I'm well aware of it in fact. I just don't buy into ignorance-is-bliss for users. Nor do I buy into apple's excuses that claim to justify removing more and more control from them for the sake of security when it's really about institutionalized control freakery intersecting with profit motive. The power you say osx (and by extension, all real desktop systems) has is directly derived from having absolute control when desired. when this is taken away, the power isn't being brought to these people because they had it already, instead, it's being taken away.
It is possible to set up sane defaults that protect most of the system and still let users do as they wish with their own file structures. the stuff being piled on with 10.7 and 10.8 goes much further than that. The basic unix security model that's been around for ages is good enough balance between usability and security. extra sandboxing of user binaries doesn't really solve the problem because, like the os, it could have vulnerabilities too. however, it does make it harder for a user to get a binary from someone on the net and run it willingly. of course, apple (and microsoft, and google and anyone who wants control) do want this for obvious reasons.
I find it odd when supposed experts here proclaim stuff like this because the people apple et al are looking to control are not the users, because they have them controlled already. they want to control YOU, the developers.
Excuse me? when arrogant people like hilary clinton give speeches in front of arlington cemetery saying that women were the ones who sacrificed during the wars, while surrounded by thousands of graves of dead men who actually did make the ultimate sacrifice, it's hard to take seriously.
Even if I were to accede to all your claims, do they justify all the double standards, double think fantasies, and other misandric, retributive law lobbied for by feminists in first world countries? how about all the misandry in the media? teaching boys to behave like girls in elementary schools? brainwashing men with 'harassment training' into thinking they're the first cause for any women in their presence who suddenly 'feel uncomfortable'?
women didn't vote 100 years ago.. most MEN didn't vote 100+ years ago...and yet today, women still don't have to sign up for the draft in order to have this right...and when they 'choose' to serve, they get the same pay for the same rank despite far lower performance standards. women want respect? they need to realize they must earn it, the same way the guys have to. this kind of double standard rubbish affects nearly every institution we have today. wanna move up at work? get an edge in academia? got a vagina? instant benefits! this is why the feminist 'equality' mantra is a load of bunk. it claims it doesn't want gender used to discriminate, but that's exactly what 'affirmative action' and 'diversity' programs do. they make gender (and race and all the other verboten subjects) THE first cut when filling jobs or college classes.
denied access to education? women are 70% of today's college population in the US! I guess when its' 60/40 men/women, it's ok to assume overt mass discrimination, but when it's 70/30 women/men, then it's a 'victory for women.' who cares about the guys, right?
ever consider that this isn't a zero sum dichotomy? well, you might have, but most womens 'studies' professors and activists don't. if the feminists want more credibility they need to deal with the inherent hypocrisies in their ideology.
Maybe it IS time for culture to grow up a bit and brush off things like stupid jokes instead of attacking with extreme prejudice? grown ups may conform more with etiquette, but if that etiquette is unjust (like political correctness is), they should stand up to it. grown ups also (until 40 years ago it seems) acquired thicker skins so they didn't go off on a killing spree (physical or otherwise) whenever someone says something they don't like. This was true of both genders, which need to relearn the lesson behind the 'sticks and stones' nursery rhyme. Women do not (and should not) have the right to not be offended at the cost of mens' rights. of course, creating a 'hostile and offensive work environment' for guys is a-ok with the feminists if it gives women the social upper hand, so who cares, right?
Making up a humourus punishment is acknowledging that something potentially illegal happened, and trying to institutionally laugh it off. You absolutely cannot do that. Not once. Not ever.
maybe true, but that's due to shitty politics, not honest justice. the current laws do not follow the edict of "punishment that fits the crime."
You may also have to call the police if your security doesn't do that automatically. That employee was immediately terminated and no longer allowed on the premises.
these kinds of extreme injustices are what cause employees to go completely bonkers and cause the company harm. of course, it results in further punishment on the guy who just lost his career, and now he goes to prison, but who cares about him anyway? he's disposable. this is a serious problem in society today. I don't see how throwing a phone is a big deal.. immature? yes, assault? almost zero chance. of course, today's nanny state disagrees, forcing your legal hand.
if zwei2stein is the manager/supervisor anything like that he should be immediately replaced from that position. Before the female employee starts. Even suggesting that you might laugh off sexual harassment could itself be construed as a form of harassment depending on where you are.
gotta love that marxist 'social justice' eh? the men are to blame for the feelings she has, and she's a perfect angel?
