If I was on a juror on a drug case, I too would vote not-guilty regardless of the evidence. The whole war on drugs thing is a massive and costly error. I'd rather see my tax dollars spent for better use, and if it took jury nullification to get there, so be it. Of course, I'd keep my mouth shut during voir dire.
Don't get me wrong, I have the Buffy, Angel, and Firefly boxed sets and enjoy them all, but it is not accurate to say that Joss wasn't involved in the Buffy movie.
I'm that kind of idiot. I'd been watching Battlestar Galactica via iTunes -- personally, I don't mind paying a reasonable amount for content and $2 for an episode seemed reasonable to me. However, it is obvious that NBC is not interested in my money at all. Fuck NBC. It's easy.
All of the reviews I've read thus far, including Ars, have been very positive.
The reviewers have apparently not tried to fire up X11 -- Leopard's X11 is real funky. I ended up installing Tiger's X11 (plus the yellow cursor fix) to get a usable shell. Even so, I have two X11 icons in my dock and (until you turn off bouncing), one them bounces forever. It's the best level I can find so far though. Other methods gave me one X11 icon in the dock -- but X11 would not die. Quit it and it would immediately respawn. Leopard's X11 can't be launched from the/Applications/Utilities folder as in previous versions. When launched from/usr/X11/somethingorother, it does lots of bouncing and pops a new icon in the dock for every shell window. Anyway, I'm non-plussed about the X11 changes.
Aside from a contract (I pay $X to WorstBuy, WorsBuy gives me Y widget), there is also an implied warranty of merchantability, e.g., if you buy a hard drive, it should function as a HD; if you buy a hammer, it will work as a hammer.
The problem here is that the HD is probably worth $40-$120 -- the cost of a suit is much higher so WorstBuy basically knows they can do whatever they want.
I've proudly avoided WorstBuy for the last four or more years. I suspect this guy is going to join the rest of us who won't set foot in that bastion of evil.
Who cares if "they don't know what's good for them" -- people are different and like different things. It isn't always about pure efficiency -- for example, desktop backgrounds do nothing to enhance efficiency, and probably drain quite a bit in the selection, generation, and "staring at" phases. Every desktop OS offers them though because people like them.
Maybe the only reason people would install a "hacky" piece of software is because Apple makes it so dang hard to customize your personal workspace. People are different, not homogenous.
Note to the apple modders -- I have a bunch of apple hardware, and not a bit windows stuff -- I'm speaking from experience, not as a troll.
Oddly, when I tried to upgrade today, I got no option for that. My only option was to reformat and and install. I'd already backed everything up, but I didn't want to deal with a new install if I didn't have to -- I decided to just do a test install on an old firewire ipod.
Anyway, I'm a bit non-plussed with Leopard. The "stacks" thing is really lame. Used to be you could put a folder in the same spot and get a menu -- nice way to navigate through applications, particularly for those who don't like a giant slab of apps but prefer to have them organized by type, e.g., networking, graphics, games, etc. The stacks are only one level deep -- if you click on a folder, it just opens in Finder. This is very non-ideal.
The real deal killer is X11 though -- totally borked. If you launch it from the applications/utilities folder, it doesn't even launch. You have launch it from it's actual location under/usr -- and even then it makes two icons in the dock and if you have the right hardware (like my 1st gen macbook), the cursor turns yellow inside apps which essentially makes it invisible against a white background. There was a fix for this for Tiger so I tried it out. After that, X11 wouldn't even launch a terminal. Way lame.
The Democrats are slinging mud at pigs; the Republicans couldn't care less, because they've been wallowing in it for years now.
Man -- that's great. I just wish there was a way to make the democrats look dirtier in it cause they're both pigs slinging the mud they're both wallowing in at each other, perhaps something like: Dems and Repubs, mud wrestling pigs.
The problem with putting the menu bar on the larger screen, is that it is disorienting when I'm using only the smaller laptop screen away from my desk. Secondly, I'm sure when Fitt's law was invented, there were no non-rectangular screen spaces. The whole notion that more corners is better is silly because your pointer tends to get caught in one corner when shooting for another.
But beyond that, it's just plain you refuse to listen to anybody. You really should work for Microsoft. The place would suit your personality and skills.
Man, don't you read -- go back and reread my posts. I HAVE done useability tests on myself, every frackin' day. The X11 apps I use all have the menu bar in the window and I'm saying, they're easier to use because of it when I'm using a dual monitor setup. If you useability "experts" ever learn how to LISTEN or READ, maybe we'll get somewhere.
The menu bar does adhere to Fitt's law, and people do make use of this feature.
