And that's how thing[s] will end and remain ended.
That's not true, actually. You see, beyond the accelerating universe, by the time of the end of which you speak, we will have built... "God", for lack of a better word. B...
The truly funny part is Web 2.0 is back to classic Client/Server programming, utilizing an HTML engine as the client. I believe that existed since the 60s with dumb terminals, but certainly no later than the early 80s with the current modern thick client/server model (think X11 and the like)
Regarding the open sourcing of the encryption code, generally self-written encryption routines are inadequate at best. If you're not leveraging one of the well vetted encryption libraries, odds are that your solution is weak and will only stand up to cursory inspection. Otherwise, you're using PGP, RSA, Blowfish, etc, and your code is merely a light wrapper around those libraries. (No, I did not review the code)
As for chat clients and the like connecting to each other with encryption, this has been around and open sourced a long time, one implementation is Off-the-Record. And of course there's the PGP solution that has been around since the early 90s.
I used to use PGP to email among my friends. Several circumstances combined to make me not use PGP in my email, mostly the fact that work prohibited it and at the time, all my email contacts were mostly work related. Now, it's been more difficult getting them to use that system over just running my own SSL enabled mail server and giving those that need accounts on it. Granted, the content is still unencrypted on the server, but at least all aspects of the send/receive are encrypted, with no unnecessary third parties involved.
I still use OTR encryption for my IM client with any friends that can participate, or iChat for those using iChat (iChat is encrypted) I encourage all my friends to convert to using either client as they are able.
I think you're discussing Mac App Store functionality, not the OS functionality.
Now, for Mac App Store to do this, I believe it must be started. I don't recall the specifics of whether the removal is forced or requires authentication, and AFAIK, it doesn't affect your ability to restore from time machine nor other backups. So honestly, it sounds a little far-fetched and useless to me.
the unpublished APIs included printing, IIRC. Something about more detailed formatting being available, IIRC.
But, I agree WP had all sorts of other issues that just about took them out of the running, MS didn't even need to use unpublished APIs to have ensured it. But by doing so, they opened themselves up to these types of lawsuits.
However, to MS's defense, WordPerfect never really go the GUI until MS was long out of the gate. However, MS used an entire series of underhanded tricks at the time to improve their products by using secret unpublished APIs that no one else knew about.
Should they lose this case? Yes. Should they be punished? Yes? Is 1.3B too much? NO!
Tying products together the way MS did, and utilizing proprietary data on what essentially was, at the time, a near monopolistic eco-system should be punished. Personally 1.3B might be too low. Perhaps increasing it by an order of magnitude or 2 just for the delays I'm sure MS put in would put a stop to it. Or, better yet, grant the 1.3B and then increase it by 10% for each year MS delayed judgement,
Gee - their purse might get hurt? It's quite possible that all of it was ill gotten gains and therefore subject to forfeiture.
... I have friends who are lawyers, others who are structural engineers... Many of us work across two 22" monitors... Microsoft OWNS those environments, hands down - From the desktops, to the servers...
Oh my - 2 22" monitors. Maybe you should have bought just one 27+" monitor (or better yet, 2!!!) How else will you work?
Hint: Windows doesn't own that environment, hands down, up, or sideways. Not only that, if your talking servers, you're talking an ever shrinking slice of the pie for the MS world.
I too have friends in all the stated worlds, and more. Truly sophisticated accounting apps don't run on windows anyting. Engineers (well, structural could be civil, in which case.... duhhh) would be much better served in the *nix world (includes Macs btw). Lawyers... beats me, does anyone care? Doctors? The last 5 I encountered are all Apple. (3 surgeons - friends - and 2 general practitioners)
My linux network box snorts at you. My hackintosh ignores you, my windows machine... wait, I'll have to load it in a vm somewhere.....
because popups don't occur with all sites. And the status bar is quicker, it also gives, surprisingly, status when a page is loading, without having to resort to opening up another window to see the current status.
