If the meeting is at 84:25 Global Time, then they will either be there, or they will request a time change.
Man, we already have a global reference time: GMT.
If you say "OK, let's meet at 4:00 GMT", and people go "wait, what time is that in Hong Kong / New York / Paris / Timbuktu", well, what makes you think it would be any different with any other "global time" ?
Actually, Beverly Hills is not ethnically segregated -- it is segregated by wealth. It happens to be that there is a correlation between race and extreme wealth, which is why there are fewer minorities in Beverly Hills.
Man, you can say the exact same thing about France.
When they were created, the housing projects that are burning right now were predominantly White. As time went on, those who could escape (mostly Whites) did, and were replaced by families which were even poorer than them and couldn't go anywhere else (mostly Northern Africans / Blacks).
Fast forward forty years later, voila, a ghetto !
There is, however, an element of choice. Arabs and Blacks tend to segregate in different ghettos, although many are also pretty mixed in that regard.
Being born in France automatically gives you French nationality at the age of 18, or 16 if you ask for it. The condition is that you must have spent enough time in France during your childhood.
That's how it stands now. It has been changed three or four times over the last decade.
They're using PNA because it does fancy stuff "on its own", just because the out of it is soluble in oil, but the inside of it is repelled by oil and prefers water. So it goes up and down according to whether it's "single-stranded" or "two-stranded" (i.e. whether the inside is expopsed or not). You don't need the complex machinery of metabolic reactions which is necessary for "real" life to cut, assemble and move stuff around.
The whole thing is a fraud, at least if TFA from the New Scientist is an accurate description. Never mind that the genome is essentially random bits of PNA that don't code for any chemical machinery. TFA says that it does influence "metabolism" directly, through electromechanical influence. Wow, that leaves a lot of degrees of freedom for evolution to play with, doesn't it ? (Hint: no, it doesn't). I could mention the utter lack of self-regulation (that thing just grows and divides when it's too big, period), removing the essential computational component of life (wonder what Packard's friend Stuart Kauffman would say about that).
The worst part is the thermodynamics. Apparently all the reactions that occur within the bug are "downwards", degrading reactions. The bug doesn't relly "build" anything. The miracle of life lies precisely in its self-constructing aspect: life is able to couple downwards, energy-releasing reactions and upwards, constructive reactions so that the former "feed" the latter. Thus living systems really construct themselves. That "bug" just uses hand-tailored, pre-activated, energy-packed components which are fed to it by the experimenter and degrades them according to a carefully hand-defined pathway. Evolution of the inner processes is utterly impossible because, essentially, there is no real "inner process". It's just like fire - a downwards, energy releasing reaction without any self-regulation. .
That thing is about as relevant to understanding life as Deep Blue was to understanding intelligence - i.e. it gives a good example of what life is not.
Real shame that the standard of living in Tibet has risen steadily from the subsistence level ever since the CCP took control, huh?
Similarly the median standard of living in, say, Norway is higher than in the US. Therefore if Norway invades the US and starts providing free healthcare for all, generous benefits, high standards of education (in Norwegian) and top-notch public services, you will certainly be very satisfied with it and, for one, welcome your new Scandinavian overlords. Even if they indulge in small things such as crushing dissent, brutally suppressing rebellions and colonising the country with hordes of Norwegian settlers to such an extent that Americans end up being a minority in their country.
Purely rethorical question of course. After all, it's not like you'll have a choice.
The statue that guards the door to salvation always tells the truth, the statue to the door to death always lies. You may pose only one question to only one statue. What do you ask to determine which door is which?
Duh ! "Is it true that 2 + 2 = 4 ?"
Take the door guarded by that statue if the statue says "yes", the other one if the statue says "no".
The problem in your description is that each statue is physically assigned to a door. If you just have two statues and two doors, without any specific location, and you just know that one satue lies and the other tells the truth, the problem becomes slightly more difficult. Then you need to point at a door and ask one of the statues:
"If I asked the other statue whether this door leads to death or salvation, what would it answer ?"
If the satue answers "Death", take this door. If the statue answers "Salvation", take the other door.
3. Hence, sqrt(2) ^ n = n. 4. Therefore, n obviously equals 4, because sqrt(2) ^ 4 = 4.
It also works with n=2. It's rather obvious that sqrt(2) ^ 2 = 2 ("the square root of 2, squared, equals 2" - Duh !)
