Okay, if you count web browsing and... Okay, so the upshot is, when you *don't actually have to use the hyper-awesome software bundled with OSX*, then gasp, you don't see all the interface problems with the hyper-awesome software!
Out of the frying pan, into the fire: the problems are there.
As to your "sub-window" problem, that has, in fact, been fixed in Leopard; cmd + w will close them now. No, you're still thinking of a different problem. These are not regular windows; they do not respond to cmd+w in any version. And even if true, why does it take until 10.5 to fix this????
comment about keyboard shortcuts is just disingenuous - you can do almost anything in the menus with a shortcut; a quick survey shows that about 90% of the commands in the menus have key equivalents. How is it disingenuous to want to do *anything* instead of... 90% of anything... or to simply *show the drop-down menu so I can look up the command, without using the mouse*? Btw, 90% is a bad number if you have to count the menu choices that descend into further choices. Now, the "there's a command you have to find", I would admit, would be a valid response still, *IF* the help feature was remotely usable. My last ~10 experiences with using ended up in "huh?? We don't know how to tell you the basic functionality?" or "We don't have that functionality -- here's some support forums so you can see Mac fanboys try to rationalize it!"
(You know, like you did with the "need software just to put a file on the iPod.")
Btw, how do you browse without ever touching the mouse? I'm curious. Do you tab your way to every link that shows up? (Not fun.) I'm trying to eliminate the mouse myself, and some aspects are just stubborn. For example, MS rendered MouseKeys near unusable since the acceleration is slow and you can only set one jumping distance, even though ten seconds of thought should have led an interface designer to made two or three jumping distances so you can get to stuff *quickly*, but whatever.
Heh, that's funny. Nice try there. But every complaint you just listed is about specific software and not the OS. If it comes installed with a new computer, or with boxed OSX, and 90% of press articles talk about it when talking about the new OSX, I consider it fair grounds for criticism in discussion of OSX. Let's not define away our deficiencies here.
And by the way, there is an option in iTunes for not automatically syncing when an iPod is connected. Don't blame the software because you can't read. I can read just fine, but my abilities are limited to stuff that exists. I didn't see any checkoff box with "sync when an iPod is plugged in".
Oh, you mean I'm supposed to look it up in the preferences? AFTER it deletes my library once, gets its first "bite at the apple"? (LOL!) And you're naive enough to think the manual will tell me how to do this? And that the help function will be of *ANY* help in finding this feature?
Please, I want you to show me this "brilliant interface design" that all the elite folks have to "sagely concede" when crticizing Apple.
Something is wrong with your iPod, not OS X, reboot the iPod. Oh! How, cute! Someone who thinks I didn't try that already! And this was with using an iPod on Windows, so it can't have been OSX, though I guess that means it was off-topic for my point.
Look, plugging my iPod into my USB port should start the charging immediately. What *unplanned* iPod problem would make it not charge if I'm plugging it in a second time since boot, but charge on the first time?
Just click "No, I don't want to wipe my iPod" - it's right there on the screen, not that hard. No, liar, it isn't, I had to kill the program. (Or if it was, it tried a second time anyway...)
google is your friend. *sigh* Yes, I know there are third-party programs that will do a riduclously simple and standard feature that should be there in the first place, and shouldn't require software of any kind beyond the OS's directory commands. Way to miss the point there.
-Why the hell did it let a sub-window of Mail open so big as to cover the dock and not be closable without hiding the dock? Command (or apple) + W, dude. Doesn't work on the filters window, dude, cause that's a different kind of window, dude.
-Why do I have to add a clip to my movies in iMovie to extract stills? Why do I have to re-chase down the directory and retype the prefix each time? -Why is iPhoto in general so damn inscrutable? -Why is it so hard to upload stuff held captive by iPhoto, to photobucket? -Why does the help feature so rarely help me find basic features I want to do? -Why does iMovie make me wait through the clip-making process RIGHT AFTER every time I record something, usually taking over 15 seconds?
Can't speak to these, as I don't use them.
Yep. *As I was saying*, "Whoever gushes about its ease of use probably does three things with it, ever."