It sucks when rules have to be written by lawyers, but company rules about dealing with sexual harassment have to be if not written by lawyers, approved by them, and basically all boil down to '0 tolerance'.
zero tolerance + no-proof-accusation = abusive environment for the guys. of course, who cares about them, right? maybe it's about time women took some responsibility for their behavior as well.
one could say the opposite.. she came here to work, not to moan about how the guys in her office don't have female psychology? of course, that would require treating her as an equal and not a princess which is a big PC taboo.
1. women were never put in camps. 2. they weren't made to fight for the country that enslaved them 3. they were not treated as second class citizens, in fact, quite the opposite. 4. chattel status is not slavery
well good, then the women should learn to take their lumps like the guys have. I see no reason to treat them any differently. If they can't hack it, they should do something else. of course, the PC garbage that passes as justice today prevents this.
Wow, what a horrible attitude. Too bad the fear that comes with that institutionalized discrimination puts undo stress on the men in the building, and makes every single woman working there completely toxic, whether she's a bitch or not. basically, it's impossible to avoid trouble if she's a histrionic type that decides to make men a target for any reason as little, if any, proof is required to make the accusation. Of course, who cares about the guys right?
I've seen women make accusations for the most innocuous things, such as: a glance in a hallway, a guy wearing a shirt with a button open, two guys swapping jokes outside the building on their break. I've seen worse situations, including: false accusations for a simple date request, for turning her DOWN for sex in the office, and for cleaning the women's bathroom at the end of the workday (btw, guys, women can be/are just as filthy as men, here).
These bullshit situations would be solved if women were truly treated as equals in society, but that requires men to quit the chivalrous mangina act first. It's not 'equal' to treat women like spoiled children. I wonder if women will truly want equality when learn what it truly implies, as it's about taking the lumps of shit along with the lumps of sugar.
tactically pragmatic, but something needs to be done about the law itself. unfortunately today's politics are dominated by chivalrous manginas in both parties that make this quite difficult to actually treat women as true equals.
you mean the ones that tell us her opinion is the sole arbiter of truth? or the ones that tell us the standard of proof is her subjective feelings? or the ones that blame men by default for all male/female interaction outcomes? or the ones that let her claim her lack of advancement is due to politics and not lack of ability or ambition? or the ones that her accept the advances of/fuck the cute guys in the office, but label the guys she doesnt like as 'harassers'? It doesn't matter what the law actually says, precedence suggests these are how they are enforced in court.
No, this is not a troll. men are not to blame for all of womens' ills, and it's about time they took some personal responsibility for their status instead of blaming men for everything that doesn't go their way like children.
political correctness is one of the worst cultural offenses of the 20th century, and looks to join the 21sts top 10.
you can't just abstract these arguments out to infinite preference subjectivity. metro was designed as a touch interface. this is clumsy for a mouse, and the full screen context switching between it and the desktop is distracting. touch based pcs are only good for (like tablets) single use situations like ATMs or kiosks.
it's alright to change things, but the changes should be more efficient, more intuitive/require less manipulation of the environment to get at what is needed and assemble a workflow. metro does not do this. the newer osx releases dont' do this. they sacrifice flexibility to reduce very small amounts of user error. it's the same mistake made by countless committees throughout history, who isolate themselves more and more from reality for the sake of pure ideology.. common computer users need access to an environment that allows the construction of custom workflows that these philosophies can't tolerate. sure, newbs who've never used a computer before won't be bothered initially..but those of us who have (ie most common users, nevermind 'advanced' ones) find them stultifying. remember, there were newbs when dos, windows 3.1 and 95 style interfaces were all that was out there.. they got along fine. learning curves are part of life. idiot-proofing just builds better idiots.
your family doesn't need full pcs then. they can be served by a tablet..or just a simple media player. why doesn't microsoft offer a traditional desktop ideal for desktop pcs and metro for tablets/mediapcs? a simple installation and/or control panel option is all that's needed. they deliberately removed the start button in order to force things for ideological reasons. win8 was clearly not designed to work without metro. installing hacks may work for the tactical short term, but eventually they cause problems due to things like OS update breakage and filesystem protection schemes (sfc).