5. Hence, sqrt(2) ^ sqrt(2) ^ sqrt(2) ^... equals 4, not 2, so it can't be the solution to the original problem.
See above.
What's wrong with this logic?;-)
The only question here is "Why does sqrt(2) ^ n = n have at least two solution even though I can derive it from sqrt(2) ^ sqrt(2) ^ sqrt(2) ^... = n which hould only have one ?"
The problem lies with the original equation (x^x^x... = n). The derivation of the "solution" for this equation is incorrect.
x^x^x^x... = n => x^(x^x^x^x...) = n (OK - call this Eq. A) => x^n = n (Yes, but not only that ! This is the core of the problem. This implication is not an equivalence - we lose some information in this step !) => "We just have to solve for whatever n we have" (WRONG)
Let us start back from Eq. A: x^(x^x^x^x...) = n => x^x^(x^x^x^x...) = n (just another rewriting) => x^(x^x^x^x...) = x^x^(x^x^x^x...) => x = x^x
This equation has two solutions: 0 and 1.
The original problem (x^x^x^x... = 2) simply has no solution at all.
The logical fallacy (from which other strange results such as yours follow) is the assumption that this equation does have a solution, and negligence in the derivation (i.e. losing some information along the way: the classical trap of confusing implications and equivalences; solving equations should only be based on equivalences, and in this derivation we use a step that can only denote an implication, since other consequences are disregarded in the rewriting).
You download the video with a credit car, it embeds a tag that will ID you.
Hell, just embed the frigging credit card number in the video ! Do it in such a way that the CC number can be easily extracted by anyone who can access the file. Now people will actually have an incentive not to put the thing on a P2P network.
Without adequate protection, the environment will kill you pretty quickly (you would survive in the summer, but in winter....). Yet we were able to build a prosperous and wealthy nation.
Because the Soviets let you. If they had decided to invade you and take over your country for good (instead of just annexing a big chunk of it), you might be in the same state as Belarus or Moldova by now.
Well, constant civil-wars, corrupt leaders and the like withstanding. But those are IMO their problem, and not ours.
It will when they start migrating en masse to your country. Considering how traditional destination countries (France, UK, Germany) are tightening up their borders, it shouldn't take long. I wonder how the Finns will react when US-style ethnic getthoes sprout around Helsinki.
2. Ability to process stored information to make replicas of oneself.
Therefore, sterile creatures (including, say, women over 50) are not "alive". Don't tell your grandma !
The essence of life (as in "what is the property that makes us call a thing 'alive'") lies not so much in reproduction as in self-construction. Plants, bacteria, people constantly build themselves. Fire does produce itself through autocatalysis too, but doesn't have any consistent, predictible structure (self-production != self-construction). Living organisms are essentially self-constructing machines (note that the term also has thermodynamic implications in terms of entropy production/reduction cycles).
More generally, if you're talking about big-L-Life (as in "the biosphere", the whole living world) then you can go with the NASA definition: "Life is a self-sustaining reaction capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution" We don't have anything better yet.
terrorism, n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force
You think this letter is illegal ? Sue them. You don't ? STFU. And please stop making a dick of yourself by equating your situation (a spoilt brat who want to get his music/software/pr0n for free) with that of ordinary Iraqis, Israelis and Colombians.
now anything that the guy down in marketing can draw is a workable GUI
How on Earth is that new ? Marketing-based GUI design has been around for ages. The difference is that now the droids will be fully responsible for whatever they come up with, so they can't complain that developers "misunderstood their concept".
Microsoft is not a believer in consistent elegant or intuitive GUI
As opposed, say, to the overwhelming sense of consistency that you will get by looking at just about any Linux desktop (gv, firefox, KDE apps, OpenOffice, plus of course notoriously "idiosyncratic" interfaces such as GIMP or ImageMagick *shudder*)
You think marketing types / PHBs suck at designing GUIs ? Well, the Linux desktop gives you an idea of how good developers are at it.
This thing will not change a fundamental truth: companies/individuals that don't take GUI design seriously will still produce crappy GUIs, companies that do, still won't. The GUI designers (whoever they are) will just have more control over the final result. If they suck, it will suck, if they don't, it won't.
Any parent who buys Grand Theft Auto for their child (you don't even need ratings - read the title!!!) is a either a goddamn psychopath, or woefully ignorant. Either way, it's their fault for accepting or ignoring the consequences.
