It's actually "form ever follows function" you unlettered oaf
Taken a trip to Wikipedia I see. Yes, that'll certainly mean you suddenly know what you're talking about.
and BTW it has inspired such much heralded design fripperies as streamlined toasters.
...Or not. Streamlined toasters are certainly not form following function. Quite the opposite.
A perfect example is the iPhone whose sleak design includes a fragile screen that easily breaks and requires entirely disassembling the unit what with its myriad of screws, tabs, and adhesives in order to replace it.
It doesn't "easily break", it's made of Gorilla glass, and reviewers who've done comparative drop tests with other phones find the iPhone is less prone to breaking. That includes reviewers on Android Fan sites.
And your observation on replacing of the glass is not one related to form following function at all.
Because "form follows function" is the one thing everyone who knows nothing about design on Slashdot posts. Because it's the only thing about design they know.
And they, and you, proceed to show that they don't understand the phrase, by implying it means that it doesn't matter what things look like so long as they work.
I know nothing about you. Other than you've demonstrated you know nothing about design.
Whatever the design, it's if made in the Foxconn factory, I will never buy such product from slave labors.
GPLHost-Thomas is a hypocrite. He's avoiding answering who made the computing device he used to post that message. But looking back through a few of his posts, we see that he bought an ACER laptop for his wife.
That form follows function and is not an end in itself.
You're just repeating the only quotable thing you ever heard about design. Jony Ive actually understands this. He's arguably the world's best current day industrial designer. And you're not.
stop the downward slide of OSX whose interface has become increasingly cluttered and whose functioning has been less reliable with each release since Tiger.
Now there you have a point. Now consider... Jony Ive has recently had his remit expanded to software as well as hardware. So the elimination of clutter in UIs may well happen.
You're hardly unique in having a system made up of parts bought at various times, from various manufacturers. Indeed that's more or less the idea with the Mac Mini.
But if a store set your system up in store and tried to sell it. How many people do you imagine would buy it?
It's pretty obvious that companies do better if they make their products which are intended to work together look harmonious in design. So WTF is your point?
We're talking consumer electronics here. Computers and phones primarily.
Nokia used to manufacture in Finland amongst other places, so one may assume the conditions there were reasonable. But I suspect they don't manufacture there any more.
Apple does some of it's manufacturing in the USA, and has announced they are going to be doing more. Again we can assume no sweatshop conditions there.
So who else?
I'd suggest at this stage Apple is probably amongst the best of the consumer electronics brands as regards worker conditions. Because they're pretty much all manufacturing in the far east, and Apple, given all the bad press they got on the issue, is the one who's doing the most to counter bad practices. And they are also not trying to compete in the bottom end - where there is no margin for improving worker conditions.
Point 1) Bush did 2 rounds of tax cuts. 2001 and 2003. The 2001 cut coincides with the point where the federal receipts starts to go steeper downhill.
Point 2) When the federal receipts does revert to going up, it only does so back to the long standing rise (inflation etc.)
Point 3) In reality, both of those falls were due to economic downturns. The first coincides with the tech stock bubble bursting. The second with the real estate bubble bursting.
Point 4) The second of those recoveries coincides with Obama becoming president. And the stimulus package. Not tax cuts.
Again, if we had a graph of real terms federal receipts, then we could maybe make some better conclusions. But as it is, we can't.
Plus the majority of smartphones in America are iPhones and the majority of tablets are iPads. Even if thieves were blind, and stealing randomly, they'd steal more iDevices than all the other brands added together.
Apparently, you see Jobs, Ballmer, and Torvalds as equals.
Not at all. I'm satirising the double standard.
In the past both Jobs and Ballmer losing their temper with someone who's made a mistake has become the meat of a slashdot article. With Linuxheads jumping in to attack. Now Torvalds does it, and it's perfectly reasonable.
Actually, Windows is the dictatorship of computing. No one outside of Microsoft's walls has any input into the kernel. In the world of Linux, lots of people have input.
No one other than a small number of appointed kernel maintainers has any input to the Linux kernel. So you can talk about the kernel maintainer wall just as you can talk about the Microsoft wall.
Far more people have input to Windows than the Linux kernel.
But, the old goat has the right to veto anyone, at any time. It's his name on the product, after all.
Whatever - I don't like fanbois of any kind, but if I were going to be one, I would be a Ballmer fan. You think he's being a douche, but I think he's big enough and good enough to get away with being a douche once in a while.
