That's a hilarious little rant, considering that Linux already effectively locks out hobbyist programmers for anyone but power users who know how to download source code and compile it themselves, by using centralized repositories of software.
Don't project your own ignorance onto others. We know a whole lot about the universe, and claiming otherwise is quite frankly rude to those who dedicate their lives to studying it.
Faster-than-light communication would create paradoxes if it happened in this universe. No new development is going to change that. General relativity is a completely different and totally groundbreaking theory when compared to Newtonian mechanics, but apples still fall like they always did even though we discovered relativity. New theories only create new effects in borderline cases - high velocities and long distances for relativity, small scales for quantum theories.
We actually know very well where the current theories do not work and new ones will be needed. But no matter what those new theories are, the old ones will still hold true in those areas where they've been thoroughly tested. And you can rely on the fact that this means there will be no superluminal communication. Unless you can somehow construct a universe that allows causality paradoxes.
Yeah, no, maybe. Depending on how fast you're moving. And stuff. Relativity is tricky. Even something as simple as this causes your everyday intuition to fail.
It's attention whoring. And reading his blog, LMH seems to have quite the unstable personality, given to going on off on incomprehensible rants about those who disagree with him or refuse to acknowledge his greatness, thinly veiled as flippant ironic "lulz".
Basically, LMH is a thin-skinned and borderline psychotic attention whore. He pretends he "does it for the lulz", but he's really lashing out at anybody who doesn't worship him for his l33t sk33lls, and posts incomprehensible rants about everybody who disagrees with him.
Why should I? The scientific community on the whole agrees that global warming is real and man-made. If you want to challenge that, challenge away. I'm perfectly satisfied with things as they stand.
Only because of your intuitive concept of the universe do you think that statement makes sense. However, that intuitive concept is severely flawed. There is no shame in that - you've only ever lived in strongly non-relativistic circumstances so neither you nor anyone else has had the chance to develop a good feel for how the universe works at large scales, other than by studying the physics involved.
So to repeat the previous poster, even though all your everyday experiences seem to tell you the opposite, there really is no such thing as "instantaneously".
Right, because the whole point of the project is to have US ebook publishers sell books to kids in developing nations. Good think you pointed out that won't work!
Re:Response from Kevin Finisterre, second bug
on
Month of Apple Fixes
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry to hear that application developers don't offer you the same flexibility on OSX that we tend to get everywhere else.
The flexibility to choose between a wide array of interfaces that are consistent only in their all being horrible to use is not really considered a feature. We like interfaces that look like the rest of the OS, and behave in ways specified by the HIG. I do not feel the need to put stickers and custom rims on my car, and I do not feel the need to rice my computer, either.
Most people will never need to mess with the preferences window at all. I've looked at it a zillion times but never actually changed anything.
Each time I foolhardily try to use it, I have to use the preferences in order to try and improve the sub-standard subtitle rendering.
Never once have I actually managed to do so, though.
Not that "you don't need to use it" is an excuse for having a incredibly shitty interface. If you don't need it, it should not be there. If it is there, it should be needed, and it should be decent.
I would give them points for that but they lose all of them for putting a stupid welcome screen in Quicktime by default
As far as I can figure, this only happens if you actually go to the trouble of open/Applications/ and double-clicking Quicktime.app. That is not how it used - you click on a file associated to it, and it runs without any welcome screen. I don't think I've ever even seen this welcome screen.
This is not to say Quicktime is anywhere near perfect - that welcome screen is probably useless, and forcing you to register the app is bullshit, but even taking that into account, VLC is not even anywhere near the same league, interface-wise. When I have files that Quicktime won't play, VLC is pretty much my last choice. MPlayer OS X is far better designed (though it contains its share of idiocies), and considering how user-hostile mplayer usually is, that's saying something.
Re:Response from Kevin Finisterre, second bug
on
Month of Apple Fixes
·
· Score: 1
Skins? We don't "skin" apps on OS X. And does it have a skin that makes the preferences window usable by humans?
And when did you last use Quicktime? It hasn't had any sliding drawers for years and years.
Re:Response from Kevin Finisterre, second bug
on
Month of Apple Fixes
·
· Score: 1
Or you could just install vlc and update it occasionally, since it seems to correctly play more media formats than any other player - and that definitely includes Apple's Quicktime.
Mac users actually appreciate well-designed interfaces, so that's not really an option.
It's kind of sad when a program is beaten on interface design by mplayer, of all things.