Umm - if you want to right-click, buy a two button mouse (or a new Mac, they all support right click, now) Give me a little credit, "dude". I wasn't complaining that right-clicking is unsupported; I was complaining that it doesn't have the usefulness and universality that it does on Windows. My scared Mom always feels comfortable knowning she can right-click in Windows; on OS X it doesn't give her the same level of help. Also, my help instructions like assuming I have two hands, and thus default to not mentioning one-handed methods.
- as to alt-commands, if you mean using alt to navigate menus, I personally find that rather awkward. Learn the keyboard shortcuts, they're quite easy (and consistent almost everywhere, too!) Yes, "dude", if I were going to use just those six functions you limit yourself to, they would have command-shortcuts, but if you need to do more, that is cut off entirely, no alternative, no configuration that makes it that way.
Sorry, Mac OSX is user-unfriendly. Whoever gushes about its ease of use probably does three things with it, ever. It feels like it was designed by hippies smoking pot all day. It has almost driven me to tears at times.
-Plug in iPod. Why aren't you charging. You charged just two minutes ago! I want to fill it up, and it's less than half-charged! No help in Help. Eventually have to reset. -Okay iPod, I'm plugging you into a different computer, but *just to charge*, I don't want you to wipe the library on this one, wait, WAIT, STOP, NO, NO, DON'T SYNC, STOP, STOP, STOP, phew!!! glad I caught it in time! -Why do I have to go through sync in iTunes to get mp3s on my iPod? not necessary elsewhere on every single other mp3 player on the market. -Why the hell did it let a sub-window of Mail open so big as to cover the dock and not be closable without hiding the dock? -Why do I have to add a clip to my movies in iMovie to extract stills? Why do I have to re-chase down the directory and retype the prefix each time? -Why is iPhoto in general so damn inscrutable? -Why is it so hard to upload stuff held captive by iPhoto, to photobucket? -Why does the help feature so rarely help me find basic features I want to do? -Why does iMovie make me wait through the clip-making process RIGHT AFTER every time I record something, usually taking over 15 seconds? -Why discrimination against people who don't have two hands to conviently use at all times.
Hey Steve: right-clicking and alt-commands. Learn it.
Well, technically, yeah, but reversing combustion requires creating temperature/pressure conditions only feasible and safe inside an expensive facility. But you are correct, people will be able to screw over oil companies by powering their cars without oil that has been extracted from the earth. However, you don't need nuclear octane to do that, just electric cars with sufficient storage, at which point, you don't need zillions of fuel stations per neighborhood; people just use their own outlets to power their cars.
Nuclear octane is just a "legacy solution" for energy storage while cars still use gasoline.
LOL! (literally) Link actually works!e-slashdot.org --> x2 LOL! Link actually does the same thing that e-wikipedia does to wikipedia --> x3 LOL! Score:6, Funny.
Yeah, pretty neat, once you stare at it for a minute.
But what I want to know is, where are the (.01/11.64=).09% of Americans who are burning COAL in their HOMES? I gripe about woodburners, but damn, that takes balls!
Oh, and shouldn't the feeder for Aircraft have the same width as the Aircraft block, since it's the whole power source? It's making it look like it gets some pixie-dust subsidy...
You haven't shown me how to get an electric car, because those still have the gasonline engine's drive train, and all the complexities that entails. The Tesla roadster, by my calculations, would just save me $1200 in fuel costs per year. This Prius setup (which by the way has a lot less storage then compacts), would save me maybe half that -- far too little to justify the additional costs, especially since I don't get the self-maintainability of an ideal electric car, and so don't get to ditch the auto maintenance industry.
Don't get me wrong -- I appreciate the suggestions, but to go along, there have to be affordable, available production models. Will the price drop in the future? Let's hope.
Point taken, but where's the proof? Where's the electric car that I can buy now at a reasonable price, roughly the size of a normal compact or mid-sized sedan?
Ultra-high fuel efficiency? Rechargeable with electricity at off-peak rates (if TXU ever lets me buy at those lower rates...)? Far less complex drive train? Much easier to maintain? F*** over GM and the corrupt auto maintenance industry?
SIGN ME UP TODAY and forget about my enthusiasm for nuclear-based octane. But where? The only practical electric car on the market is the Tesla roadster, which is overpriced, and not designed to let the user maintain himself, and not even available on demand.
