blurry place with no definitive bad and good guys. This makes people scared and introvert: they no longer want to reach out and explore the world, they want to stay back and get confy, dealing with things they are familiar with and not the unknown.
And since sci-fi is about the unknown, its populairity goes down the drain.
First of all, there need not be a revolution. Just a change.
Secondly, even if there is a revolution, it might be a peaceful one. It does not need to be a bloody mess.
In the EU, we still use inches for monitors and TVs sizes. We also use miles for nautical measurements.
You can always say "km" or "cm".
If you have ever watched Star Blazers as a kid, the word "megameter" might not be that strange to you :-).
The only way to bring true democracy is when the middleman is eliminated; in short, when democracy is direct.
In the past, direct democracy was costly, but nowadays technology allows it, so there is no excuse for not having it.
I too want it.
We could do it so if humanity wasn't so sort-sighted...all the resources spent in wars could have easily be used to built an Orion class spaceship in orbit with artificial gravity from rotating modules.
When the technological singularity is reached, no human will have a job. Everything will be done by machines. That's the price of technology. The Singularity will completely change our societies, to the point that socialism will be the only viable economic system.
Apple could have supported flash, if they wanted to, and simply have it deactivated unless the user demanded so, with a simple warning that "Flash is bad for your battery". In this way, all of the people that want to view Flash videos would be happy with their iOS device, whereas people that don't care about Flash video and applications would simply have not activated it.
It maybe is a stupid question, but the internet is full of references to exotic technologies like the TAW-50, which can go to 50 mach.
I guess all this stuff is not real, is it? any opinion on that or similar planes?
By law of man, perhaps. I do not consider that to be a natural law. I didn't pay for the sun, but I enjoy its warmth. It costs no more to operate the sun whether I am here or not.
Stupid analogy. The Sun was not constructed by people; no one expects to get fed and pay bills by operating the Sun.
That is a stupid thing to say and you are a stupid person for saying it. That clearly deprives someone of something, whereas listening to music that I haven't paid for and never would have paid for deprives no one of anything.
Your action deprives someone of legally entitled profit.
The 'never would have paid for' argument is circular: you don't pay for something, and then you say that you would have never paid for it anyway to justify that you did not pay for it. For that reason, it is not a valid argument.
You're equivocating copyright infringement and murder and my morals have gone down the drain? You're not even fit for Soylent Green.
No, I am not making copyright infringement and murder equal. I made the murder reference to show you that your quote "If it can be copied, it will be copied" is invalid: just because something can happen, it does not mean that it should happen. That's exactly what morals are about.
There is nothing in Java that prevents this sort of thing. You can easily write a wrapper class which contains a reference to your array, then have this wrapper class duplicate the array the first time the array is modified.
Profit is added value. Taxing existing value instead of added value is stupid, because taxing existing value is like moving value from one place to the other without any increase in value, whereas taxing added value means that value is increased overall.
We live in an exchanged-based economy. Money is just an easier means to exchange goods. It seems lots of people have forgotten that.
There hasn't really been any real science fiction on TV or cinema lately.
If I wouldn't have paid for it whether I listen to it or not then you're not being deprived of any profit.
But the problem is exactly that: you didn't pay for it, so you are not entitled to listen to it.
Your reward for imagining that you should profit will be imagining you had money.
No, it's not imaginary money at all. Works of art, songs, video games and other similar things are real products, and therefore there is real money to be made from selling those products.
but that does not mean that there are none remaining
Feel free to say which are remaining.
It depends very much on your definition, doesn't it? If it can be copied, it will be copied. That is a kind of freedom.
So, If I can kill you, then I will kill you? and that is acceptable?
Your comment shows exactly what's wrong with society nowadays: morals have gone down the drain. People will form any possible excuse to get what they desire, without any moral constraints.
The pro-nuclear slashdot crowd says that modern reactors are safe and will withstand disasters like the one in Japan. But they are untested; they are not implemented yet anywhere.
I'll believe they are safe when there are in use and they have no problem after a big natural disaster.
But modern nuclear technology is untested against natural disasters like big earthquakes and tsunamis...
What about the nuclear waste? isn't that a big problem?
Congrats to you sir. I intented to write a post exactly like yours. You speak the truth and you should have been modded 5, interesting for everyone to see your post.
The sad fact is that most of the people support crap ideas like DRM being the reason to pirate software, content ownership is changing etc because they want excuses for stealing stuff. I wish they have a cool idea someday that is pirated as hell, just to see how they react.
The article is complete bullshit.
First of all, if I put my own content on the cloud, then it is still my own content, and not the host's. I would certainly keep the content locally in case the cloud goes away some day.
Secontly, let's please cut the crap about piracy not being theft, alright? piracy is theft of profit: when you enjoy something I created and you did not pay for, I am deprived of some legitimate profit. Also, copyright does not limit innovation in any way, we are free to produce the greatest works and deliver it for free, if we can.
Almost everyday there is a slashdot article about how copyright needs to be reformed and how content ownership is changing...that's complete bullshit. It is the bullshit of a generation addicted to enoying stuff for free, thinking that all movies and songs and games are theirs for the taking. Well, these things are not free, sorry. And no matter how you put it, what one creates is not free and it will never be unless he/she explicitly say so.
All that he needs is to understand the underlying concepts, which can be explained to him in terms of other analogies he understands.
For example, translation to byte code can be presented as a grocery list written in a foreign language; the person that is to go to the grocery and buy the stuff will have to translate the list to his native language, either one time (JIT compilation) or one item at a time (interpreter).
Here is an idea: a GUI application that allows the user to select one or more CLI commands via the mouse, then select the appropriate parameters from a list presented via the GUI, and then optionally linking commands together by drag-n-drop. The GUI could present previews of commands where possible, and allow the user to do an interactive modification of commands.
Is there such a beast?
Sadly, no major GUI is designed in such a way that it is possible to do what you say.
In 99.999% of applications, functionality and GUI are so highly mixed that they cannot be separated without a lot of work.
But your imaginary syntax would also need to be documented and people would also need to learn it, because the computer would not be able to understand the exact words spoken by a human.
The CLI is like talking. Intent is expressed as a series of written phrases which could have been orally communicated to the computer provided that speech recognition worked effectively.
The GUI is like painting: Intent is expressed via a series of pictures and gestures.
Both ways have their pros and cons. They are complementary to each other.
A good GUI can do things the CLI does not offer, and the CLI can do things that are difficult to express via a GUI.