Fitt's law doesn't work for non-rectangular screen space because the pointer gets caught in extra corners. Secondly, it doesn't take into account that screen space changes, at least with laptop users who sometimes are and sometimes are not connected to an external monitor. The anlge of attack needed when with an external is different than when without. Essentially, you're trying to shoehorn a formula into a situation in which it isn't applicable.
Another problem with Fitt's law and multi-monitor setups -- the angle of attack is much different when using the laptop without an external monitor than it is when used with one. This means if I shoot off at a 45 degree angle from bottom right corner of the second monitor -- I hit absolutely nothing at all but the top dead edge of the screen. So I adjust for smaller angle, which doesn't work when I'm using the laptop alone because that angle just shoots me into the dock (left side of screen).
But all this is beside the point. It takes a lot of hubris for you guys to be telling me that the shared menu bar is really better and easier when I keep saying that for me it isn't. I don't know if it's just a defense mechanism by people who think they've stumbled on perfection -- but get over yourselves and learn to listen. You can have things your way -- I'm just asking to get something my way.
Fitt's law doesn't apply to non-rectangular screen spaces.
Ok, size and distance are taken into consideration. This still fails to take into consideration some factors with modern setups. For example, my 15" powerbook screen is smaller than my external 21" monitor in both physical size and resolution. I have the external on the right, and the built in on the left. This means when I'm on the right monitor, I can get stuck in the corners where the two monitors "connect", e.g., the corner(s) between the lower case and cap "x" marks: xxXXX
What usually happens when I slam the mouse off toward the left, is that the mouse gets caught in the extra corner area -- turns out I have 5 or 6 corners depending on configuration because my total screen space is not rectangular nor can it be. How does Fitt's law deal with the extra time required to go around the corners in a non-rectangular screen space? It frankly doesn't. As a user, I am saying the shared menu bar hampers me, and many others agree. It doesn't mean we are wrong, and it doesn't mean Fitt's law is wrong. It just means it's not-applicable in a multi-sized monitor setup.
So what about all the widgets that appear when I slam the mouse into the upper left corner? Fact is. the corners aren't being used -- even without the widgets, what is in the upper left corner is the apple icon. One still has to slide along the top to get to the correct menu item. The fact is, I've been using a mouse/keyboard since 1987. Over the last twenty years, my aim has gotten pretty darn good -- I can put my mouse where ever my eyeballs focus on without even thinking. Which leads to a problem in OS X with large screen real estate values as I've outlined before. Technology has changed a lot in the last 20 years and apple should take note that what was once easy for "buggy drivers" (as in horse and cart, not lousy hardware software), isn't easy anymore.
By "old way" I meant a shared menu bar at the top of the screen. That was eminently sensible with the 9" monitor on the original mac. Not too bad on a 12" or 14" monitor either. Annoying as heck when spread over a dual monitor setup approaching 3' wide.
As I mentioned, it is not obvious which application is ON TOP when using large and/or multiple monitors because windows tend to NOT overlap. This makes it annoyingly easy to turn your head and eyes toward the menu bar, move the mouse up there, and then realize you have to go back click the app to get your menu.
The shared menu bar is annoying with large screen real estate. When the idea was invented, a 14" monitor was considered large. The shared menu bar is a solution based on outdated technology. Times change, needs change.
Another major issue with the shared menu bar is that half the time, the app I want to do something with isn't on "top" -- something which is non-obvious when the windows are spread out and not overlapping, but I've already gone up to the menu bar, and then have to go back down and foreground the app (or alt-tab), and then return to the menu bar. This notion of the "on top" application defeats the purpose of multiple and/or large monitors. With enough screen space, everything seems to be "on top".
Secondly, I don't have this problem of missing the menu bar at all. All of the forwarded X apps I use have the menu bar in the window and my experience is that they are easier to use because of that fact, not harder. As for why they're easier for me, I tend to look first, then travel. When I'm looking at something way off to the right -- easily two feet away from my physical focus -- I have to turn my head to look at the upper left corner after which I'll go there with the mouse. This is harder than simply continuing to look at the application already under my eyes' focus.
If you'll notice, I said Apple should offer window-bound menu bars as a choice. That way, people who don't work like I do can have things the old way, and I can have things organized conveniently for me. Offering a choice is certainly better than the one-size-fits-all, there-is-only-one-true-way system we have now.
Finally, after years of complaining, Apple has finally (re)introduced multiple desktops for those who want them. Apparently, choice is good. On that note, only middle-click-paste and window bound menus to go. Perhaps by 10.7.
Slashdot Mirror
yo' mamma's an entomologist, not an etymologist.