So I'm with you -- just point me in the right direction, which seems to jut up into the imaginary plane at this point.
Okay, let's make sure we know where we disagree. I thought I was very clear that I *agree* that a wi-fi AP owner should be morally and legally responsible for the accessibility of his AP, even and especially if the instructions for it suck. Point conceded.
Second, I *agree* that someone who doesn't know how to setup the security should take all possible steps to *find out* how to set up the security. Again, point very much conceded. Buy why the hell is this information not abundantly clear in the instructions for the product? I had to pull teeth to figure out how to configure the security settings (not literally of course). Yes, I can go on the internet and piece together what I'm supposed to do. No, that doesn't mean my router had acceptable product design. The help feature and manual should say SOMETHING about how to put password protection on my routher.
Third, my routher most certainly *did* make me go through a wizard, and it either didn't make me choose security, or I chose not to put up the security, naively thinking that information about that would be the easiest thing in the world to find if I wanted to do it later. But that would pre-suppose actual product testing on linksys's part. Not a good assumption, it turns out!
So I by and large agree with you, but we seem to be takling past each other.
You're going to have to hold my hand here. I just don't follow.
The GGP specifically said that nuclear power has "nothing to do" with our dependence on gasoline via foreign crude oil. I just explained how nuclear power can be converted into gasoline, thereby displacing foreign crude oil (and eliminating gasoline's carbon footprint almost completely), which shows how nuclear power damn well has something to do with our dependence on gasoline via crude oil.
By what stretch of the imagination does it "miss the point"?
Everytime I use an available wireless network, I instruct my computer to ask for permission to connect to the router and enter to the wireless network. And most of the time the router gives me such permit Very good point, but what complicates it is: Does that router's giving you permission, reflect the owner's desire to make it open?
If every router owner knew how to open or lock down their access point, this issue would be open-and-shut. However, speaking from the experience as someone who set up a home wi-fi network, and someone who has some bizarre lifelong gravitation to the most poorly-designed aspects of products, my wi-fi kit didn't make it easy for me. The interface doesn't have anything that clearly leads me to "keep other people from using this", and you can damn well bet it's not the default. The help feature is barebones, as is the manual. (I use a linksys WRT...)
Only by knowning, in advance, that my wi-fi point is open (not obvious to a novice), and that the "easy-lock" button or whatever, is necessary to put a password on my router, would I know what to do.
Ultimately, I agree that even with stupid router owners (like me before pulling teeth to figure all this out!) don't have a right to complain, but at the same time, companies that make these could be a little more helpful in telling you how to use all the features.
Pushing nuclear energy has relatively very little do with our dependence on gasoline via crude oil. Please lets not confuse the two. There is no chance that there will be cars powered by "under the hood" nuclear reactors in the near future. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. As long as you have an effectively unlimited energy source, you can use that energy to draw CO2 from the atmosphere, and store it in octane (i.e., what people already use, so no infrastructure changes), which the cars useas fuel. Basically, you just do the reverse of the combustion reaction:
C8H18 + O2 --> energy + H2O + CO2 (modulo a little balancing!)
Take energy from the nuclear plant, CO2 from the atmosphere, and every time a car burns that fuel, it's simply returning to the atmosphere, that which was taken from it. Carbon neutral octane!
This is NOT a crackpot idea, it's something that a federal lab has already worked out, and it can provide that fuel for $4.60 a gallon (before brilliant people optimize the process even further). That's not much more expensive than gasoline is today. To make it competitive, all you'd need is a $.60/gallon tax, and it's probably already competitive if introduced in the rest of the world which has higher fuel taxes.
I have no idea why this idea is not more widespead.
90% certain you guys are breaking the rules, but I'll give you a chance to explain.
-If your FIL couldn't walk 50 feet without getting out of breath, he should have been in a powered wheelchair/scooter, and appear visibly exhausted all the time. -If those were present, people probably wouldn't be giving him trouble. -So if they were giving him trouble, those things probably weren't present. -Which implies that he shouldn't have been walking into stores in the first place -- a handicap spot will save you 100 feet on a 300 ft trip inside -- more than FIL can supposedly handle, even WITH the savings in distance. -Which implies FIL just stays in the car. -Which means you shouldn't be using the handicap spot, which is ONLY for when the handicapped person with that tag is going from the vehicle, into the business. You should NOT be parking there just because FIL is with you, and no, the "gosh, but we gotta haul stuff to the car" excuse won't work, because so does everyone else, and you better not be camping the entrance either.
