Why bother? With divorce and infidelity so popular these days, who cares about a piece of metal on your finger?
Although I don't agree with it, Nursie has a good point - most people don't consider marriage to be anything special anymore...a trend that I find quite sad indeed.
but both men and women THINK that men cheat a LOT more than women
I know you're generalizing, but I personally do not believe this. My own (crappy) experiences, along with the experience of two of my best friends, women are far worse than men w/ respect to cheating.
All in all, its almost as much a problem as this "If you've got nothing to hide, what are you worried about?" attitude that we're seeing more and more.
I don't think this is a new attitude. Most people just don't care because it's not affecting them. As soon as someone is personally affected, then that is when you'll see them rise up to fight whatever said thing is.
Unfortunate fact of the matter is, very few people care about anything outside their own realm of short term comfort and happiness.
And those of us who are in the latter group get really offended when those of you in the former group try to make us feel guilty over the fact that we really want a relationship and are focused on making it happen.
Touche. Guess I typically see it from the other way, "You're someone who's not in a relationship!!! WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU!"
I know I'm slightly off-topic here, but I really have to wonder about timothy's choice of department for this article. It is:
from the tragically-yes-I'm-single dept.
Now, I am not trashing people who are in relationships or who are married or anything else. Please do not take my response that way. But my question is - why is it so "tragic" these days if someone is single? It seems as if everybody spends much of their waking time thinking about whether or not they have a date Friday night and the never do something with their lives. I personally have a number of a friends (girls tend to be the worst offenders) that gain their self-esteem from whether or not they are in a relationship. That seems horrible to me (and a really crummy way to live).
I don't know...mini-rant I suppose. I guess I just don't see what the big deal is about being single. Yeah, it *can* be lonely at times. But even people in relationships can be lonely. (On the flip side, I do know singles who can be alone, but their not lonely.) Being single offers so many advantages - your time is yours, your money is yours, you aren't tied down, and single people (especially ones who are content with that) tend to adventure a lot more.
Why being single = a bad thing, I don't think I'll totally understand.
Instead we have a nation of people expecting the skies to open up and manna to rain from the heavens on January 21st 2009. They're in for some tough times...
I'm a rogue, you insensitive clod! I expect it to rain energy - not manna!
Until I read the rest of your post, I wasn't sure if you were talking about the book that you buy and fill in nouns and adverbs and such, or if you were talking about the Democrats.
Start by giving teachers livable wages, start by funding real programs that put books, science and math into students hands.
I think the better thing to say would be, "give teachers COMPETITIVE wages."
I actually considered becoming a teacher. But, when I saw what I could make as an engineer and that my potential highest salary was barely higher than my starting salary as an engineer, I didn't even give teaching a second glance.
Good people will not work for poorly paying jobs. (And, the crap that my teacher friends go through definitely makes their salaries not worth it.)
The teaching of creationism is the least of America's education issues. We have a significant portion of high school graduates who are well behind their foreign counterparts in literacy and mathematics. The problem is so widespread that many universities have remedial courses to prep students for basic foundation classes in English and algebra.
THIS.
Why the heck do/.ers get all gung-ho about "creationism" vs. "evolution" when that doesn't really matter. There are far bigger issues in our nation's educational system (No Child Left Behind, for example) than just one (relatively unimportant) topic.
And, you're right. Windows interface does change pretty frequently. However...it doesn't change so much that it's unfamiliar territory (with the exception of Office 2007 which, as you just demonstrated, results in people not enjoying the use of it as much). Yes, there are various doo-dads and widgets and color schemes that aren't different, but people can typically find what they are looking for. And, of course, the person is still using "Windows" so it can't be THAT different (at least in a consumer's mind).
Plus, changing to a new OS...now THAT is change. New applications. New underlying structure. Etc.
So, between a minor change of a Windows version to the full blown change of an OS, people will go with the path of least resistance.
If you're referring to Windows 9x/2000/etc, then I agree.
