Seriously, I've had process explorer in my kit for a while, but haven't used it for much lately. Have you tried Malwarebytes, I wonder why it's not on your list. FWIW if you can't boot your system at all one of the guys from MBAM suggests Avira http://www.free-av.com/en/products/12/avira_antivir_rescue_system.html haven't tried that one yet, but it's on my list of potentials, so I'd love to hear if anyone has worked with it.
From what I understand that's debatable. On one hand you can practice the same sort of puzzles that are on the tests and get better at the tests, but how would one do on equivelant puzzles they haven't memorized? There's supposed to be a strong correlation between IQ and vocabulary, seems best to me. Puzzles by themselves don't seem to cover the breadth and depth that is intelligence. A *functional* vocabulary, that's different.
I'm also quite convinced that Captain Jack Sparrow of Pirates of The Caribbean, must have an IQ around 140, or at the very least a remarkably high spatial intelligence.
Encyclopedia Brown and Sherlock Holmes come to mind as well.
Yea, it's funny and maybe I'm acting a little ironically, but you cannot *prove* that openoffice has never done anything innovative. That's why the original post was flame bait. It was subjective opinionated drivel.
Look, you or some other asshole asked why it was flamebait. I explained, the argument is a piece of shit. It's still a piece of shit and will always be a piece of shit. I say the licensing is innovative. You say it's not any more innovative than anything else. You say the ribbon is innovative. I say the ribbon isn't any more impressive than a menu on an interactive website (provably true). You say OO.o isn't innovative because they copied Office. I say Office isn't innovative cause they just ripped the idea of putting tabs on a tool bar from some crappy website somewhere.
Oh fuck off. You have not proven that all FOSS ever does is copy proprietary software. You're a fucking fanboy, acting like you're fed up with fanboys. And instead of working to prove your point you've reversed the argument again. Maybe you should login and back your BS up a little bit.
No, I used an example that forces everyone to realize that there is no standard definition for what those icons are. Without a standard definition there is no basis for communication. You can argue that the ribbon is designed for the noob, but who defines the icons for them?
There's no simple way around the complexity. It's there, the ribbon is little different than a toolbar - actually it is a toolbar with tabs. Not truly terrible by itself, but whether or not it is justified is another question altogether. What did we gain, an improvement for the most casual users and a hindrance for advanced users and support.
To say that it is easier for non-trained users is ridiculous all by itself. Non-trained users by definition do not know what the icons will mean, furthermore, they won't need 90% of them for a long time. The old toolbar fulfilled this need just fine without prompting them to ask "what's this thingy do?".
That's all rant though. My real point is that a million user interface designers arguing and disagreeing over the best way to do something, constantly changing shit, and never standardizing on anything is not going to work.
Define innovation. It's subjective, which makes the argument asinine. FOSS licensing is by definition innovative. Package management is innovative, the list goes on. Anyways, the burden is not mine. Prove FOSS does NOT innovate.
Basically, I think if you're in UI design and still use a qwerty keyboard, you're basically a hypocrite. There's nothing beneficial in an interface that changes every few years. It's well known that a changing interface is probably the worst possible interface you can design, unless it's in the name of "massive productivity gains" - yea, what fucking ever.
It's flamebait because it's unmitigated bias. Yes, in the particular case it's a user interface fashioned after a proprietary one, but that doesn't make it "as usual". I can counter his claim with something so trivial as "where did NT get their network stack" or "IE7 got tabs from where"? It's stupid.
This is the best answer. You're the only one that tried to describe what the button looks like (key for use over the phone). But did you notice how everyone here came up with their own definition for the Paragraph section-square-box-group, how is it easier to use if we can't even define it? How is this more usable than a plain English menu? Icons don't have standard definitions that you can write instructions for.
Did you notice that all of the list style icons-(boxes?) also have little lines and arrows pointing down. Then the indentation boxes also have lines and arrows. That's six boxes in the paragraph box with lines and arrows, four of them include the drop down arrow, which differs from the arrows you're describing how?
2003, in English. Select your text, click "format", click "paragraph", go to the section titled "spacing", from the drop down menu titled "line spacing" select "double". it's more clicks sure, but there's clear English all along the way.
The only thing that makes this intuitive in 2007 is the assumption that everyone will develop the same definition of that dingy icon box thingy.
And why the hell is the Paragraph section different on the Home ribbon than it is on the Page Layout ribbon?
Funny, I will hate the ribbon either way, for a long time. But you're right, from the screen shot openoffice.org is missing that little wonder of utility the "small box in the lower right hand corner of the ribbon's subject section you click on to go to a menu to get more hopefully relevant options" - thingy.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, I've had process explorer in my kit for a while, but haven't used it for much lately. Have you tried Malwarebytes, I wonder why it's not on your list. FWIW if you can't boot your system at all one of the guys from MBAM suggests Avira http://www.free-av.com/en/products/12/avira_antivir_rescue_system.html haven't tried that one yet, but it's on my list of potentials, so I'd love to hear if anyone has worked with it.
From what I understand that's debatable. On one hand you can practice the same sort of puzzles that are on the tests and get better at the tests, but how would one do on equivelant puzzles they haven't memorized? There's supposed to be a strong correlation between IQ and vocabulary, seems best to me. Puzzles by themselves don't seem to cover the breadth and depth that is intelligence. A *functional* vocabulary, that's different.
