and all that creativity, and they couldn't find "Slap a big enough tax on carbon, and move on to the next problem." I think they're putting the metaphorical cart before the metaphorical horse.
Try to see through your own haze of ignoring everything I say. Look, I KNOW HOW TO UPLOAD STUFF FROM A CAMERA WITHOUT ADDING THE PICS TO IPHOTO. That's not the problem. Please, get it through your goddamn head. Don't make me say it again.
Second, dragging stuff is not very comfortable on a trackpad as I've explained umpteen times, so dragging to the corner and back isn't a very useful suggestion. Third, I can't always use a mouse, and carting it around with me is another inconvenience. Wasn't the whole point to avoid inconveniences?
Fourth, yes, I can use a different app for the images, but my point is that Mac fanboys are WRONG to claim that iPhoto somehow makes things easier, that I can just (as someone claimed) give photos to iPhoto and use that as the platform for anything I'd ever want to do. (hah!)
Fifth, if I used the F9 method, I still have to open a separate app, and rearrange my existing windows, adding irritating steps to what should be a simple procedure.
Sixth, I don't use Vista and wasn't claiming it was better, nor would you replace a notebook computer with a "box". (FWIW, I have an XP desktop machine at home in addition to the Mac, and haven't had anything CLOSE to the avoidable frustrations I've had on a Mac, and, more importantly, they usually don't go away upon learning more stuff.)
Seventh, whether or not I know how to drag things between windows, it doesn't follow that I'm too stupid to use a Mac, nor that Vista is somehow better.
8th, looking up and configuring and learning Expose counts as another inconvencience, further refuting the claim that Mac are better at user interface design.
To repeat: please focus on the general point I'm trying to make, that the Mac way of doing things turns out to be much harder and more uncomfortable, even and especially if you know the "right" way to do it on a Mac!
Yes, I'm aware of all of that. I know that you don't have to let iPhoto delete stuff. And believe me, if the question of whether iPhoto has to delete stuff were the only problem, I wouldn't consider the claim of "Macs are the gold standard in user interface design" to be complete B/S.
The problem is that it's such a pain in the ass to do anything once iPhoto is the only place where your photos are. Or anything, in any program.
If you were right, that the problem is me just not knowing how to do stuff on a Mac, then whenever someone tells me how to do something on a Mac, it should be easier than the method I tried myself and complained about. RIGHT? But what do we see instead? Mac fanboys telling me "the" easy way... and that method being much harder than it would be on Windows, or what I ended up using... and then hearing a convoluted rationalization why it's "really" easier!
Seriously -- look at the explanation DarkVader gave for how to upload to photobucket: First, I have to use a method that wasn't even available until '07 (years after MacBooks were released). Then he gives instructions that require HELLO, ANYONE HOME THERE? opening a completely different app, resizing two windows manually, and then dragging an object, something that's a pain to do with a trackpad.
Admit it: Macs are NOT the gold standard. They're the arsenic standard.
until of course, the virus brought down their internet connection, which is no different than what could happen here.
I'd say that's quite a bit different than what could happen here! On earth, even if you lose your internet connection, you can still get the necessary update via sneakernet, or maybe tirenet or copternet. In space, all you have is rocketnet.
Good point. Here's another tough case: Microsoft's literature claims that their "Sync" feature in Ford cars "supports podcasts." But then you go to the manual, and the only related command is "Play podcasts", which takes you to a random podcast. It doesn't respond to "play podcast learning japanese", and even then you can't call out individual tracks within them, as you can with everything else.
(If you're psychic, you can find out that you can call out a specific series by saying "Play artist [nonintuitive artist name]", but that's not listed in the podcast section.)
Because adding a third support is a cheaper solution. (And it would have been cheaper for the Segway too:-P ) Putting on the SHT balancing functionality will mean later, more expensive relief for the wheelchair-bound.
I don't. We paid to put the roads there and everyone should be able to use them however the hell they want so long as they don't harm anyone.
Uh huh. And I think the government should refund 110% of tax revenues back to taxpayers. Unfortunately, the laws of logic and reality keep demands like that from being taken seriously.
Sure, we already paid to put the roads there. But if and when everyone invokes their supposed right to use the roads, they become useless. In order for traffic to actually *move*, satisfying the entire reason for existence for the roads, you will have to charge the market rate for their use: enough to prevent choking of the flow.
Yes, as a taxpayer, you do have a valid (quasi-)ownership right in the roads. You are absolutely right about that. But the way to respect this right is not by allowing people to choke off flow whenever they feel like with whatever vehicle they're qualified to use; it's by (p)refunding to each person their fractional share of revenues net of admin costs. That way, anyone who decides not to invoke their right is compensated, and those who demand to drive at the same time as others can see what the true cost of that use is, and thus whether it's worth it. Furthermore, it provides for the coordination and incentives for public transportation options to take root.
