Oh, and if Windows is so fucked-up that workers can't be trusted to install things, then what the hell is the IT department doing installing Windows machines in the first place?
You lock them out so they are not calling every hour.
But that's exactly the problem that it causes. Users are constantly calling the helpdesk because they don't have any control over their systems. They need to get something done, but then they need to wait 2 days for IT to respond to the call, because IT are so backed up with trivial requests.
Treating the user like an idiot who needs to be protected from him/herself is not the solution. Better to educate people and teach them responsible computing. Hell, if workers don't know not to install malware and randomly downloaded stuff, then what business do they have being employed in a job that uses a computer? Get rid of the idiots, instead of turning people into idiots by not allowing them to learn, or bothering to teach them.
And those freaking retarded Novell logins that so often prevent anybody from logging in... unless you call the IT department to come and fix it. Or workers not being able to install typical software on their own machines, or perform routine updates. Most corporate IT departments appear to be scams designed to ensure their own longevity and profits via meaningless busywork, not to help workers be productive.
It's clear you are highly confident that you are right so you will no doubt be surprised to learn that you are simply uneducated. Please take some time and read up on the OVC system. It's one of the only systems that actually meets the criteria you demand and also manages to gain the advantages of computer automation.
The OVC is not propietary. It's 100% open.
No, it doesn't meet the criteria. You can't actually verify the functioning of software, whether it is Open or not. A person cannot observe a program running on a chip. One still has to have "faith" in the machine.
Even if the majority of people understood programming and electronics (which they don't), no person has the ability to perceive the execution of that program with their naked eye.
That's hard to get past honest election monitors than a piece of software that just silently changes the only record of the vote.
How is that harder to get past election monitors? It all takes place in a closed, electronically controlled box. Since the hardware is controlled by software, it's just as easy to rig as a purely electronic system.
Yeah, this was just made for Everybody Loves Eric Raymond... which of course means the site will never be updated ever again... or did my saying that just cause the site to be updated? I better go check, just to be sure.
There are other applications that do the things complained about just fine. That indicates that it's a "problem" with the applications, not the OS.
In any case, it isn't even a case of the applications "not playing nicely" with the GUI. They play fine with the GUI. It's just the applications were designed with different interface philosophies. Use a professional video editing application on OS X, and the things you can do are completely different than what you can do with an application designed for consumers. I don't like the interface on the iLife applications at all, so I don't use them. But other people like the way it works, and the simplicity. So, choose the application that suits your needs.
How does any of this indicate problems with the Operating System's GUI? The OS isn't preventing any of the functionality that was complained about - it's the application design. You can't please everybody with a single application. That's why there are different choices.
Interestingly, I find it fairly insightful to see how the great unwashed masses are complaining about this, yet, for the most part, Apple is getting a "free pass" from pundit's, media, and most of the public because of past marketing.
Say what? Looks to me like the opposite is happening - this is getting beaten into the ground by the media, but most users aren't having any problems. And other phones have these sorts of problems too, but you don't see any media articles about those. I wonder why?
Anyway, the complaints all seem to be coming from Americans, so the problem might have something to do with AT&T's 3G service, or some combination of AT&T and iPhone.
Are you retarded? The discussion was about Mac OS X's GUI. The applications such as iMovie are not part of the OS, they are applications. Therefore, they are irrelevant to the topic of OS X's GUI.
Red-eye is not an issue because all the lights (and the first flash, if it's being used) make the pupils smaller so subsequent shots are ok.
You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about. Pupil dilation has nothing to do with professional portrait/fashion photography. In fact, one of the benefits is that you don't have to dilate the pupils, you can take great shots with the pupils wide-open. Why the hell would people want to look at portraits with the pupils constricted, anyway?
Regardless, you said that flash photography suffers from poor color rendition, and that was the "main problem". Got any evidence to back that up? Flash has excellent color rendition.
The end result of fashion photography has the fuck photoshopped out of it, so there's another stage where any red-eye would be removed.