Additionally - the status bar, AFAIK, cannot be jacked with by JS, while the popup can. Never trust any JS driven information unquestionably.
Let me describe the problem again, perhaps more clearly...If application X is over on monitor six, but the menu for it is over on monitor 1, then it's a long mouse journey from monitor six to monitor 1, and then back again, just to select a menu entry.
It would seem that depending upon monitor layout, at most you'd have to cross 2 monitors, and in the best case 1. I will admit that crossing multiple monitors can be a bit annoying, but my workflow tends to focus in the main monitor with secondary and tertiary monitors used for debug/viewing the flow or other secondary functions.
Yes -- because cmd-Q is directed to the active app. However, you would be a great deal more likely to select the correct quit command using the actual menu if the menus were attached to the app window, as they are in a better UI design. This is because the menu is then not only associated with the active context (which can change in a heartbeat with an accidental click or tap), but also with the visual context of the application. Accessing it would change the focus to the correct application without any extra attention from the user.
For this particular command, the red dot on the window will solve that problem. (I generally don't use it though, Cmd-Q is fine for me) I would still hold that for 1, 2, or even 3 monitor setups, the current design is fine and perfectly usable. I will admit that, not having 6 monitor experience nor using a workflow that actually would utilize 6 monitors, I can not state whether this breaks down at that point. I also note that most of my applications do no often utilize the menu bar, and for those that do - they reside on monitor 1.
Well, I don't know why YOU would, but in my case, my software defined radio uses keystrokes to adjust various settings, including tuning, bandwidth, and so forth.
Have you looked into whether hotkeys could be assigned for those particular actions? That's the general way that particular piece is done. Not having coded direct IPC in OSX at this point, I can't talk to that aspect.
Pad-tapping doesn't work for every workflow, you know. There are many cases in logic, for instance, when you're all over the UI, and quickly. Likewise, Apple's version of right-click-at-right-corner doesn't always get interpreted that way. Control-click, at least, works. There are other workflows than yours.
1) I'm having trouble visualizing a case where you ctrl-click with a pad where a double finger tap wouldn't be easier and 2) I'm not sure that I understand your use case of right-click-at-right-corner. That must be a configuration I don't use.
No, your bad was failing to visualize that a workflow outside your own experience could exist and be valid.
Actually, if you want people to take you seriously, you should present some data on said workflow, since it's way out there from your initial post. That post seemed like nothing more than bragging while whining about some seemingly unrelated aspects.
For instance, I have a hexcore with 24GB RAM and 10TB. (oo, yea! goodie me) If I left it at that and complained about something, the first part is rather meaningless. If I were to come back and say that during video editing, sometimes the software RAID seems to lose it's internal command structure and locks the system up tighter than a drum, all of a sudden there's a reason for said system and puts a workflow in context. (Actually, I've not tracked the issue down to the software RAID yet, it's also possible that it's a flaky AFP implementation on Linux in the other room. I'll be removing that and seeing if things improve, it only happens usually after 60 or so days of uptime.)
I do thank you for clearing up various aspects of your original post.
I wouldn't worry about condescending (trolling) ACs, even if it appears this one might be older than 12. (after all, they're complete sentences with proper grammatical structure and spelling and all)
I'm not even overly concerned about the Troll rating, although that would explain the AC status. I'm surprised someone thought that was a troll, it's almost insulting, in fact.
But, I truly wonder why in the regular run of things I'd ever want to send general keystrokes to an app that doesn't have focus.
Hotkeys for specific purposes, sure, like instant grab screen shots and the like.
Or haven't you noticed the large number that dislike the ribbon? I am not alone in my dislike for the new interface. Perhaps if I spent the several weeks immersed with the ribbon, it would be all clear to me, but soon to be forgotten as I don't live there for my daily tasks. Kind of like learning a third or fourth language. It's easy while you're immersed, but much harder to recall as soon as you leave it for a while.