It's funny how people can see the wasteful socialism in trying to give government-provided bread to people on demand, but not in trying to give government-provided road use to people on demand.
And before you say it, no, "just build more roads" is not a solution. Eventually, those roads have to feed into lower-capacity roads, so unless you want to turn downtown streets into megahighways, eventually you run into insurmountable logistical problems.
Advertisement: Buy Macs! They're better! Look at all the software that comes RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX! That's SO MUCH better than what you get with vista! See, you can edit movies, browse the web, organize your music and photos... and it makes everything so easy! Me: Um, those programs suck and lack basic functionality. They fail to meet basic UI guidelines. You: OH!!! Well, GEEE, if you want to be so DEMANDING, so HIGH maintenance, and what to do advanced stuff like extract stills, then of COURSE you're supposed to buy the expensive software, what the hell did you expect out of OSX? Me: But then I'm no better off than on Vista, where I have to buy expensive software... You: No, you don't need expensive software, you get what you need RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX! Me: *Falls out of chair*
Unfortunately, for me to decide not to believe the internet, doesn't make employers, GFs, etc. not believe it.
So, what we as geeks need to do to speed up the process you describe, is a full-on directory googlebomb. Make it so that the top results for each and every name (or as many as possible) have horrible allegations about them as the first results.
Oh, you found bad stuff about me on the internet? Let's google YOUR name and see what turns up, shall we?
That *may* make Google useless for learning about someone, but we can keep the intensity low enough so that private individuals are buried, but people who try to be prominent appear above the googlebomb results.
Take a chill, dude. I just thought it was an interesting contrast. Obviously, Amnesty Int isn't doubt the military's trustworthiness about a flight record for which the military would suffer the consequences for being wrong. I didn't intend it as a criticism.
And it's a REDUNDANT statement in my sig, tyvm!:-P
As for iPhoto uploads, if you don't like doing it the Macintosh way, in 10.5 there is now a way of accessing the iPhoto library directly from the standard file open dialog in Safari. In the left pane of the standard file dialog in Safari, turn the triangle beside Media down, and you'll see Photos. You have direct access to your iPhoto library
Yes... if that interface isn't flaky (i.e. half the time).
As for the rest of it, since you bring up money, you've reminded me that I don't invoice anyone for posting to slashdot. So, if you'd like to pay me to help you troubleshoot the rest of your issues, I'll even give you a discount and only charge you $100 per hour.
ROFL!!!! I'm not posting for your troubleshooting help, genius. Troubleshooting is when something isn't working as intended, and needs some tweaks to get back that way. The stuff I've listed is working exactly as intended; it's just that the design really, inexcusably sucks. For example, the issue with the rules window in Mail covering the dock was not a failure on my part to configure my machine or software right. It resulted directly from Apple's design philosophy that told them not to have features that would have saved me there.
Second, the fact that it's so freaking expensive to hire someone to repair the numerous Mac problems should tell you a little something about whether Macs "just work".
Btw, I just added some videos to my Mac, and as usual, iPhoto hijacked them. Okay, well, iPhoto is where they should be, right? I go to iMovie and click on the item for "iPhoto videos"... and nothing shows up! (even with "all clips" selected) Well, I just need to import from the place where obviously they should be, right? So, I go to help and type in "import video from iPhoto"... and nothing! "import from iPhoto", for its part, tells me how to import photos as still videos.
Hey! That means I have to go on the internet to figure out how to do something basic on a mac... AGAIN! (Yes, I supposed I could dig through the directory for the very deep place where it hides iPhoto stuff [which I'm never ever ever supposed to need to know], but I thought APPLE apps were all supposed to work together so SMOOTHLY. This ain't smooth, bro.)
It's kind of funny how you feel threatened when someone points out problems with Macs.
Alright, so ~half your response is, "I didn't have it on my personal machine, therefore it does not exist." Not a good start. Let's look at the rest.
Sure. Just drag the photo from the iPhoto window to wherever you want it, including the upload dialog for a website. It just works, and if you think about it, it's VERY intuitive if you're not trying to do things the hard way.
HAHAHAHAHA! You're kidding, right? So, I'm in Safari. I want to upload to photobucket.
Windows: Click button, navigate a bit, double click, click upload. Mac: Deny existence of any flakiness with download interface. Demaximize Safari Window. Drag it to the side. Resize it as needed. Open completely different program. Navigate to appropriate album somehow. Deminimize it. resize it so I can have Safari and iPhoto open at the same and relevant stuff is visible in each window. (Again, doing all of this with just a trackpad.) Drag photo over, requiring two hands, or extreme discomfort with one. Click upload.