Again, I don't want to unjustifiably throw accusations at you, but you have to understand the inconsistency in your story I see, and I'd appreciate if you'd clarify.
-Selectiveness about which laws you have to follow, while criticizing others on the grounds that they broke the law. -A bunch of ad hominem.
Yes, you failed to convince me... but it's because there's no substance to any of your justifications for your behavior, not because er, whatever of all that stuff you instantly KNOW to be true about me, including "you think you know better what the situation is".
Yeah, durn those people that make wild, unjustifiable assumptions about others. lol, You're a sweetie. A dangerous sweetie, but a sweetie.
-You rarely "need" to be in the left lane on an unchoked street when you're not passing, and if you are camping the left lane, as you admit, you most certainly are breaking the law.
-Whatever danger you claim these faster drivers are causing, you are doing the same when you camp the left lane, which causes unnecessary walls, wolfpacks, and jams, which aren't making anyone safer, as they kill maneuverability room whenever people need to respond to hazards. (Which of course is predicated on those drivers being AWARE of and GIVING A DAMN about their environments, which quite clearly does not hold in your case.)
-If the new lane makes a different lane becomes the leftmost lane, that new left lane should be used just for passing, and the old one no longer has this status. Come on, that shouldn't be hard to figure out, even, yes, for you.
-Most passers are not dangerous, because they are AWARE of their environment, which is the most important thing when driving. Furthermore, for a driver to quickly and smoothly get out of your general vicinity (which passing you whilst you remain safely on the right, accomplishes) is safer for YOU, so it don't see how it's selfish.
-If you are responsible, others might not be. Be responsible anyway (with apologies to Mother Theresa).
Not his will, the law. In all 50 states, slower traffic must keep right, although this may not be vigorously enforced, since speeding tickets are easier revenue, and allow the officer more discretion in who he pulls over.
Oh, yeah, and then there's the whole "human decency" thing.
If you (as seems to be the case) like slowing people down just for the hell of it, or perhaps deliberately avoid minor steps to make life much easier for you and several others, you're the one who should be off the road.
If you don't like the rules in the country you try to do business in, then don't do business there, and don't whine when their courts fine you for breaking them. Hey, GREAT point. If I don't like the rules there, I can just avoid doing business there.
Now, what should I do about countries where the REAL rules are "Normally, we'll be enforce the published laws, but if you get too profitable, well do whatever the hell we want, and rationalize it in the most plausible way" ?
Funny? You think this is funny? This is not funny. We are going to LOSE our ability to resize text.
Remember the dot-com era? Remember the overdone, NON-user-friendly, Flash-overloaded websites?
Well, we are going to get more of that. Flash lets you circumvent the principles of the Web, one of which is: I get to decide how YOUR data streams are rendered into graphics for ME. I can ditch everything in italics tags if I want to! I can make it bigger, smaller, different font, no pics, no ads, YOU NAME IT.
Thank your lucky stars that you can still manipulate part of the websites you see.
Because "content" providers don't like that. They want YOU to take it as a whole, and that means locking it all in Flash. Flash that you can't change text size on or remove ads from. (Yes, I know it's possible to figure out OCR programs that can find text in Flash graphics and change its size. But let's not kid ourselves. NO ONE will bothere to actually program that. Think about it. We can't get anyone to write a simple color transform plugin to help color-blind people read pictures such as maps that have poor red/green coloring schemes. You think someone's going to give you a LireSux plugin? HELL ****ING NO.)
You're EXCITED about all your webby functionality, and all you're going to do with LireSux 3? I'm not.
I'm not looking forward to my bookmarks and javascript whitelist being deleted again. (Yes, I know how to recover the bookmarks... still not acceptable.)
I'm not looking forward to deleted functionality (like making addresses in the drop-down address bar not load instantly when I click on them) and then the LireSux folks deleting evidence that this functionality ever existed, all while Internet Exploder happily carries it, and then hearing LireSux fanboys gush about how DANGEROUS that feature was and how it should be removed and HELL NO I shouldn't have the choice to bring it back, even in the buried-deep options list.