1. you misrepresent enthusiasts completely. 2. he didn't just refer to apple. this is a worrysome trend because the very openness that allowed companies like apple and microsoft to excel, and, most importantly, user empowerment, is being crushed by the rampant bottom feeding mentality of today's development. 3. llvm is not always a better compiler.. 4. linux has plenty of profiling and tracing utilities. are they as good as dtrace? depends. oracle also offers dtrace for linux but I don't think it's free. 5. osx's multi threading support is horrid. it's embarassing. most other popular os' do better here. 6. the day those who play with computers die off, is the day when technology stagnates. where do you get tripe like this? 7. the workflow patterns in mountain lion fall apart once the user needs to do more than have a few basic documents open. file->open has been around since what? 1982?..and even that is clearer to understand than mountain lion's convoluted, unclear mess. am I saving? overwriting? where is it saved? file/directory hierarchies are great for organization as they let the user define what that should be, from (sub)directory location, to file location, to naming conventions. having user data stuffed into big blobs of remote, amorphous data containers and removing user interaction for change commits is far less flexible and far less accessible (in terms of organization). 8. I do agree that osx is designed by designers and ideologues.. like most things of such lineage, it looks nice first, and if it happens to function without getting in the way of complex workflow, you're lucky or just very simple minded.
uh no.. mainly it was because in the field, soldiers depend on one another to have roughly equivalent physical ability.. such as the ability to drag an injured 200+lb soldier and his 60-100lb pack and equipment to safety if he was hit.. most women cannot do this no matter how much they train.. there are also inter-gender psychological considerations that simply don't exist when everyone is the same gender. for example, the male-bonding tendency, one of the key psychological mechanisms keeping a unit together under ridiculous stress, is easily shattered when the men switch to instinctive chivalry for present women. these dynamics are a biological high priority and cause distractions that, under extreme stress, get people killed.
physically, women just aren't as strong or as robust, even when healthy and as fit as possible. the more extreme the situations the more likely they slow the unit down while taking up slots that more able men can take. it's like the olympics where they sacrifice better performing male athletes for women, except the stakes are much higher. the PT regimens for women are tame for a reason.. most fit 14yo highschool boys could pass them with no problem, yet women get paid the same pay for the same rank, and men are expected to treat them as equals when they clearly are not.
these are (some of) the facts. hiding behind political correctness doesn't change them, but it does prevent society from accepting them which is quite harmful to both genders.
I'm well aware of these. while they do provide a tactical quickfix, they don't address the core problem: today's common attitude of design and/or simplicity being more important than intuitive workflow and needed flexibility. metro is probably fine on a tablet. on a desktop it's completely useless. would you use the windows media center interface meant for televisions on your desktop? I doubt it.
uh what? you're forced to it every time you want to start an application. sure, you can put links on the desktop or in the quicklaunch, but that doesn't take the place of a proper application launch menu.
you missed the point.. my list is a descending priority. most importantly, software needs to work correctly, then its interface needs to maximize workflow, then finally, the interface should have reasonable aesthetics. it's possible to achieve all three, and my gripe with modern software is that a lot of it prioritizes the least important aspect at the cost of the first two..
ergonomics (driver + handling) and good technical design are the most important factors in a performance car.. they make the difference between wanting to drive it regularly, and tolerating it because it's a cool, fast car...and of course, most importantly, the car has to work reliably. what good is a cool, fast, ergonomic car that's in the shop all the time when you want to drive it?
In the case of software, the point is to get work done. if the interface is clunky or cluttered up with tons of useless space gobbling objects and animations, and, it's missing critical flexibility for the sake of newb intolerance, it's not terribly functional. Now, there is a niche for this kind of software, but pushing this as a default for everything (as is the trend), is a terrible idea. It's ok to expect people to rise up a little...or at least it used to be.
I don't have an issue with sane defaults that work for most people, but I just don't get the antipathy towards the 'advanced' and 'settings' menus these days.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, great.. cultural marxism, people.... this guy's a prime example of the result.
I'm well aware of it in fact. I just don't buy into ignorance-is-bliss for users. Nor do I buy into apple's excuses that claim to justify removing more and more control from them for the sake of security when it's really about institutionalized control freakery intersecting with profit motive. The power you say osx (and by extension, all real desktop systems) has is directly derived from having absolute control when desired. when this is taken away, the power isn't being brought to these people because they had it already, instead, it's being taken away.