And you you think your method is more intuitive??? More user-friendly? What a fucking JOKE.
Try command-period to cancel, or return to accept. Or hiding the dock. Yes, it's a bug. No, it shouldn't do that. I've written it up and submitted it to Apple - I hadn't seen it before today.
Yep: that's pretty much the story of your fanboyism. You don't actually *do much* with your mac, so you don't find inexcusable shit like this (yes, I eventually figured out how to hide the dock, something I never learned how to do, since i shouldn't have to), so you carry on like Macs are somehow the gold standard in interface design. Go fig.
Yes. Those photos will show up as inline images on any mail reader that displays inline images.
They didn't. I sent them to an Outlook user, and they weren't embedded so my email made no sense. I checked my outbox in Mail and it had stripped my formatting there too.
That's actually a nice feature. It lets you know that person is in your address book.
No, the fact that the full address popped up after just a few letters "let me know that person is in my address book", genius. Hiding the full address from my immediate view is NOT doing me a favor.
And you don't have to double click to edit the address, just click the triangle that appears to the right of the name. It's not a problem, it's the correct behavior.
What a NOBLE defense there, bro! Gosh, because it's a single click instead of a double click, I guess it suddenly becomes convenient to move the pointer all the way over to the "To:" line when using a trackpad.
If you think it's a problem, write it up as a bug.
And heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere we go again. Macs "just work" "out of the box"... er, and you submit bug reports for a dozen violations of basic user interface design.
I'm fine with it, I rarely listen to hours of podcasts all at once.
LOL!!!!!! I can't believe you! Listening to TWO tracks of a podcast in a row somehow constitutes "listening to hours of podcasts all at once"??? You can't make this stuff up.
Let me guess: iPods aren't meant to be plugged into your car's stereo system, because who the hell needs that? Right?
I have never seen this behavior. I have seen many Macs with Acrobat installed, and the Adobe updater is buggy, but I've never seen it flash anything that would require good reflexes.
I was going to ignore this because it was your usual "verifiable screwups don't exist even though you can demonstrate them" [1]lie, but I'm just going to add here that I was indeed unable to view pdfs in Safari before downloading adobe, or I 100% guarantee you I would not have downloaded it. Plus, the warning system is 100% different on Windows.
So you've uploaded a picture that's being managed by iPhoto to a neutral site like photobucket before? Because for me, that has on occasion been so unusable that I had to upload the photos straight from the external drive. Sorry, iPhoto is completely unintuitive, and it's been really flaky before with letting me edit and use a photo I brought over from photobooth.
Mail: So do you like how it darkens the background of the the subject lines in the view that lists all of your emails? Because it sure did that for me and Help was no help. Do you think it's acceptable for a Rules window in Mail to be uncloseable? In my case, it spilled over onto the dock so I couldn't click cancel to get out. NO, COMMAND-W DID NOT WORK, THANKS FOR ASKING, not that that would be acceptable anyway.
Do you think it's acceptable practice to make it look like my emails to others have photos embedded in the text, when in reality, the photos will only show up to them as separate attachments? Do you think it's acceptable to immediately and meticulously hide the actual email address I'm sending to and replace it with the person's name? (Yes, Having to double click on it is a big issue when all you have is a trackpad to move the pointer around with.)
Do you think it's acceptable that iTunes can't do something basic like play podcasts in chronological order automatically and starting from the first one you haven't listened to? Or that you need good reflexes to stop it from deleting your library when you plug into a new computer unless you have good reflexes?
Acrobat isn't an Apple program. Apple doesn't ship it.
No, but it damn well ships Safari. You know, the web browser that I'm supposed to access online pdf's with? And I know Apple is perfectly capable of implementing the PDF standard. So, to the extent that it makes "you must download Adobe to view this online pdf" the default option, yes it is fair game. Furthermore, on Windows, when Acrobat wants to update, I get precisely one warning -- when it starts. But on Safari (that's an Apple program, btw), I get the warning every 5 seconds, unless I have good enough reflexes to catch it in the one-second interval in which it pops up. So... does Adobe just hate Windows? Why is it that Acrobat can be extremely useless and annoying on Mac but not Windows?
In the past, Apple users have given me HILARIOUS rationalizations for the user interface screwups I've found, and I can't wait to hear yours.
They should care -- they pay for that. Macs don't show up by accident -- they show up because Apple pays for them to show up. When you buy a Mac, part of what you pay goes for Apple to buy product placements.
And this of course is in contrast to the 0% of the purchase of any Linux(-preloaded) computer going to Linux product placement.
