Why change it?
%TEMP% in the address bar will take you there every time, straightaway... doing that ensures you can find all of your temp files (including those from apps that make assumptions about the location of the temp folder, instead of obtaining it properly.)
Assuming you don't take the step of enabling view of hidden files & folders (strongly recommended in the quest to avoid viruses and other evil 2.0 inventions). While you're at it, make sure to turn on viewing of file extensions...
Addicts need to hit bottom before you can re-rehabilitate them.
Ahh, the old AA brainwashing. It certainly makes their path clearer if they "hit bottom"; but they don't/have/ to.
Furthermore, it is not the OP's place to tell this person how to live their life.
If you consider someone a friend, it/is/ your place and even your/responsibility/ to tell them when they're on a self-destructive path. Whether the addict chooses to acknowledge and start correcting this is entirely up to the addict.
Any attempt to stop him from playing the game will only sour the OP's relationship with their friend.
Maybe true, maybe not - this varies from person to person. On some level, the addict/knows/ what he's doing. It's really a matter of whether he's ready to acknowledge and deal with it.
On the surface, your logic is good. (It was in fact explored most thoroughly in the movie Idiocracy several years ago.) But here's the problem: you're looking in the short term. In the long term, assuming you're 100% correct, it won't matter.
Assuming we don't blow ourselves up, following your model humanity will get collectively dumber and dumber. Okay, fair enough. But eventually, we'll start dying off in huge numbers because of that stupidity. What happens then? Why, survival through natural selection. The trend reverses, and again intelligence and physical ability both determine who survives and who doesn't.
The other thing is this: there's nothing special about humans. If you take away all concept of external intelligence behind the creation and evolution of our species, we have no more right to live than any other species. If we kill ourselves off through stupidity, then... well, so what? Nothing - absolutely nothing - is lost.
Part of what I do is manage the applications running on a couple of HPC machines and when things are really busy, guess which jobs get pushed aside for resource hogging?
Part of what I do is manage java middleware that services thousands of concurrent clients while maintaining performance in the 200-300TPS range, with an SLA to the client applications of less than 100 ms - and that includes round-trip time to the data providers, some of which may be several tiers removed.
So - what's your point again?
Look, I'm not saying Java is good for everything - it's a tool and like any other tool you should use the best one for the job. But you should also base your decisions on data that is more recent than your desktop experience with Java ten years ago.
Well - Java is kinda one of the programming languages in most widespread use. It might stand to reason that it would attract a fair amount of people developing apps for it...
Yes, it would be extremely dangerous to use this near any source of ignition.
At least, that is unless you had some kind of highly complex extractiondevice to remove the oxygen build up.
Sigh. I had this serious reply written up explaining how you had it backwards - it removes the oxygen from the air etc etc...
Then I clicked the links. Good thing, I would've earned a "whoosh" otherwise...
On the contrary, security without convenience is a myth. When "logging in" is an arcane protocol, then the user focuses on technical details instead of thinking about potential avenues of attack. Computers should handle the arbitrary and fiddly details and leave only the critical aspects to the user
I couldn't agree more. The trouble is this: how? Secondarily, who defines what is important enough to bother the user with?
Windows doesn't quite get it right either though they're closer. Presenting things by company name is (usually) a step up, because in many cases those names are things that users can see and recognize immediately.
And they gently "train" users to recognize the correct options when things are installed, by highlighting the newly installed applications in the start menu - the user knows they installed something, and they know that they can trust the start menu to tell them where to find it. This was actually a fairly impressive design decision when they implemented it in.. Win2000?
This would be good if people thought that way. In my own observations (and I'm certainly no expert), they don't. As much as UI designers/want/ them to think "I want to browse the web", what they seem to actually think is "I want to start Firefox". Similarly while they may think "I want to pay my bills", they will still know that they installed Quicken to do this, and they will want to start Quicken - not "Manage Finances".
Gnome is built around the exact theory you have described, but the more I watch people (whose primary job isn't computers) work, the more I realize that those are not necessarily valid assumptions for the majority of users.
I think the reason that the task-oriented approach doesn't really work so well is that people think of tasks differently - which makes identifying the task by name rather difficult. You might think "Browse the web" while I think "Surf the web". You might "pay bills" while I want to "manage money". It seems an impossible job to create a name that universally identifies any given task - which means that the user is again required to think and make a choice for nearly every simple task. Even worse, they have to manually search the menu and do mental translations as they go.
When they're launching Quicken, there's no thought required. They know that quicken is what they want to be running, so they run it.