It is possible to set up sane defaults that protect most of the system and still let users do as they wish with their own file structures. the stuff being piled on with 10.7 and 10.8 goes much further than that. The basic unix security model that's been around for ages is good enough balance between usability and security. extra sandboxing of user binaries doesn't really solve the problem because, like the os, it could have vulnerabilities too. however, it does make it harder for a user to get a binary from someone on the net and run it willingly. of course, apple (and microsoft, and google and anyone who wants control) do want this for obvious reasons.
I find it odd when supposed experts here proclaim stuff like this because the people apple et al are looking to control are not the users, because they have them controlled already. they want to control YOU, the developers.
his answer: truth
the only thing you listed that might be a minor gripe is gnome2's aesthetics.. ok. that requires a new skin, not a codebase rewrite.
well if the os was secure, apple wouldn't pitch this additional layer in the first place..
Excuse me? when arrogant people like hilary clinton give speeches in front of arlington cemetery saying that women were the ones who sacrificed during the wars, while surrounded by thousands of graves of dead men who actually did make the ultimate sacrifice, it's hard to take seriously.
Even if I were to accede to all your claims, do they justify all the double standards, double think fantasies, and other misandric, retributive law lobbied for by feminists in first world countries? how about all the misandry in the media? teaching boys to behave like girls in elementary schools? brainwashing men with 'harassment training' into thinking they're the first cause for any women in their presence who suddenly 'feel uncomfortable'?
women didn't vote 100 years ago.. most MEN didn't vote 100+ years ago. ..and yet today, women still don't have to sign up for the draft in order to have this right. ..and when they 'choose' to serve, they get the same pay for the same rank despite far lower performance standards. women want respect? they need to realize they must earn it, the same way the guys have to. this kind of double standard rubbish affects nearly every institution we have today. wanna move up at work? get an edge in academia? got a vagina? instant benefits! this is why the feminist 'equality' mantra is a load of bunk. it claims it doesn't want gender used to discriminate, but that's exactly what 'affirmative action' and 'diversity' programs do. they make gender (and race and all the other verboten subjects) THE first cut when filling jobs or college classes.
denied access to education? women are 70% of today's college population in the US! I guess when its' 60/40 men/women, it's ok to assume overt mass discrimination, but when it's 70/30 women/men, then it's a 'victory for women.' who cares about the guys, right?
ever consider that this isn't a zero sum dichotomy? well, you might have, but most womens 'studies' professors and activists don't. if the feminists want more credibility they need to deal with the inherent hypocrisies in their ideology.
Then we agree, but I wanted to be clear because lots of people confuse what is with what should be. I was referring to the latter.
People sometimes need to get a grip.
yes, including the accusers and their self-appointed guard dogs in the courthouse, the whitehouse, and the congress.
Maybe it IS time for culture to grow up a bit and brush off things like stupid jokes instead of attacking with extreme prejudice? grown ups may conform more with etiquette, but if that etiquette is unjust (like political correctness is), they should stand up to it. grown ups also (until 40 years ago it seems) acquired thicker skins so they didn't go off on a killing spree (physical or otherwise) whenever someone says something they don't like. This was true of both genders, which need to relearn the lesson behind the 'sticks and stones' nursery rhyme. Women do not (and should not) have the right to not be offended at the cost of mens' rights. of course, creating a 'hostile and offensive work environment' for guys is a-ok with the feminists if it gives women the social upper hand, so who cares, right?
Making up a humourus punishment is acknowledging that something potentially illegal happened, and trying to institutionally laugh it off. You absolutely cannot do that. Not once. Not ever.
maybe true, but that's due to shitty politics, not honest justice. the current laws do not follow the edict of "punishment that fits the crime."
You may also have to call the police if your security doesn't do that automatically. That employee was immediately terminated and no longer allowed on the premises.
these kinds of extreme injustices are what cause employees to go completely bonkers and cause the company harm. of course, it results in further punishment on the guy who just lost his career, and now he goes to prison, but who cares about him anyway? he's disposable. this is a serious problem in society today. I don't see how throwing a phone is a big deal.. immature? yes, assault? almost zero chance. of course, today's nanny state disagrees, forcing your legal hand.
if zwei2stein is the manager/supervisor anything like that he should be immediately replaced from that position. Before the female employee starts. Even suggesting that you might laugh off sexual harassment could itself be construed as a form of harassment depending on where you are.
gotta love that marxist 'social justice' eh? the men are to blame for the feelings she has, and she's a perfect angel?
