I was asked what I considered the most dangerous threat to the security of data. I looked at the person (there were 3) and told them your internal people are the most dangerous threat to your information.
Judging by the look on their faces, that wasn't the answer they wanted to hear.
Just goes to show, people don't want to hear the truth.
Thank you for your interest. But you'll note that the job you have applied for specified a requirement of "20 years experience in Java programming."
LOL! This reminds me of a job I applied for, right across the river from where I work, only to be told by the recruiter they didn't have a job available.
What made this so hilarious was that I submitted my resume 3 hours after it was posted so either the job truly didn't exist and they were fishing, or the guy was a hack.
I chose the latter because he was "kind enough" to send me emails of "How to find a job in this market!" or, "What employers are really looking for" emails for the first two weeks.
I know this will sound crazy, and I'm just spitballing here, but bear with me.
There is a large group of people in this country trying to find jobs. Some have been out of work for months, if not years, while others are looking to move on with their career. Tech companies are complaining they can't find anyone which is why they have to go the H-1B visa route
Here comes the crazy part. Someone needs to figure out a way to get the people who are out of work in touch with these companies who are "desperate" to fill these open positions. It's a win-win situation. People who are out of work get to go back to work, and companies get to fill these open positions.
I'm not capable of figuring out how to do this so someone else will have to do the heavy lifting, but I assure you, if there is some way this can be done, they will be given laurels by the tech industry.
Once again we are trying to find a technological fix to a human problem. People are the problem, not the technology.
Except in extreme circumstances, there is absolutely no need to check your phone every 20 seconds or send texts every five while walking down the street or ghetto driving your vehicle.
The unfortunate part is that in this case, evolution won't weed out the stupid because when these people have accidents, it's generally the other person who pays the price.
There is one way to make a dent but everyone would throw up their arms in terror. Since there are cameras in police cars, every time, not just whenever they feel like it, but everytime someone is talking on their phone while driving, they should be ticketed. The camera can provide proof of the deed and unless the person can prove they were in an emergency situation (house on fire, family member died, etc), they get to pay the fine.
Or course this will never happen because people will whine about their "rights" being violated despite the fact they are endangering the people around them. Apparently those people don't have the right not be run over or plowed into while you talk about your latest marital problems or the wench in the office who wears short skirts (true conversations I've heard).
Sure, there will always be those who will continue to talk, but once enough people get ticketed for talking/texting while driving, things will improve.
I would have used the example of, "This is the company that gave us Windows 7." Where they deliberately move stuff around in order to make users play hide and seek or hunt and peck in the hope they might chance across what they are looking for.
Science can't happen if you cannot communicate your work to others...
That applies to any job. Using my place of work as an example, there is zero communication between what the other bureaus need and the IT department. We routinely have people send us an email telling us they have someone that started that day and need an account and equipment set up.
When it comes to cabling, same thing. A room gets redone, the support services area has maintenance effectively cut and pull every cable rather than leaving them in place, then we're told a few days before the people are to move in that ends for the cables need put on. In fact, as I'm writing this, my supervisor told no one in particular of this very incident. Someone sent them an email saying an end needed put on a cable for a new employee. What new employee and where is this cable?
So it's not just science that needs communication, it's everything. Yet, instead of communicating, we prefer to stick our heads in the sand and walk around with our eyes glued to a 3" screen because having to communicate is such an arduous task.
Maybe, maybe not. Here in PA, we had cloud cover for most of yesterday but last night around 6 there were large gaps in the cloud for about half an hour. Enough time that had the transit been yesterday, you could have seen something.
The same looks to be for tonight. Right now there are widely dispersed clouds so the sun is shining bright (which it would be even if the clouds were around, for all you pedantics).
I'm hoping this will continue because I have my pinhole box ready and the highest spot in my area with a clear view of the horizon picked out (note: clear view in my case means I'm roughly as high as the surrounding "mountains").
I've even convinced my parents to come along if the weather cooperates.
that of the massive drone industry, which, more than just producing a symbol, actually is creating flying death?"
