So it's even worse than pressing back at the first screen of an app exits the app. It's that is sometimes exits the app, and sometimes not. Depending on the app, and if the app has some other activities.
"Icons and dialogs are "flat" (similar to Windows 7, etc.)" Like Android.
You clearly don't know what flat icons are. Here's the latest android. http://www.android.com/images/restricted-profiles.png These are NOT flat icons. Take a loo at the camera icon for the most obvious example. Simulated highlight and shadow is used to make the icon look 3D. Same goes for all the other icons.
Has as it got full multitasking? No, it really really doesn't. Just try running a Jabber client that lets you stay logged in all day long, or a mail client that downloads your mail before you open it without push notifications.
Whilst your post is generally right in the approach, and spot on for iOS6, both your examples are perfectly feasible in iOS7.
Re:One button to the main screen! Is that changed?
on
Ars Technica Reviews iOS 7
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Leave that up to the app to decide maybe?
So much for design consistency.
I've never had a problem on my Android phones understanding what the back button did after pressing it once or twice with a new app.
And there's the fail. You shouldn't have to memorize what a standard button happens to do in this particular app.
With apps that have multiple screens that change, it usually takes you back a screen, such as back to the main menu. If you're at the main menu, it exits. With apps that do everything in the same screen, such as a web browser, it takes you back a page or back to your home screen.
So the same single press on a button might do one of 3 different things. Oops.
Google invented the concept of an "Up" button to do the same as the back button, only to drop the "exit the app" function. Only that button isn't a hardware one. Partially fixing the problem, or just making it even more messy?
Are you sure? The introduction of colour TV in the UK post-dates the use of transistors in consumer electronics. I'm not aware that any colour TV in the UK ever used valves.
Oh for sure most or all TVs of the early 1980s had valves. My brother's job at the time was a TV repair man, who's main job was visiting homes, replacing valves. Sometimes it'd be burned out boards, but mostly it was replacing valves.
If you don't want to be demeaned, don't work in a job where your role includes cleaning up human excrement and vomit from trains.
So your argument is that they perform an indispensable job that happens to have significant unpleasant duties, so it's OK to abuse them with regards to administrative functions too.
First of all, you can't possibly be claiming that Python is as large a project, or as pervasive.
Largeness of source is a flaw of the Linux kernel not a plus point. And pervasiveness does not relate to the claim made.
Yes. I'm sure there are many projects that are bigger, and of course they all compile and and are usually run on... oh shit! I was really pulling for you not to sound like an idiot, too.
As you're a bigger asshole than Torvalds, your opinion is worth nothing to me.
Lines of code is not a good measure. It's a very constructive commit if you replace 30 lines of code with 3 that do the same thing. Yet by a LOC measure that would be a retrograde step.
Or look at it another way, suppose you had to projects that do the same thing. Say two C compilers that both meet the latest spec, and produce equally efficient code. But one had 10 times the LOC as the other. The better one would be the smaller one.
17 MLOC for a kernel is ridiculous. Even Torvalds admits it's far too big. One of the problems of open source development is that people are too scared to replace 30 lines of code with 3, because they don't have the confidence, or the gatekeeper doesn't.
I certainly don't accept that a good and novel language, in it's first and primary implementation, with it's runtime and core libraries is of lesser complexity than an OS kernel. Especially one that was largely a clone of earlier work. And LOC doesn't make it so.
That's about the silliest thing I've heard today. A television screen, even in 1984, was probably a computer monitor. Granted it was NTSC, but around that time most televisions were switched over to digital tuners (which are computers).
Not even close. This was the UK, so the system was PAL, not NTSC. And in 1984, televisions (as this was) were fare more analogue than digital. For sure it was a TV with teletext, and a modem, so there was some digital element in there, but certainly more analogue TV than computer monitor. Teletext was very much a technology to display text on a PAL analogue TV.
While your statement is technically correct, it is functionally false.
Yes it is technically correct, and nothing you say makes it "functionally false". It being firstly a guide to the public of what is acceptable behaviour doesn't rely on it being enforced at all.
Where you have laws that are little enforced, by choice or because they are hard to detect, you often get people saying "It's technically illegal, but you'll almost certainly get away with it." That means they have the message as to what is acceptable and what is not. They may choose the illegal path anyway, but that's not through ignorance.
There is no way around that, even if it was the label that made the decision.
No one is trying to go around that. I already said Apple are legally responsible to the consumer. And the TV company may be legally responsible in turn to Apple.
You are arguing nonexistent semantics.
No, you just aren't realising there is no argument here. I'm just being explicit about who did what and who is legally responsible. Which is not the same thing.
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on:
Andy Warhol and his factory
Terry Redlin
Ferraris
The Mona Lisa is a work of art. The post cards they sell in the Louvre gift shop are reproductions of works of art, but not works of art in themselves. The whole limited edition print thing does not make a reproduction any more of a work of art.