Just ask yourself this question: who is it exactly who will actually "suffer the consequences" ? The parent or the child ?
You pinpointed the problem, then chose to ignore it. This law is not about protecting the public from themselves. It is about protecting children from stupid parents.
You have to return a normal dead-tree book because there are only a few copies, and making more copies costs time, materials and money. Because of this, the product is scarce and thus market forces (supply/demand) apply.
Because, as we all know, the only resources that is used in the production of a book is cellulose. Book authors can live off thin air and public recognition.
Unfortunately for the publishers, consumers are recognizing that there the products scarcity is purely fictional, and they don't accept this.
Unfortunately for anyone who would like to live off the product of their intellectual work (as opposed to merely renting their intellectual capacities to BigCorp Inc.), consumers are recognising that modern technology allows them to get stuff for free instead of *gasp* paying for it - and are taking advantage of it.
Fortunately this does not really affect major sellers. Stephen King or Britney Spears are still profitable because no matter how much piracy goes one, people will still buy their products at B&M shops. So VivendiUniversal, Sony and whoever is publishes Stephen King's books can just get away with suing a few filesharers and not worry too much about it.
All they have to do to protect their margins is to dump less profitable authors/artists and concentrate on reliable, fabricated products. I mean, seriously, when BigLabel sees their profits fall, who do you think will get the boot first ? Britney or Joe Real Musician ?
1. Issue 1: Taiwan. The U.S. has supported the rights of Taiwan to de facto order its affairs. PRC has insisted on a one-China policy. When the time is right, the PRC will try to back its policy with force.
And get away with it. See Tibet.
Energy is irrelevant - the US can't force 1.2B Chinese to gulp less oil than 280M Americans.
North Korea, admitting it survives that long, may start a war, but not one that would involve China. If Kim Jong Il decides to nuke Seoul, the Chinese won't raise a finger to protect him.
4. Southeast Asia. That part of the world has cooled considerably in the last 30 years, but China still has trading interests there. In fact, it appears to be regrouping its strategy towards diplomatic influence.
Duh. 30 years ? China has dominated the social, cultural and political landscape in the whole far east for two fscking millenia. They are the big powerful neighbours that you don't want to piss off. Relationships may be uneasy at times, but when it comes to China vs USA, well, one is "the local", the other is "the foreigner". No points for guessing who is who.
5. South and Central America. For reasons that are unclear, China has made significant inroads into South and Central America: the purchase of the Panama Canal, and sweetheart deals with Venezuela.
About as unclear as the reason why the US essentially purchased Saudi Arabia in the 40s. Re-Duh !
The oldest person ever was the (definitely Caucasian) Jeanne Calment, who died a few years ago and apparently sold painting material to Vincent Van Gogh !
When she passed away, the oldest living person in the world was a Canadian woman called Marie-Louise Meilleur.
Should we deduce that French-speaking people "tend to age much less" than others ?;)
Usability, maybe, the Win3.x UI, with the strange Program Manager / File Manager duality, wasn't anything to be proud of.
Uh ?
Program Manager = Start menu + Desktop icons
File Manager = Explorer
The duality is still very much there. There are two different programs because there are two different concepts. One is about the programs that you want to have readily accessible, the other is about an exhaustive view of what's on your hard drive.
I am not sure that the endless succession of menus and submenus induced by the Start button is really an improvement over the Program Manager, which always seemed very coherent and usable to me. Like desktop icons, but categorised in different sub-windows. Where's the difficulty in that ?
Slashdot Mirror
If the meeting is at 84:25 Global Time, then they will either be there, or they will request a time change.
Man, we already have a global reference time: GMT.
If you say "OK, let's meet at 4:00 GMT", and people go "wait, what time is that in Hong Kong / New York / Paris / Timbuktu", well, what makes you think it would be any different with any other "global time" ?
Thomas-
Actually, Beverly Hills is not ethnically segregated -- it is segregated by wealth. It happens to be that there is a correlation between race and extreme wealth, which is why there are fewer minorities in Beverly Hills.
Man, you can say the exact same thing about France.
When they were created, the housing projects that are burning right now were predominantly White. As time went on, those who could escape (mostly Whites) did, and were replaced by families which were even poorer than them and couldn't go anywhere else (mostly Northern Africans / Blacks).
Fast forward forty years later, voila, a ghetto !