However, with Vista specifically (and to some extent, XP), I have not seen Windows lock up at all. Ever. Apps crash out at times, but the OS always (at least for me) remains responsive to user input.
They'll stick with Windows - of which Vista is part of. (Actually, as you point out, they'll stick with XP first if they can. But, when upgrades happen, they'll hear, "a computer installed with Windows" and they'll buy it because it's familiar.)
You are correct - system responsiveness is an extremely important factor. I made the mistake of not distinguishing between "speed" vs. "responsiveness."
The article did not specify which it was talking about, but given "boot speeds" and other measures, my guess is that it was referring to sheer speed of a system. However, as with my example about Linux "freezing" even if it is running faster, a system can run more slowly from a speed standpoint, as long as it provides feedback that it's working, is responsive and doesn't appear to ever hang.
This is something Microsoft is relatively good at managing. And, with both XP and Vista have become even better at it. (I remember when Windows 95 would hang while trying to bring up the Task Manager when I was trying to kill an app. That doesn't happen at all anymore.)
So, thanks for the correction - I just need to learn to clarify better.
Linux speed and faster boots have never been enough to win the desktop.
Exactly. This isn't what users care about.
A common myth among website developers is that, if your page takes longer than ~8-10 seconds to load, users are going to move elsewhere. However, repeated studies have shown that this is not the case. Extrapolating a bit, users don't really care *that* much about speed. I mean, obvious problems are...well...problems. But, the fact that Vista copies files more slowly than XP, or the fact that Ubuntu boots 10 seconds more quickly is not going to convince anybody.
There's inherent costs with switching to a new operating system. Retraining, porting apps (or learning completely new apps), unfamiliarity and change. And, that last one is huge. People dislike change. They will typically go out of their way to avoid change. So, despite Apple's marketing, despite the excellent improvements in OSS, people will stick with Vista. Why? Because it's easy and most people don't care otherwise.
What do users want? Well, I'm only guessing a bit here, but based on my usability work, they want: familiarity, ease-of-use, "prettiness" (yes...people are shallow...big surprise) and various other things that have nothing to do with a truly good app. Perceived "goodness" is far better than actual goodness. This is why, even though Linux applications tend to run faster, when they hold up the windowing system to do so (due to running in user space, from what I understand), users feel it is not as good as Windows which typically attempts to go out of its way to return control to its users.
Personal responsibility is quickly disappearing in America. We, as humans, love to blame others to protect ourselves. It's tough to say, "Man...I might just be unhealthy because I made some crappy choices." It's so much easier to sue McDonalds because they made you fat.
The government should not be getting involved with things such as this. It is not their duty. If people actually thought about their futures and did some planning (whether food, money, or whatever) and had personal responsibility in their lives, they would be far better off.
I personally don't think our system is "great," but it sure as heck beats paying out of my own paycheck for other people who (more than likely) don't take care of themselves as well as I do.
There's a reason I put time into going to the gym, watching what I eat, taking vitamins and not gorging myself on fast food and ice cream cones. I like being healthy. Unfortunately, if we go to a nationalized system, I am forced to pay for those people whether I like it or not.
That's crap.
And, have you LIVED in Europe? The taxes are through the freaken roof.
I'm not asking you to. That said, if you want nationalized health care, you better be prepared to pay for the health care for people who don't keep themselves in as good shape as they could. It's a consequence of having a system that covers everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Highly efficient I/O, capable of 30000 words per day.
IMO, a ton of I/O to get the same message across is not efficient.
(non slashdot reading females)
You could have just said "females" - the "non slashdot" part was implied.
Why bother? With divorce and infidelity so popular these days, who cares about a piece of metal on your finger?
Although I don't agree with it, Nursie has a good point - most people don't consider marriage to be anything special anymore...a trend that I find quite sad indeed.
but both men and women THINK that men cheat a LOT more than women
I know you're generalizing, but I personally do not believe this. My own (crappy) experiences, along with the experience of two of my best friends, women are far worse than men w/ respect to cheating.