Remind me, how's that working out for public awareness of Linux?
Many drugs would simply not exist but for patents. If we void patents just out of our sympathy for some, we're forgoing drugs in the future, and therefore the lives that the drugs would have saved. But because those people aren't vivid in your mind, I guess they don't count somehow?
It's hard for me to understand why in your case the drug company didn't just sell at a discount. It would much rather have "less money on this one sale" than no money from that person at all. Perhaps because some people exploit such programs to divert the drugs to those who just want a deep discount but could actually afford the regular price, using faux-humanitarian justifications like the one you gave?
Of course, I've been in kafkaesque situations before, including ones that people refuse to accept actually happened, so I have no problem believing your situation happened, despite the reasoning I gave. Even so, if the choice is between:
a) sympathy-based, arbitrary voiding of patents on drugs that really were difficult to develop; or b) solid enforcement of patents, even when it means some people not getting the drugs during the patent period because of drug company stupidity
I have to go with b) -- it saves more lives in the long-term, especially of those who are poor.
Let's not be so black and white: Patents AND trademarks can be very good; it's just that they've been abused to the point that they've gone way beyond their original purpose.
When an organization can get a patent on a drug it developed that no one else could (and yes this happens a lot), a patent is good.
When an organization can patent a long-known remedy or long-used functionality, that is very, very bad.
When an organization can keep others from selling fake versions of its products as if they were the real thing, that is good.
When that organization uses trademark law to keep ANYONE from making unapproved references to it (like when Ford sues to stop publication of the Black Mustang Club's calendar even if it has a disclaimer saying it's not an official Ford product) that is very, very bad.
Are any of these complaints about Mac OS X itself? Seems like a lot of bitching about iphoto, mail, acrobat, and itunes.
...You're kidding. You're asking: OTHER than all the software that comes with the OS, that they ADVERTISE as coming with the OS and making it awesome, and which they specifically promote as integrating so SEAMLESSLY and making your experience with the OS that much f'ing better than Windows -- implying that you're actually supposed to USE it -- do I have any complaints about the OS?
Right...
And let me guess: OTHER than the waitresses with tits hoisted up and crammed into each other, what did I think about Hooters?
OTHER than the fighting, how did you like the war?
OTHER than the death of your husband, how did you like the play?
OTHER than the lack of substance, how do you like the void?
No way man, you're forgetting how Macs are like, TOTALLY the gold standard in interface design unless you want to do something crazy like look up stuff in the help feature or add titles to a video or change the box sizes for titles in iMovie or close a rules window in Mail without having to hide your dock or extract stills in iMovie without adding the still to the video or have it wait until you're finished recording multiple videos before it makes you wait for it to break them up or upload a picture to photobucket that iPhoto has kidnapped or actually have a fucking clue what your emails to others will look like when you embed pictures in the text or want to see at a glance which email address you're sending to or use Adobe Acrobat without annoying update warnings that require good reflexes to turn off or charge your iPod without having good enough reflexes to keep it from deleting everything when you don't want to sync or move the iPod library on one computer to another or...
Oh, I'm sorry, was it hard for you read all of that in one sentence? Now, pretend I told you that that style was the gold standard in writing, and now you know what it's like to use a Mac.
Off-topic but it's Iraq and while I am in no way taking sides, the American response was directed at Iraq's refusal to comply with UN inspections after it had agreed to allow them as part of the peace agreement terms, and UN had passed resolutions demanding compliance that it clearly was too lazy to act on.
This (American invasion of Iraq) is not even close to what happened in Georgia (full scale invasian by Russian forces with a deceitful claim about war crimes that's actually a pretense to annexing more territory).
***
Yes, you are taking sides, and yes, that changes how things look to you.
Oh, yes, the media should give the same preference to Iraq news over the Olympics that is demonstrated by such responsible, independent organizations like Wikipedia.
Yes, I would say the eyes are what throw it off, and as they admit, the eyes are the hard part. But you really have to hand it to them: as "off" as the eyes were, I don't think they were so far off as to be a give-away. They simply made the girl look kind of "disconnected", like she's distracted by something on her mind. She actually wasn't that different from real people I've seen. In a fair test, I don't think I'd be able to pick her out. Say, give me five videos, any number of which could be fake and I have to spot the real ones. (Unless of course the real ones deliberately exaggerate their facial expressions.)
Slashdot Mirror
and all that creativity, and they couldn't find "Slap a big enough tax on carbon, and move on to the next problem." I think they're putting the metaphorical cart before the metaphorical horse.
Actually it means horizontal drilling at safe distances below sea level.
And you didn't make the milkshake analogy ... why again?