There is, however, an element of choice. Arabs and Blacks tend to segregate in different ghettos, although many are also pretty mixed in that regard.
Thomas
Precision:
Being born in France automatically gives you French nationality at the age of 18, or 16 if you ask for it. The condition is that you must have spent enough time in France during your childhood.
That's how it stands now. It has been changed three or four times over the last decade.
Thomas-
Run that past me once again in English?
OK. "They're fscking cheating"
They're using PNA because it does fancy stuff "on its own", just because the out of it is soluble in oil, but the inside of it is repelled by oil and prefers water. So it goes up and down according to whether it's "single-stranded" or "two-stranded" (i.e. whether the inside is expopsed or not). You don't need the complex machinery of metabolic reactions which is necessary for "real" life to cut, assemble and move stuff around.
The whole thing is a fraud, at least if TFA from the New Scientist is an accurate description. Never mind that the genome is essentially random bits of PNA that don't code for any chemical machinery. TFA says that it does influence "metabolism" directly, through electromechanical influence. Wow, that leaves a lot of degrees of freedom for evolution to play with, doesn't it ? (Hint: no, it doesn't). I could mention the utter lack of self-regulation (that thing just grows and divides when it's too big, period), removing the essential computational component of life (wonder what Packard's friend Stuart Kauffman would say about that).
The worst part is the thermodynamics. Apparently all the reactions that occur within the bug are "downwards", degrading reactions. The bug doesn't relly "build" anything. The miracle of life lies precisely in its self-constructing aspect: life is able to couple downwards, energy-releasing reactions and upwards, constructive reactions so that the former "feed" the latter. Thus living systems really construct themselves. That "bug" just uses hand-tailored, pre-activated, energy-packed components which are fed to it by the experimenter and degrades them according to a carefully hand-defined pathway. Evolution of the inner processes is utterly impossible because, essentially, there is no real "inner process". It's just like fire - a downwards, energy releasing reaction without any self-regulation. .
If this thing is alive, then so were Sydney Fox' "protocells" from 40 years ago !
That thing is about as relevant to understanding life as Deep Blue was to understanding intelligence - i.e. it gives a good example of what life is not.
Thomas.
Real shame that the standard of living in Tibet has risen steadily from the subsistence level ever since the CCP took control, huh?
Similarly the median standard of living in, say, Norway is higher than in the US. Therefore if Norway invades the US and starts providing free healthcare for all, generous benefits, high standards of education (in Norwegian) and top-notch public services, you will certainly be very satisfied with it and, for one, welcome your new Scandinavian overlords. Even if they indulge in small things such as crushing dissent, brutally suppressing rebellions and colonising the country with hordes of Norwegian settlers to such an extent that Americans end up being a minority in their country.
Purely rethorical question of course. After all, it's not like you'll have a choice.
Thomas-
looks like india has outsourced their equivalent dhs and military intelligence to USA
After reading the "arguments" of the Indian president, I would rather think that the US has outsourced government cluelessness to India.
Thomas-
The statue that guards the door to salvation always tells the truth, the statue to the door to death always lies. You may pose only one question to only one statue. What do you ask to determine which door is which?
Duh ! "Is it true that 2 + 2 = 4 ?"
Take the door guarded by that statue if the statue says "yes", the other one if the statue says "no".
The problem in your description is that each statue is physically assigned to a door. If you just have two statues and two doors, without any specific location, and you just know that one satue lies and the other tells the truth, the problem becomes slightly more difficult. Then you need to point at a door and ask one of the statues:
"If I asked the other statue whether this door leads to death or salvation, what would it answer ?"
If the satue answers "Death", take this door. If the statue answers "Salvation", take the other door.
Thomas-
3. Hence, sqrt(2) ^ n = n.
... equals 4, not 2, so it can't be the solution to the original problem.
;-)
... = n which hould only have one ?"
4. Therefore, n obviously equals 4, because sqrt(2) ^ 4 = 4.
It also works with n=2. It's rather obvious that sqrt(2) ^ 2 = 2 ("the square root of 2, squared, equals 2" - Duh !)
5. Hence, sqrt(2) ^ sqrt(2) ^ sqrt(2) ^
See above.
What's wrong with this logic?