Warhol's Factory had an output of both artworks and reproductions. Sounds like Terry Redlin too, but I don't know him (maybe I would if I was American.)
If by Ferraris, you mean the manufactured cars, they are not art works. If you mean an artist by the name Ferrari, then maybe.
Manufactured items aren't art. They are the products of design, and may be copies of an artwork. But they are not art.
Given that this is coming out of a printer, that can continue manufacturing the same item, with differences only being random mechanical errors, I'm going to say that it's not art.
Given that this is a museum of art and design, this does qualify. But not on the basis of it being art.
We don't need a law for that, it's already illegal to drive recklessly, or while distracted.
A law isn't simply a tool to arrest/charge/sentence/ticket people. It's firstly a guide to the public of what is acceptable behaviour. Unfortunately many people think that they can use cell phones whilst driving and that isn't reckless or distracting. Or at least they have different ideas to what elements of use are acceptable. So the law clarifies specifically what is and is not acceptable. So no, it's not redundant.
Drug dependancy on the other hand, I agree that they should be treated as a medical issue not a criminal matter. Because direct harm is to the person taking the drugs, and most of the secondary harm to others is caused by the effects of criminalisation rather than the drugs themselves.
Libertarian leanings? This comes from the basic principle that if I'm doing something that hurts no one then the government shouldn't interfere.
With regard to open source, what specifically? The government do nothing to stop you sharing your source for free if you want to. So why does it need campaigning about?
If you mean the right to share other people's source, then that's a problem. Your hypothetical freedom to copy without permission would break their freedom to make a living from their skills and efforts. One of the primary reasons for a government is to balance one persons freedoms against another, where they conflict.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's even worse than pressing back at the first screen of an app exits the app. It's that is sometimes exits the app, and sometimes not. Depending on the app, and if the app has some other activities.
Fallen at the first.
"Icons and dialogs are "flat" (similar to Windows 7, etc.)"
Like Android.
You clearly don't know what flat icons are. Here's the latest android.
http://www.android.com/images/restricted-profiles.png
These are NOT flat icons. Take a loo at the camera icon for the most obvious example. Simulated highlight and shadow is used to make the icon look 3D. Same goes for all the other icons.
Has as it got full multitasking? No, it really really doesn't. Just try running a Jabber client that lets you stay logged in all day long, or a mail client that downloads your mail before you open it without push notifications.
Whilst your post is generally right in the approach, and spot on for iOS6, both your examples are perfectly feasible in iOS7.
Leave that up to the app to decide maybe?
So much for design consistency.
I've never had a problem on my Android phones understanding what the back button did after pressing it once or twice with a new app.
And there's the fail. You shouldn't have to memorize what a standard button happens to do in this particular app.
With apps that have multiple screens that change, it usually takes you back a screen, such as back to the main menu. If you're at the main menu, it exits. With apps that do everything in the same screen, such as a web browser, it takes you back a page or back to your home screen.
So the same single press on a button might do one of 3 different things. Oops.
Google invented the concept of an "Up" button to do the same as the back button, only to drop the "exit the app" function. Only that button isn't a hardware one. Partially fixing the problem, or just making it even more messy?
"If only the iPhone copied this design fuck up from Android."
Interesting that you should say this when back and menu hardware buttons have been deprecated from Android 3.0.
Asshole behaves like child. News at 11.
as Linus saying it would be easier to manage the codebase if it wasn't so big.
Which wasn't what he said, asshole.
Anyone who was using microcomputers of the time was very aware of the difference between a TV and a computer monitor.
Teletext it was done with logic chips. No CPU. Logic chips don't make it a computer.
As to Prestel, mostly it was via separate boxes, that would output UHF to a TV, working exactly as if the signal was coming from a TV aerial.
Are you sure? The introduction of colour TV in the UK post-dates the use of transistors in consumer electronics. I'm not aware that any colour TV in the UK ever used valves.
Oh for sure most or all TVs of the early 1980s had valves. My brother's job at the time was a TV repair man, who's main job was visiting homes, replacing valves. Sometimes it'd be burned out boards, but mostly it was replacing valves.
I'm a highly paid professional. I use a fingerprint reader to clock in every day.
These two claims are not congruent. If you clock in, you are an hourly paid worker. You aren't a professional, highly paid or otherwise.
So you are saying you have no idea what you are talking about. I can accept that.
On the contrary, even Torvalds says it's getting too big. So you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. But then you are an asshole.
If you don't want to be demeaned, don't work in a job where your role includes cleaning up human excrement and vomit from trains.
So your argument is that they perform an indispensable job that happens to have significant unpleasant duties, so it's OK to abuse them with regards to administrative functions too.
Doesn't make much sense.
First of all, you can't possibly be claiming that Python is as large a project, or as pervasive.
Largeness of source is a flaw of the Linux kernel not a plus point. And pervasiveness does not relate to the claim made.