In the end, whose opinion is more important? The actual users that have to suffer through a UI, or some ivory tower pundit that needs a recent blog entry to keep himself in the current mix? (If my disdain for UI "experts" shows through, that's no accident, just to be perfectly clear.) People can very easily navigate through largely standardized hierarchical textual menus that have existed and been perfectly useful for the past 2 decades.
Sometimes newer is not better. Having obscure icons requires learning and memorizing those things.
Actually, that reminds of the UI expert recommended "new and improved" laundry icons. I still don't know what that damn faded icon means without looking it up. "Warm" "cold" "hot" are all readily apparent to me. Yes, I'm aware that's english centric, but, I live in a largely english speaking country. In Europe, IIRC, they used to actually list a temperature in C, which is even more clear and universal.
You think I don't understand your point. I do. But you're not even wrong.
Nice of you - I'm not even wrong:)
People do not behave the way they do because of who they are. They behave the way they do because of WHERE they are. There is plenty of data backing this up over decades of research. So long as the rules and benefits of the political system remain in place, WHOEVER is elected will become corrupt. The only way to change this is to change the rules and incentives. Which was the very point that seems to be out of your reach.
What you're stating is that people are corrupt because of the position and what it entails.
So, my first question to you would be, given that I agree that most in politics are corrupt to some degree: 1) did they get that way in office, or were they that way prior to entering office? 2) if it's the office itself that is the corrupting influence, which you seem to suggest, then how long does this take? Is it instant, or some given time, a week, month, year, 5 years?
I'm assuming that the answer to 1 would be some are prior to getting into office, others get that way in office, and that the answer to 2 is that it would take some finite time, let's say 4 years.
So voting in new, non-corrupt people would give you 4 years of time to enact real change. And yes, that change could involve some major corrections to the currently flawed system, reverting it back more to the intentions of the founders.
The ribbon makes little sense to me. It seems like random placement of groups of sometimes related functionality.
The Mail Merge utility, which I never use, too me exactly 10s to find in Office 2011, still menu driven. It's under Tools. All of 1 layer of complex hierarchies of menus... I'm not sure I can deal with the complexity.
Seriously, you don't use the following "crap" functions on the main menu in Word?
-Copy, Paste, Cut -Change Font, Size, Bold, Italic, Color, Highlight -Numbered List, Bulleted List, Left Align, Right Align, Center Align -Find, Replace, Select
Aside from selecting paragraph styles, this is the entire contents of the main menu in Word. Your point is valid to a degree, but I don't see how the old menu system was superior, given that it had the exact same menu items in it by default.
You may continue using Word 2003 if you wish, but in Office 2010 if you really feel that special that you need to put the "buried" stuff you do front in center, you can customize the ribbon just the way you need it, princess.
Normally, I would respond to an AC, but, you ask some valid questions: -Copy, Paste, Cut Ctrl/Cmd-c/v/x
Change Font, Size, Bold, Italic, Color, Highlight Cmd-+/- (don't recall if windows does the same with the Ctrl key), Ctrl/Cmd b/i Color and Highlight I generally right click the selection and change.
-Numbered List, Bulleted List, Left Align, Right Align, Center Align These I use menu items for because I can't recall if any of them even have hotkeys offhand, or right clicks. It's been a while.
-Find, Replace, Select
Ctrl/Cmd-f/h/r, depending upon the application
So, I apparently don't need 90% of what's on the ribbon menu by default. And who decided to put the file save/open ops on the big MS button on the top left? Now THAT's intuitive.
Just FYI though, I've upgraded to Office 2011 from 2010. It doesn't have that blasted ribbon interface. So you can continue to live in your world of denial.
Au contraire - I used it enough to develop a distinct hatred for the damn ribbon. I still have to use it occasionally, but my distaste for the "new" environment is so severe it makes me look for alternatives, which I prefer using over the ribbon-ized office.
You need quoting lessons and a dose of IQ, as it's obviously in an extreme lull. I'll spell it out for you:
If all these disaffected nonvoting people would actually get together and support their own person, they could possibly win, provided they're as big a group as they think they are. If not, well, the small fringe minority rarely wins elections without extreme manipulations of PR - see the GOP in the last couple of decades as a point of reference.
