Only for people stuck in the early 90s who expect a menu with every option always available.
Outlook is not defensible. You have two completely separate edit modes, with completely separate ribbons and options available to you depending on whether you "pop out" the message you are editing or not. There is absolutely no way to use all of the features available for messages without first hitting the pop out button - which is not even part of the ribbon. The ribbon was clearly shoe-horned onto that program, and whatever you think of the concept of the ribbon in general, it was not executed well in Outlook.
My comment had nothing to do with affordability, or the feasibility of building large structures in California. I was simply pointing out the scale of the problem and showing that it was a local problem that will not affect national markets.
You are the first ribbon fan I've found in the wild. You could, of course work for MS or have some professional interest in the ribbon, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume you are genuine. Everyone is different - and I won't begrudge your taste. I will ask how tossing away all of your 3-key shortcuts in favor of new 3-character+ shortcuts made you more productive? If you use a tablet or touch screen, I could understand. But the rest of us took the hit for what turned out to be a narrow use-case. Their Mac team left the old menu in place alongside the ribbon - that is a very user-friendly implementation.
When it comes to professional software, the world is indeed built by experts. If you think the command based system is user-unfriendly, your sole experience with drafting is some kind of intro course. Even then, the clicks get old fast. Autodesk got the balance right - the experts can still use the system that they've been using for decades, and the newbies can screw with the ribbon. In the case of AutoCAD, it's not like the menu system was ever very important - you mostly used it to set up your toolbars, and now you use the ribbon to do that instead. Microsoft even screwed up the old shortcuts to match the new GUI, so they fucked up both expert and casual user alike in the interest of making a single version for both tablet and desktop.
I'm sorry, but having now used the ribbon for 6 or 7 years vs. having previously used the old menu systems for almost 20, I just haven't seen any productivity improvements - and in fact I still get irritated by weird ribbon behavior and differences between different systems with differently-shaped screens. I don't mind if someone "moves my cheese" for good reason, but "supporting touch screen" is not a good reason for a power user who never uses a MS tablet. At home I don't even bother installing MS Office anymore, even though I can get a legal copy for under $10 through work. If the ribbon were such a great productivity enhancer, why is MS the only taker? (Oh, that reminds me - screw you too, Mathworks. As if MATLAB needed to be touch-friendly.)
The folding is annoying, and the way different size screens show different versions of the toolbar (maybe that's the same thing?). I also don't like that they repeat the location of items in multiple places, or that they screwed with the shortcuts. But mostly, I just don't like that they threw their power users under the bus for the sake of the newbies... it shows what they think of us. I've made a concerted effort to remove myself from MS's tools as a result. No matter, our office still pays the ransom.
Sorry, but 1000 structures or so isn't going to make a measureable difference in the housing market, not even at the state level. It's a very localized problem. For scale, LA has approximately 100,000 hotel rooms. Two medium-sized high rises in Manhattan have more housing units than those fires have destroyed.
It's not the Python version, it's the libraries. Freeze, say, Numpy or Scipy at their current version for 10 years. New libraries are unavailable... it largely loses it's appeal. Like Perl without CPAN.
Without package management and the critical scientific libraries (Pandas, Scipy/Numpy, etc.), it is not "vanilla" Python in any meaningful way. I suppose these libraries could all be saved with the file or they could add some kind of dependency management to Excel - but honestly, it just does not seem like we'll get a great result here. Hope you are right.
OK, so while it is POSSIBLE for Russian hackers to determine my presence/non-presence and pass that along to local American organized crime centered around using these tips to burglarize houses... it has never actually happened. I'll worry later.
OK, but it already exists, and making insecure software is highly useful. It's not like my data crunching script will be public-facing, and I most certainly don't want to jump through hoops to read and write arbitrary data. In any event, my bare Python scripts are less secure than my VBA running in Excel. If someone double-clicks a python script (or compiled exe), it will execute arbitrary code whereas Excel will make you click a box to execute a VBA macro.
Meh... has this ever happened? Isn't it far more effective to drive/walk/whatever over and ring the doorbell? If I answer, mumble something about supporting orphans and if I don't, break in? What if they get there to abduct my son only to realize that he simply left the light on? How do they know the light belongs to my son? If they want my son and have done enough research to find out which light is his, why not simply come over and pick him off? It seems contrived, and frankly I won't worry about it until it becomes a thing.
Maybe. For now, there are still ways to accomplish things without "phoning home". For instance, the Z-Wave controller I use is a little board that plugs into your Raspberry Pi. By default it does connect to a server to register itself so that your phone app can easily find it - but you can disable this and just hard-code your IP (or use a domain name if you have one, like from DynDNS). But it's running on the Pi so you can do with it what you please, including simply disconnecting it from the network altogether if you want air-gap security. I don't think there is a viable voice-controlled solution yet that doesn't phone home, but I do expect this to change in the not-too-distant future.
If I had something to hide, I wouldn't be interested in these services, that is true. But I'd also need to ditch my cell phone, since that records my rough location at all times from the tower data - and obviously the government has access to that as well. I'd probably also have to play some tricks with internet usage, since that would probably indicate when I was home as well. Unlike a Google Home, you could track me right to the house of the married man's wife with a cell phone.