There is a clear and distinct difference between using a dead animal as a work of art (which is pushing the limit of what art really is) and using man-made tools to go after people who have expressed in both word and deed they want to kill us.
Post the article, leave out the commentary. Or would you prefer when articles are posted about government science research, commentary regarding how this only feeds the beast be included?
Can you see ANY nebula in the night sky with your eyes?
Yes, there are. Orion, Pipe, Eta Carinae and Coal Sack are four you can see with the naked eye. Granted, the people back then wouldn't have known they were nebulas, but those objects were still visible in the night sky.
You're not suggesting that humans could possibly affect nature or the weather, are you? As all the AGW will tell you, there is absolutely no way we puny humans could possibly do anything to change weather patterns, affect rain or pollute the air.
What you're seeing is a natural event, something that comes and goes over the centuries. It happened in the past and will happen again (sorry for the BSG reference).
True, and while I can hardly be considered an uber-geek, I have done the same thing. Part of it is certainly wanting a larger salary, but it also comes down to the idiosyncrasies of the tech field. The vast majority of people in tech like and need to be kept challenged. Some want to work on the cutting edge, others just like to solve problems. Regardless, they need to be challenged and will go where that challenge lies.
That said, no employer can expect to hire someone and have them to "hit the ground running". It's impossible. The only person who knows how to do the job well is the last person to fill that position.
Further, if you only look for experienced people, your pool of potential candidates will continue to shrink because a) those people will eventually retire and b) by not training the inexperienced, you have will have less and less experienced people to fill those positions.
Employers cannot have it both ways. You can't expect to hire experienced people if you yourself are not willing to train people. It just doesn't work that way. It's like saying people should buy a used car to save on depreciation costs and related matters. If everyone buys a used car, eventually there will be no more used cars because no one's buying new cars which would become a used car (there, that's my car analogy).
This is the same whining we hear year after year. It's been going on since at least the early 90s, if not earlier. With few exceptions, there are people out there willing to fill these jobs but employers are unwilling to hire them because (jumping on the bandwagon here) they don't want to pay these technical people what they are worth and will not accept anyone who does not meet the exact, cross the T, dot the I experience they think they want.
Employers have essentially pawned off all training on schools, completely unwilling to offer even the barest training to bring people up to speed. They now expect you to know the intricate details of their organization even though you have never worked for them before.
Employers have brought this upon themselves and are now acting like spoiled 2 year olds, stomping their feet and holding their breath until they get their way.
You want to know how to fill these positions? REDUCE the number of H1B visas and force employers to hire those unemployed IT folks who have applied for these positions but were rejected because they didn't fit the bill 100%.
When I see the same job postings from the same employers month after month, entry to mid-level jobs, not the high-end, ultra technical positions which legitimately could have a shortage of workers, there are only two conclusions to reach: either no one is applying for the positions (for whatever reason), or employers are rejecting everyone because their standards are too high (and their heads are too high up their asses to figure it out).
At least Scalia uses the U.S. Constitution for his legal justification.
Except when he doesn't. This article lays out a good argument that Scalia, and so called conservatives, are upset only when they don't agree with SCOTUS using foreign rulings to guide, not justify, their decision but have no problem when doing so will benefit their ideological viewpoint.
As the article relates, if it were up to Scalia, he would interpret laws based on the state of the country in 1789, not as things exist now. Which is what this country needs, someone who thinks things should be frozen in time, never changing and kept as they were.
I happened to see a headline today which can answer that question. From just this past weekend , 40 shootings, 10 dead.
Detroit is very crime ridden, if not the worst, probably second in terms of overall shootings, drug incidents, etc. That saying about not driving around in certain neighbors after dark applies to a large portion of Detroit even during the day.
a city in a 1st world country might not have enough police officers to respond to every single gunshot.
Unlike where you live, where you might hear a gunshot once a month, there are daily shootings in every large and mid-sized city in the U.S. Even the cruddy backwater place I work in, ~48K people, has at least one shooting every day.