Windows doesn't quite get it right either though they're closer. Presenting things by company name is (usually) a step up, because in many cases those names are things that users can see and recognize immediately.
What I'm suggesting is that users/hate/ making choices. I don't mean they lie awake at night trembling in fear; but that when they want to do something on their computer being faced with unnecessary choices engenders a sense of frustration. This is cumulative - someone has to pause to think about which menu to use. Then they have to pause to think about which app to use (they know "firefox". Not so sure about "Browse the Web".) These little things - each one minor by itself - add up very quickly.
THe net result is that they're going to come to the conclusion that it's "hard to use" - based on nothing but these little tiny frustrations building up.
Well - in fairness, the other part of the problem is that Ubuntu (& Gnome) are not really designed for end users. They're built for how developers believe end-users should work - which is quite different. I don't mean that they're built for developers - rather their built for a developer's notion of what is a logical interaction.
Unfortunately, that often collides with real workflows in subtle but jarring ways. Look even at the desktop menu names ("Applications" "Places" and "System"). The reason that the Start menu has worked is because it gives users/one/ path to get to the things they want. Instead, using gnome/ubuntu, users are immediately faced with a choice - they have to categorize the task they want to do, before they can do it. Every single time, as they learn the system.
NWN1/NWN2 multiplayer offers that to a large degree. Creators each create their own server, implement their own rules and content (or use that provided by others, as they see fit). Players can move between servers if the creators want to link their worlds.
It very much allows each person to tailor-make a world for the style and type of gameplay that he enjoys most.
It's a shame that there seem to be no successors on the horizon - perhaps something that is not built around the D&D rulset.
If you really think that users can 'enhance' anything than you inexperienced, uninformed or just plain stupid....thinking that random users will enhance your game is like thinking that DIY bike enthusiast can beat Yamaha. You will wreck your game period, but may be we have a different game in mind..
Excluding your user base from the possibility of creating content because of your preconceived notions shows a lack of forethought and imagination.
Those examples are fan creations for a game that's more-or-less a niche game that does not have top-end graphics. You really believe there's no talent in an audience many hundreds of time the size? Good thing you're not in charge...
Am I the only one here who doesn't want the collective impulses of 1 million 15 year olds impacting my game experience? Instead of theorizing about how awesome it would be to have a server with 5 million people on it at the same time, why don't they try to design a game that would actually be fun to play with 5 million other people on your server. I can't think of any, but if they can, I'd at least be willing to listen to their ideas.
There's this great game with over 6 billion people playing on the same server!!! It's pretty fun, too.
Fair enough - at the point I'd posted this, I'd just seen you actively involved in a few discussions in this thread, then stop just when folks raised points that were (IMO) quite valid. Not being online does indeed make it difficult to respond...
Slashdot Mirror
Why change it? %TEMP% in the address bar will take you there every time, straightaway... doing that ensures you can find all of your temp files (including those from apps that make assumptions about the location of the temp folder, instead of obtaining it properly.)
Assuming you don't take the step of enabling view of hidden files & folders (strongly recommended in the quest to avoid viruses and other evil 2.0 inventions). While you're at it, make sure to turn on viewing of file extensions...
Addicts need to hit bottom before you can re-rehabilitate them.
Ahh, the old AA brainwashing. It certainly makes their path clearer if they "hit bottom"; but they don't /have/ to.
Furthermore, it is not the OP's place to tell this person how to live their life.
If you consider someone a friend, it /is/ your place and even your /responsibility/ to tell them when they're on a self-destructive path. Whether the addict chooses to acknowledge and start correcting this is entirely up to the addict.
Any attempt to stop him from playing the game will only sour the OP's relationship with their friend.
Maybe true, maybe not - this varies from person to person. On some level, the addict /knows/ what he's doing. It's really a matter of whether he's ready to acknowledge and deal with it.
On the surface, your logic is good. (It was in fact explored most thoroughly in the movie Idiocracy several years ago.) But here's the problem: you're looking in the short term. In the long term, assuming you're 100% correct, it won't matter.
Assuming we don't blow ourselves up, following your model humanity will get collectively dumber and dumber. Okay, fair enough. But eventually, we'll start dying off in huge numbers because of that stupidity. What happens then? Why, survival through natural selection. The trend reverses, and again intelligence and physical ability both determine who survives and who doesn't.
The other thing is this: there's nothing special about humans. If you take away all concept of external intelligence behind the creation and evolution of our species, we have no more right to live than any other species. If we kill ourselves off through stupidity, then ... well, so what? Nothing - absolutely nothing - is lost.