Other than stroking yourself for having 6 monitors, what exactly are you moaning about here?
Regarding windows and menus - 6 monitors, you could still Cmd-Q the wrong app no matter where the menus were.
Why would I want to send keystrokes to an app that doesn't have focus? Perhaps the one in focus needs those keystrokes?
If you are still control clicking with a trackpad, well....
Yes, I'm aware I shouldn't feed the trolls. My bad.
Re:There are certain inevitable trade-offs
on
The Condescending UI
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I can honestly say that I personally despise the Ribbon menu. Everything is moved, and nothing is obvious. It feels like every other MS menu change: a reason to have a new training class and certification test for "learning" what you already new, just in a new layout that makes little sense in comparison to the "old" one. Regarding ribbon, there's crap on the main "menu" that I never use, and stuff I do is buried. Fortunately, for me, MS Office products are an ever lower frequency used item, to the point I pretty much can ignore the entire toolset of late. I only need it occasionally when an alternative doesn't work, but even then it's painful.
Not voting is essentially wasting your vote - you're increasing the vote "value" of those who vote by not voting. Contrary to probably your opinion and others who say not voting is making a statement - no, it's not. It's not voting. It's letting other people make a stand and have their voices heard. If you complain and moan and bitch about it later, it's much like the movie critics who bitch moan and complain about the quality of movies but have produced exactly diddly squat themselves. (and yes, if you don't vote your complaints are about as valid)
Sorry, but think about it this way - if there are 100 people in a room and 99 don't vote, guess who's voice is heard? Not the 99.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's how thing[s] will end and remain ended.
That's not true, actually. You see, beyond the accelerating universe, by the time of the end of which you speak, we will have built ... "God", for lack of a better word. B...
The last question
...well as the generally bad welfare among the poor in this country.
Here's a thought - in what other country are the poor suffering from obesity at the rates of the poor in the US?
The truly funny part is Web 2.0 is back to classic Client/Server programming, utilizing an HTML engine as the client. I believe that existed since the 60s with dumb terminals, but certainly no later than the early 80s with the current modern thick client/server model (think X11 and the like)
Regarding the open sourcing of the encryption code, generally self-written encryption routines are inadequate at best. If you're not leveraging one of the well vetted encryption libraries, odds are that your solution is weak and will only stand up to cursory inspection. Otherwise, you're using PGP, RSA, Blowfish, etc, and your code is merely a light wrapper around those libraries. (No, I did not review the code)
As for chat clients and the like connecting to each other with encryption, this has been around and open sourced a long time, one implementation is Off-the-Record. And of course there's the PGP solution that has been around since the early 90s.
A million lemmings can't be wrong.
But they can be flat!
I'd agree with all those sentiments.
I used to use PGP to email among my friends. Several circumstances combined to make me not use PGP in my email, mostly the fact that work prohibited it and at the time, all my email contacts were mostly work related. Now, it's been more difficult getting them to use that system over just running my own SSL enabled mail server and giving those that need accounts on it. Granted, the content is still unencrypted on the server, but at least all aspects of the send/receive are encrypted, with no unnecessary third parties involved.
I still use OTR encryption for my IM client with any friends that can participate, or iChat for those using iChat (iChat is encrypted) I encourage all my friends to convert to using either client as they are able.
I think you're discussing Mac App Store functionality, not the OS functionality.
Now, for Mac App Store to do this, I believe it must be started. I don't recall the specifics of whether the removal is forced or requires authentication, and AFAIK, it doesn't affect your ability to restore from time machine nor other backups. So honestly, it sounds a little far-fetched and useless to me.
note I said "most". If you'll review my other posts here, I think in MS's case, it's off by an order of magnitude or more.
the unpublished APIs included printing, IIRC. Something about more detailed formatting being available, IIRC.