Yes. I'm sure there are many projects that are bigger, and of course they all compile and and are usually run on ... oh shit! I was really pulling for you not to sound like an idiot, too.
As you're a bigger asshole than Torvalds, your opinion is worth nothing to me.
Lines of code is not a good measure. It's a very constructive commit if you replace 30 lines of code with 3 that do the same thing. Yet by a LOC measure that would be a retrograde step.
Or look at it another way, suppose you had to projects that do the same thing. Say two C compilers that both meet the latest spec, and produce equally efficient code. But one had 10 times the LOC as the other. The better one would be the smaller one.
17 MLOC for a kernel is ridiculous. Even Torvalds admits it's far too big. One of the problems of open source development is that people are too scared to replace 30 lines of code with 3, because they don't have the confidence, or the gatekeeper doesn't.
I certainly don't accept that a good and novel language, in it's first and primary implementation, with it's runtime and core libraries is of lesser complexity than an OS kernel. Especially one that was largely a clone of earlier work. And LOC doesn't make it so.
That's about the silliest thing I've heard today. A television screen, even in 1984, was probably a computer monitor. Granted it was NTSC, but around that time most televisions were switched over to digital tuners (which are computers).
Not even close. This was the UK, so the system was PAL, not NTSC. And in 1984, televisions (as this was) were fare more analogue than digital. For sure it was a TV with teletext, and a modem, so there was some digital element in there, but certainly more analogue TV than computer monitor. Teletext was very much a technology to display text on a PAL analogue TV.
The first contrary example that quickly springs to mind:
Guido van Rossum started Python in 1989.
Linus didn't start Linux till 1991.
And Guido seems to do it without being an asshole.
I'm sure there are others in the open source world, and many more, though perhaps not well known, doing long standing closed source projects.
What you really want to look for is intent.
Right. And arrest may be required whilst looking into intent.
While your statement is technically correct, it is functionally false.
Yes it is technically correct, and nothing you say makes it "functionally false". It being firstly a guide to the public of what is acceptable behaviour doesn't rely on it being enforced at all.
Where you have laws that are little enforced, by choice or because they are hard to detect, you often get people saying "It's technically illegal, but you'll almost certainly get away with it." That means they have the message as to what is acceptable and what is not. They may choose the illegal path anyway, but that's not through ignorance.
They agreed to the contract.
Yes.
There is no way around that, even if it was the label that made the decision.
No one is trying to go around that. I already said Apple are legally responsible to the consumer. And the TV company may be legally responsible in turn to Apple.
You are arguing nonexistent semantics.
No, you just aren't realising there is no argument here. I'm just being explicit about who did what and who is legally responsible. Which is not the same thing.
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on:
Andy Warhol and his factory
Terry Redlin
Ferraris
The Mona Lisa is a work of art. The post cards they sell in the Louvre gift shop are reproductions of works of art, but not works of art in themselves. The whole limited edition print thing does not make a reproduction any more of a work of art.
Warhol's Factory had an output of both artworks and reproductions. Sounds like Terry Redlin too, but I don't know him (maybe I would if I was American.)
If by Ferraris, you mean the manufactured cars, they are not art works. If you mean an artist by the name Ferrari, then maybe.
All IMO.
Manufactured items aren't art. They are the products of design, and may be copies of an artwork. But they are not art.
Given that this is coming out of a printer, that can continue manufacturing the same item, with differences only being random mechanical errors, I'm going to say that it's not art.
Given that this is a museum of art and design, this does qualify. But not on the basis of it being art.
We don't need a law for that, it's already illegal to drive recklessly, or while distracted.
A law isn't simply a tool to arrest/charge/sentence/ticket people. It's firstly a guide to the public of what is acceptable behaviour. Unfortunately many people think that they can use cell phones whilst driving and that isn't reckless or distracting. Or at least they have different ideas to what elements of use are acceptable. So the law clarifies specifically what is and is not acceptable. So no, it's not redundant.
Drug dependancy on the other hand, I agree that they should be treated as a medical issue not a criminal matter. Because direct harm is to the person taking the drugs, and most of the secondary harm to others is caused by the effects of criminalisation rather than the drugs themselves.
Libertarian leanings? This comes from the basic principle that if I'm doing something that hurts no one then the government shouldn't interfere.
With regard to open source, what specifically? The government do nothing to stop you sharing your source for free if you want to. So why does it need campaigning about?
If you mean the right to share other people's source, then that's a problem. Your hypothetical freedom to copy without permission would break their freedom to make a living from their skills and efforts. One of the primary reasons for a government is to balance one persons freedoms against another, where they conflict.
I haven't seen a survey. But look at the figureheads:
Free Software - Richard M Stallman - hippy.
Open Source - Eric S Raymond - Far right libertarian.
Makes you wonder when they going to start on those using paintball guns?
If you shoot people with paintballs when they haven't consented to it, you can and should be arrested.