Personally, I've gone off on a few people like that, in my own life. NO ONE is perfectly composed all the time. When I go off, I just don't give a damn who might be watching. If someone screws up this badly in public, then they can take the ass chewing in public as well.
As for being the guy who screwed up - well - if I were in his place, I'd probably just meekly nod my head a couple of times, while saying "Yes, Boss!" then get on with my work. I can take an ass chewing, just as well as I can dish it out.
And, face it. It's a major fuck up. I can't say how "obvious" the fuck up should have been to the maintainer, since I'm no coder. But, obviously Ballmer thought it should have been pretty damned obvious.
Whatever - I don't like fanbois of any kind, but if I were going to be one, I would be a Jobs fan. You think he's being a douche, but I think he's big enough and good enough to get away with being a douche once in a while.
Personally, I've gone off on a few people like that, in my own life. NO ONE is perfectly composed all the time. When I go off, I just don't give a damn who might be watching. If someone screws up this badly in public, then they can take the ass chewing in public as well.
As for being the guy who screwed up - well - if I were in his place, I'd probably just meekly nod my head a couple of times, while saying "Yes, Boss!" then get on with my work. I can take an ass chewing, just as well as I can dish it out.
And, face it. It's a major fuck up. I can't say how "obvious" the fuck up should have been to the maintainer, since I'm no coder. But, obviously Jobs thought it should have been pretty damned obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
As pointed out there, you don't know what you're talking about.
It's actually "form ever follows function" you unlettered oaf
Taken a trip to Wikipedia I see. Yes, that'll certainly mean you suddenly know what you're talking about.
and BTW it has inspired such much heralded design fripperies as streamlined toasters.
...Or not. Streamlined toasters are certainly not form following function. Quite the opposite.
A perfect example is the iPhone whose sleak design includes a fragile screen that easily breaks and requires entirely disassembling the unit what with its myriad of screws, tabs, and adhesives in order to replace it.
It doesn't "easily break", it's made of Gorilla glass, and reviewers who've done comparative drop tests with other phones find the iPhone is less prone to breaking. That includes reviewers on Android Fan sites.
And your observation on replacing of the glass is not one related to form following function at all.
Because "form follows function" is the one thing everyone who knows nothing about design on Slashdot posts. Because it's the only thing about design they know.
And they, and you, proceed to show that they don't understand the phrase, by implying it means that it doesn't matter what things look like so long as they work.
I know nothing about you. Other than you've demonstrated you know nothing about design.
Whatever the design, it's if made in the Foxconn factory, I will never buy such product from slave labors.
GPLHost-Thomas is a hypocrite. He's avoiding answering who made the computing device he used to post that message. But looking back through a few of his posts, we see that he bought an ACER laptop for his wife.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3274815&cid=42117409
ACER is a Taiwanese company who outsources it's manufacturing to Foxconn amongst others.
Caught red handed.
And you still haven't answered anyone as to where the computing device you're using right now was made. You're a coward and a hypocrite.
That form follows function and is not an end in itself.
You're just repeating the only quotable thing you ever heard about design. Jony Ive actually understands this. He's arguably the world's best current day industrial designer. And you're not.
stop the downward slide of OSX whose interface has become increasingly cluttered and whose functioning has been less reliable with each release since Tiger.
Now there you have a point. Now consider... Jony Ive has recently had his remit expanded to software as well as hardware. So the elimination of clutter in UIs may well happen.
It's Jony Ive that has the Dieter Rams inspiration, not Hartmut Esslinger.
My guess is: Yes they noticed.
If you actually bothered to RTFA, you'd see that the only ones copied, in some of the designs, is Sony.
Jony Ive, who DOES credit Dieter Rams, was only a teenager when these designs were made. Before he went to University, let alone joined Apple.
If good design is functional then that eliminates recent Apple products immediately.
You're claiming Apple's recent products aren't functional. Without a single word of justification. Do you thing everyone is as stupid as you?
You're hardly unique in having a system made up of parts bought at various times, from various manufacturers. Indeed that's more or less the idea with the Mac Mini.
But if a store set your system up in store and tried to sell it. How many people do you imagine would buy it?
It's pretty obvious that companies do better if they make their products which are intended to work together look harmonious in design. So WTF is your point?
We're talking consumer electronics here. Computers and phones primarily.
Nokia used to manufacture in Finland amongst other places, so one may assume the conditions there were reasonable. But I suspect they don't manufacture there any more.
Apple does some of it's manufacturing in the USA, and has announced they are going to be doing more. Again we can assume no sweatshop conditions there.