All in all, its almost as much a problem as this "If you've got nothing to hide, what are you worried about?" attitude that we're seeing more and more.
I don't think this is a new attitude. Most people just don't care because it's not affecting them. As soon as someone is personally affected, then that is when you'll see them rise up to fight whatever said thing is.
Unfortunate fact of the matter is, very few people care about anything outside their own realm of short term comfort and happiness.
Speaking of which, there are girls out there, correct? Anyone girls tragically single?
Slashdot, dude, Slashdot...
I don't know. iTunes finds my music for me all the time. I don't have to do a single thing.
That sounds pretty automatic.
And those of us who are in the latter group get really offended when those of you in the former group try to make us feel guilty over the fact that we really want a relationship and are focused on making it happen.
Touche. Guess I typically see it from the other way, "You're someone who's not in a relationship!!! WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU!"
So...good point.
I know I'm slightly off-topic here, but I really have to wonder about timothy's choice of department for this article. It is:
from the tragically-yes-I'm-single dept.
Now, I am not trashing people who are in relationships or who are married or anything else. Please do not take my response that way. But my question is - why is it so "tragic" these days if someone is single? It seems as if everybody spends much of their waking time thinking about whether or not they have a date Friday night and the never do something with their lives. I personally have a number of a friends (girls tend to be the worst offenders) that gain their self-esteem from whether or not they are in a relationship. That seems horrible to me (and a really crummy way to live).
I don't know...mini-rant I suppose. I guess I just don't see what the big deal is about being single. Yeah, it *can* be lonely at times. But even people in relationships can be lonely. (On the flip side, I do know singles who can be alone, but their not lonely.) Being single offers so many advantages - your time is yours, your money is yours, you aren't tied down, and single people (especially ones who are content with that) tend to adventure a lot more.
Why being single = a bad thing, I don't think I'll totally understand.
Any response back from anybody here on Slashdot?
Although, if you really have data you're concerned about keeping safe, you should not use the Internet at all.
There, fixed that for you.
Instead we have a nation of people expecting the skies to open up and manna to rain from the heavens on January 21st 2009. They're in for some tough times...
I'm a rogue, you insensitive clod! I expect it to rain energy - not manna!
One person does not a trend make. If you really want to see trends, head to Google and look at the voting demographics for this election.
Canada?
Oooh, mad libs!
Until I read the rest of your post, I wasn't sure if you were talking about the book that you buy and fill in nouns and adverbs and such, or if you were talking about the Democrats.
Start by giving teachers livable wages, start by funding real programs that put books, science and math into students hands.
I think the better thing to say would be, "give teachers COMPETITIVE wages."
I actually considered becoming a teacher. But, when I saw what I could make as an engineer and that my potential highest salary was barely higher than my starting salary as an engineer, I didn't even give teaching a second glance.
Good people will not work for poorly paying jobs. (And, the crap that my teacher friends go through definitely makes their salaries not worth it.)
The teaching of creationism is the least of America's education issues. We have a significant portion of high school graduates who are well behind their foreign counterparts in literacy and mathematics. The problem is so widespread that many universities have remedial courses to prep students for basic foundation classes in English and algebra.
THIS.
Why the heck do /.ers get all gung-ho about "creationism" vs. "evolution" when that doesn't really matter. There are far bigger issues in our nation's educational system (No Child Left Behind, for example) than just one (relatively unimportant) topic.
Whoa there, cowboy. Deep breath.
And, you're right. Windows interface does change pretty frequently. However...it doesn't change so much that it's unfamiliar territory (with the exception of Office 2007 which, as you just demonstrated, results in people not enjoying the use of it as much). Yes, there are various doo-dads and widgets and color schemes that aren't different, but people can typically find what they are looking for. And, of course, the person is still using "Windows" so it can't be THAT different (at least in a consumer's mind).