The only question here is "Why does sqrt(2) ^ n = n have at least two solution even though I can derive it from sqrt(2) ^ sqrt(2) ^ sqrt(2) ^
The problem lies with the original equation (x^x^x... = n). The derivation of the "solution" for this equation is incorrect.
x^x^x^x... = n
=> x^(x^x^x^x...) = n (OK - call this Eq. A)
=> x^n = n (Yes, but not only that ! This is the core of the problem. This implication is not an equivalence - we lose some information in this step !)
=> "We just have to solve for whatever n we have" (WRONG)
Let us start back from Eq. A:
x^(x^x^x^x...) = n
=> x^x^(x^x^x^x...) = n (just another rewriting)
=> x^(x^x^x^x...) = x^x^(x^x^x^x...)
=> x = x^x
This equation has two solutions: 0 and 1.
The original problem (x^x^x^x... = 2) simply has no solution at all.
The logical fallacy (from which other strange results such as yours follow) is the assumption that this equation does have a solution, and negligence in the derivation (i.e. losing some information along the way: the classical trap of confusing implications and equivalences; solving equations should only be based on equivalences, and in this derivation we use a step that can only denote an implication, since other consequences are disregarded in the rewriting).
Thomas.
You download the video with a credit car, it embeds a tag that will ID you.
Hell, just embed the frigging credit card number in the video ! Do it in such a way that the CC number can be easily extracted by anyone who can access the file. Now people will actually have an incentive not to put the thing on a P2P network.
Thomas-
Kurzweil: "The self-cloning milk in that glass will replicate thanks to nanobots and end world hunger."
Except that most of the world's population lose the ability to digest milk after their 4th birthday.
Utopia ain't all it's cracked up to be.
Thomas-
here's a little clue: every language but English is phonetic.
:D
Especially Chinese.
Thomas-
Without adequate protection, the environment will kill you pretty quickly (you would survive in the summer, but in winter....). Yet we were able to build a prosperous and wealthy nation.
Because the Soviets let you. If they had decided to invade you and take over your country for good (instead of just annexing a big chunk of it), you might be in the same state as Belarus or Moldova by now.
Well, constant civil-wars, corrupt leaders and the like withstanding. But those are IMO their problem, and not ours.
It will when they start migrating en masse to your country. Considering how traditional destination countries (France, UK, Germany) are tightening up their borders, it shouldn't take long. I wonder how the Finns will react when US-style ethnic getthoes sprout around Helsinki.
Thomas-
2. Ability to process stored information to make
replicas of oneself.
Therefore, sterile creatures (including, say, women over 50) are not "alive". Don't tell your grandma !
The essence of life (as in "what is the property that makes us call a thing 'alive'") lies not so much in reproduction as in self-construction. Plants, bacteria, people constantly build themselves. Fire does produce itself through autocatalysis too, but doesn't have any consistent, predictible structure (self-production != self-construction). Living organisms are essentially self-constructing machines (note that the term also has thermodynamic implications in terms of entropy production/reduction cycles).
More generally, if you're talking about big-L-Life (as in "the biosphere", the whole living world) then you can go with the NASA definition: "Life is a self-sustaining reaction capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution" We don't have anything better yet.
Thomas-
Hey, CmdrTaco, where's my "+6 Perhaps too insightful for your own good" mod option ?
Thomas-
Let me show you your own quote:
terrorism, n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force
You think this letter is illegal ? Sue them. You don't ? STFU. And please stop making a dick of yourself by equating your situation (a spoilt brat who want to get his music/software/pr0n for free) with that of ordinary Iraqis, Israelis and Colombians.
My stomach thanks you.
Thomas-
and the burger joint has a fresh supply of ingredients on hand.
I'm confused. Are you referring to the mice, the scientists, or the plague bacilli ?
Thomas-
now anything that the guy down in marketing can draw is a workable GUI
How on Earth is that new ? Marketing-based GUI design has been around for ages. The difference is that now the droids will be fully responsible for whatever they come up with, so they can't complain that developers "misunderstood their concept".
Microsoft is not a believer in consistent elegant or intuitive GUI
As opposed, say, to the overwhelming sense of consistency that you will get by looking at just about any Linux desktop (gv, firefox, KDE apps, OpenOffice, plus of course notoriously "idiosyncratic" interfaces such as GIMP or ImageMagick *shudder*)
You think marketing types / PHBs suck at designing GUIs ? Well, the Linux desktop gives you an idea of how good developers are at it.
This thing will not change a fundamental truth: companies/individuals that don't take GUI design seriously will still produce crappy GUIs, companies that do, still won't. The GUI designers (whoever they are) will just have more control over the final result. If they suck, it will suck, if they don't, it won't.