Replying to my own dumb self. Should have read the article - they didn't upload a prescription, they just made up a fake doctor. Oddly enough, if they truly did leave a voicemail for what they thought was the fake doctor's office, they would appear to satisfy their end of the law - so long as they logged it. It even sounds like one of the 5 fake doctor attempts was caught. Personally, I would require a phone number to be filled in, but frankly I'm not sure where that would get you since you could just put your cell phone in there and the robo-verifier would dutifully leave you a message as if you were a doctor.
Interesting. There seems to be a lot of wiggle room in:
Presented to the seller by the patient or prescriber directly or by facsimile
It seems to me that you have satisfied the law by having an image of the purported "prescription". There is no requirement for verification if you have the original or a facsimile. So in the case of this article, Hubble appears to be in the clear. In my case of ordering contacts, the company should have demanded a scanned copy of my prescription.
It's weird - I was responding to DontBeAMoran but you are acting like I was replying to you. I certainly never accused you, b0s0z0ku, of not being capable of setting your phone up the way you like it, or of having the incapacity to flip a switch. I am curious, though, about what your worry is specifically? What is wrong with Google or Apple knowing when you are home?
Pandas with Numpy/Scipy has made it fairly simple to do a lot of things that I used to do in Excel, without the weirdness and performance limitations of Excel. Also, interactive charts... why doesn't Excel have these by now? Matlab figured it out like 20 years ago.
Honestly, of all my gripes with Python, the whitespace is pretty low. You learn about it in the first day or so and move on. Same with the 2-to-3 thing. While you are learning, chances are you will only be dealing with one version. When you need to support both, it's not that hard - most of the critical libraries have been back-ported to 2, so you just try importing things and catching exceptions, and do a few imports from __future__. If you stay cognizant of 3-only features, it's really not much work to keep your project running on both. I almost always develop with 3 and test with 2.
My main gripes tend to be in dealing with multiprocessing (separate processes... ugh) and optimizing performance in general. I'm also not thrilled with cross-platform GUI development, but that sucks whatever the language.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I want to make insecure software. I can do this today in VBA, and it is quite useful. Opening and writing arbitrary files on the system and network is super-useful and I don't see why they would change that just because they add Python as a scripting language.
Slashdot Mirror
Only for people stuck in the early 90s who expect a menu with every option always available.
Outlook is not defensible. You have two completely separate edit modes, with completely separate ribbons and options available to you depending on whether you "pop out" the message you are editing or not. There is absolutely no way to use all of the features available for messages without first hitting the pop out button - which is not even part of the ribbon. The ribbon was clearly shoe-horned onto that program, and whatever you think of the concept of the ribbon in general, it was not executed well in Outlook.
My comment had nothing to do with affordability, or the feasibility of building large structures in California. I was simply pointing out the scale of the problem and showing that it was a local problem that will not affect national markets.
You are the first ribbon fan I've found in the wild. You could, of course work for MS or have some professional interest in the ribbon, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume you are genuine. Everyone is different - and I won't begrudge your taste. I will ask how tossing away all of your 3-key shortcuts in favor of new 3-character+ shortcuts made you more productive? If you use a tablet or touch screen, I could understand. But the rest of us took the hit for what turned out to be a narrow use-case. Their Mac team left the old menu in place alongside the ribbon - that is a very user-friendly implementation.
When it comes to professional software, the world is indeed built by experts. If you think the command based system is user-unfriendly, your sole experience with drafting is some kind of intro course. Even then, the clicks get old fast. Autodesk got the balance right - the experts can still use the system that they've been using for decades, and the newbies can screw with the ribbon. In the case of AutoCAD, it's not like the menu system was ever very important - you mostly used it to set up your toolbars, and now you use the ribbon to do that instead. Microsoft even screwed up the old shortcuts to match the new GUI, so they fucked up both expert and casual user alike in the interest of making a single version for both tablet and desktop.
And add Autodesk to the list of horrendous interfaces - though at least you can still type the same commands you could in 1993.
I'm sorry, but having now used the ribbon for 6 or 7 years vs. having previously used the old menu systems for almost 20, I just haven't seen any productivity improvements - and in fact I still get irritated by weird ribbon behavior and differences between different systems with differently-shaped screens. I don't mind if someone "moves my cheese" for good reason, but "supporting touch screen" is not a good reason for a power user who never uses a MS tablet. At home I don't even bother installing MS Office anymore, even though I can get a legal copy for under $10 through work. If the ribbon were such a great productivity enhancer, why is MS the only taker? (Oh, that reminds me - screw you too, Mathworks. As if MATLAB needed to be touch-friendly.)
That release will forever be stained by Clippy, but otherwise I'd agree.
The folding is annoying, and the way different size screens show different versions of the toolbar (maybe that's the same thing?). I also don't like that they repeat the location of items in multiple places, or that they screwed with the shortcuts. But mostly, I just don't like that they threw their power users under the bus for the sake of the newbies... it shows what they think of us. I've made a concerted effort to remove myself from MS's tools as a result. No matter, our office still pays the ransom.