Re:Response from Kevin Finisterre, second bug
on
Month of Apple Fixes
·
· Score: 1
while others are switching from OS X to Linux because they feel more comfortable about the transparency under which security vulnerabilities are handled.
So... Because SOME people standardized and not ALL people, this is the same as NO people standardizing? That's some pretty shaky logic you've got there.
You're telling me that this is the choice maximizing alternative?
No, I have no interest whatsoever in "maximizing alternative". It does not benefit me in any way. I do not choose my cell phone based on how innovative a charger it has - as a matter of fact, it would be very hard for me to even find out what kind of charger it has.
However, having a standard for chargers allows many new innovations, as third parties can now much more easily make chargers that work with a large segement of the market. Thus, I can much more easily get a new charger, a charger for my car, a solar-powered charger to use on the road, a charger that is not an ugly wall wart but instead, say, built into my desk, and so on. All of these are much harder for third parties to manufacture and distribute if they have to deal with a large variety of charger connectors.
The "free market" does nothing to help me here, because cell phone manufacturers have no interest in helping these third parties do their business, and would much prefer to sell their own overpriced chargers.
I never intended to suggest that the free market "works perfectly".
You did say this, though: "As soon as you ask the question "do you want...?" then the answer has to be a free market. Because that's the only thing that allows EVERYONE to get what they want instead of being subject to someone else's will."
But it's significanly better than the alternative of government mandated solutions.
Having a big pile of chargers taking up all my sockets is better than having one standardized one? In what way, exactly?
So basically, the free market works perfectly as long as people don't act like they normally do? Sounds like a real recipe for success!
And not just that, there don't exist any universal charger standard, because none of the manufacturers are interested in making one, as the current model is more profitable for them. There simply is no way to buy one and "vote with your dollars" or whatever you like to call it.
As soon as you ask the question "do you want...?" then the answer has to be a free market. Because that's the only thing that allows EVERYONE to get what they want instead of being subject to someone else's will.
You actually meant to say that the free market is the only thing that allows some people to get something kind of like what they want as long as there's not more people who want something else, or people don't care enough?
Because, you know, there are a lot of people here in this Slashdot thread who keep saying they really want this, but apparently the free market didn't give it to them, so I guess they're not part of the EVERYONE you were talking about?
Slashdot Mirror
That's a hilarious little rant, considering that Linux already effectively locks out hobbyist programmers for anyone but power users who know how to download source code and compile it themselves, by using centralized repositories of software.
Don't project your own ignorance onto others. We know a whole lot about the universe, and claiming otherwise is quite frankly rude to those who dedicate their lives to studying it.
Faster-than-light communication would create paradoxes if it happened in this universe. No new development is going to change that. General relativity is a completely different and totally groundbreaking theory when compared to Newtonian mechanics, but apples still fall like they always did even though we discovered relativity. New theories only create new effects in borderline cases - high velocities and long distances for relativity, small scales for quantum theories.
We actually know very well where the current theories do not work and new ones will be needed. But no matter what those new theories are, the old ones will still hold true in those areas where they've been thoroughly tested. And you can rely on the fact that this means there will be no superluminal communication. Unless you can somehow construct a universe that allows causality paradoxes.
No. Because you can't send it quick enough.
Yeah, no, maybe. Depending on how fast you're moving. And stuff. Relativity is tricky. Even something as simple as this causes your everyday intuition to fail.
It's attention whoring. And reading his blog, LMH seems to have quite the unstable personality, given to going on off on incomprehensible rants about those who disagree with him or refuse to acknowledge his greatness, thinly veiled as flippant ironic "lulz".
Basically, LMH is a thin-skinned and borderline psychotic attention whore. He pretends he "does it for the lulz", but he's really lashing out at anybody who doesn't worship him for his l33t sk33lls, and posts incomprehensible rants about everybody who disagrees with him.
Why should I? The scientific community on the whole agrees that global warming is real and man-made. If you want to challenge that, challenge away. I'm perfectly satisfied with things as they stand.
Only because of your intuitive concept of the universe do you think that statement makes sense. However, that intuitive concept is severely flawed. There is no shame in that - you've only ever lived in strongly non-relativistic circumstances so neither you nor anyone else has had the chance to develop a good feel for how the universe works at large scales, other than by studying the physics involved.
So to repeat the previous poster, even though all your everyday experiences seem to tell you the opposite, there really is no such thing as "instantaneously".
And there are far more reputable scientists who are actually doing useful work on the problem instead of whining about it being too hard.
Right, because the whole point of the project is to have US ebook publishers sell books to kids in developing nations. Good think you pointed out that won't work!