Again, completely retarded. There's plenty of portrait and fashion photography that is minimally photoshopped, or not photoshopped at all, and looks great. And why the hell would they need to remove red-eye, when a professionally done photo would never have any red-eye to begin with? It sounds like you've never actually done any professional photography with flash.
Your camera is crap/broken. Red-eye reduction works by having two flashes extremely close together - close enough that there's not enough time to blink, but slow enough that the pupils can get smaller.
I don't think so. Pre-flash red-eye reduction simply doesn't work. You're not going to get a pre-flash that constricts the pupils enough to eliminate red-eye without risking the subject blinking their eyes. Even if you do constrict the pupils, you will still get red-eye for the typical angles of on-camera flash.
Like I said, pre-flash just doesn't work. It's a gimmick, no matter how good you think your camera is.
The main problem with flash is that the colour is unnatural - the picture just screams `FLASH!`
Uhhh, no. Flash produces a beautiful, balanced color temperature, with plenty of intensity for a good exposure.
Just look at good portrait or fashion photography - that's almost universally done with flash, and the color is about as perfect as one can get. The problem is actually on-camera flash producing flat lighting, harsh shadows and extreme differences in light intensity from foreground to background. And red-eye, of course.
I can't even imagine the reaction here if Microsoft or Yahoo had screwed up like this.
Maybe you couldn't imagine it, because there would be none? Slashdot doesn't typically report on network outages, unless there's something noteworthy about them.
and the large likelihood of reducing your lifespan when using performance enhancing drugs correctly.
Huh? Not all performance-enhancing drugs reduce one's lifespan. Some could be argued to extend it. So why should those be considered any different to regular training?
Slashdot Mirror
Since I was old enough to comprehend building computers, I have been running Linux.
Say what? Linux came out well after the period when it was feasible to build your own computers, and computers were sold as self-build kits.
... you are eaten by a Grue.
Either you're online or you're not. There's no "massively" about it.
I dunno, I've seen a lot of fat guys use the internet.
Oh, and if Windows is so fucked-up that workers can't be trusted to install things, then what the hell is the IT department doing installing Windows machines in the first place?
You lock them out so they are not calling every hour.
But that's exactly the problem that it causes. Users are constantly calling the helpdesk because they don't have any control over their systems. They need to get something done, but then they need to wait 2 days for IT to respond to the call, because IT are so backed up with trivial requests.
Treating the user like an idiot who needs to be protected from him/herself is not the solution. Better to educate people and teach them responsible computing. Hell, if workers don't know not to install malware and randomly downloaded stuff, then what business do they have being employed in a job that uses a computer? Get rid of the idiots, instead of turning people into idiots by not allowing them to learn, or bothering to teach them.
No, it's more like being strip-searched by a clown.
And those freaking retarded Novell logins that so often prevent anybody from logging in... unless you call the IT department to come and fix it. Or workers not being able to install typical software on their own machines, or perform routine updates. Most corporate IT departments appear to be scams designed to ensure their own longevity and profits via meaningless busywork, not to help workers be productive.
Yeah, but it usually falls flat.
It's clear you are highly confident that you are right so you will no doubt be surprised to learn that you are simply uneducated. Please take some time and read up on the OVC system. It's one of the only systems that actually meets the criteria you demand and also manages to gain the advantages of computer automation. The OVC is not propietary. It's 100% open.
No, it doesn't meet the criteria. You can't actually verify the functioning of software, whether it is Open or not. A person cannot observe a program running on a chip. One still has to have "faith" in the machine.
Even if the majority of people understood programming and electronics (which they don't), no person has the ability to perceive the execution of that program with their naked eye.
That's hard to get past honest election monitors than a piece of software that just silently changes the only record of the vote.
How is that harder to get past election monitors? It all takes place in a closed, electronically controlled box. Since the hardware is controlled by software, it's just as easy to rig as a purely electronic system.
Thomas Jefferson disagrees with you.
Interesting. I thought he was dead. Do you have a link to his blog or something?
My IP address goes to 11.
Yeah, this was just made for Everybody Loves Eric Raymond... which of course means the site will never be updated ever again... or did my saying that just cause the site to be updated? I better go check, just to be sure.