I'm not looking forward to fill-in lists popping up on web forms, which cover up stuff I want to see and aren't even convenient to invoke! (Thanks for making me move my right hand that far, morons.)
I am, however, looking forward to the neat feature that lets you load sites in IE. That's pretty cool.
Just a nit: I think you mean availability bias (only considering that which you personally remember) or vividness(?) bias (only considering that which made a big impression on you), rather than confirmation bias (deliberately discarding or reinterpreting events to favor your theory).
I really should let a motorcycle rider answer this, but it's safer for the motorcycle rider to have a loud engine because most fools don't see motorcycles. Sure, the question is just *how* loud. Of course I need to know if a motorcycle is near me. I don't need to know about every single motorcycle within a half mile that has chosen to accelerate as fast as he feels like.
A bike loud enough to drown out a horn or siren is going to be pulled over PDQ, btw. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Oh, god, you're a riot. You have GOT to be at our next party.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of the frying pan, into the fire: the problems are there.
As to your "sub-window" problem, that has, in fact, been fixed in Leopard; cmd + w will close them now. No, you're still thinking of a different problem. These are not regular windows; they do not respond to cmd+w in any version. And even if true, why does it take until 10.5 to fix this???? comment about keyboard shortcuts is just disingenuous - you can do almost anything in the menus with a shortcut; a quick survey shows that about 90% of the commands in the menus have key equivalents. How is it disingenuous to want to do *anything* instead of(You know, like you did with the "need software just to put a file on the iPod.")
Btw, how do you browse without ever touching the mouse? I'm curious. Do you tab your way to every link that shows up? (Not fun.) I'm trying to eliminate the mouse myself, and some aspects are just stubborn. For example, MS rendered MouseKeys near unusable since the acceleration is slow and you can only set one jumping distance, even though ten seconds of thought should have led an interface designer to made two or three jumping distances so you can get to stuff *quickly*, but whatever.
Oh, you mean I'm supposed to look it up in the preferences? AFTER it deletes my library once, gets its first "bite at the apple"? (LOL!) And you're naive enough to think the manual will tell me how to do this? And that the help function will be of *ANY* help in finding this feature?
Please, I want you to show me this "brilliant interface design" that all the elite folks have to "sagely concede" when crticizing Apple.
Look, plugging my iPod into my USB port should start the charging immediately. What *unplanned* iPod problem would make it not charge if I'm plugging it in a second time since boot, but charge on the first time?
Just click "No, I don't want to wipe my iPod" - it's right there on the screen, not that hard. No, liar, it isn't, I had to kill the program. (Or if it was, it tried a second time anyway...) google is your friend. *sigh* Yes, I know there are third-party programs that will do a riduclously simple and standard feature that should be there in the first place, and shouldn't require software of any kind beyond the OS's directory commands. Way to miss the point there. -Why the hell did it let a sub-window of Mail open so big as to cover the dock and not be closable without hiding the dock?Command (or apple) + W, dude. Doesn't work on the filters window, dude, cause that's a different kind of window, dude. -Why do I have to add a clip to my movies in iMovie to extract stills? Why do I have to re-chase down the directory and retype the prefix each time? -Why is iPhoto in general so damn inscrutable? -Why is it so hard to upload stuff held captive by iPhoto, to photobucket? -Why does the help feature so rarely help me find basic features I want to do? -Why does iMovie make me wait through the clip-making process RIGHT AFTER every time I record something, usually taking over 15 seconds?
Can't speak to these, as I don't use them.