Other characters. Abraham Van Helsing, Robert Neville (I am Legend) - might be cool setting up traps and learning anatomy. Abraham Van Helsing was based on a character archetype known as the Byronic Hero http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byronic_hero. By definition, Robert Neville might qualify as well http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/byronic+hero?qsrc=2446.
I'm also quite convinced that Captain Jack Sparrow of Pirates of The Caribbean, must have an IQ around 140, or at the very least a remarkably high spatial intelligence.
Encyclopedia Brown and Sherlock Holmes come to mind as well.
The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli and The Art of War by Sun Tzu, ought to cover some objective scenarios.
I'm more of a Linux From Scratch kind of guy...
merp!
C = Openoffice innovates.
X = "You're asking this in a discussion about Openoffice cloning one of Microsoft's ideas? Facepalm."
C = "Prove FOSS does NOT innovate."
# X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
# Therefore claim C is false.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
Yea, it's funny and maybe I'm acting a little ironically, but you cannot *prove* that openoffice has never done anything innovative. That's why the original post was flame bait. It was subjective opinionated drivel.
Look, you or some other asshole asked why it was flamebait. I explained, the argument is a piece of shit. It's still a piece of shit and will always be a piece of shit. I say the licensing is innovative. You say it's not any more innovative than anything else. You say the ribbon is innovative. I say the ribbon isn't any more impressive than a menu on an interactive website (provably true). You say OO.o isn't innovative because they copied Office. I say Office isn't innovative cause they just ripped the idea of putting tabs on a tool bar from some crappy website somewhere.
It's flawed.
Oh fuck off. You have not proven that all FOSS ever does is copy proprietary software. You're a fucking fanboy, acting like you're fed up with fanboys. And instead of working to prove your point you've reversed the argument again. Maybe you should login and back your BS up a little bit.
Fight Club: "If the cost of a recall is more than the average cost of an out of court settlement ... we don't do one."
http://www.ask.com/web?q=why+does+pepsi+suck
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=?p=why+does+pepsi+suck
Bing is just bad.
Mod this up.
Either bing is really bad, or they're shilling for pepsi too.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=why+does+pepsi+suck
http://www.google.com/search?q=why+does+pepsi+suck
http://www.google.com/search?q=why+are+windows+so+expensive
An advantage, unless you speak English. 3rd result, yea, a little skewed towards computers yea. Better than bing with proper grammar? Yea.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=why+are+windows+so+expensive
No, I used an example that forces everyone to realize that there is no standard definition for what those icons are. Without a standard definition there is no basis for communication. You can argue that the ribbon is designed for the noob, but who defines the icons for them?
There's no simple way around the complexity. It's there, the ribbon is little different than a toolbar - actually it is a toolbar with tabs. Not truly terrible by itself, but whether or not it is justified is another question altogether. What did we gain, an improvement for the most casual users and a hindrance for advanced users and support.
To say that it is easier for non-trained users is ridiculous all by itself. Non-trained users by definition do not know what the icons will mean, furthermore, they won't need 90% of them for a long time. The old toolbar fulfilled this need just fine without prompting them to ask "what's this thingy do?".
That's all rant though. My real point is that a million user interface designers arguing and disagreeing over the best way to do something, constantly changing shit, and never standardizing on anything is not going to work.
Define innovation. It's subjective, which makes the argument asinine. FOSS licensing is by definition innovative. Package management is innovative, the list goes on. Anyways, the burden is not mine. Prove FOSS does NOT innovate.
Basically, I think if you're in UI design and still use a qwerty keyboard, you're basically a hypocrite. There's nothing beneficial in an interface that changes every few years. It's well known that a changing interface is probably the worst possible interface you can design, unless it's in the name of "massive productivity gains" - yea, what fucking ever.
It's flamebait because it's unmitigated bias. Yes, in the particular case it's a user interface fashioned after a proprietary one, but that doesn't make it "as usual". I can counter his claim with something so trivial as "where did NT get their network stack" or "IE7 got tabs from where"? It's stupid.
This is the best answer. You're the only one that tried to describe what the button looks like (key for use over the phone). But did you notice how everyone here came up with their own definition for the Paragraph section-square-box-group, how is it easier to use if we can't even define it? How is this more usable than a plain English menu? Icons don't have standard definitions that you can write instructions for.
Did you notice that all of the list style icons-(boxes?) also have little lines and arrows pointing down. Then the indentation boxes also have lines and arrows. That's six boxes in the paragraph box with lines and arrows, four of them include the drop down arrow, which differs from the arrows you're describing how?
2003, in English. Select your text, click "format", click "paragraph", go to the section titled "spacing", from the drop down menu titled "line spacing" select "double". it's more clicks sure, but there's clear English all along the way.
The only thing that makes this intuitive in 2007 is the assumption that everyone will develop the same definition of that dingy icon box thingy.
And why the hell is the Paragraph section different on the Home ribbon than it is on the Page Layout ribbon?
Correct, but what's the line spacing button?
Funny, I will hate the ribbon either way, for a long time. But you're right, from the screen shot openoffice.org is missing that little wonder of utility the "small box in the lower right hand corner of the ribbon's subject section you click on to go to a menu to get more hopefully relevant options" - thingy.
Okay, write the instructions for making your paper double spaced in office 2007.
Foot meet mouth.
you could just say hi too. Awfully suspensful this waiting around bit.
check your mail
I never did conclude such a thing.
Oh, you got me.
That's kind of lame though. What's alcohol?