Your "Other person" is what can be called aggressively ignorant. They will continually do stupid things, and then get pissed off when the people they are asking to clean up their mess tell them to stop making the same stupid mistake over and over again.
It's like having that friend that can't be bothered to put gas in their car when they are on empty, and then keeps calling you asking you to bring him gas because he is stuck along the side of the road. Then he calls you an asshole for telling him that this is why you tell him not to run his car on empty.
I used to think this too. I am starting to come around to thinking that this might not be the case. It is Google that is convincing me that voice activation might work. I am consistently surprised at how well my phone can understand me when doing searches, even when I am in a noisy room. With a very small amount of forethought from the manufacturers, we don't have to worry about the TV controlling itself via voice. The TV can easily know what sound the TV is producing, and thus can filter out any commands that it initiated itself.
Combine this with a special "I issuing a command" command, and the background noise would not be a problem.
The same can be said for the exhaust of burning pretty much anything. Are you suggesting that we end the use of fire? Or are you suggesting that your shade of gray is the right shade of gray, and everyone else's is murder?
They go farther than that. When I was in school, they were going so far as to convince schools to hold assemblies that declared alcohol bad even when totally unrelated to vehicles at all.
The amount of poison you take in from car exhaust is going to far out weight the amount of poison you take in from cigarette smoke. You don't drive, or take benefit of other people driving on your behalf do you? I would have to assume not, because otherwise you would be a hypocrite who kills innocent bystanders.
The cat was an alien. Without possible thumbs, instead of developing manual tools that require hands, they developed other technologies that avoided the need for hands. Primarily, telekinesis devices, and thus defying gravity. The movie wasn't terribly deep, but there it was.
Yes, if I return to a no sugar diet, the weight comes off. If I continue to eat sugar, the weight continues to pack on. At what point do you stop blaming salt and water. 10 pounds? 20 pounds? 40 pounds?
To be fair, after the first few days, the speed that the weigh adds on drops to closer to a pound a day. The reverse is also true. If the weight is on, it can be taken off by avoiding sugar. And, I am pretty sure that foods like bacon have more salt than foods like bread.
There seems to be this religious need for people to deny that high sugar diets make people gain weight. Even though the "Eat less, Exercise more" mantra has been debunked hundreds of thousands of times, and avoiding sugar can consistently be shown to work, there is always someone claiming "Nuh Uh!"
Because increased sodium intake doesn't cause the same kind of weight gain. Pizza is just one example. The same think happens if I eat noodles, plain bread, or any other foods that are primarily sugar.
Sure there's variations but the basic role of insulin in signaling fat cells to start storing sugars in and leptin in appetite regulation don't vary a whole lot for most of the population.
That is a HUGE assumption. I would ask for a citation, but your entire premise, (even the parts that I agree with) is directly contrary to "scientific consensus". In fact, it doesn't take much effort to show that it varies widely between people.
You are falling for the same fallacy that the "Eat primarily sugar by another name." and "Eat less, Exercise more" groups make. You are assuming that human biology is dramatically more consistent than it actually is. It seems kind of silly to think that genetics will effect how much hair or nose you grow, but has no effect on how much fat you grow.
I eat a low carb diet. Lower than most. My body reacts immediately to any sugar that I eat. If I eat pizza, I will literally put on 2 pounds by the next day. I fully acknowledge that diet plays a part in your weight. That doesn't change the fact that your genetics will determine uppper/lower weight boundaries, what kinds of food will give you the best results, as well as how much food your body needs on a daily basis.
Of course, the part that is determined by environment gets screwed up because people are frequently told to eat exactly the opposite of what they should be eating.
To the average user, look at Apples red X window decoration (used FAR more frequently than the control panel) versus Windows red X window decoration. That would be exhibit B.
Unfortunately, the foods that are standard recommendation for 'healthy' eating are exactly the foods that many people should not be eating, and many of the foods that they are told to avoid are the ones they should be eating.
Of course the myth that weight gain is all about eating and exercise is both ridiculous and obvious in being ridiculous. Look at these people that are 350-400 pounds. Could you get to that weight if you tried? I doubt it. I know that if I put an effort into it, I MIGHT be able to reach 300 pounds. There is no way that I could reach 400, even with effort. Conversely, I could also never reach 150 lbs without resorting to amputation. There is simply a range that my body is genetically capable of achieving. The same applies to everyone else.
I mostly agree with you. I disagree on the "but you have to aim your pointer at the button" being less explicit that typing. When you type, you are pressing buttons just the same. You still have to aim a pointer at a button and press it. Minor quibble, but still there.