Thomas-
Any parent who buys Grand Theft Auto for their child (you don't even need ratings - read the title!!!) is a either a goddamn psychopath, or woefully ignorant. Either way, it's their fault for accepting or ignoring the consequences.
Just ask yourself this question: who is it exactly who will actually "suffer the consequences" ? The parent or the child ?
You pinpointed the problem, then chose to ignore it. This law is not about protecting the public from themselves. It is about protecting children from stupid parents.
Thomas-
Regulating video game sales WITHOUT regulating the sales of books, movies, cds, magazines on the same basis is uneven and therefore unethical.
Excuse me ? Are you telling me that where you live it is perfectly legal to sell, say, p0rn dvds to children ?
Thomas-
What a naive idea. Imagine British soldiers fighting alongside the French.
We'd kill each other before we even saw the enemy.
No way !
We'd be too busy bashing the Germans !
Thomas-
You have to return a normal dead-tree book because there are only a few copies, and making more copies costs time, materials and money. Because of this, the product is scarce and thus market forces (supply/demand) apply.
Because, as we all know, the only resources that is used in the production of a book is cellulose. Book authors can live off thin air and public recognition.
Unfortunately for the publishers, consumers are recognizing that there the products scarcity is purely fictional, and they don't accept this.
Unfortunately for anyone who would like to live off the product of their intellectual work (as opposed to merely renting their intellectual capacities to BigCorp Inc.), consumers are recognising that modern technology allows them to get stuff for free instead of *gasp* paying for it - and are taking advantage of it.
Fortunately this does not really affect major sellers. Stephen King or Britney Spears are still profitable because no matter how much piracy goes one, people will still buy their products at B&M shops. So VivendiUniversal, Sony and whoever is publishes Stephen King's books can just get away with suing a few filesharers and not worry too much about it.
All they have to do to protect their margins is to dump less profitable authors/artists and concentrate on reliable, fabricated products. I mean, seriously, when BigLabel sees their profits fall, who do you think will get the boot first ? Britney or Joe Real Musician ?
Thomas-
1. Issue 1: Taiwan. The U.S. has supported the rights of Taiwan to de facto order its affairs. PRC has insisted on a one-China policy. When the time is right, the PRC will try to back its policy with force.
And get away with it. See Tibet.
Energy is irrelevant - the US can't force 1.2B Chinese to gulp less oil than 280M Americans.
North Korea, admitting it survives that long, may start a war, but not one that would involve China. If Kim Jong Il decides to nuke Seoul, the Chinese won't raise a finger to protect him.
4. Southeast Asia. That part of the world has cooled considerably in the last 30 years, but China still has trading interests there. In fact, it appears to be regrouping its strategy towards diplomatic influence.
Duh. 30 years ? China has dominated the social, cultural and political landscape in the whole far east for two fscking millenia. They are the big powerful neighbours that you don't want to piss off. Relationships may be uneasy at times, but when it comes to China vs USA, well, one is "the local", the other is "the foreigner". No points for guessing who is who.
5. South and Central America. For reasons that are unclear, China has made significant inroads into South and Central America: the purchase of the Panama Canal, and sweetheart deals with Venezuela.
About as unclear as the reason why the US essentially purchased Saudi Arabia in the 40s. Re-Duh !
Thomas
The oldest person ever was the (definitely Caucasian) Jeanne Calment, who died a few years ago and apparently sold painting material to Vincent Van Gogh !
;)
When she passed away, the oldest living person in the world was a Canadian woman called Marie-Louise Meilleur.
Should we deduce that French-speaking people "tend to age much less" than others ?
Thomas-
No, it's: Econironic!
In short... it's Enronic ?
Thomas-
Usability, maybe, the Win3.x UI, with the strange Program Manager / File Manager duality, wasn't anything to be proud of.
Uh ?
Program Manager = Start menu + Desktop icons
File Manager = Explorer
The duality is still very much there. There are two different programs because there are two different concepts. One is about the programs that you want to have readily accessible, the other is about an exhaustive view of what's on your hard drive.
I am not sure that the endless succession of menus and submenus induced by the Start button is really an improvement over the Program Manager, which always seemed very coherent and usable to me. Like desktop icons, but categorised in different sub-windows. Where's the difficulty in that ?
Thomas-