Until then, organized GUI's... make it easier to narrow down to find what you're after, definitionally.
Exactly the point, especially in a corporate environment.
When my company (major telco, 120,000 people, 50,000 LAN users) completely replaced our NOS in the early '90s, they made a good faith effort to educate everyone on what was changing and how to do X under the new system. But that effort was doomed from the start. Even in an office of ten people, someone won't get it. When you're talking 50K, many won't (and didn't) bother to attend the training. I was on the corporate helpdesk at the time, and the most prevalent comment I heard was, "I was too busy to attend the training. Can you help me? I've been trying to make this work for two days." The training sessions were about an hour long, so you can see how dumb that statement is, but that's the common mentality.
Easy to use is subjective to the perception of the person trying to do the using. For that executive or executive secretary that was too busy to attend the training and now couldn't figure out how to make their Macintosh(!) work on the new network, the new network was not easy to use and should never have been picked as the replacement.
It's been mumble-mumble years since I learned it in Biology class, but isn't that precisely what makes ATP a good fuel source? Highly stable compounds require large amounts of energy to catalyse the reaction, making them less useful for such a small implementation.
For a completely over-the-top example, consider the hydrogen bomb. To produce the "big" boom of the fusion reaction requires the detonation of a smaller fission bomb as a catalyst. Big investment, big payoff, but impractical for nanotechnology (at least right now).
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly the point, especially in a corporate environment.
When my company (major telco, 120,000 people, 50,000 LAN users) completely replaced our NOS in the early '90s, they made a good faith effort to educate everyone on what was changing and how to do X under the new system. But that effort was doomed from the start. Even in an office of ten people, someone won't get it. When you're talking 50K, many won't (and didn't) bother to attend the training. I was on the corporate helpdesk at the time, and the most prevalent comment I heard was, "I was too busy to attend the training. Can you help me? I've been trying to make this work for two days." The training sessions were about an hour long, so you can see how dumb that statement is, but that's the common mentality.
Easy to use is subjective to the perception of the person trying to do the using. For that executive or executive secretary that was too busy to attend the training and now couldn't figure out how to make their Macintosh(!) work on the new network, the new network was not easy to use and should never have been picked as the replacement.
It's been mumble-mumble years since I learned it in Biology class, but isn't that precisely what makes ATP a good fuel source? Highly stable compounds require large amounts of energy to catalyse the reaction, making them less useful for such a small implementation.
For a completely over-the-top example, consider the hydrogen bomb. To produce the "big" boom of the fusion reaction requires the detonation of a smaller fission bomb as a catalyst. Big investment, big payoff, but impractical for nanotechnology (at least right now).