Further, it's not just one officer who responds to a gunshot, at a minimum, two will show up and usually four or five. That means the remaining police have to cover a larger area where other gunshots (or other crimes) may occur.
Huh? Physical fossils are not circumstantial. Seeing bacteria evolve to resist the poisons we've been using to try and kill them (MRSA anyone?) is not circumstantial.
Circumstantial would be having a modern human skeleton and Lucy's skeleton side-by-side and saying they were related, without any other skeleton for reference. We could claim the two were related, but without any other fossils to compare the two, we would only have circumstantial evidence.
Obviously we now have a multitude of fossils showing our human (and horse) lineage back a million plus years so the evidence is not circumstantial, it is conclusive. It's like the scene from Futurama where Farnsworth argues, showing the exact fossil record, of human history and being told at each step along the way that there is a "missing" link. You can't show each and every permutation, but you can show enough examples of intermediary steps to prove your point.
but who is to say that six thousand years ago something didn't just pop everything into existence fully formed, *including* all of the evidence?
Unless that being who created everything also manipulated the rate of radioactive decay, the layering of sediment and somehow made fossils in that short a time period (not to mention diamonds), the scientific evidence says things didn't pop into existence six thousand years ago (and what about populations who were here before six thousand years ago?).
You can't argue on one hand that the hard evidence is correct, then on the other say, "Well, maybe things aren't what they seem." Either the physical evidence is correct, or it's not just like the old saying, "Either you're pregnant or you're not." There is no middle ground. Contrary to what Schrodinger said, in this case, this cannot both be and not be.
but I don't dismiss people who might think it did as complete crackpots.
Yes, you should. Refusing to believe the physical evidence because your beliefs tell you so makes you a crackpot. It's like people claiming the Earth is flat or we didn't land on the moon or that behind some comet is a spaceship waiting to take you away if you kill yourself.
I did a quick search for civilizations older than six thousand years and found a biblical web site where someone was trying to reconcile the presumed age of things as recorded in the bible and this person's atheist friend who told them about people being around for over 200,000 years. The person had no comeback and was looking for answers to justify his belief. This is the exact quote someone suggested to the person:
What they need, is not facts, or evidence, or proof; but a friend who can show the love of Christ to them. Facts and evidence won't change their minds; but your testimony of what Christ has done for you in your life, and how He has changed you might over time.
So there you have it, a crackpot's advice: Forget the facts, just keep believing what you believe.
One day we all eventually move to a megalopolis of 3B people and there will be no obese people.
Yes, let's force everyone into little cubes to live like rats. Let's not have a single square inch of green anywhere around our building but instead have to take a bus, subway or cab to smell living plants and have grass under our feet.
Let's all live where the sound of vehicles and drunk people on the street about at every time of the day. Let's not forget the grime of a city seeping into everything as well. And what a nuisance it is to see the moon and stars at night so we'll blot them out with lights that are on 24/7. While we're at it, let's all live in a place which is a giant oven in the summer with no place to escape from the heat except inside.
Not everyone wants to live like rats. Some of us want to have trees, flowers and grass around that we can go to within seconds rather than having to walk blocks or take a bus to get to. We like seeing rabbits, hawks and deer in our backyards, even if the herbivores try to eat our gardens. We want to be able to sit in the shade of a tree without having frisbees, dogs or someone else's children interrupting our peaceful retreat.
Instead of people taking responsibility for their actions, we'll penalize everyone by shoving them all into a city.
I'm using shiny in the sense that it's new and different. Not that it's shiny meaning, well, shiny.
And yes, I am just as sick of the interface having to search for what I want to do rather than just going to it. Many things, things that would be useful, are hidden by default and trying to find them is a nightmare.
With one exception, everything takes longer in W7 than XP. That sole exception? Getting to a command line.
Moneywise, W7 might be a success, but operationally it's a significant step back from XP.
Everytime you want to do something, W7 is preparing to do so. Preparing to copy, preparing to shut down, preparing to install, preparing to install updates. How about it does something instead of preparing to do something.