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
An object of completely irrational fear? Yeah, that sounds about right.
What?
There are other applications that do the things complained about just fine. That indicates that it's a "problem" with the applications, not the OS.
In any case, it isn't even a case of the applications "not playing nicely" with the GUI. They play fine with the GUI. It's just the applications were designed with different interface philosophies. Use a professional video editing application on OS X, and the things you can do are completely different than what you can do with an application designed for consumers. I don't like the interface on the iLife applications at all, so I don't use them. But other people like the way it works, and the simplicity. So, choose the application that suits your needs.
How does any of this indicate problems with the Operating System's GUI? The OS isn't preventing any of the functionality that was complained about - it's the application design. You can't please everybody with a single application. That's why there are different choices.
The reason this one is getting so much press is Apple's "It Just Works" campaign.
Uhhhh, what "It Just Works" campaign? Do you have a link to this advertising campaign? I've never heard of it, and a web search reveals nothing.
Interestingly, I find it fairly insightful to see how the great unwashed masses are complaining about this, yet, for the most part, Apple is getting a "free pass" from pundit's, media, and most of the public because of past marketing.
Say what? Looks to me like the opposite is happening - this is getting beaten into the ground by the media, but most users aren't having any problems. And other phones have these sorts of problems too, but you don't see any media articles about those. I wonder why?
Anyway, the complaints all seem to be coming from Americans, so the problem might have something to do with AT&T's 3G service, or some combination of AT&T and iPhone.
Are you retarded? The discussion was about Mac OS X's GUI. The applications such as iMovie are not part of the OS, they are applications. Therefore, they are irrelevant to the topic of OS X's GUI.
It works - nothing to do with what anyone thinks.
No, it doesn't. Got any examples of it working?
Red-eye is not an issue because all the lights (and the first flash, if it's being used) make the pupils smaller so subsequent shots are ok.
You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about. Pupil dilation has nothing to do with professional portrait/fashion photography. In fact, one of the benefits is that you don't have to dilate the pupils, you can take great shots with the pupils wide-open. Why the hell would people want to look at portraits with the pupils constricted, anyway?
Regardless, you said that flash photography suffers from poor color rendition, and that was the "main problem". Got any evidence to back that up? Flash has excellent color rendition.
The end result of fashion photography has the fuck photoshopped out of it, so there's another stage where any red-eye would be removed.
Again, completely retarded. There's plenty of portrait and fashion photography that is minimally photoshopped, or not photoshopped at all, and looks great. And why the hell would they need to remove red-eye, when a professionally done photo would never have any red-eye to begin with? It sounds like you've never actually done any professional photography with flash.
You must be new here.
Your camera is crap/broken. Red-eye reduction works by having two flashes extremely close together - close enough that there's not enough time to blink, but slow enough that the pupils can get smaller.
I don't think so. Pre-flash red-eye reduction simply doesn't work. You're not going to get a pre-flash that constricts the pupils enough to eliminate red-eye without risking the subject blinking their eyes. Even if you do constrict the pupils, you will still get red-eye for the typical angles of on-camera flash.
Like I said, pre-flash just doesn't work. It's a gimmick, no matter how good you think your camera is.
The main problem with flash is that the colour is unnatural - the picture just screams `FLASH!`
Uhhh, no. Flash produces a beautiful, balanced color temperature, with plenty of intensity for a good exposure.
Just look at good portrait or fashion photography - that's almost universally done with flash, and the color is about as perfect as one can get. The problem is actually on-camera flash producing flat lighting, harsh shadows and extreme differences in light intensity from foreground to background. And red-eye, of course.
Pharaohs had Photoshop? Hmm.... I guess that explains the spelling then.
I can't even imagine the reaction here if Microsoft or Yahoo had screwed up like this.
Maybe you couldn't imagine it, because there would be none? Slashdot doesn't typically report on network outages, unless there's something noteworthy about them.
And common.
and the large likelihood of reducing your lifespan when using performance enhancing drugs correctly.
Huh? Not all performance-enhancing drugs reduce one's lifespan. Some could be argued to extend it. So why should those be considered any different to regular training?