I don't know much about games, but most films fall into one of three catagories;
Worth watching for people who don't hate the genre
Worth watching for people who like the genre
Not worth watching
I find reviews of films useless in the decision process for watching a film. I am only able to isolate the third category through rotten tomatoes/imdb (obscenely low scores = category three). The only genre I intensely dislike is slasher films and action films, so they are easy to weed out via the promotional material.
You must at least realise the risk of someone responding that you are ignorant, and that you are ignorant about your ignorance?
While I am wondering why you didn't pre-emptively counter that painfully obvious response, I agree with you. Books are great (and I actually read technical books all the time), but they aren't the sole venue of study.
configuration dialogs and file-opening dialogs, both of which are extremely useful to the task at hand, and don't "jump in your way".
From the perspective of an emacs user, neither of those examples are useful. Files in emacs are opened via the mode line (see this screenshot to see how this is done without dialogs). Configuration files exist in emacs, though in recent builds there is also a "customization" buffer that you can use to alter the configuration files if you don't know the syntax.
Almost all dialog boxes are a misfeature (emacs or not), and, certainly, there are even fewer cases where you would want a dialog box for a use case like emacs.
Going too far to either extreme is bad UI design
This is where your mistake lies. There is not a "one true path" of program design (and this is true for more than UI design).
I haven't used Mac OSX, but supposedly much of the success of it is due to the simplification process that has been applied to the interface. That makes sense for the target audience of Mac OSX.
Emacs is not a crappy UI. Emacs is an excellent UI - it does everything right. The approach of Emacs makes sense for the target audience of Emacs.
"Good UI" does not necessitate some kind of bastard compromise. Emacs is a prime example.
Dialog boxes are a misfeature. They jump in your way to tell you that something or other has occurred (or, more likely, failed to occur) and you are obligated to pay attention to them before you can continue.
When apache segfaults, it doesn't pop up a dialog box saying "Oh dear, your httpd has died. Cancel/Ok". It leaves a message in the correct log and expects the user to know what to do. This is exactly the behaviour that is best when you are expecting an educated user.
I don't understand why restrictions on keybindings are a benefit. In emacs, every thing is a function, to make a keybinding to exactly what you want you only have to write a function, and then bind it to a key.
Text programming functions are exactly what you want in a text editor. I'm curious why you disagree. Elisp is equivalent to perl, and perhaps with some nicer functions which are specific to buffer editing.
You, and many other people, seem to have this idea that the pinnacle of UI design is for a UI to be so simple an idiot could use it. That is not the pinnacle of UI design. However, it is useful depending on who you expect your user to be.
The interface is brilliant. No dialog boxes, no obnoxious obligate mouse use, no needless barriers to what you can do with a keybinding and a Lisp with every text programming primitive you could possibly want.
It's a case study in excellent design of an all-keyboard program. People who dislike it, like you, often testify that you can get a mediocre version of emacs with the default set up of some other IDE. You can.
The problem is that a lot of people have grown up with the "throw more hardware at it to make it run faster" mentality since all they know is Microsoft products.
Clearly that's all you know, because this "throw more hardware at the problem" is a central tenet of the Unix philosophy, and furthermore - it's a fundamentally good idea. The fastest way to improve the speed of your program is to do exactly nothing. It's also BY FAR the most cost-effective option.
See here for ESR's opinion in his book "The Art of Unix Programming".
When a malicious party finds out about a hole, there is no 3 day grace. Vendors want to treat security in a casual manner, and that is truly irresponsible.
There is no good reason to put anyone above the public.
The idea isn't to encourage a premature release, but that is often the effect, especially in Ubuntu. Number of times Ubuntu randomly decides to freeze on a bad version of a program without properly thinking about it...
You can normally make a failing/failed harddisk work for around 5 minutes by freezing it and then immediately using it.
It only works for a certain kind of broken hard drive. Fortunately, these kinds of breaks, due to poor workmanship, account for around 40-50% of failures! Hurrah!