Ever install a generic print driver on W7? It takes forever.
Not to mention you have to turn things off just to be able to work. I want to see what I need, stop trying to hide everything or, worse yet, moving items to obscure locations.
W7 is a clear example of what happens when you let programmers design your applications. All logic and simplicity is thrown out all for the sake of 'shiny'.
Thank you for trying to tell people such as myself what we can and cannot do. I like driving. The visceral fell of shifting gears, pushing ones car through the corners, spinning in parking lots when it snows (when no one else is around).
This seeming need to reduce everything to a binary value is getting on my nerves. From people on here bragging about how they don't have to waste time going out shopping because they can order online, to people, such as yourself, who seem to look down on or dismiss anyone who would dare to do anything so pedestrian as drive a vehicle. The horror that someone might enjoy driving a car for its own sake!
Further, I have yet to find any piece of software, put in a similar environment, which does what it is supposed to do 100% of the entire. There has not (yet) been developed anything that will work the way Google thinks it will without some issue cropping up at the most inopportune time or which seemingly decides to what it wants at random. Not to mention the endless hours the various crackers will spend trying to get in and finagle the software in the car itself. See overclockers and modders for prime examples.
If you want to eat, sleep, work on your way to Tahoe, get a bus or train. There are those of us who will enjoy the growl of an engine as we wing our way to our destination, doing what we want, when we want, without having to confer with a computer.
Slashdot Mirror
I was asked what I considered the most dangerous threat to the security of data. I looked at the person (there were 3) and told them your internal people are the most dangerous threat to your information.
Judging by the look on their faces, that wasn't the answer they wanted to hear.
Just goes to show, people don't want to hear the truth.
Thank you for your interest. But you'll note that the job you have applied for specified a requirement of "20 years experience in Java programming."
LOL! This reminds me of a job I applied for, right across the river from where I work, only to be told by the recruiter they didn't have a job available.
What made this so hilarious was that I submitted my resume 3 hours after it was posted so either the job truly didn't exist and they were fishing, or the guy was a hack.
I chose the latter because he was "kind enough" to send me emails of "How to find a job in this market!" or, "What employers are really looking for" emails for the first two weeks.
I know this will sound crazy, and I'm just spitballing here, but bear with me.
There is a large group of people in this country trying to find jobs. Some have been out of work for months, if not years, while others are looking to move on with their career. Tech companies are complaining they can't find anyone which is why they have to go the H-1B visa route
Here comes the crazy part. Someone needs to figure out a way to get the people who are out of work in touch with these companies who are "desperate" to fill these open positions. It's a win-win situation. People who are out of work get to go back to work, and companies get to fill these open positions.
I'm not capable of figuring out how to do this so someone else will have to do the heavy lifting, but I assure you, if there is some way this can be done, they will be given laurels by the tech industry.
Once again we are trying to find a technological fix to a human problem. People are the problem, not the technology.
Except in extreme circumstances, there is absolutely no need to check your phone every 20 seconds or send texts every five while walking down the street or ghetto driving your vehicle.
The unfortunate part is that in this case, evolution won't weed out the stupid because when these people have accidents, it's generally the other person who pays the price.
There is one way to make a dent but everyone would throw up their arms in terror. Since there are cameras in police cars, every time, not just whenever they feel like it, but everytime someone is talking on their phone while driving, they should be ticketed. The camera can provide proof of the deed and unless the person can prove they were in an emergency situation (house on fire, family member died, etc), they get to pay the fine.
Or course this will never happen because people will whine about their "rights" being violated despite the fact they are endangering the people around them. Apparently those people don't have the right not be run over or plowed into while you talk about your latest marital problems or the wench in the office who wears short skirts (true conversations I've heard).
Sure, there will always be those who will continue to talk, but once enough people get ticketed for talking/texting while driving, things will improve.
I would have used the example of, "This is the company that gave us Windows 7." Where they deliberately move stuff around in order to make users play hide and seek or hunt and peck in the hope they might chance across what they are looking for.