Try to see through your own haze of ignoring everything I say. Look, I KNOW HOW TO UPLOAD STUFF FROM A CAMERA WITHOUT ADDING THE PICS TO IPHOTO. That's not the problem. Please, get it through your goddamn head. Don't make me say it again.
Second, dragging stuff is not very comfortable on a trackpad as I've explained umpteen times, so dragging to the corner and back isn't a very useful suggestion. Third, I can't always use a mouse, and carting it around with me is another inconvenience. Wasn't the whole point to avoid inconveniences?
Fourth, yes, I can use a different app for the images, but my point is that Mac fanboys are WRONG to claim that iPhoto somehow makes things easier, that I can just (as someone claimed) give photos to iPhoto and use that as the platform for anything I'd ever want to do. (hah!)
Fifth, if I used the F9 method, I still have to open a separate app, and rearrange my existing windows, adding irritating steps to what should be a simple procedure.
Sixth, I don't use Vista and wasn't claiming it was better, nor would you replace a notebook computer with a "box". (FWIW, I have an XP desktop machine at home in addition to the Mac, and haven't had anything CLOSE to the avoidable frustrations I've had on a Mac, and, more importantly, they usually don't go away upon learning more stuff.)
Seventh, whether or not I know how to drag things between windows, it doesn't follow that I'm too stupid to use a Mac, nor that Vista is somehow better.
8th, looking up and configuring and learning Expose counts as another inconvencience, further refuting the claim that Mac are better at user interface design.
To repeat: please focus on the general point I'm trying to make, that the Mac way of doing things turns out to be much harder and more uncomfortable, even and especially if you know the "right" way to do it on a Mac!
*sigh* Looks like we got a slow one today.
Yes, I'm aware of all of that. I know that you don't have to let iPhoto delete stuff. And believe me, if the question of whether iPhoto has to delete stuff were the only problem, I wouldn't consider the claim of "Macs are the gold standard in user interface design" to be complete B/S.
The problem is that it's such a pain in the ass to do anything once iPhoto is the only place where your photos are. Or anything, in any program.
If you were right, that the problem is me just not knowing how to do stuff on a Mac, then whenever someone tells me how to do something on a Mac, it should be easier than the method I tried myself and complained about. RIGHT? But what do we see instead? Mac fanboys telling me "the" easy way ... and that method being much harder than it would be on Windows, or what I ended up using ... and then hearing a convoluted rationalization why it's "really" easier!
Seriously -- look at the explanation DarkVader gave for how to upload to photobucket: First, I have to use a method that wasn't even available until '07 (years after MacBooks were released). Then he gives instructions that require HELLO, ANYONE HOME THERE? opening a completely different app, resizing two windows manually, and then dragging an object, something that's a pain to do with a trackpad.
Admit it: Macs are NOT the gold standard. They're the arsenic standard.
until of course, the virus brought down their internet connection, which is no different than what could happen here.
I'd say that's quite a bit different than what could happen here! On earth, even if you lose your internet connection, you can still get the necessary update via sneakernet, or maybe tirenet or copternet. In space, all you have is rocketnet.
Good point. Here's another tough case: Microsoft's literature claims that their "Sync" feature in Ford cars "supports podcasts." But then you go to the manual, and the only related command is "Play podcasts", which takes you to a random podcast. It doesn't respond to "play podcast learning japanese", and even then you can't call out individual tracks within them, as you can with everything else.
(If you're psychic, you can find out that you can call out a specific series by saying "Play artist [nonintuitive artist name]", but that's not listed in the podcast section.)
Do does that count as podcast support?
Because adding a third support is a cheaper solution. (And it would have been cheaper for the Segway too :-P ) Putting on the SHT balancing functionality will mean later, more expensive relief for the wheelchair-bound.
I don't. We paid to put the roads there and everyone should be able to use them however the hell they want so long as they don't harm anyone.
Uh huh. And I think the government should refund 110% of tax revenues back to taxpayers. Unfortunately, the laws of logic and reality keep demands like that from being taken seriously.
Sure, we already paid to put the roads there. But if and when everyone invokes their supposed right to use the roads, they become useless. In order for traffic to actually *move*, satisfying the entire reason for existence for the roads, you will have to charge the market rate for their use: enough to prevent choking of the flow.
Yes, as a taxpayer, you do have a valid (quasi-)ownership right in the roads. You are absolutely right about that. But the way to respect this right is not by allowing people to choke off flow whenever they feel like with whatever vehicle they're qualified to use; it's by (p)refunding to each person their fractional share of revenues net of admin costs. That way, anyone who decides not to invoke their right is compensated, and those who demand to drive at the same time as others can see what the true cost of that use is, and thus whether it's worth it. Furthermore, it provides for the coordination and incentives for public transportation options to take root.