Yep. *As I was saying*, "Whoever gushes about its ease of use probably does three things with it, ever." Umm - if you want to right-click, buy a two button mouse (or a new Mac, they all support right click, now) Give me a little credit, "dude". I wasn't complaining that right-clicking is unsupported; I was complaining that it doesn't have the usefulness and universality that it does on Windows. My scared Mom always feels comfortable knowning she can right-click in Windows; on OS X it doesn't give her the same level of help. Also, my help instructions like assuming I have two hands, and thus default to not mentioning one-handed methods. - as to alt-commands, if you mean using alt to navigate menus, I personally find that rather awkward. Learn the keyboard shortcuts, they're quite easy (and consistent almost everywhere, too!) Yes, "dude", if I were going to use just those six functions you limit yourself to, they would have command-shortcuts, but if you need to do more, that is cut off entirely, no alternative, no configuration that makes it that way.Sorry, Mac OSX is user-unfriendly. Whoever gushes about its ease of use probably does three things with it, ever. It feels like it was designed by hippies smoking pot all day. It has almost driven me to tears at times.
-Plug in iPod. Why aren't you charging. You charged just two minutes ago! I want to fill it up, and it's less than half-charged! No help in Help. Eventually have to reset.
-Okay iPod, I'm plugging you into a different computer, but *just to charge*, I don't want you to wipe the library on this one, wait, WAIT, STOP, NO, NO, DON'T SYNC, STOP, STOP, STOP, phew!!! glad I caught it in time!
-Why do I have to go through sync in iTunes to get mp3s on my iPod? not necessary elsewhere on every single other mp3 player on the market.
-Why the hell did it let a sub-window of Mail open so big as to cover the dock and not be closable without hiding the dock?
-Why do I have to add a clip to my movies in iMovie to extract stills? Why do I have to re-chase down the directory and retype the prefix each time?
-Why is iPhoto in general so damn inscrutable?
-Why is it so hard to upload stuff held captive by iPhoto, to photobucket?
-Why does the help feature so rarely help me find basic features I want to do?
-Why does iMovie make me wait through the clip-making process RIGHT AFTER every time I record something, usually taking over 15 seconds?
-Why discrimination against people who don't have two hands to conviently use at all times.
Hey Steve: right-clicking and alt-commands. Learn it.
Well, technically, yeah, but reversing combustion requires creating temperature/pressure conditions only feasible and safe inside an expensive facility. But you are correct, people will be able to screw over oil companies by powering their cars without oil that has been extracted from the earth. However, you don't need nuclear octane to do that, just electric cars with sufficient storage, at which point, you don't need zillions of fuel stations per neighborhood; people just use their own outlets to power their cars.
Nuclear octane is just a "legacy solution" for energy storage while cars still use gasoline.
No, we use metric system in the US, *often*.
That Mars probe was WELL outside of the US, and you damn well know it.
LOL! (literally)
Link actually works! e-slashdot.org --> x2 LOL!
Link actually does the same thing that e-wikipedia does to wikipedia --> x3 LOL!
Score:6, Funny.
I believe there's a long-standing legal principle that "The eye cannot commit trespass."
Going *onto* the property to place your eye, however, is a different story.
Is random capitalization supposed to make your post more convincing? ... ;-)
Yeah, pretty neat, once you stare at it for a minute.
But what I want to know is, where are the (.01/11.64=).09% of Americans who are burning COAL in their HOMES? I gripe about woodburners, but damn, that takes balls!
Oh, and shouldn't the feeder for Aircraft have the same width as the Aircraft block, since it's the whole power source? It's making it look like it gets some pixie-dust subsidy...
You haven't shown me how to get an electric car, because those still have the gasonline engine's drive train, and all the complexities that entails. The Tesla roadster, by my calculations, would just save me $1200 in fuel costs per year. This Prius setup (which by the way has a lot less storage then compacts), would save me maybe half that -- far too little to justify the additional costs, especially since I don't get the self-maintainability of an ideal electric car, and so don't get to ditch the auto maintenance industry.
Don't get me wrong -- I appreciate the suggestions, but to go along, there have to be affordable, available production models. Will the price drop in the future? Let's hope.
Point taken, but where's the proof? Where's the electric car that I can buy now at a reasonable price, roughly the size of a normal compact or mid-sized sedan?
Ultra-high fuel efficiency? Rechargeable with electricity at off-peak rates (if TXU ever lets me buy at those lower rates...)? Far less complex drive train? Much easier to maintain? F*** over GM and the corrupt auto maintenance industry?
SIGN ME UP TODAY and forget about my enthusiasm for nuclear-based octane. But where? The only practical electric car on the market is the Tesla roadster, which is overpriced, and not designed to let the user maintain himself, and not even available on demand.