Science can't happen if you cannot communicate your work to others...
That applies to any job. Using my place of work as an example, there is zero communication between what the other bureaus need and the IT department. We routinely have people send us an email telling us they have someone that started that day and need an account and equipment set up.
When it comes to cabling, same thing. A room gets redone, the support services area has maintenance effectively cut and pull every cable rather than leaving them in place, then we're told a few days before the people are to move in that ends for the cables need put on. In fact, as I'm writing this, my supervisor told no one in particular of this very incident. Someone sent them an email saying an end needed put on a cable for a new employee. What new employee and where is this cable?
So it's not just science that needs communication, it's everything. Yet, instead of communicating, we prefer to stick our heads in the sand and walk around with our eyes glued to a 3" screen because having to communicate is such an arduous task.
I've never seen sites that use Flash just to display pictures.
/. have also done the same thing in the past.
I have. CNN is one that used to do this. One picture for the story in Flash.
I know a few of the sites that have been linked from
A site which doesn't use that craptacularly insecure Flash to display simple pictures.
And on one page no less!
Maybe that supposed Mayan prediction is coming true after all.
Maybe, maybe not. Here in PA, we had cloud cover for most of yesterday but last night around 6 there were large gaps in the cloud for about half an hour. Enough time that had the transit been yesterday, you could have seen something.
The same looks to be for tonight. Right now there are widely dispersed clouds so the sun is shining bright (which it would be even if the clouds were around, for all you pedantics).
I'm hoping this will continue because I have my pinhole box ready and the highest spot in my area with a clear view of the horizon picked out (note: clear view in my case means I'm roughly as high as the surrounding "mountains").
I've even convinced my parents to come along if the weather cooperates.
that of the massive drone industry, which, more than just producing a symbol, actually is creating flying death?"
There is a clear and distinct difference between using a dead animal as a work of art (which is pushing the limit of what art really is) and using man-made tools to go after people who have expressed in both word and deed they want to kill us.
Post the article, leave out the commentary. Or would you prefer when articles are posted about government science research, commentary regarding how this only feeds the beast be included?
Can you see ANY nebula in the night sky with your eyes?
Yes, there are. Orion, Pipe, Eta Carinae and Coal Sack are four you can see with the naked eye. Granted, the people back then wouldn't have known they were nebulas, but those objects were still visible in the night sky.
You're not suggesting that humans could possibly affect nature or the weather, are you? As all the AGW will tell you, there is absolutely no way we puny humans could possibly do anything to change weather patterns, affect rain or pollute the air.
What you're seeing is a natural event, something that comes and goes over the centuries. It happened in the past and will happen again (sorry for the BSG reference).
I've switched over time from 128oz of Mountain Dew a day to a pair of 12oz Mountain Dew Throwback cans a day.
So given the choice of Moutain Dew or Crab juice, you chose Mountain Dew? Ewwww.
You missed a golden opportunity for a comeback:
We are the United States government. We don't do that sort of thing.
True, and while I can hardly be considered an uber-geek, I have done the same thing. Part of it is certainly wanting a larger salary, but it also comes down to the idiosyncrasies of the tech field. The vast majority of people in tech like and need to be kept challenged. Some want to work on the cutting edge, others just like to solve problems. Regardless, they need to be challenged and will go where that challenge lies.
That said, no employer can expect to hire someone and have them to "hit the ground running". It's impossible. The only person who knows how to do the job well is the last person to fill that position.
Further, if you only look for experienced people, your pool of potential candidates will continue to shrink because a) those people will eventually retire and b) by not training the inexperienced, you have will have less and less experienced people to fill those positions.
Employers cannot have it both ways. You can't expect to hire experienced people if you yourself are not willing to train people. It just doesn't work that way. It's like saying people should buy a used car to save on depreciation costs and related matters. If everyone buys a used car, eventually there will be no more used cars because no one's buying new cars which would become a used car (there, that's my car analogy).