Plus, changing to a new OS...now THAT is change. New applications. New underlying structure. Etc.
So, between a minor change of a Windows version to the full blown change of an OS, people will go with the path of least resistance.
If you're referring to Windows 9x/2000/etc, then I agree.
However, with Vista specifically (and to some extent, XP), I have not seen Windows lock up at all. Ever. Apps crash out at times, but the OS always (at least for me) remains responsive to user input.
It has nothing to do with Apple's marketing, unless you include their abysmal hardware/pricing update cycle as "marketing."
I was referring to Apple's trash-talk of Vista (the advertisements with "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" that have gone the way of mudslinging as of late).
They'll stick with Windows - of which Vista is part of. (Actually, as you point out, they'll stick with XP first if they can. But, when upgrades happen, they'll hear, "a computer installed with Windows" and they'll buy it because it's familiar.)
You are correct - system responsiveness is an extremely important factor. I made the mistake of not distinguishing between "speed" vs. "responsiveness."
The article did not specify which it was talking about, but given "boot speeds" and other measures, my guess is that it was referring to sheer speed of a system. However, as with my example about Linux "freezing" even if it is running faster, a system can run more slowly from a speed standpoint, as long as it provides feedback that it's working, is responsive and doesn't appear to ever hang.
This is something Microsoft is relatively good at managing. And, with both XP and Vista have become even better at it. (I remember when Windows 95 would hang while trying to bring up the Task Manager when I was trying to kill an app. That doesn't happen at all anymore.)
So, thanks for the correction - I just need to learn to clarify better.
Linux speed and faster boots have never been enough to win the desktop.
Exactly. This isn't what users care about.
A common myth among website developers is that, if your page takes longer than ~8-10 seconds to load, users are going to move elsewhere. However, repeated studies have shown that this is not the case. Extrapolating a bit, users don't really care *that* much about speed. I mean, obvious problems are...well...problems. But, the fact that Vista copies files more slowly than XP, or the fact that Ubuntu boots 10 seconds more quickly is not going to convince anybody.
There's inherent costs with switching to a new operating system. Retraining, porting apps (or learning completely new apps), unfamiliarity and change. And, that last one is huge. People dislike change. They will typically go out of their way to avoid change. So, despite Apple's marketing, despite the excellent improvements in OSS, people will stick with Vista. Why? Because it's easy and most people don't care otherwise.
What do users want? Well, I'm only guessing a bit here, but based on my usability work, they want: familiarity, ease-of-use, "prettiness" (yes...people are shallow...big surprise) and various other things that have nothing to do with a truly good app. Perceived "goodness" is far better than actual goodness. This is why, even though Linux applications tend to run faster, when they hold up the windowing system to do so (due to running in user space, from what I understand), users feel it is not as good as Windows which typically attempts to go out of its way to return control to its users.
Mod the parent up, please.
Personal responsibility is quickly disappearing in America. We, as humans, love to blame others to protect ourselves. It's tough to say, "Man...I might just be unhealthy because I made some crappy choices." It's so much easier to sue McDonalds because they made you fat.
The government should not be getting involved with things such as this. It is not their duty. If people actually thought about their futures and did some planning (whether food, money, or whatever) and had personal responsibility in their lives, they would be far better off.
I personally don't think our system is "great," but it sure as heck beats paying out of my own paycheck for other people who (more than likely) don't take care of themselves as well as I do.
There's a reason I put time into going to the gym, watching what I eat, taking vitamins and not gorging myself on fast food and ice cream cones. I like being healthy. Unfortunately, if we go to a nationalized system, I am forced to pay for those people whether I like it or not.
That's crap.
And, have you LIVED in Europe? The taxes are through the freaken roof.
I'm not asking you to. That said, if you want nationalized health care, you better be prepared to pay for the health care for people who don't keep themselves in as good shape as they could. It's a consequence of having a system that covers everyone.
Which is why I don't want it. At all.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?