One more thought.. Your statement is easily rewritten as:
Well if the woman in your hypothetical situation was raped, then sure, she shouldn't pay a red cent. If she wasn't, well then she needs to re-enroll in her sixth grade health class to learn that when you let a penis enter your vagina, you can/will get pregnant."
That's just it. He didn't 'get her pregnant.' Both of them got her pregnant. So, if she's going to have the unilateral say in taking the fetus to term, then, by default, she should be solely responsible for it. With power comes responsibility, with no power, comes none. Ideally, she should have to enter into a contract with him (or get married) for financial support/fatherhood, but otherwise he should have the same right of refusal she does. This keeps the table balanced and encourages children only when both parents are truly ready to be parents, financially and mentally. It prevents her from using the kid as a battering ram to get him to commit when he's clearly not ready to, which happens a lot in today's society. This would eliminate a ton of highschoolesque melodrama that surrounds pregnancy today. Dr Phil would go out of business which would be a benefit to everyone..
The rules you're conforming to come from a time when women didn't have a choice. It was fair as women, especially pregnant ones, weren't allowed to work all that much and were very dependent on men for support. Today, things are very different, and it's about time that women gave up the privileges of chattel status if they want out of it.
people like you deliberately misinterpret the issue. I cannot grasp why. It's in your interest to have control over the outcomes of actions you are held accountable for.
ok, then by that attitude, women shouldn't have birth control either.. if they choose to have sex, they should just have to deal with the consequences.. same as the men. fair?
or you know, we could actually hold women accountable for the implied responsibility that comes with 'my body, my right,' instead of pulling his wallet in, involuntarily. Of course, in this culture, it seems like we can't hold women accountable for anything sexually related without being labeled misogynists..
1. the thing with fitt's law is that its relevance drops off over time, leveling off once the user gets more and more familiar with the environment and his mouse settings. At this point, huge targets and fullscreen menus hinder usability and workflow, and the taskbar concept becomes more efficient at starting and managing application focus, takes less space, and does not steal visual focus from what's up on the screen If you have multiple monitors, flicking mice into corners isn't a given either. This is true of windows' start menu as well (which by the way lets you start applications with no fuss, without typing, is customizable, and again does not steal visual focus from what is already running on your screens).
2. There's something to be said for the ability to sort through all open applications, then by their windows, but the key lies in how they're sorted. However, browsers have tabs for a reason.. I like the fact I can minimize the browser and all my tabs stay with it. If I need a separate window I can detach or open a new one... I remember the pretab days when I had 4000 browser windows open.. that sucked.
3. sigh.. if having a suspend menu option is acceptable, then so is having a shutdown/restart and poweroff. In different situations I want to do differnt things. The menu should allow this, with no fuss. The power button on the computer is only useful for triggering a default option (usually suspend by default, thus duplicating a feature when your whole argument (or theirs) is one of deduplication). if you are lucky, you can set that in the cmos. On most OEM equipment, you can't. Not including this is fucking stupid. Period.
4. You're right that most double click to maximize.. However, then why include that useless drag to top to maximize feature that just gets in the way when the user just wants a window at the top? The drag left and right is annoying too because sometimes I want the window open but off the edge due to insufficient room. It just depends, but certainly the last thing I want the window to do is snap back to the screen edge and take up half the display! that's in fact the opposite of what I want. That shit is on windows too and it sucks. At least I can shut it off on that os. How about a snap to edge/window feature..with a toggle to turn it off if it gives problems? Most window managers do this already.
The problem with today's software is that these aesthetics are taking more precedence than functionality and usability. for example, gnome 3's window management makes egregious assumptions about what I want my windows to do. Just because I move a window to a certain spot doesn't mean I want it radically resized. Something reasonable would be snap-to-grid or to-edge, which is nice, WITH an option to disable it if it causes a problem.