This is the same whining we hear year after year. It's been going on since at least the early 90s, if not earlier. With few exceptions, there are people out there willing to fill these jobs but employers are unwilling to hire them because (jumping on the bandwagon here) they don't want to pay these technical people what they are worth and will not accept anyone who does not meet the exact, cross the T, dot the I experience they think they want.
Employers have essentially pawned off all training on schools, completely unwilling to offer even the barest training to bring people up to speed. They now expect you to know the intricate details of their organization even though you have never worked for them before.
Employers have brought this upon themselves and are now acting like spoiled 2 year olds, stomping their feet and holding their breath until they get their way.
You want to know how to fill these positions? REDUCE the number of H1B visas and force employers to hire those unemployed IT folks who have applied for these positions but were rejected because they didn't fit the bill 100%.
When I see the same job postings from the same employers month after month, entry to mid-level jobs, not the high-end, ultra technical positions which legitimately could have a shortage of workers, there are only two conclusions to reach: either no one is applying for the positions (for whatever reason), or employers are rejecting everyone because their standards are too high (and their heads are too high up their asses to figure it out).
At least Scalia uses the U.S. Constitution for his legal justification.
Except when he doesn't. This article lays out a good argument that Scalia, and so called conservatives, are upset only when they don't agree with SCOTUS using foreign rulings to guide, not justify, their decision but have no problem when doing so will benefit their ideological viewpoint.
As the article relates, if it were up to Scalia, he would interpret laws based on the state of the country in 1789, not as things exist now. Which is what this country needs, someone who thinks things should be frozen in time, never changing and kept as they were.
What's that a definition of?
Just how crime ridden is Detroit,
I happened to see a headline today which can answer that question. From just this past weekend , 40 shootings, 10 dead.
Detroit is very crime ridden, if not the worst, probably second in terms of overall shootings, drug incidents, etc. That saying about not driving around in certain neighbors after dark applies to a large portion of Detroit even during the day.
a city in a 1st world country might not have enough police officers to respond to every single gunshot.
Unlike where you live, where you might hear a gunshot once a month, there are daily shootings in every large and mid-sized city in the U.S. Even the cruddy backwater place I work in, ~48K people, has at least one shooting every day.
Further, it's not just one officer who responds to a gunshot, at a minimum, two will show up and usually four or five. That means the remaining police have to cover a larger area where other gunshots (or other crimes) may occur.
It's *all* circumstantial.
Huh? Physical fossils are not circumstantial. Seeing bacteria evolve to resist the poisons we've been using to try and kill them (MRSA anyone?) is not circumstantial.
Circumstantial would be having a modern human skeleton and Lucy's skeleton side-by-side and saying they were related, without any other skeleton for reference. We could claim the two were related, but without any other fossils to compare the two, we would only have circumstantial evidence.
Obviously we now have a multitude of fossils showing our human (and horse) lineage back a million plus years so the evidence is not circumstantial, it is conclusive. It's like the scene from Futurama where Farnsworth argues, showing the exact fossil record, of human history and being told at each step along the way that there is a "missing" link. You can't show each and every permutation, but you can show enough examples of intermediary steps to prove your point.
but who is to say that six thousand years ago something didn't just pop everything into existence fully formed, *including* all of the evidence?
Unless that being who created everything also manipulated the rate of radioactive decay, the layering of sediment and somehow made fossils in that short a time period (not to mention diamonds), the scientific evidence says things didn't pop into existence six thousand years ago (and what about populations who were here before six thousand years ago?).
You can't argue on one hand that the hard evidence is correct, then on the other say, "Well, maybe things aren't what they seem." Either the physical evidence is correct, or it's not just like the old saying, "Either you're pregnant or you're not." There is no middle ground. Contrary to what Schrodinger said, in this case, this cannot both be and not be.
but I don't dismiss people who might think it did as complete crackpots.
Yes, you should. Refusing to believe the physical evidence because your beliefs tell you so makes you a crackpot. It's like people claiming the Earth is flat or we didn't land on the moon or that behind some comet is a spaceship waiting to take you away if you kill yourself.