It's a joke to suspect a lawyer will attempt this kind of scam. It's _totally_ hilarious to assume malice before mistake for something as simple as posting a letter.
Because it's your IP and you're allowed to do whatever you want with it? Probably with a specific exception in national laws to allow you to police your own IP?
You can't get out of that thing on the letter of the law (no pun intended). It's a common law offence, and it is (very wisely) widely defined. Any funny business is an offence.
Slashdot Mirror
No, there are lots of situations were you might want to use more than 4GB of RAM on a machine.
So servers using more than ~3.whatever GB of RAM is a "small subset" of what Java is used for?
And in five years time, you will feel the same way?
- Worth watching for people who don't hate the genre
- Worth watching for people who like the genre
- Not worth watching
I find reviews of films useless in the decision process for watching a film. I am only able to isolate the third category through rotten tomatoes/imdb (obscenely low scores = category three). The only genre I intensely dislike is slasher films and action films, so they are easy to weed out via the promotional material.It's impossible to tell from the number itself what is "good" and "bad".
I hope you're not studying something analytical, like anything, for example.
You must at least realise the risk of someone responding that you are ignorant, and that you are ignorant about your ignorance?
While I am wondering why you didn't pre-emptively counter that painfully obvious response, I agree with you. Books are great (and I actually read technical books all the time), but they aren't the sole venue of study.
Posting to undo moderation. I meant to moderate insightful.
Dialog boxes are a misfeature. They jump in your way to tell you that something or other has occurred (or, more likely, failed to occur) and you are obligated to pay attention to them before you can continue.
When apache segfaults, it doesn't pop up a dialog box saying "Oh dear, your httpd has died. Cancel/Ok". It leaves a message in the correct log and expects the user to know what to do. This is exactly the behaviour that is best when you are expecting an educated user.
I don't understand why restrictions on keybindings are a benefit. In emacs, every thing is a function, to make a keybinding to exactly what you want you only have to write a function, and then bind it to a key.
Text programming functions are exactly what you want in a text editor. I'm curious why you disagree. Elisp is equivalent to perl, and perhaps with some nicer functions which are specific to buffer editing.
You, and many other people, seem to have this idea that the pinnacle of UI design is for a UI to be so simple an idiot could use it. That is not the pinnacle of UI design. However, it is useful depending on who you expect your user to be.
The interface is brilliant. No dialog boxes, no obnoxious obligate mouse use, no needless barriers to what you can do with a keybinding and a Lisp with every text programming primitive you could possibly want.
It's a case study in excellent design of an all-keyboard program. People who dislike it, like you, often testify that you can get a mediocre version of emacs with the default set up of some other IDE. You can.
Was anyone saying that competition would hurt?
See here for ESR's opinion in his book "The Art of Unix Programming".
It's so disappointing that this is such an obvious troll; because it's so true.
Capitalism doesn't assume anything. It's the one economic system that does the right thing no matter how many people fuck up.
This is a pointless line-in-the-sand to draw.
When a malicious party finds out about a hole, there is no 3 day grace. Vendors want to treat security in a casual manner, and that is truly irresponsible.
There is no good reason to put anyone above the public.
Posting to undo moderation. Silly web 2.0 moderation.
The idea isn't to encourage a premature release, but that is often the effect, especially in Ubuntu. Number of times Ubuntu randomly decides to freeze on a bad version of a program without properly thinking about it...
Yes doesn't specify which of the options the answerer has selected; it's not a _proper_ answer, even if it's supposed to be witty.
"Yes" isn't an answer to the question.
Heh, you act like the 80x return was 100% certain at the time. If. Only.
Well, I don't think you're evil.
It's a joke to suspect a lawyer will attempt this kind of scam. It's _totally_ hilarious to assume malice before mistake for something as simple as posting a letter.
Because it's your IP and you're allowed to do whatever you want with it? Probably with a specific exception in national laws to allow you to police your own IP?
What a foolish way to try and be a smart arse.
You can't get out of that thing on the letter of the law (no pun intended). It's a common law offence, and it is (very wisely) widely defined. Any funny business is an offence.