I would add to the issue that a large part of it is also a culture of proud aggressive ignorance. We see this in many subjects, but computers seem to be one of the worst. I suspect because of when they were presented to the public. Your 9 year old cousin is a good example. People are told that "computers are hard". This meme has become so ingrained into our culture that people will go out of their way to "not understand" them. How many of the adults that claim "computers are hard" are going to acknowledge that their claim amounts to being below the mental level of a 9 year old.
I see this with the "Linux is hard" claims that we always hear. Even from people involved with computers. At the age of 1, my son was using a Linux PC just fine. A week after his 2nd birthday, he did a completely unassisted install of Ubuntu. While there are lots of fun snaky insults to throw at people who claim they are dumber than a 2 year old, the reality is that they are just being aggressively ignorant.
If your a publisher and you want the program that your ebooks are read on to be a working app that lots of people will enjoy using, you don't hire anyone to do programming. You publish your books in one or more formats that allow users to use any of the many well designed and enjoyable to use ebook readers that are produced by companies who write ebook readers.
This whole discussion sounds like discussing how radio stations can improve drive time show quality by building better cars.
I'm in the same boat. I'm trying to figure out what is being 'Programmed'. Once the platform is written, there should only be minor typographical adjustments. The platform is extremely basic from a UI point of view. What are publishers doing with programmers anyway other than for internal software applications. There is not programming for ebooks at the publisher's level. Heck, I question the basic premise presented here. Every ebook I have read has been document displayed in a document viewer. Some of them might have had a few typographical problems, but saying that they are "horrible" is hyperbole. Most are exactly what you would expect them to be.
Exactly. My son started using Linux at about 18 months, and did his first install a week after his 2nd birthday. Given that he didn't learn to read until just before he turned 3, I think it is safe to say that there is no 'command line problem'.
Of course, Apple isn't easier to you. Users have just been convinced that when they can't figure out how to do something on an Apple product, they must have been confused in thinking that they wanted to do it, or "They are holding it wrong."
Apple products are just fine, but their famed usability is definitely the Emperor's Clothes.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you have nothing to lose by voting for him.
Agreed. And for a product line that has so few models, I am amazed at the level of incompatibility that exists on the iOS line of products.
Your "Other person" is what can be called aggressively ignorant. They will continually do stupid things, and then get pissed off when the people they are asking to clean up their mess tell them to stop making the same stupid mistake over and over again.
It's like having that friend that can't be bothered to put gas in their car when they are on empty, and then keeps calling you asking you to bring him gas because he is stuck along the side of the road. Then he calls you an asshole for telling him that this is why you tell him not to run his car on empty.
I used to think this too. I am starting to come around to thinking that this might not be the case. It is Google that is convincing me that voice activation might work. I am consistently surprised at how well my phone can understand me when doing searches, even when I am in a noisy room. With a very small amount of forethought from the manufacturers, we don't have to worry about the TV controlling itself via voice. The TV can easily know what sound the TV is producing, and thus can filter out any commands that it initiated itself.
Combine this with a special "I issuing a command" command, and the background noise would not be a problem.
The same can be said for the exhaust of burning pretty much anything. Are you suggesting that we end the use of fire? Or are you suggesting that your shade of gray is the right shade of gray, and everyone else's is murder?
Are you really suggesting that you want bans on things because of the smell? So, be ban garlic? Onions? Many spices that are widely used?
They go farther than that. When I was in school, they were going so far as to convince schools to hold assemblies that declared alcohol bad even when totally unrelated to vehicles at all.
Only the most radical of puritanical thought could conclude that having any alcohol in your system is synonymous with being drunk.
The amount of poison you take in from car exhaust is going to far out weight the amount of poison you take in from cigarette smoke. You don't drive, or take benefit of other people driving on your behalf do you? I would have to assume not, because otherwise you would be a hypocrite who kills innocent bystanders.
The cat was an alien. Without possible thumbs, instead of developing manual tools that require hands, they developed other technologies that avoided the need for hands. Primarily, telekinesis devices, and thus defying gravity. The movie wasn't terribly deep, but there it was.
Yes, if I return to a no sugar diet, the weight comes off. If I continue to eat sugar, the weight continues to pack on. At what point do you stop blaming salt and water. 10 pounds? 20 pounds? 40 pounds?
To be fair, after the first few days, the speed that the weigh adds on drops to closer to a pound a day. The reverse is also true. If the weight is on, it can be taken off by avoiding sugar. And, I am pretty sure that foods like bacon have more salt than foods like bread.
There seems to be this religious need for people to deny that high sugar diets make people gain weight. Even though the "Eat less, Exercise more" mantra has been debunked hundreds of thousands of times, and avoiding sugar can consistently be shown to work, there is always someone claiming "Nuh Uh!"