I did a quick search for civilizations older than six thousand years and found a biblical web site where someone was trying to reconcile the presumed age of things as recorded in the bible and this person's atheist friend who told them about people being around for over 200,000 years. The person had no comeback and was looking for answers to justify his belief. This is the exact quote someone suggested to the person:
What they need, is not facts, or evidence, or proof; but a friend who can show the love of Christ to them. Facts and evidence won't change their minds; but your testimony of what Christ has done for you in your life, and how He has changed you might over time.
So there you have it, a crackpot's advice: Forget the facts, just keep believing what you believe.
were following the truck at an average separation of just 6m. That's roughly the length of a typical car.
Your car is over 18 feet long? What are you driving?
One day we all eventually move to a megalopolis of 3B people and there will be no obese people.
Yes, let's force everyone into little cubes to live like rats. Let's not have a single square inch of green anywhere around our building but instead have to take a bus, subway or cab to smell living plants and have grass under our feet.
Let's all live where the sound of vehicles and drunk people on the street about at every time of the day. Let's not forget the grime of a city seeping into everything as well. And what a nuisance it is to see the moon and stars at night so we'll blot them out with lights that are on 24/7. While we're at it, let's all live in a place which is a giant oven in the summer with no place to escape from the heat except inside.
Not everyone wants to live like rats. Some of us want to have trees, flowers and grass around that we can go to within seconds rather than having to walk blocks or take a bus to get to. We like seeing rabbits, hawks and deer in our backyards, even if the herbivores try to eat our gardens. We want to be able to sit in the shade of a tree without having frisbees, dogs or someone else's children interrupting our peaceful retreat.
Instead of people taking responsibility for their actions, we'll penalize everyone by shoving them all into a city.
I'm using shiny in the sense that it's new and different. Not that it's shiny meaning, well, shiny.
And yes, I am just as sick of the interface having to search for what I want to do rather than just going to it. Many things, things that would be useful, are hidden by default and trying to find them is a nightmare.
With one exception, everything takes longer in W7 than XP. That sole exception? Getting to a command line.
Moneywise, W7 might be a success, but operationally it's a significant step back from XP.
Everytime you want to do something, W7 is preparing to do so. Preparing to copy, preparing to shut down, preparing to install, preparing to install updates. How about it does something instead of preparing to do something.
Ever install a generic print driver on W7? It takes forever.
Not to mention you have to turn things off just to be able to work. I want to see what I need, stop trying to hide everything or, worse yet, moving items to obscure locations.
W7 is a clear example of what happens when you let programmers design your applications. All logic and simplicity is thrown out all for the sake of 'shiny'.
Something I can agree with from Forbes.
Granted, people like Lloyd Blankfein are giving him a run for his money, but yeah, seeing the horrible work on W7 and 8, Ballmer deserves the title.
There is no reason for anyone to drive.
Thank you for trying to tell people such as myself what we can and cannot do. I like driving. The visceral fell of shifting gears, pushing ones car through the corners, spinning in parking lots when it snows (when no one else is around).
This seeming need to reduce everything to a binary value is getting on my nerves. From people on here bragging about how they don't have to waste time going out shopping because they can order online, to people, such as yourself, who seem to look down on or dismiss anyone who would dare to do anything so pedestrian as drive a vehicle. The horror that someone might enjoy driving a car for its own sake!
Further, I have yet to find any piece of software, put in a similar environment, which does what it is supposed to do 100% of the entire. There has not (yet) been developed anything that will work the way Google thinks it will without some issue cropping up at the most inopportune time or which seemingly decides to what it wants at random. Not to mention the endless hours the various crackers will spend trying to get in and finagle the software in the car itself. See overclockers and modders for prime examples.
If you want to eat, sleep, work on your way to Tahoe, get a bus or train. There are those of us who will enjoy the growl of an engine as we wing our way to our destination, doing what we want, when we want, without having to confer with a computer.