It sucks when rules have to be written by lawyers, but company rules about dealing with sexual harassment have to be if not written by lawyers, approved by them, and basically all boil down to '0 tolerance'.
zero tolerance + no-proof-accusation = abusive environment for the guys. of course, who cares about them, right? maybe it's about time women took some responsibility for their behavior as well.
blah blah bah, "i'm a professional, so you should do as I say" *yawn* tell that to the false accusers.
it has everything to do with PC. Your terms 'respectful' and 'harass' are extremely loaded as the law defines them to whatever she says they are.
Tell that to the judge who is asking you to liquidate all of your company's assets to pay for the harassment penalties.
this may be a tactical necessity these days because of extremely shitty politics, but it doesn't make the situation just.
one could say the opposite.. she came here to work, not to moan about how the guys in her office don't have female psychology? of course, that would require treating her as an equal and not a princess which is a big PC taboo.
1. women were never put in camps.
2. they weren't made to fight for the country that enslaved them
3. they were not treated as second class citizens, in fact, quite the opposite.
4. chattel status is not slavery
well good, then the women should learn to take their lumps like the guys have. I see no reason to treat them any differently. If they can't hack it, they should do something else. of course, the PC garbage that passes as justice today prevents this.
Wow, what a horrible attitude. Too bad the fear that comes with that institutionalized discrimination puts undo stress on the men in the building, and makes every single woman working there completely toxic, whether she's a bitch or not. basically, it's impossible to avoid trouble if she's a histrionic type that decides to make men a target for any reason as little, if any, proof is required to make the accusation. Of course, who cares about the guys right?
I've seen women make accusations for the most innocuous things, such as: a glance in a hallway, a guy wearing a shirt with a button open, two guys swapping jokes outside the building on their break. I've seen worse situations, including: false accusations for a simple date request, for turning her DOWN for sex in the office, and for cleaning the women's bathroom at the end of the workday (btw, guys, women can be/are just as filthy as men, here).
These bullshit situations would be solved if women were truly treated as equals in society, but that requires men to quit the chivalrous mangina act first. It's not 'equal' to treat women like spoiled children. I wonder if women will truly want equality when learn what it truly implies, as it's about taking the lumps of shit along with the lumps of sugar.
tactically pragmatic, but something needs to be done about the law itself. unfortunately today's politics are dominated by chivalrous manginas in both parties that make this quite difficult to actually treat women as true equals.
you mean the ones that tell us her opinion is the sole arbiter of truth? or the ones that tell us the standard of proof is her subjective feelings? or the ones that blame men by default for all male/female interaction outcomes? or the ones that let her claim her lack of advancement is due to politics and not lack of ability or ambition? or the ones that her accept the advances of/fuck the cute guys in the office, but label the guys she doesnt like as 'harassers'? It doesn't matter what the law actually says, precedence suggests these are how they are enforced in court.
No, this is not a troll. men are not to blame for all of womens' ills, and it's about time they took some personal responsibility for their status instead of blaming men for everything that doesn't go their way like children.
political correctness is one of the worst cultural offenses of the 20th century, and looks to join the 21sts top 10.
you can't just abstract these arguments out to infinite preference subjectivity. metro was designed as a touch interface. this is clumsy for a mouse, and the full screen context switching between it and the desktop is distracting. touch based pcs are only good for (like tablets) single use situations like ATMs or kiosks.
it's alright to change things, but the changes should be more efficient, more intuitive/require less manipulation of the environment to get at what is needed and assemble a workflow. metro does not do this. the newer osx releases dont' do this. they sacrifice flexibility to reduce very small amounts of user error. it's the same mistake made by countless committees throughout history, who isolate themselves more and more from reality for the sake of pure ideology.. common computer users need access to an environment that allows the construction of custom workflows that these philosophies can't tolerate. sure, newbs who've never used a computer before won't be bothered initially..but those of us who have (ie most common users, nevermind 'advanced' ones) find them stultifying. remember, there were newbs when dos, windows 3.1 and 95 style interfaces were all that was out there.. they got along fine. learning curves are part of life. idiot-proofing just builds better idiots.
your family doesn't need full pcs then. they can be served by a tablet..or just a simple media player. why doesn't microsoft offer a traditional desktop ideal for desktop pcs and metro for tablets/mediapcs? a simple installation and/or control panel option is all that's needed. they deliberately removed the start button in order to force things for ideological reasons. win8 was clearly not designed to work without metro. installing hacks may work for the tactical short term, but eventually they cause problems due to things like OS update breakage and filesystem protection schemes (sfc).
you mean like cars today? all they've seemed to do is dumb the average driver down to a point of dealer dependent idiocy. that kind of idiocy costs...