Two errors: 1) she isn't black; 2) she said she couldn't afford her expert -- her expert wasn't excluded.
If I was on a juror on a drug case, I too would vote not-guilty regardless of the evidence. The whole war on drugs thing is a massive and costly error. I'd rather see my tax dollars spent for better use, and if it took jury nullification to get there, so be it. Of course, I'd keep my mouth shut during voir dire.
+1 insightful ... if I had the mod points.
Writer.
Don't get me wrong, I have the Buffy, Angel, and Firefly boxed sets and enjoy them all, but it is not accurate to say that Joss wasn't involved in the Buffy movie.
I know X11 is there. It's just borked if you need to do remote X sessions because you need a terminal.
I'm that kind of idiot. I'd been watching Battlestar Galactica via iTunes -- personally, I don't mind paying a reasonable amount for content and $2 for an episode seemed reasonable to me. However, it is obvious that NBC is not interested in my money at all. Fuck NBC. It's easy.
The reviewers have apparently not tried to fire up X11 -- Leopard's X11 is real funky. I ended up installing Tiger's X11 (plus the yellow cursor fix) to get a usable shell. Even so, I have two X11 icons in my dock and (until you turn off bouncing), one them bounces forever. It's the best level I can find so far though. Other methods gave me one X11 icon in the dock -- but X11 would not die. Quit it and it would immediately respawn. Leopard's X11 can't be launched from the
Sad thing is, that doesn't even scratch the surface of how bad Worst Buy really is.
Aside from a contract (I pay $X to WorstBuy, WorsBuy gives me Y widget), there is also an implied warranty of merchantability, e.g., if you buy a hard drive, it should function as a HD; if you buy a hammer, it will work as a hammer.
The problem here is that the HD is probably worth $40-$120 -- the cost of a suit is much higher so WorstBuy basically knows they can do whatever they want.
I've proudly avoided WorstBuy for the last four or more years. I suspect this guy is going to join the rest of us who won't set foot in that bastion of evil.
Who cares if "they don't know what's good for them" -- people are different and like different things. It isn't always about pure efficiency -- for example, desktop backgrounds do nothing to enhance efficiency, and probably drain quite a bit in the selection, generation, and "staring at" phases. Every desktop OS offers them though because people like them.
Maybe the only reason people would install a "hacky" piece of software is because Apple makes it so dang hard to customize your personal workspace. People are different, not homogenous.
Note to the apple modders -- I have a bunch of apple hardware, and not a bit windows stuff -- I'm speaking from experience, not as a troll.
Oddly, when I tried to upgrade today, I got no option for that. My only option was to reformat and and install. I'd already backed everything up, but I didn't want to deal with a new install if I didn't have to -- I decided to just do a test install on an old firewire ipod.
/usr -- and even then it makes two icons in the dock and if you have the right hardware (like my 1st gen macbook), the cursor turns yellow inside apps which essentially makes it invisible against a white background. There was a fix for this for Tiger so I tried it out. After that, X11 wouldn't even launch a terminal. Way lame.
Anyway, I'm a bit non-plussed with Leopard. The "stacks" thing is really lame. Used to be you could put a folder in the same spot and get a menu -- nice way to navigate through applications, particularly for those who don't like a giant slab of apps but prefer to have them organized by type, e.g., networking, graphics, games, etc. The stacks are only one level deep -- if you click on a folder, it just opens in Finder. This is very non-ideal.
The real deal killer is X11 though -- totally borked. If you launch it from the applications/utilities folder, it doesn't even launch. You have launch it from it's actual location under
Man -- that's great. I just wish there was a way to make the democrats look dirtier in it cause they're both pigs slinging the mud they're both wallowing in at each other, perhaps something like: Dems and Repubs, mud wrestling pigs.
The problem with putting the menu bar on the larger screen, is that it is disorienting when I'm using only the smaller laptop screen away from my desk. Secondly, I'm sure when Fitt's law was invented, there were no non-rectangular screen spaces. The whole notion that more corners is better is silly because your pointer tends to get caught in one corner when shooting for another.
But beyond that, it's just plain you refuse to listen to anybody. You really should work for Microsoft. The place would suit your personality and skills.
Wow -- I have no idea what works better for me? When I spoke of hubris before I was understating.
Oh, and nice job ignoring your mistake of applying 4-corner Fitt's law to a 5 or 6 corner multimonitor setup.
Man, don't you read -- go back and reread my posts. I HAVE done useability tests on myself, every frackin' day. The X11 apps I use all have the menu bar in the window and I'm saying, they're easier to use because of it when I'm using a dual monitor setup. If you useability "experts" ever learn how to LISTEN or READ, maybe we'll get somewhere.