There is a reason for such hatred, and that reason is likely embedded in the workflow assumed by the software. Today's modern UIs are rife with this sort of thing..the looks matter more than the workflow, the latter being designed for mouth breathing idiots. I realize this is a necessity for input limited devices like tablets, but it does not belong on workstations. These 'designers' know this, but they'd rather cash in on stupid fads and hot trends than develop good software, or in the case of gnome devs, brownnose apple.
The problem with facebook and other web 2.0 'applications' is that the browser was never designed to handle the sort of contexts you're referring to. Money and control freakery drive 'web apps,' not good design, aesthetics, or user interest. Use proper tools for the job, in this case, a real IM client.
You don't make a case for the gnome 3 changes here. You just make assumptions about the people who criticize it. Old stuff isn't necessarily worse than new stuff, and new stuff isn't necessarily worse than old stuff. They both must stand on their merits. This trend of minimalism in modern UIs and applications was fine until they started cutting needed features and/or flexibility for its sake. Gnome 3 is doing this along with windows 8, and osx. I'm sorry, but I don't need all these assumptions made about where I keep my windows on a workstation class machine. They are not tablets.
Change for the sake of change isn't innovation.
Re:Right...just change the "acceptable level"!
on
The Panic Over Fukushima
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The official tallies still only count the firemen and control room staff.. The 600,000 'liquidators' are not. With this kind of behavior, the IAEA does a better job of toppling public trust in nuclear power than greenpeace.
There's also 'over-intellectualism.' This is where people of like mind get into groups and mentally masturbate each other.. These days, they congregate in ivy league universities. Here, they have intellectual orgies that birth philosophies and ideologies so far removed from reality and human limitations that they cause nothing but suffering. The top of the ivory tower is just as nuts as the smallest backwater baptist church. Look at the 20th century for recent examples.. Most of them are NOT right wing.
Adding shittier solutions and forcing their use by removing what is desired is not progress, but yes it will force people... GDI was and is still a lot more flexible than these playskool single focus interfaces microsoft/apple/gnome et al are pushing us to use.
The GP is right about workflow interruption, but I'd take it further. Getting used to it is a regression. Now things take longer than they did before...and for what?
Of course not, but then you knew everyone here was discussing it from the desktop/laptop perspective, so why pretend otherwise? If the best things you can say about it is 'responsive' and 'looks gorgeous', then there's something seriously wrong.
What value does this UI bring? Change for change's sake is not always improvement. In fact, it's usually, at best, a net-neutral shift, going downhill from there.
Nothing beats an xp or win2k machine stripped down to 12-15 processes. It might take a a few extra seconds to get to a login prompt, but the login prompt to desktop was diskless on my machines. It was instant. This is impossible to do with vista/7 without breaking needed functionality.
1. If a product comes out of the gate needing a hack to bring in critical but missing functionality, there's something seriously wrong. Vistart is a nice tactical fix, but it doesn't change the fact that the only reason microsoft removed the start menu was to force people to interact with metro. This was done for marketing reasons. It's in users' best interests not to support this behavior with their money.
2. presentation interruption/file copy bugs/iso mounting etc. all of these are simple additions that could come with a service pack or hotfix. These are all trivial bits of code, combined.
3. metro is designed for tablets with touch screens. Ergonomically, a desktop touch screen is a horrid concept rife with fingerprints and long delay context switches between keyboard and screen. It's worse than switching from keyboard to mouse. Metro is horrid for mouse users.
4. IE10 may be better than the previous versions, but it's still a shitty browser.
5. Learning a new environment that's truly better than the predecessor shouldn't take a year and a half.. It should be minutes, maybe an hour. The problem here is that metro is not better than the traditional windows layout for desktops.
Slashdot Mirror
One more thought..
Your statement is easily rewritten as:
Well if the woman in your hypothetical situation was raped, then sure, she shouldn't pay a red cent. If she wasn't, well then she needs to re-enroll in her sixth grade health class to learn that when you let a penis enter your vagina, you can/will get pregnant."