But, I agree WP had all sorts of other issues that just about took them out of the running, MS didn't even need to use unpublished APIs to have ensured it. But by doing so, they opened themselves up to these types of lawsuits.
you have absolutely no idea what MS did.
However, to MS's defense, WordPerfect never really go the GUI until MS was long out of the gate. However, MS used an entire series of underhanded tricks at the time to improve their products by using secret unpublished APIs that no one else knew about.
Should they lose this case? Yes. Should they be punished? Yes? Is 1.3B too much? NO!
Tying products together the way MS did, and utilizing proprietary data on what essentially was, at the time, a near monopolistic eco-system should be punished. Personally 1.3B might be too low. Perhaps increasing it by an order of magnitude or 2 just for the delays I'm sure MS put in would put a stop to it. Or, better yet, grant the 1.3B and then increase it by 10% for each year MS delayed judgement,
Gee - their purse might get hurt? It's quite possible that all of it was ill gotten gains and therefore subject to forfeiture.
... I have friends who are lawyers, others who are structural engineers... Many of us work across two 22" monitors... Microsoft OWNS those environments, hands down - From the desktops, to the servers...
Oh my - 2 22" monitors. Maybe you should have bought just one 27+" monitor (or better yet, 2!!!) How else will you work?
Hint: Windows doesn't own that environment, hands down, up, or sideways. Not only that, if your talking servers, you're talking an ever shrinking slice of the pie for the MS world.
I too have friends in all the stated worlds, and more. Truly sophisticated accounting apps don't run on windows anyting. Engineers (well, structural could be civil, in which case.... duhhh) would be much better served in the *nix world (includes Macs btw). Lawyers... beats me, does anyone care? Doctors? The last 5 I encountered are all Apple. (3 surgeons - friends - and 2 general practitioners)
My linux network box snorts at you. My hackintosh ignores you, my windows machine... wait, I'll have to load it in a vm somewhere.....
1.3B is not irrelevant to most.
because popups don't occur with all sites. And the status bar is quicker, it also gives, surprisingly, status when a page is loading, without having to resort to opening up another window to see the current status.
Additionally - the status bar, AFAIK, cannot be jacked with by JS, while the popup can. Never trust any JS driven information unquestionably.
Safari most definitely will show a status bar.
Let me describe the problem again, perhaps more clearly...If application X is over on monitor six, but the menu for it is over on monitor 1, then it's a long mouse journey from monitor six to monitor 1, and then back again, just to select a menu entry.
It would seem that depending upon monitor layout, at most you'd have to cross 2 monitors, and in the best case 1. I will admit that crossing multiple monitors can be a bit annoying, but my workflow tends to focus in the main monitor with secondary and tertiary monitors used for debug/viewing the flow or other secondary functions.
Yes -- because cmd-Q is directed to the active app. However, you would be a great deal more likely to select the correct quit command using the actual menu if the menus were attached to the app window, as they are in a better UI design. This is because the menu is then not only associated with the active context (which can change in a heartbeat with an accidental click or tap), but also with the visual context of the application. Accessing it would change the focus to the correct application without any extra attention from the user.
For this particular command, the red dot on the window will solve that problem. (I generally don't use it though, Cmd-Q is fine for me) I would still hold that for 1, 2, or even 3 monitor setups, the current design is fine and perfectly usable. I will admit that, not having 6 monitor experience nor using a workflow that actually would utilize 6 monitors, I can not state whether this breaks down at that point. I also note that most of my applications do no often utilize the menu bar, and for those that do - they reside on monitor 1.
Well, I don't know why YOU would, but in my case, my software defined radio uses keystrokes to adjust various settings, including tuning, bandwidth, and so forth.
Have you looked into whether hotkeys could be assigned for those particular actions? That's the general way that particular piece is done. Not having coded direct IPC in OSX at this point, I can't talk to that aspect.
Pad-tapping doesn't work for every workflow, you know. There are many cases in logic, for instance, when you're all over the UI, and quickly. Likewise, Apple's version of right-click-at-right-corner doesn't always get interpreted that way. Control-click, at least, works. There are other workflows than yours.
