I don't even use tabs, much less tab groups. It was never an appealing feature for me.
Other than that I prefer Mozilla over the other browsers out there. There's some appeal with Opera though, but not enough for me to make it the main browser.
I can't agree more - if there is an user interface that works and users are satisfied, don't touch it. You may tweak some of the colors and font sizes to make it match the company color scheme, but don't move around stuff and rename it unless it's necessary in order to be understandable also in new contexts.
I'm involved in a system where the UI is web based and no major changes to the UI for the end users have been made the last 15 years. Only minor changes in order to adapt to company color schemes and added functionality, and even though it may look a bit dated visually the users are satisfied.
At least last time I was looking into the Windows for mobile devices it had severe shortcomings but maybe they have filled in the grand canyon-sized holes in their platform, otherwise they don't have any hope of succeeding.
And that's the problem, they flee instead of facing the danger and taking care of it.
What Daesh (IS) really want is to cause chaos in the rest of the world with all the refugees and by that also infiltrate countries with some of their own.
Dodging in the form of guerrilla warfare where you move around all the time seems to work still. It's why it was so hard to find Bin Laden and that there's still ongoing work trying to locate IS leaders.
Bunkers are outdated when it comes to serious assault stuff, but such weapons are expensive and limited in supply so if you can trick your opponent into wasting bunker busters and missiles by fake bunkers and similar then you can at least let things play in your favor.
During WWI it was not unusual to have the "disappearing guns" in fixed artillery fortress locations protecting harbors. They became obsolete with the advent of the bomber aircraft, which resulted in a ceiling on the fortresses to protect against incoming bombs, which was pretty common during WWII. When the battleships got gyro-stabilized guns with high precision and aircraft able to do precision attacks on bunkers they became obsolete too since they now were essentially death traps.
That's why most artillery units (both coastal and land) today are highly mobile. They can be operated by 1-2 men, stop and fire several rounds in under a minute and then be on their way again. (Bofors Archer)
When you look at aircraft today it's a lot of stealth, but the downside with that technology is that it limits the punch it can carry. The A10 is non-stealth, and carries over 1000 30mm rounds, carries rockets externally to the level that it looks like a porcupine while the F-35 has a few hundred 20mm rounds and have to hide every rocket inside the hull. The stealth capabilities are also constraining the aerodynamics so that maneuverability suffers.
However the advantage with stealth is that the first strike may appear with little warning, but after that the advantage is lower - and since the carried payload is lower it takes more missions to get the job done. A war zone is also highly fluid - the weapons you brought with you at the beginning of the mission may not be the right weapons when you arrive in the strike zone.
To me it seems to be similar to the technique used by glare-free glasses, but I may be wrong.
In any case - stealth only works for a limited range of frequencies and is not working well when you go outside that range - or have transmitter and receiver radar stations in different locations.
Today the HF bands in the range of 20 to 30 MHz already suffers from at least one radar station.
There is even statements by some that the stealth technology has lost its advantage due to the more advanced radar stations that have been developed since the origin of stealth technology.
Making it illegal to hack copyright protections means that only criminals will hack the copyright protections.
It will be like the 20's when the prohibition of alcohol caused the criminals to become very powerful. It's the same thing all over again - feeding the big time crime gangs.
I think that both Starship Troopers and Puppet Masters weren't the best stories by Heinlein for movies anyway.
The big problem with making a good movie is that there's too much reliance on special effects and too little on acting. And both Heinlein and Asimov were more about psychology than technology even though the technology was a hook to hang the story on in their books it was never the main thing.
If you want to make an action movie or TV series - look at Keith Laumer.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't even use tabs, much less tab groups. It was never an appealing feature for me.
Other than that I prefer Mozilla over the other browsers out there. There's some appeal with Opera though, but not enough for me to make it the main browser.
Thanks.
I can't agree more - if there is an user interface that works and users are satisfied, don't touch it. You may tweak some of the colors and font sizes to make it match the company color scheme, but don't move around stuff and rename it unless it's necessary in order to be understandable also in new contexts.
I'm involved in a system where the UI is web based and no major changes to the UI for the end users have been made the last 15 years. Only minor changes in order to adapt to company color schemes and added functionality, and even though it may look a bit dated visually the users are satisfied.