It's funny how people can see the wasteful socialism in trying to give government-provided bread to people on demand, but not in trying to give government-provided road use to people on demand.
And before you say it, no, "just build more roads" is not a solution. Eventually, those roads have to feed into lower-capacity roads, so unless you want to turn downtown streets into megahighways, eventually you run into insurmountable logistical problems.
*sigh* You really aren't getting this, are you?
Advertisement: Buy Macs! They're better! Look at all the software that comes RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX! That's SO MUCH better than what you get with vista! See, you can edit movies, browse the web, organize your music and photos ... and it makes everything so easy! ...
Me: Um, those programs suck and lack basic functionality. They fail to meet basic UI guidelines.
You: OH!!! Well, GEEE, if you want to be so DEMANDING, so HIGH maintenance, and what to do advanced stuff like extract stills, then of COURSE you're supposed to buy the expensive software, what the hell did you expect out of OSX?
Me: But then I'm no better off than on Vista, where I have to buy expensive software
You: No, you don't need expensive software, you get what you need RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX!
Me: *Falls out of chair*
Unfortunately, for me to decide not to believe the internet, doesn't make employers, GFs, etc. not believe it.
So, what we as geeks need to do to speed up the process you describe, is a full-on directory googlebomb. Make it so that the top results for each and every name (or as many as possible) have horrible allegations about them as the first results.
Oh, you found bad stuff about me on the internet? Let's google YOUR name and see what turns up, shall we?
That *may* make Google useless for learning about someone, but we can keep the intensity low enough so that private individuals are buried, but people who try to be prominent appear above the googlebomb results.
Thoughts?
Take a chill, dude. I just thought it was an interesting contrast. Obviously, Amnesty Int isn't doubt the military's trustworthiness about a flight record for which the military would suffer the consequences for being wrong. I didn't intend it as a criticism.
And it's a REDUNDANT statement in my sig, tyvm! :-P
Wow, it's not every day you see a post like that one:
given who these people are (and indeed who they work for [e.g. US military]), I think the results can be trusted.
And then the sig:
Amnesty International
As for iPhoto uploads, if you don't like doing it the Macintosh way, in 10.5 there is now a way of accessing the iPhoto library directly from the standard file open dialog in Safari. In the left pane of the standard file dialog in Safari, turn the triangle beside Media down, and you'll see Photos. You have direct access to your iPhoto library
Yes ... if that interface isn't flaky (i.e. half the time).
As for the rest of it, since you bring up money, you've reminded me that I don't invoice anyone for posting to slashdot. So, if you'd like to pay me to help you troubleshoot the rest of your issues, I'll even give you a discount and only charge you $100 per hour.
ROFL!!!! I'm not posting for your troubleshooting help, genius. Troubleshooting is when something isn't working as intended, and needs some tweaks to get back that way. The stuff I've listed is working exactly as intended; it's just that the design really, inexcusably sucks. For example, the issue with the rules window in Mail covering the dock was not a failure on my part to configure my machine or software right. It resulted directly from Apple's design philosophy that told them not to have features that would have saved me there.
Second, the fact that it's so freaking expensive to hire someone to repair the numerous Mac problems should tell you a little something about whether Macs "just work".
Btw, I just added some videos to my Mac, and as usual, iPhoto hijacked them. Okay, well, iPhoto is where they should be, right? I go to iMovie and click on the item for "iPhoto videos" ... and nothing shows up! (even with "all clips" selected) Well, I just need to import from the place where obviously they should be, right? So, I go to help and type in "import video from iPhoto" ... and nothing! "import from iPhoto", for its part, tells me how to import photos as still videos.
Hey! That means I have to go on the internet to figure out how to do something basic on a mac ... AGAIN! (Yes, I supposed I could dig through the directory for the very deep place where it hides iPhoto stuff [which I'm never ever ever supposed to need to know], but I thought APPLE apps were all supposed to work together so SMOOTHLY. This ain't smooth, bro.)
It's kind of funny how you feel threatened when someone points out problems with Macs.
Alright, so ~half your response is, "I didn't have it on my personal machine, therefore it does not exist." Not a good start. Let's look at the rest.
Sure. Just drag the photo from the iPhoto window to wherever you want it, including the upload dialog for a website. It just works, and if you think about it, it's VERY intuitive if you're not trying to do things the hard way.
HAHAHAHAHA! You're kidding, right? So, I'm in Safari. I want to upload to photobucket.
Windows: Click button, navigate a bit, double click, click upload.