So I'm with you -- just point me in the right direction, which seems to jut up into the imaginary plane at this point.
*sigh*
Three things are certain in life:
1. Death
2. Taxes
3. Increasingly complicated analogy wars in discussions of wi-fi freeriding
Okay, let's make sure we know where we disagree. I thought I was very clear that I *agree* that a wi-fi AP owner should be morally and legally responsible for the accessibility of his AP, even and especially if the instructions for it suck. Point conceded.
Second, I *agree* that someone who doesn't know how to setup the security should take all possible steps to *find out* how to set up the security. Again, point very much conceded. Buy why the hell is this information not abundantly clear in the instructions for the product? I had to pull teeth to figure out how to configure the security settings (not literally of course). Yes, I can go on the internet and piece together what I'm supposed to do. No, that doesn't mean my router had acceptable product design. The help feature and manual should say SOMETHING about how to put password protection on my routher.
Third, my routher most certainly *did* make me go through a wizard, and it either didn't make me choose security, or I chose not to put up the security, naively thinking that information about that would be the easiest thing in the world to find if I wanted to do it later. But that would pre-suppose actual product testing on linksys's part. Not a good assumption, it turns out!
So I by and large agree with you, but we seem to be takling past each other.
You're going to have to hold my hand here. I just don't follow.
The GGP specifically said that nuclear power has "nothing to do" with our dependence on gasoline via foreign crude oil. I just explained how nuclear power can be converted into gasoline, thereby displacing foreign crude oil (and eliminating gasoline's carbon footprint almost completely), which shows how nuclear power damn well has something to do with our dependence on gasoline via crude oil.
By what stretch of the imagination does it "miss the point"?
If every router owner knew how to open or lock down their access point, this issue would be open-and-shut. However, speaking from the experience as someone who set up a home wi-fi network, and someone who has some bizarre lifelong gravitation to the most poorly-designed aspects of products, my wi-fi kit didn't make it easy for me. The interface doesn't have anything that clearly leads me to "keep other people from using this", and you can damn well bet it's not the default. The help feature is barebones, as is the manual. (I use a linksys WRT
Only by knowning, in advance, that my wi-fi point is open (not obvious to a novice), and that the "easy-lock" button or whatever, is necessary to put a password on my router, would I know what to do.
Ultimately, I agree that even with stupid router owners (like me before pulling teeth to figure all this out!) don't have a right to complain, but at the same time, companies that make these could be a little more helpful in telling you how to use all the features.
C8H18 + O2 --> energy + H2O + CO2 (modulo a little balancing!)
Take energy from the nuclear plant, CO2 from the atmosphere, and every time a car burns that fuel, it's simply returning to the atmosphere, that which was taken from it. Carbon neutral octane!
This is NOT a crackpot idea, it's something that a federal lab has already worked out, and it can provide that fuel for $4.60 a gallon (before brilliant people optimize the process even further). That's not much more expensive than gasoline is today. To make it competitive, all you'd need is a $.60/gallon tax, and it's probably already competitive if introduced in the rest of the world which has higher fuel taxes.
I have no idea why this idea is not more widespead.
90% certain you guys are breaking the rules, but I'll give you a chance to explain.
-If your FIL couldn't walk 50 feet without getting out of breath, he should have been in a powered wheelchair/scooter, and appear visibly exhausted all the time.
-If those were present, people probably wouldn't be giving him trouble.
-So if they were giving him trouble, those things probably weren't present.
-Which implies that he shouldn't have been walking into stores in the first place -- a handicap spot will save you 100 feet on a 300 ft trip inside -- more than FIL can supposedly handle, even WITH the savings in distance.
-Which implies FIL just stays in the car.
-Which means you shouldn't be using the handicap spot, which is ONLY for when the handicapped person with that tag is going from the vehicle, into the business. You should NOT be parking there just because FIL is with you, and no, the "gosh, but we gotta haul stuff to the car" excuse won't work, because so does everyone else, and you better not be camping the entrance either.
Again, I don't want to unjustifiably throw accusations at you, but you have to understand the inconsistency in your story I see, and I'd appreciate if you'd clarify.