You use the shorthand UX as if you expect that everyone knows what you are talking about, UX was when I last used it a shorthand for Unix.
SAP user interface is also in the category "user interface from hell".
Last time I checked UX was a shorthand for Unix.
Please avoid acronyms in headings and articles unless it's a generally known one like CIA, FBI or NSA.
At least last time I was looking into the Windows for mobile devices it had severe shortcomings but maybe they have filled in the grand canyon-sized holes in their platform, otherwise they don't have any hope of succeeding.
And that's the problem, they flee instead of facing the danger and taking care of it.
What Daesh (IS) really want is to cause chaos in the rest of the world with all the refugees and by that also infiltrate countries with some of their own.
“Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it.”
Robert A. Heinlein
Dodging in the form of guerrilla warfare where you move around all the time seems to work still. It's why it was so hard to find Bin Laden and that there's still ongoing work trying to locate IS leaders.
Bunkers are outdated when it comes to serious assault stuff, but such weapons are expensive and limited in supply so if you can trick your opponent into wasting bunker busters and missiles by fake bunkers and similar then you can at least let things play in your favor.
During WWI it was not unusual to have the "disappearing guns" in fixed artillery fortress locations protecting harbors. They became obsolete with the advent of the bomber aircraft, which resulted in a ceiling on the fortresses to protect against incoming bombs, which was pretty common during WWII. When the battleships got gyro-stabilized guns with high precision and aircraft able to do precision attacks on bunkers they became obsolete too since they now were essentially death traps.
That's why most artillery units (both coastal and land) today are highly mobile. They can be operated by 1-2 men, stop and fire several rounds in under a minute and then be on their way again. (Bofors Archer)
When you look at aircraft today it's a lot of stealth, but the downside with that technology is that it limits the punch it can carry. The A10 is non-stealth, and carries over 1000 30mm rounds, carries rockets externally to the level that it looks like a porcupine while the F-35 has a few hundred 20mm rounds and have to hide every rocket inside the hull. The stealth capabilities are also constraining the aerodynamics so that maneuverability suffers.
However the advantage with stealth is that the first strike may appear with little warning, but after that the advantage is lower - and since the carried payload is lower it takes more missions to get the job done. A war zone is also highly fluid - the weapons you brought with you at the beginning of the mission may not be the right weapons when you arrive in the strike zone.
To me it seems to be similar to the technique used by glare-free glasses, but I may be wrong.
In any case - stealth only works for a limited range of frequencies and is not working well when you go outside that range - or have transmitter and receiver radar stations in different locations.
Today the HF bands in the range of 20 to 30 MHz already suffers from at least one radar station.
There is even statements by some that the stealth technology has lost its advantage due to the more advanced radar stations that have been developed since the origin of stealth technology.
I do as well, I never got attracted by Chrome, it feels wrong.
Or abandon the religion.
One word: Dosbox.
I use either xterm or putty.
Please elaborate - should it never be possible to be classified as an engineer when you do programming or is a certain skill level required?
Software Engineering is a known subject already.
I'll tell them - in 25 years.
Time to lay off the drugs now.
Making it illegal to hack copyright protections means that only criminals will hack the copyright protections.
It will be like the 20's when the prohibition of alcohol caused the criminals to become very powerful. It's the same thing all over again - feeding the big time crime gangs.
The worst assholes aren't the ranters, it's those that don't care about any quality at all and keep others in the dark for their own purpose.
Not to mention that it will also make everyone else also pay attention.
The level of rant is important too. It's better to hang out small issues to dry than to wait until you are flooded by them.
The rants are more for everyone else to realize what's bad practice than for the one that made the mistake.
What's worse - he's often right in his rants.
What about Quentin Tarantino?
I think that both Starship Troopers and Puppet Masters weren't the best stories by Heinlein for movies anyway.
The big problem with making a good movie is that there's too much reliance on special effects and too little on acting. And both Heinlein and Asimov were more about psychology than technology even though the technology was a hook to hang the story on in their books it was never the main thing.
If you want to make an action movie or TV series - look at Keith Laumer.
And then we have the Wesley Crusher episodes. Makes even JarJar Binks in Star Wars seem to be a relief.