Mac: Deny existence of any flakiness with download interface. Demaximize Safari Window. Drag it to the side. Resize it as needed. Open completely different program. Navigate to appropriate album somehow. Deminimize it. resize it so I can have Safari and iPhoto open at the same and relevant stuff is visible in each window. (Again, doing all of this with just a trackpad.) Drag photo over, requiring two hands, or extreme discomfort with one. Click upload.
And you you think your method is more intuitive??? More user-friendly? What a fucking JOKE.
Try command-period to cancel, or return to accept. Or hiding the dock. Yes, it's a bug. No, it shouldn't do that. I've written it up and submitted it to Apple - I hadn't seen it before today.
Yep: that's pretty much the story of your fanboyism. You don't actually *do much* with your mac, so you don't find inexcusable shit like this (yes, I eventually figured out how to hide the dock, something I never learned how to do, since i shouldn't have to), so you carry on like Macs are somehow the gold standard in interface design. Go fig.
Yes. Those photos will show up as inline images on any mail reader that displays inline images.
They didn't. I sent them to an Outlook user, and they weren't embedded so my email made no sense. I checked my outbox in Mail and it had stripped my formatting there too.
That's actually a nice feature. It lets you know that person is in your address book.
No, the fact that the full address popped up after just a few letters "let me know that person is in my address book", genius. Hiding the full address from my immediate view is NOT doing me a favor.
And you don't have to double click to edit the address, just click the triangle that appears to the right of the name. It's not a problem, it's the correct behavior.
What a NOBLE defense there, bro! Gosh, because it's a single click instead of a double click, I guess it suddenly becomes convenient to move the pointer all the way over to the "To:" line when using a trackpad.
If you think it's a problem, write it up as a bug.
And heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere we go again. Macs "just work" "out of the box" ... er, and you submit bug reports for a dozen violations of basic user interface design.
I'm fine with it, I rarely listen to hours of podcasts all at once.
LOL!!!!!! I can't believe you! Listening to TWO tracks of a podcast in a row somehow constitutes "listening to hours of podcasts all at once"??? You can't make this stuff up.
Let me guess: iPods aren't meant to be plugged into your car's stereo system, because who the hell needs that? Right?
I have never seen this behavior. I have seen many Macs with Acrobat installed, and the Adobe updater is buggy, but I've never seen it flash anything that would require good reflexes.
I was going to ignore this because it was your usual "verifiable screwups don't exist even though you can demonstrate them" [1]lie, but I'm just going to add here that I was indeed unable to view pdfs in Safari before downloading adobe, or I 100% guarantee you I would not have downloaded it. Plus, the warning system is 100% different on Windows.
Now you just s
So you've uploaded a picture that's being managed by iPhoto to a neutral site like photobucket before? Because for me, that has on occasion been so unusable that I had to upload the photos straight from the external drive. Sorry, iPhoto is completely unintuitive, and it's been really flaky before with letting me edit and use a photo I brought over from photobooth.
Mail: So do you like how it darkens the background of the the subject lines in the view that lists all of your emails? Because it sure did that for me and Help was no help. Do you think it's acceptable for a Rules window in Mail to be uncloseable? In my case, it spilled over onto the dock so I couldn't click cancel to get out. NO, COMMAND-W DID NOT WORK, THANKS FOR ASKING, not that that would be acceptable anyway.
Do you think it's acceptable practice to make it look like my emails to others have photos embedded in the text, when in reality, the photos will only show up to them as separate attachments? Do you think it's acceptable to immediately and meticulously hide the actual email address I'm sending to and replace it with the person's name? (Yes, Having to double click on it is a big issue when all you have is a trackpad to move the pointer around with.)
Do you think it's acceptable that iTunes can't do something basic like play podcasts in chronological order automatically and starting from the first one you haven't listened to? Or that you need good reflexes to stop it from deleting your library when you plug into a new computer unless you have good reflexes?
Acrobat isn't an Apple program. Apple doesn't ship it.
No, but it damn well ships Safari. You know, the web browser that I'm supposed to access online pdf's with? And I know Apple is perfectly capable of implementing the PDF standard. So, to the extent that it makes "you must download Adobe to view this online pdf" the default option, yes it is fair game. Furthermore, on Windows, when Acrobat wants to update, I get precisely one warning -- when it starts. But on Safari (that's an Apple program, btw), I get the warning every 5 seconds, unless I have good enough reflexes to catch it in the one-second interval in which it pops up. So ... does Adobe just hate Windows? Why is it that Acrobat can be extremely useless and annoying on Mac but not Windows?
In the past, Apple users have given me HILARIOUS rationalizations for the user interface screwups I've found, and I can't wait to hear yours.
They should care -- they pay for that. Macs don't show up by accident -- they show up because Apple pays for them to show up. When you buy a Mac, part of what you pay goes for Apple to buy product placements.