That's just it. He didn't 'get her pregnant.' Both of them got her pregnant. So, if she's going to have the unilateral say in taking the fetus to term, then, by default, she should be solely responsible for it. With power comes responsibility, with no power, comes none. Ideally, she should have to enter into a contract with him (or get married) for financial support/fatherhood, but otherwise he should have the same right of refusal she does. This keeps the table balanced and encourages children only when both parents are truly ready to be parents, financially and mentally. It prevents her from using the kid as a battering ram to get him to commit when he's clearly not ready to, which happens a lot in today's society. This would eliminate a ton of highschoolesque melodrama that surrounds pregnancy today. Dr Phil would go out of business which would be a benefit to everyone..
The rules you're conforming to come from a time when women didn't have a choice. It was fair as women, especially pregnant ones, weren't allowed to work all that much and were very dependent on men for support. Today, things are very different, and it's about time that women gave up the privileges of chattel status if they want out of it.
well if this is a viable treatment, maybe it's time to change stupid laws instead of treating them as immutable reality.
people like you deliberately misinterpret the issue. I cannot grasp why. It's in your interest to have control over the outcomes of actions you are held accountable for.
ok, then by that attitude, women shouldn't have birth control either.. if they choose to have sex, they should just have to deal with the consequences.. same as the men. fair?
or you know, we could actually hold women accountable for the implied responsibility that comes with 'my body, my right,' instead of pulling his wallet in, involuntarily. Of course, in this culture, it seems like we can't hold women accountable for anything sexually related without being labeled misogynists..
yes that's right.. and when she wont' shut up, lets just smack her across the face...as many times as necessary..
is the joke still funny now? or is your white knight I'm-sorry-for-being-a-man knee jerk reaction kicking in right now?
1. the thing with fitt's law is that its relevance drops off over time, leveling off once the user gets more and more familiar with the environment and his mouse settings. At this point, huge targets and fullscreen menus hinder usability and workflow, and the taskbar concept becomes more efficient at starting and managing application focus, takes less space, and does not steal visual focus from what's up on the screen If you have multiple monitors, flicking mice into corners isn't a given either. This is true of windows' start menu as well (which by the way lets you start applications with no fuss, without typing, is customizable, and again does not steal visual focus from what is already running on your screens).
2. There's something to be said for the ability to sort through all open applications, then by their windows, but the key lies in how they're sorted. However, browsers have tabs for a reason.. I like the fact I can minimize the browser and all my tabs stay with it. If I need a separate window I can detach or open a new one... I remember the pretab days when I had 4000 browser windows open.. that sucked.
3. sigh.. if having a suspend menu option is acceptable, then so is having a shutdown/restart and poweroff. In different situations I want to do differnt things. The menu should allow this, with no fuss. The power button on the computer is only useful for triggering a default option (usually suspend by default, thus duplicating a feature when your whole argument (or theirs) is one of deduplication). if you are lucky, you can set that in the cmos. On most OEM equipment, you can't. Not including this is fucking stupid. Period.
4. You're right that most double click to maximize.. However, then why include that useless drag to top to maximize feature that just gets in the way when the user just wants a window at the top? The drag left and right is annoying too because sometimes I want the window open but off the edge due to insufficient room. It just depends, but certainly the last thing I want the window to do is snap back to the screen edge and take up half the display! that's in fact the opposite of what I want. That shit is on windows too and it sucks. At least I can shut it off on that os. How about a snap to edge/window feature..with a toggle to turn it off if it gives problems? Most window managers do this already.
In windows 95/xp, 2 clicks and app starts.. no typing..
you obviously just don't get it
"my name is gaylord, and this is how we made gnome 3 'better'"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSGfS6K7pI0
New Soviet Man comparison here..
The other thing it could do is go GPL3 so as to attract the RMS fans.
All 3 of them?
Unity keeps things simple the same way an etchasketch keeps image editing simple...
The problem with today's software is that these aesthetics are taking more precedence than functionality and usability. for example, gnome 3's window management makes egregious assumptions about what I want my windows to do. Just because I move a window to a certain spot doesn't mean I want it radically resized. Something reasonable would be snap-to-grid or to-edge, which is nice, WITH an option to disable it if it causes a problem.