So basically your shit won't work but at least somebody's else's ideologies are satisfied.
Your personal inabilities aren't a very good measuring stick for objective reality.
The subject field is not for typing your post.
I'm sorry to hear that application developers don't offer you the same flexibility on OSX that we tend to get everywhere else.
/Applications/ and double-clicking Quicktime.app. That is not how it used - you click on a file associated to it, and it runs without any welcome screen. I don't think I've ever even seen this welcome screen.
The flexibility to choose between a wide array of interfaces that are consistent only in their all being horrible to use is not really considered a feature. We like interfaces that look like the rest of the OS, and behave in ways specified by the HIG. I do not feel the need to put stickers and custom rims on my car, and I do not feel the need to rice my computer, either.
Most people will never need to mess with the preferences window at all. I've looked at it a zillion times but never actually changed anything.
Each time I foolhardily try to use it, I have to use the preferences in order to try and improve the sub-standard subtitle rendering.
Never once have I actually managed to do so, though.
Not that "you don't need to use it" is an excuse for having a incredibly shitty interface. If you don't need it, it should not be there. If it is there, it should be needed, and it should be decent.
I would give them points for that but they lose all of them for putting a stupid welcome screen in Quicktime by default
As far as I can figure, this only happens if you actually go to the trouble of open
This is not to say Quicktime is anywhere near perfect - that welcome screen is probably useless, and forcing you to register the app is bullshit, but even taking that into account, VLC is not even anywhere near the same league, interface-wise. When I have files that Quicktime won't play, VLC is pretty much my last choice. MPlayer OS X is far better designed (though it contains its share of idiocies), and considering how user-hostile mplayer usually is, that's saying something.
Skins? We don't "skin" apps on OS X. And does it have a skin that makes the preferences window usable by humans?
And when did you last use Quicktime? It hasn't had any sliding drawers for years and years.
Or you could just install vlc and update it occasionally, since it seems to correctly play more media formats than any other player - and that definitely includes Apple's Quicktime.
Mac users actually appreciate well-designed interfaces, so that's not really an option.
It's kind of sad when a program is beaten on interface design by mplayer, of all things.
while others are switching from OS X to Linux because they feel more comfortable about the transparency under which security vulnerabilities are handled.
"Others"? There are two of you?
I'm not really sure who you're trying to convince here.
So... Because SOME people standardized and not ALL people, this is the same as NO people standardizing? That's some pretty shaky logic you've got there.
If any one of the designs was obviously better than any other, everyone would switch.
"Better" is not the same for consumers and producers.
It's always good to have dogmatic fallbacks to use when you need to pull out of a losing argument, isn't it?
You're telling me that this is the choice maximizing alternative?
No, I have no interest whatsoever in "maximizing alternative". It does not benefit me in any way. I do not choose my cell phone based on how innovative a charger it has - as a matter of fact, it would be very hard for me to even find out what kind of charger it has.
However, having a standard for chargers allows many new innovations, as third parties can now much more easily make chargers that work with a large segement of the market. Thus, I can much more easily get a new charger, a charger for my car, a solar-powered charger to use on the road, a charger that is not an ugly wall wart but instead, say, built into my desk, and so on. All of these are much harder for third parties to manufacture and distribute if they have to deal with a large variety of charger connectors.
The "free market" does nothing to help me here, because cell phone manufacturers have no interest in helping these third parties do their business, and would much prefer to sell their own overpriced chargers.
I never intended to suggest that the free market "works perfectly".
You did say this, though: "As soon as you ask the question "do you want...?" then the answer has to be a free market. Because that's the only thing that allows EVERYONE to get what they want instead of being subject to someone else's will."
But it's significanly better than the alternative of government mandated solutions.
Having a big pile of chargers taking up all my sockets is better than having one standardized one? In what way, exactly?
So basically, the free market works perfectly as long as people don't act like they normally do? Sounds like a real recipe for success!
And not just that, there don't exist any universal charger standard, because none of the manufacturers are interested in making one, as the current model is more profitable for them. There simply is no way to buy one and "vote with your dollars" or whatever you like to call it.
So when you said,
As soon as you ask the question "do you want...?" then the answer has to be a free market. Because that's the only thing that allows EVERYONE to get what they want instead of being subject to someone else's will.
You actually meant to say that the free market is the only thing that allows some people to get something kind of like what they want as long as there's not more people who want something else, or people don't care enough?
Because, you know, there are a lot of people here in this Slashdot thread who keep saying they really want this, but apparently the free market didn't give it to them, so I guess they're not part of the EVERYONE you were talking about?