And this of course is in contrast to the 0% of the purchase of any Linux(-preloaded) computer going to Linux product placement.
Remind me, how's that working out for public awareness of Linux?
But ... but ... what about the stacked, unscientific Mojave project, that conclusively proved that people like Vista if they actually give it a chance?
Many drugs would simply not exist but for patents. If we void patents just out of our sympathy for some, we're forgoing drugs in the future, and therefore the lives that the drugs would have saved. But because those people aren't vivid in your mind, I guess they don't count somehow?
It's hard for me to understand why in your case the drug company didn't just sell at a discount. It would much rather have "less money on this one sale" than no money from that person at all. Perhaps because some people exploit such programs to divert the drugs to those who just want a deep discount but could actually afford the regular price, using faux-humanitarian justifications like the one you gave?
Of course, I've been in kafkaesque situations before, including ones that people refuse to accept actually happened, so I have no problem believing your situation happened, despite the reasoning I gave. Even so, if the choice is between:
a) sympathy-based, arbitrary voiding of patents on drugs that really were difficult to develop; or
b) solid enforcement of patents, even when it means some people not getting the drugs during the patent period because of drug company stupidity
I have to go with b) -- it saves more lives in the long-term, especially of those who are poor.
How much affordable is a drug that hasn't been discovered?
Let's not be so black and white: Patents AND trademarks can be very good; it's just that they've been abused to the point that they've gone way beyond their original purpose.
When an organization can get a patent on a drug it developed that no one else could (and yes this happens a lot), a patent is good.
When an organization can patent a long-known remedy or long-used functionality, that is very, very bad.
When an organization can keep others from selling fake versions of its products as if they were the real thing, that is good.
When that organization uses trademark law to keep ANYONE from making unapproved references to it (like when Ford sues to stop publication of the Black Mustang Club's calendar even if it has a disclaimer saying it's not an official Ford product) that is very, very bad.
Are any of these complaints about Mac OS X itself? Seems like a lot of bitching about iphoto, mail, acrobat, and itunes.
...You're kidding. You're asking: OTHER than all the software that comes with the OS, that they ADVERTISE as coming with the OS and making it awesome, and which they specifically promote as integrating so SEAMLESSLY and making your experience with the OS that much f'ing better than Windows -- implying that you're actually supposed to USE it -- do I have any complaints about the OS?
Right...
And let me guess: OTHER than the waitresses with tits hoisted up and crammed into each other, what did I think about Hooters?
OTHER than the fighting, how did you like the war?
OTHER than the death of your husband, how did you like the play?
OTHER than the lack of substance, how do you like the void?
No way man, you're forgetting how Macs are like, TOTALLY the gold standard in interface design unless you want to do something crazy like look up stuff in the help feature or add titles to a video or change the box sizes for titles in iMovie or close a rules window in Mail without having to hide your dock or extract stills in iMovie without adding the still to the video or have it wait until you're finished recording multiple videos before it makes you wait for it to break them up or upload a picture to photobucket that iPhoto has kidnapped or actually have a fucking clue what your emails to others will look like when you embed pictures in the text or want to see at a glance which email address you're sending to or use Adobe Acrobat without annoying update warnings that require good reflexes to turn off or charge your iPod without having good enough reflexes to keep it from deleting everything when you don't want to sync or move the iPod library on one computer to another or ...
Oh, I'm sorry, was it hard for you read all of that in one sentence? Now, pretend I told you that that style was the gold standard in writing, and now you know what it's like to use a Mac.
Off-topic but it's Iraq and while I am in no way taking sides, the American response was directed at Iraq's refusal to comply with UN inspections after it had agreed to allow them as part of the peace agreement terms, and UN had passed resolutions demanding compliance that it clearly was too lazy to act on.
This (American invasion of Iraq) is not even close to what happened in Georgia (full scale invasian by Russian forces with a deceitful claim about war crimes that's actually a pretense to annexing more territory).
***
Yes, you are taking sides, and yes, that changes how things look to you.
Oh, yes, the media should give the same preference to Iraq news over the Olympics that is demonstrated by such responsible, independent organizations like Wikipedia.
Yes, I would say the eyes are what throw it off, and as they admit, the eyes are the hard part. But you really have to hand it to them: as "off" as the eyes were, I don't think they were so far off as to be a give-away. They simply made the girl look kind of "disconnected", like she's distracted by something on her mind. She actually wasn't that different from real people I've seen. In a fair test, I don't think I'd be able to pick her out. Say, give me five videos, any number of which could be fake and I have to spot the real ones. (Unless of course the real ones deliberately exaggerate their facial expressions.)