So who else?
I'd suggest at this stage Apple is probably amongst the best of the consumer electronics brands as regards worker conditions. Because they're pretty much all manufacturing in the far east, and Apple, given all the bad press they got on the issue, is the one who's doing the most to counter bad practices. And they are also not trying to compete in the bottom end - where there is no margin for improving worker conditions.
Where are your computer and your phone made?
Point 1) Bush did 2 rounds of tax cuts. 2001 and 2003. The 2001 cut coincides with the point where the federal receipts starts to go steeper downhill.
Point 2) When the federal receipts does revert to going up, it only does so back to the long standing rise (inflation etc.)
Point 3) In reality, both of those falls were due to economic downturns. The first coincides with the tech stock bubble bursting. The second with the real estate bubble bursting.
Point 4) The second of those recoveries coincides with Obama becoming president. And the stimulus package. Not tax cuts.
Again, if we had a graph of real terms federal receipts, then we could maybe make some better conclusions. But as it is, we can't.
Don't know how this got to +5 insightful...
Because I'm right. For example, current US market share is 53.3% for iPhone. Android share is only 41.9%
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57560421-37/iphone-snags-its-highest-u.s-market-share-ever-says-report/
Very clearly that graph isn't real terms. Until inflation is factored out, it means nothing.
Plus the majority of smartphones in America are iPhones and the majority of tablets are iPads. Even if thieves were blind, and stealing randomly, they'd steal more iDevices than all the other brands added together.
Apparently, you see Jobs, Ballmer, and Torvalds as equals.
Not at all. I'm satirising the double standard.
In the past both Jobs and Ballmer losing their temper with someone who's made a mistake has become the meat of a slashdot article. With Linuxheads jumping in to attack. Now Torvalds does it, and it's perfectly reasonable.
Actually, Windows is the dictatorship of computing. No one outside of Microsoft's walls has any input into the kernel. In the world of Linux, lots of people have input.
No one other than a small number of appointed kernel maintainers has any input to the Linux kernel. So you can talk about the kernel maintainer wall just as you can talk about the Microsoft wall.
Far more people have input to Windows than the Linux kernel.
But, the old goat has the right to veto anyone, at any time. It's his name on the product, after all.
As I said, a dictatorship.
This sounds so gimp like. Like a teen at school trying to get in with the popular set. Or Dobby from Harry Potter.
Whatever - I don't like fanbois of any kind, but if I were going to be one, I would be a Ballmer fan. You think he's being a douche, but I think he's big enough and good enough to get away with being a douche once in a while.
Personally, I've gone off on a few people like that, in my own life. NO ONE is perfectly composed all the time. When I go off, I just don't give a damn who might be watching. If someone screws up this badly in public, then they can take the ass chewing in public as well.
As for being the guy who screwed up - well - if I were in his place, I'd probably just meekly nod my head a couple of times, while saying "Yes, Boss!" then get on with my work. I can take an ass chewing, just as well as I can dish it out.
And, face it. It's a major fuck up. I can't say how "obvious" the fuck up should have been to the maintainer, since I'm no coder. But, obviously Ballmer thought it should have been pretty damned obvious.
Whatever - I don't like fanbois of any kind, but if I were going to be one, I would be a Jobs fan. You think he's being a douche, but I think he's big enough and good enough to get away with being a douche once in a while.
Personally, I've gone off on a few people like that, in my own life. NO ONE is perfectly composed all the time. When I go off, I just don't give a damn who might be watching. If someone screws up this badly in public, then they can take the ass chewing in public as well.
As for being the guy who screwed up - well - if I were in his place, I'd probably just meekly nod my head a couple of times, while saying "Yes, Boss!" then get on with my work. I can take an ass chewing, just as well as I can dish it out.
And, face it. It's a major fuck up. I can't say how "obvious" the fuck up should have been to the maintainer, since I'm no coder. But, obviously Jobs thought it should have been pretty damned obvious.
LMAO - in Linuxland, Mr. Linus Torvald IS law enforcement. He polices everything. There is no higher authority.
So Linux is a dictatorship.
Indeed, I'm sure that's why Linus didn't get told to go fuck himself.
Linus is not like that, he's perfectly willing to stay in the background and write code.
Yeah, it's not like he derived the name of his project on his own name or anything. No wait...
his flaw is not knowing how to communicate that in a polite way, and being a bit hasty to judge.
On that we can agree. He flew off the handle without bothering to find out the reasons why first.