1) I'm having trouble visualizing a case where you ctrl-click with a pad where a double finger tap wouldn't be easier
and
2) I'm not sure that I understand your use case of right-click-at-right-corner. That must be a configuration I don't use.
No, your bad was failing to visualize that a workflow outside your own experience could exist and be valid.
Actually, if you want people to take you seriously, you should present some data on said workflow, since it's way out there from your initial post. That post seemed like nothing more than bragging while whining about some seemingly unrelated aspects.
For instance, I have a hexcore with 24GB RAM and 10TB. (oo, yea! goodie me) If I left it at that and complained about something, the first part is rather meaningless. If I were to come back and say that during video editing, sometimes the software RAID seems to lose it's internal command structure and locks the system up tighter than a drum, all of a sudden there's a reason for said system and puts a workflow in context. (Actually, I've not tracked the issue down to the software RAID yet, it's also possible that it's a flaky AFP implementation on Linux in the other room. I'll be removing that and seeing if things improve, it only happens usually after 60 or so days of uptime.)
I do thank you for clearing up various aspects of your original post.
I wouldn't worry about condescending (trolling) ACs, even if it appears this one might be older than 12. (after all, they're complete sentences with proper grammatical structure and spelling and all)
I'm not even overly concerned about the Troll rating, although that would explain the AC status. I'm surprised someone thought that was a troll, it's almost insulting, in fact.
But, I truly wonder why in the regular run of things I'd ever want to send general keystrokes to an app that doesn't have focus.
Hotkeys for specific purposes, sure, like instant grab screen shots and the like.
Many users would agree with me.
Or haven't you noticed the large number that dislike the ribbon? I am not alone in my dislike for the new interface. Perhaps if I spent the several weeks immersed with the ribbon, it would be all clear to me, but soon to be forgotten as I don't live there for my daily tasks. Kind of like learning a third or fourth language. It's easy while you're immersed, but much harder to recall as soon as you leave it for a while.
In the end, whose opinion is more important? The actual users that have to suffer through a UI, or some ivory tower pundit that needs a recent blog entry to keep himself in the current mix? (If my disdain for UI "experts" shows through, that's no accident, just to be perfectly clear.) People can very easily navigate through largely standardized hierarchical textual menus that have existed and been perfectly useful for the past 2 decades.
Sometimes newer is not better. Having obscure icons requires learning and memorizing those things.
Actually, that reminds of the UI expert recommended "new and improved" laundry icons. I still don't know what that damn faded icon means without looking it up. "Warm" "cold" "hot" are all readily apparent to me. Yes, I'm aware that's english centric, but, I live in a largely english speaking country. In Europe, IIRC, they used to actually list a temperature in C, which is even more clear and universal.
You think I don't understand your point. I do. But you're not even wrong.
Nice of you - I'm not even wrong :)
People do not behave the way they do because of who they are. They behave the way they do because of WHERE they are. There is plenty of data backing this up over decades of research. So long as the rules and benefits of the political system remain in place, WHOEVER is elected will become corrupt. The only way to change this is to change the rules and incentives. Which was the very point that seems to be out of your reach.
What you're stating is that people are corrupt because of the position and what it entails.
So, my first question to you would be, given that I agree that most in politics are corrupt to some degree:
1) did they get that way in office, or were they that way prior to entering office?
2) if it's the office itself that is the corrupting influence, which you seem to suggest, then how long does this take? Is it instant, or some given time, a week, month, year, 5 years?
I'm assuming that the answer to 1 would be some are prior to getting into office, others get that way in office, and that the answer to 2 is that it would take some finite time, let's say 4 years.
So voting in new, non-corrupt people would give you 4 years of time to enact real change. And yes, that change could involve some major corrections to the currently flawed system, reverting it back more to the intentions of the founders.
The ribbon makes little sense to me. It seems like random placement of groups of sometimes related functionality.