There is a reason for such hatred, and that reason is likely embedded in the workflow assumed by the software. Today's modern UIs are rife with this sort of thing..the looks matter more than the workflow, the latter being designed for mouth breathing idiots. I realize this is a necessity for input limited devices like tablets, but it does not belong on workstations. These 'designers' know this, but they'd rather cash in on stupid fads and hot trends than develop good software, or in the case of gnome devs, brownnose apple.
The problem with facebook and other web 2.0 'applications' is that the browser was never designed to handle the sort of contexts you're referring to. Money and control freakery drive 'web apps,' not good design, aesthetics, or user interest. Use proper tools for the job, in this case, a real IM client.
You don't make a case for the gnome 3 changes here. You just make assumptions about the people who criticize it. Old stuff isn't necessarily worse than new stuff, and new stuff isn't necessarily worse than old stuff. They both must stand on their merits. This trend of minimalism in modern UIs and applications was fine until they started cutting needed features and/or flexibility for its sake. Gnome 3 is doing this along with windows 8, and osx. I'm sorry, but I don't need all these assumptions made about where I keep my windows on a workstation class machine. They are not tablets.
Change for the sake of change isn't innovation.
The official tallies still only count the firemen and control room staff.. The 600,000 'liquidators' are not. With this kind of behavior, the IAEA does a better job of toppling public trust in nuclear power than greenpeace.
Check your history. Most of the ideological nuttery of the last 100 years comes from extremist left wing lunacy.
There's also 'over-intellectualism.' This is where people of like mind get into groups and mentally masturbate each other.. These days, they congregate in ivy league universities. Here, they have intellectual orgies that birth philosophies and ideologies so far removed from reality and human limitations that they cause nothing but suffering. The top of the ivory tower is just as nuts as the smallest backwater baptist church. Look at the 20th century for recent examples.. Most of them are NOT right wing.
Unless of course you're the type who wants more desktop space.. Then cleartype is still needed.
Adding shittier solutions and forcing their use by removing what is desired is not progress, but yes it will force people... GDI was and is still a lot more flexible than these playskool single focus interfaces microsoft/apple/gnome et al are pushing us to use.
The GP is right about workflow interruption, but I'd take it further. Getting used to it is a regression. Now things take longer than they did before...and for what?
Don't worry, osx will be ios'd soon enough.. by 10.9 or 11.2..
Of course not, but then you knew everyone here was discussing it from the desktop/laptop perspective, so why pretend otherwise? If the best things you can say about it is 'responsive' and 'looks gorgeous', then there's something seriously wrong.
What value does this UI bring? Change for change's sake is not always improvement. In fact, it's usually, at best, a net-neutral shift, going downhill from there.
Nothing beats an xp or win2k machine stripped down to 12-15 processes. It might take a a few extra seconds to get to a login prompt, but the login prompt to desktop was diskless on my machines. It was instant. This is impossible to do with vista/7 without breaking needed functionality.
1. If a product comes out of the gate needing a hack to bring in critical but missing functionality, there's something seriously wrong. Vistart is a nice tactical fix, but it doesn't change the fact that the only reason microsoft removed the start menu was to force people to interact with metro. This was done for marketing reasons. It's in users' best interests not to support this behavior with their money.
2. presentation interruption/file copy bugs/iso mounting etc. all of these are simple additions that could come with a service pack or hotfix. These are all trivial bits of code, combined.
3. metro is designed for tablets with touch screens. Ergonomically, a desktop touch screen is a horrid concept rife with fingerprints and long delay context switches between keyboard and screen. It's worse than switching from keyboard to mouse. Metro is horrid for mouse users.
4. IE10 may be better than the previous versions, but it's still a shitty browser.
5. Learning a new environment that's truly better than the predecessor shouldn't take a year and a half.. It should be minutes, maybe an hour. The problem here is that metro is not better than the traditional windows layout for desktops.
Since when? Most users I've seen have plenty of windows open. ..and no I'm not talking about sysadmins or developers.