Fitt's law doesn't work for non-rectangular screen space because the pointer gets caught in extra corners. Secondly, it doesn't take into account that screen space changes, at least with laptop users who sometimes are and sometimes are not connected to an external monitor. The anlge of attack needed when with an external is different than when without. Essentially, you're trying to shoehorn a formula into a situation in which it isn't applicable.
Another problem with Fitt's law and multi-monitor setups -- the angle of attack is much different when using the laptop without an external monitor than it is when used with one. This means if I shoot off at a 45 degree angle from bottom right corner of the second monitor -- I hit absolutely nothing at all but the top dead edge of the screen. So I adjust for smaller angle, which doesn't work when I'm using the laptop alone because that angle just shoots me into the dock (left side of screen).
But all this is beside the point. It takes a lot of hubris for you guys to be telling me that the shared menu bar is really better and easier when I keep saying that for me it isn't. I don't know if it's just a defense mechanism by people who think they've stumbled on perfection -- but get over yourselves and learn to listen. You can have things your way -- I'm just asking to get something my way.
Fitt's law doesn't apply to non-rectangular screen spaces.
Ok, size and distance are taken into consideration. This still fails to take into consideration some factors with modern setups. For example, my 15" powerbook screen is smaller than my external 21" monitor in both physical size and resolution. I have the external on the right, and the built in on the left. This means when I'm on the right monitor, I can get stuck in the corners where the two monitors "connect", e.g., the corner(s) between the lower case and cap "x" marks: xxXXX
What usually happens when I slam the mouse off toward the left, is that the mouse gets caught in the extra corner area -- turns out I have 5 or 6 corners depending on configuration because my total screen space is not rectangular nor can it be. How does Fitt's law deal with the extra time required to go around the corners in a non-rectangular screen space? It frankly doesn't. As a user, I am saying the shared menu bar hampers me, and many others agree. It doesn't mean we are wrong, and it doesn't mean Fitt's law is wrong. It just means it's not-applicable in a multi-sized monitor setup.
So what about all the widgets that appear when I slam the mouse into the upper left corner? Fact is. the corners aren't being used -- even without the widgets, what is in the upper left corner is the apple icon. One still has to slide along the top to get to the correct menu item. The fact is, I've been using a mouse/keyboard since 1987. Over the last twenty years, my aim has gotten pretty darn good -- I can put my mouse where ever my eyeballs focus on without even thinking. Which leads to a problem in OS X with large screen real estate values as I've outlined before. Technology has changed a lot in the last 20 years and apple should take note that what was once easy for "buggy drivers" (as in horse and cart, not lousy hardware software), isn't easy anymore.
By "old way" I meant a shared menu bar at the top of the screen. That was eminently sensible with the 9" monitor on the original mac. Not too bad on a 12" or 14" monitor either. Annoying as heck when spread over a dual monitor setup approaching 3' wide.
As I mentioned, it is not obvious which application is ON TOP when using large and/or multiple monitors because windows tend to NOT overlap. This makes it annoyingly easy to turn your head and eyes toward the menu bar, move the mouse up there, and then realize you have to go back click the app to get your menu.
The shared menu bar is annoying with large screen real estate. When the idea was invented, a 14" monitor was considered large. The shared menu bar is a solution based on outdated technology. Times change, needs change.
Another major issue with the shared menu bar is that half the time, the app I want to do something with isn't on "top" -- something which is non-obvious when the windows are spread out and not overlapping, but I've already gone up to the menu bar, and then have to go back down and foreground the app (or alt-tab), and then return to the menu bar. This notion of the "on top" application defeats the purpose of multiple and/or large monitors. With enough screen space, everything seems to be "on top".
Secondly, I don't have this problem of missing the menu bar at all. All of the forwarded X apps I use have the menu bar in the window and my experience is that they are easier to use because of that fact, not harder. As for why they're easier for me, I tend to look first, then travel. When I'm looking at something way off to the right -- easily two feet away from my physical focus -- I have to turn my head to look at the upper left corner after which I'll go there with the mouse. This is harder than simply continuing to look at the application already under my eyes' focus.
If you'll notice, I said Apple should offer window-bound menu bars as a choice. That way, people who don't work like I do can have things the old way, and I can have things organized conveniently for me. Offering a choice is certainly better than the one-size-fits-all, there-is-only-one-true-way system we have now.
Finally, after years of complaining, Apple has finally (re)introduced multiple desktops for those who want them. Apparently, choice is good. On that note, only middle-click-paste and window bound menus to go. Perhaps by 10.7.