1. you misrepresent enthusiasts completely.
2. he didn't just refer to apple. this is a worrysome trend because the very openness that allowed companies like apple and microsoft to excel, and, most importantly, user empowerment, is being crushed by the rampant bottom feeding mentality of today's development.
3. llvm is not always a better compiler..
4. linux has plenty of profiling and tracing utilities. are they as good as dtrace? depends. oracle also offers dtrace for linux but I don't think it's free.
5. osx's multi threading support is horrid. it's embarassing. most other popular os' do better here.
6. the day those who play with computers die off, is the day when technology stagnates. where do you get tripe like this?
7. the workflow patterns in mountain lion fall apart once the user needs to do more than have a few basic documents open. file->open has been around since what? 1982?..and even that is clearer to understand than mountain lion's convoluted, unclear mess. am I saving? overwriting? where is it saved? file/directory hierarchies are great for organization as they let the user define what that should be, from (sub)directory location, to file location, to naming conventions. having user data stuffed into big blobs of remote, amorphous data containers and removing user interaction for change commits is far less flexible and far less accessible (in terms of organization).
8. I do agree that osx is designed by designers and ideologues.. like most things of such lineage, it looks nice first, and if it happens to function without getting in the way of complex workflow, you're lucky or just very simple minded.
if women were physically equivalent, the training standards would be the same for both genders.. they're not.
uh no.. mainly it was because in the field, soldiers depend on one another to have roughly equivalent physical ability.. such as the ability to drag an injured 200+lb soldier and his 60-100lb pack and equipment to safety if he was hit.. most women cannot do this no matter how much they train.. there are also inter-gender psychological considerations that simply don't exist when everyone is the same gender. for example, the male-bonding tendency, one of the key psychological mechanisms keeping a unit together under ridiculous stress, is easily shattered when the men switch to instinctive chivalry for present women. these dynamics are a biological high priority and cause distractions that, under extreme stress, get people killed.
physically, women just aren't as strong or as robust, even when healthy and as fit as possible. the more extreme the situations the more likely they slow the unit down while taking up slots that more able men can take. it's like the olympics where they sacrifice better performing male athletes for women, except the stakes are much higher. the PT regimens for women are tame for a reason.. most fit 14yo highschool boys could pass them with no problem, yet women get paid the same pay for the same rank, and men are expected to treat them as equals when they clearly are not.
these are (some of) the facts. hiding behind political correctness doesn't change them, but it does prevent society from accepting them which is quite harmful to both genders.
I'm well aware of these. while they do provide a tactical quickfix, they don't address the core problem: today's common attitude of design and/or simplicity being more important than intuitive workflow and needed flexibility. metro is probably fine on a tablet. on a desktop it's completely useless. would you use the windows media center interface meant for televisions on your desktop? I doubt it.
uh what? you're forced to it every time you want to start an application. sure, you can put links on the desktop or in the quicklaunch, but that doesn't take the place of a proper application launch menu.
you missed the point.. my list is a descending priority. most importantly, software needs to work correctly, then its interface needs to maximize workflow, then finally, the interface should have reasonable aesthetics. it's possible to achieve all three, and my gripe with modern software is that a lot of it prioritizes the least important aspect at the cost of the first two..
ergonomics (driver + handling) and good technical design are the most important factors in a performance car.. they make the difference between wanting to drive it regularly, and tolerating it because it's a cool, fast car. ..and of course, most importantly, the car has to work reliably. what good is a cool, fast, ergonomic car that's in the shop all the time when you want to drive it?
In the case of software, the point is to get work done. if the interface is clunky or cluttered up with tons of useless space gobbling objects and animations, and, it's missing critical flexibility for the sake of newb intolerance, it's not terribly functional. Now, there is a niche for this kind of software, but pushing this as a default for everything (as is the trend), is a terrible idea. It's ok to expect people to rise up a little. ..or at least it used to be.
I don't have an issue with sane defaults that work for most people, but I just don't get the antipathy towards the 'advanced' and 'settings' menus these days.