All I got out of that was:
... but it's because there's no substance to any of your justifications for your behavior, not because er, whatever of all that stuff you instantly KNOW to be true about me, including "you think you know better what the situation is".
-Selectiveness about which laws you have to follow, while criticizing others on the grounds that they broke the law.
-A bunch of ad hominem.
Yes, you failed to convince me
Yeah, durn those people that make wild, unjustifiable assumptions about others. lol, You're a sweetie. A dangerous sweetie, but a sweetie.
Looks like we found the one of the idiots here.
-You rarely "need" to be in the left lane on an unchoked street when you're not passing, and if you are camping the left lane, as you admit, you most certainly are breaking the law.
-Whatever danger you claim these faster drivers are causing, you are doing the same when you camp the left lane, which causes unnecessary walls, wolfpacks, and jams, which aren't making anyone safer, as they kill maneuverability room whenever people need to respond to hazards. (Which of course is predicated on those drivers being AWARE of and GIVING A DAMN about their environments, which quite clearly does not hold in your case.)
-If the new lane makes a different lane becomes the leftmost lane, that new left lane should be used just for passing, and the old one no longer has this status. Come on, that shouldn't be hard to figure out, even, yes, for you.
-Most passers are not dangerous, because they are AWARE of their environment, which is the most important thing when driving. Furthermore, for a driver to quickly and smoothly get out of your general vicinity (which passing you whilst you remain safely on the right, accomplishes) is safer for YOU, so it don't see how it's selfish.
-If you are responsible, others might not be. Be responsible anyway (with apologies to Mother Theresa).
Not his will, the law. In all 50 states, slower traffic must keep right, although this may not be vigorously enforced, since speeding tickets are easier revenue, and allow the officer more discretion in who he pulls over.
Oh, yeah, and then there's the whole "human decency" thing.
If you (as seems to be the case) like slowing people down just for the hell of it, or perhaps deliberately avoid minor steps to make life much easier for you and several others, you're the one who should be off the road.
Now, what should I do about countries where the REAL rules are "Normally, we'll be enforce the published laws, but if you get too profitable, well do whatever the hell we want, and rationalize it in the most plausible way" ?
Funny? You think this is funny? This is not funny. We are going to LOSE our ability to resize text.
... still not acceptable.)
Remember the dot-com era? Remember the overdone, NON-user-friendly, Flash-overloaded websites?
Well, we are going to get more of that. Flash lets you circumvent the principles of the Web, one of which is: I get to decide how YOUR data streams are rendered into graphics for ME. I can ditch everything in italics tags if I want to! I can make it bigger, smaller, different font, no pics, no ads, YOU NAME IT.
Thank your lucky stars that you can still manipulate part of the websites you see.
Because "content" providers don't like that. They want YOU to take it as a whole, and that means locking it all in Flash. Flash that you can't change text size on or remove ads from. (Yes, I know it's possible to figure out OCR programs that can find text in Flash graphics and change its size. But let's not kid ourselves. NO ONE will bothere to actually program that. Think about it. We can't get anyone to write a simple color transform plugin to help color-blind people read pictures such as maps that have poor red/green coloring schemes. You think someone's going to give you a LireSux plugin? HELL ****ING NO.)
You're EXCITED about all your webby functionality, and all you're going to do with LireSux 3? I'm not.
I'm not looking forward to my bookmarks and javascript whitelist being deleted again. (Yes, I know how to recover the bookmarks
I'm not looking forward to deleted functionality (like making addresses in the drop-down address bar not load instantly when I click on them) and then the LireSux folks deleting evidence that this functionality ever existed, all while Internet Exploder happily carries it, and then hearing LireSux fanboys gush about how DANGEROUS that feature was and how it should be removed and HELL NO I shouldn't have the choice to bring it back, even in the buried-deep options list.
I'm not looking forward to fill-in lists popping up on web forms, which cover up stuff I want to see and aren't even convenient to invoke! (Thanks for making me move my right hand that far, morons.)
I am, however, looking forward to the neat feature that lets you load sites in IE. That's pretty cool.
Just a nit: I think you mean availability bias (only considering that which you personally remember) or vividness(?) bias (only considering that which made a big impression on you), rather than confirmation bias (deliberately discarding or reinterpreting events to favor your theory).