An aquatic version of That Darn Cat. http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/That_Darn_Cat/70026374?trkid=2361637
Best car analogy ever.
Because increased sodium intake doesn't cause the same kind of weight gain. Pizza is just one example. The same think happens if I eat noodles, plain bread, or any other foods that are primarily sugar.
Only if I were an otherwise closed system.
Hint: I am not.
Sure there's variations but the basic role of insulin in signaling fat cells to start storing sugars in and leptin in appetite regulation don't vary a whole lot for most of the population.
That is a HUGE assumption. I would ask for a citation, but your entire premise, (even the parts that I agree with) is directly contrary to "scientific consensus". In fact, it doesn't take much effort to show that it varies widely between people.
You are falling for the same fallacy that the "Eat primarily sugar by another name." and "Eat less, Exercise more" groups make. You are assuming that human biology is dramatically more consistent than it actually is. It seems kind of silly to think that genetics will effect how much hair or nose you grow, but has no effect on how much fat you grow.
I eat a low carb diet. Lower than most. My body reacts immediately to any sugar that I eat. If I eat pizza, I will literally put on 2 pounds by the next day. I fully acknowledge that diet plays a part in your weight. That doesn't change the fact that your genetics will determine uppper/lower weight boundaries, what kinds of food will give you the best results, as well as how much food your body needs on a daily basis.
Of course, the part that is determined by environment gets screwed up because people are frequently told to eat exactly the opposite of what they should be eating.
To the average user, look at Apples red X window decoration (used FAR more frequently than the control panel) versus Windows red X window decoration. That would be exhibit B.
Unfortunately, the foods that are standard recommendation for 'healthy' eating are exactly the foods that many people should not be eating, and many of the foods that they are told to avoid are the ones they should be eating.
Of course the myth that weight gain is all about eating and exercise is both ridiculous and obvious in being ridiculous. Look at these people that are 350-400 pounds. Could you get to that weight if you tried? I doubt it. I know that if I put an effort into it, I MIGHT be able to reach 300 pounds. There is no way that I could reach 400, even with effort. Conversely, I could also never reach 150 lbs without resorting to amputation. There is simply a range that my body is genetically capable of achieving. The same applies to everyone else.
I mostly agree with you. I disagree on the "but you have to aim your pointer at the button" being less explicit that typing. When you type, you are pressing buttons just the same. You still have to aim a pointer at a button and press it. Minor quibble, but still there.
I would add to the issue that a large part of it is also a culture of proud aggressive ignorance. We see this in many subjects, but computers seem to be one of the worst. I suspect because of when they were presented to the public. Your 9 year old cousin is a good example. People are told that "computers are hard". This meme has become so ingrained into our culture that people will go out of their way to "not understand" them. How many of the adults that claim "computers are hard" are going to acknowledge that their claim amounts to being below the mental level of a 9 year old.
I see this with the "Linux is hard" claims that we always hear. Even from people involved with computers. At the age of 1, my son was using a Linux PC just fine. A week after his 2nd birthday, he did a completely unassisted install of Ubuntu. While there are lots of fun snaky insults to throw at people who claim they are dumber than a 2 year old, the reality is that they are just being aggressively ignorant.
If your a publisher and you want the program that your ebooks are read on to be a working app that lots of people will enjoy using, you don't hire anyone to do programming. You publish your books in one or more formats that allow users to use any of the many well designed and enjoyable to use ebook readers that are produced by companies who write ebook readers.
This whole discussion sounds like discussing how radio stations can improve drive time show quality by building better cars.
I'm in the same boat. I'm trying to figure out what is being 'Programmed'. Once the platform is written, there should only be minor typographical adjustments. The platform is extremely basic from a UI point of view. What are publishers doing with programmers anyway other than for internal software applications. There is not programming for ebooks at the publisher's level. Heck, I question the basic premise presented here. Every ebook I have read has been document displayed in a document viewer. Some of them might have had a few typographical problems, but saying that they are "horrible" is hyperbole. Most are exactly what you would expect them to be.
Exactly. My son started using Linux at about 18 months, and did his first install a week after his 2nd birthday. Given that he didn't learn to read until just before he turned 3, I think it is safe to say that there is no 'command line problem'.
Of course, Apple isn't easier to you. Users have just been convinced that when they can't figure out how to do something on an Apple product, they must have been confused in thinking that they wanted to do it, or "They are holding it wrong."
Apple products are just fine, but their famed usability is definitely the Emperor's Clothes.
Sounds like Disney.