The Mail Merge utility, which I never use, too me exactly 10s to find in Office 2011, still menu driven. It's under Tools. All of 1 layer of complex hierarchies of menus... I'm not sure I can deal with the complexity.
The ribbon is an epic fail in UI design.
Seriously, you don't use the following "crap" functions on the main menu in Word?
-Copy, Paste, Cut
-Change Font, Size, Bold, Italic, Color, Highlight
-Numbered List, Bulleted List, Left Align, Right Align, Center Align
-Find, Replace, Select
Aside from selecting paragraph styles, this is the entire contents of the main menu in Word. Your point is valid to a degree, but I don't see how the old menu system was superior, given that it had the exact same menu items in it by default.
You may continue using Word 2003 if you wish, but in Office 2010 if you really feel that special that you need to put the "buried" stuff you do front in center, you can customize the ribbon just the way you need it, princess.
Normally, I would respond to an AC, but, you ask some valid questions:
-Copy, Paste, Cut
Ctrl/Cmd-c/v/x
Change Font, Size, Bold, Italic, Color, Highlight
Cmd-+/- (don't recall if windows does the same with the Ctrl key), Ctrl/Cmd b/i
Color and Highlight I generally right click the selection and change.
-Numbered List, Bulleted List, Left Align, Right Align, Center Align
These I use menu items for because I can't recall if any of them even have hotkeys offhand, or right clicks. It's been a while.
-Find, Replace, Select
Ctrl/Cmd-f/h/r, depending upon the application
So, I apparently don't need 90% of what's on the ribbon menu by default. And who decided to put the file save/open ops on the big MS button on the top left? Now THAT's intuitive.
Just FYI though, I've upgraded to Office 2011 from 2010. It doesn't have that blasted ribbon interface. So you can continue to live in your world of denial.
Au contraire - I used it enough to develop a distinct hatred for the damn ribbon. I still have to use it occasionally, but my distaste for the "new" environment is so severe it makes me look for alternatives, which I prefer using over the ribbon-ized office.
You need quoting lessons and a dose of IQ, as it's obviously in an extreme lull. I'll spell it out for you:
If all these disaffected nonvoting people would actually get together and support their own person, they could possibly win, provided they're as big a group as they think they are. If not, well, the small fringe minority rarely wins elections without extreme manipulations of PR - see the GOP in the last couple of decades as a point of reference.
Other than stroking yourself for having 6 monitors, what exactly are you moaning about here?
Regarding windows and menus - 6 monitors, you could still Cmd-Q the wrong app no matter where the menus were.
Why would I want to send keystrokes to an app that doesn't have focus? Perhaps the one in focus needs those keystrokes?
If you are still control clicking with a trackpad, well....
Yes, I'm aware I shouldn't feed the trolls. My bad.
I can honestly say that I personally despise the Ribbon menu. Everything is moved, and nothing is obvious. It feels like every other MS menu change: a reason to have a new training class and certification test for "learning" what you already new, just in a new layout that makes little sense in comparison to the "old" one. Regarding ribbon, there's crap on the main "menu" that I never use, and stuff I do is buried. Fortunately, for me, MS Office products are an ever lower frequency used item, to the point I pretty much can ignore the entire toolset of late. I only need it occasionally when an alternative doesn't work, but even then it's painful.
Not voting is essentially wasting your vote - you're increasing the vote "value" of those who vote by not voting. Contrary to probably your opinion and others who say not voting is making a statement - no, it's not. It's not voting. It's letting other people make a stand and have their voices heard. If you complain and moan and bitch about it later, it's much like the movie critics who bitch moan and complain about the quality of movies but have produced exactly diddly squat themselves. (and yes, if you don't vote your complaints are about as valid)
Sorry, but think about it this way - if there are 100 people in a room and 99 don't vote, guess who's voice is heard? Not the 99.
This crap is precisely the reason me and my peers don't vote.
And that would be exactly the reason you have no right to a negative opinion.
Vote for one of your friends - get all all your friends together and vote for them also. Maybe you'll get enough together and win.