Frankly, 2007 was a UI downgrade from the very-complete 2003. Nothing like re-learning a GUI that you've been using for 20 years. Progress!
Sorry, but 1000 structures or so isn't going to make a measureable difference in the housing market, not even at the state level. It's a very localized problem. For scale, LA has approximately 100,000 hotel rooms. Two medium-sized high rises in Manhattan have more housing units than those fires have destroyed.
Adding Python to the mix isn't going to help this any.
Ahh, but it will help those of us who are stuck using Excel to do things that it really shouldn't be used for :)
It's not the Python version, it's the libraries. Freeze, say, Numpy or Scipy at their current version for 10 years. New libraries are unavailable... it largely loses it's appeal. Like Perl without CPAN.
Without package management and the critical scientific libraries (Pandas, Scipy/Numpy, etc.), it is not "vanilla" Python in any meaningful way. I suppose these libraries could all be saved with the file or they could add some kind of dependency management to Excel - but honestly, it just does not seem like we'll get a great result here. Hope you are right.
OK, so while it is POSSIBLE for Russian hackers to determine my presence/non-presence and pass that along to local American organized crime centered around using these tips to burglarize houses... it has never actually happened. I'll worry later.
OK, but it already exists, and making insecure software is highly useful. It's not like my data crunching script will be public-facing, and I most certainly don't want to jump through hoops to read and write arbitrary data. In any event, my bare Python scripts are less secure than my VBA running in Excel. If someone double-clicks a python script (or compiled exe), it will execute arbitrary code whereas Excel will make you click a box to execute a VBA macro.
Meh... has this ever happened? Isn't it far more effective to drive/walk/whatever over and ring the doorbell? If I answer, mumble something about supporting orphans and if I don't, break in? What if they get there to abduct my son only to realize that he simply left the light on? How do they know the light belongs to my son? If they want my son and have done enough research to find out which light is his, why not simply come over and pick him off? It seems contrived, and frankly I won't worry about it until it becomes a thing.
Maybe. For now, there are still ways to accomplish things without "phoning home". For instance, the Z-Wave controller I use is a little board that plugs into your Raspberry Pi. By default it does connect to a server to register itself so that your phone app can easily find it - but you can disable this and just hard-code your IP (or use a domain name if you have one, like from DynDNS). But it's running on the Pi so you can do with it what you please, including simply disconnecting it from the network altogether if you want air-gap security. I don't think there is a viable voice-controlled solution yet that doesn't phone home, but I do expect this to change in the not-too-distant future.
If I had something to hide, I wouldn't be interested in these services, that is true. But I'd also need to ditch my cell phone, since that records my rough location at all times from the tower data - and obviously the government has access to that as well. I'd probably also have to play some tricks with internet usage, since that would probably indicate when I was home as well. Unlike a Google Home, you could track me right to the house of the married man's wife with a cell phone.
Replying to my own dumb self. Should have read the article - they didn't upload a prescription, they just made up a fake doctor. Oddly enough, if they truly did leave a voicemail for what they thought was the fake doctor's office, they would appear to satisfy their end of the law - so long as they logged it. It even sounds like one of the 5 fake doctor attempts was caught. Personally, I would require a phone number to be filled in, but frankly I'm not sure where that would get you since you could just put your cell phone in there and the robo-verifier would dutifully leave you a message as if you were a doctor.
I get that, but is this really something you worry about? What if you put hard-limits on the settings?
Interesting. There seems to be a lot of wiggle room in:
It seems to me that you have satisfied the law by having an image of the purported "prescription". There is no requirement for verification if you have the original or a facsimile. So in the case of this article, Hubble appears to be in the clear. In my case of ordering contacts, the company should have demanded a scanned copy of my prescription.
It's weird - I was responding to DontBeAMoran but you are acting like I was replying to you. I certainly never accused you, b0s0z0ku, of not being capable of setting your phone up the way you like it, or of having the incapacity to flip a switch. I am curious, though, about what your worry is specifically? What is wrong with Google or Apple knowing when you are home?
Pandas with Numpy/Scipy has made it fairly simple to do a lot of things that I used to do in Excel, without the weirdness and performance limitations of Excel. Also, interactive charts... why doesn't Excel have these by now? Matlab figured it out like 20 years ago.
Honestly, of all my gripes with Python, the whitespace is pretty low. You learn about it in the first day or so and move on. Same with the 2-to-3 thing. While you are learning, chances are you will only be dealing with one version. When you need to support both, it's not that hard - most of the critical libraries have been back-ported to 2, so you just try importing things and catching exceptions, and do a few imports from __future__. If you stay cognizant of 3-only features, it's really not much work to keep your project running on both. I almost always develop with 3 and test with 2.
My main gripes tend to be in dealing with multiprocessing (separate processes... ugh) and optimizing performance in general. I'm also not thrilled with cross-platform GUI development, but that sucks whatever the language.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I want to make insecure software. I can do this today in VBA, and it is quite useful. Opening and writing arbitrary files on the system and network is super-useful and I don't see why they would change that just because they add Python as a scripting language.