Part of what I do is manage the applications running on a couple of HPC machines and when things are really busy, guess which jobs get pushed aside for resource hogging?
Part of what I do is manage java middleware that services thousands of concurrent clients while maintaining performance in the 200-300TPS range, with an SLA to the client applications of less than 100 ms - and that includes round-trip time to the data providers, some of which may be several tiers removed.
So - what's your point again?
Look, I'm not saying Java is good for everything - it's a tool and like any other tool you should use the best one for the job. But you should also base your decisions on data that is more recent than your desktop experience with Java ten years ago.
It is a known fact that several JVMs out there do leak just by running
Authoritatively stating something is a known fact makes it neither known nor a fact.
Well - Java is kinda one of the programming languages in most widespread use. It might stand to reason that it would attract a fair amount of people developing apps for it...
Aw, flamebait? Not dobby, me droogs. Not dobby at all.
Yes, it would be extremely dangerous to use this near any source of ignition. At least, that is unless you had some kind of highly complex extraction device to remove the oxygen build up.
Sigh. I had this serious reply written up explaining how you had it backwards - it removes the oxygen from the air etc etc ...
Then I clicked the links. Good thing, I would've earned a "whoosh" otherwise...
DUDE! If you want /anyone/ to read that gibberish, there's this neat tag you might want to know about: <p>
On the contrary, security without convenience is a myth. When "logging in" is an arcane protocol, then the user focuses on technical details instead of thinking about potential avenues of attack. Computers should handle the arbitrary and fiddly details and leave only the critical aspects to the user
I couldn't agree more. The trouble is this: how? Secondarily, who defines what is important enough to bother the user with?
It'd be pretty easy to get a list of publications, extract the initial letters, and search for the longest prefix match.
Okay, hop to it. Let us know when you have the answer.
Windows doesn't quite get it right either though they're closer. Presenting things by company name is (usually) a step up, because in many cases those names are things that users can see and recognize immediately.
And they gently "train" users to recognize the correct options when things are installed, by highlighting the newly installed applications in the start menu - the user knows they installed something, and they know that they can trust the start menu to tell them where to find it. This was actually a fairly impressive design decision when they implemented it in .. Win2000?
This would be good if people thought that way. In my own observations (and I'm certainly no expert), they don't. As much as UI designers /want/ them to think "I want to browse the web", what they seem to actually think is "I want to start Firefox". Similarly while they may think "I want to pay my bills", they will still know that they installed Quicken to do this, and they will want to start Quicken - not "Manage Finances".
Gnome is built around the exact theory you have described, but the more I watch people (whose primary job isn't computers) work, the more I realize that those are not necessarily valid assumptions for the majority of users.
I think the reason that the task-oriented approach doesn't really work so well is that people think of tasks differently - which makes identifying the task by name rather difficult. You might think "Browse the web" while I think "Surf the web". You might "pay bills" while I want to "manage money". It seems an impossible job to create a name that universally identifies any given task - which means that the user is again required to think and make a choice for nearly every simple task. Even worse, they have to manually search the menu and do mental translations as they go.
When they're launching Quicken, there's no thought required. They know that quicken is what they want to be running, so they run it.
Windows doesn't quite get it right either though they're closer. Presenting things by company name is (usually) a step up, because in many cases those names are things that users can see and recognize immediately.
What I'm suggesting is that users /hate/ making choices. I don't mean they lie awake at night trembling in fear; but that when they want to do something on their computer being faced with unnecessary choices engenders a sense of frustration. This is cumulative - someone has to pause to think about which menu to use. Then they have to pause to think about which app to use (they know "firefox". Not so sure about "Browse the Web".) These little things - each one minor by itself - add up very quickly.
THe net result is that they're going to come to the conclusion that it's "hard to use" - based on nothing but these little tiny frustrations building up.
Arg. "rather *they're built based on a developer's notion of what comprises a logical interaction..."
Well - in fairness, the other part of the problem is that Ubuntu (& Gnome) are not really designed for end users. They're built for how developers believe end-users should work - which is quite different. I don't mean that they're built for developers - rather their built for a developer's notion of what is a logical interaction.
Unfortunately, that often collides with real workflows in subtle but jarring ways. Look even at the desktop menu names ("Applications" "Places" and "System"). The reason that the Start menu has worked is because it gives users /one/ path to get to the things they want. Instead, using gnome/ubuntu, users are immediately faced with a choice - they have to categorize the task they want to do, before they can do it. Every single time, as they learn the system.
One issue among many that shows the disconnect.
NWN1/NWN2 multiplayer offers that to a large degree. Creators each create their own server, implement their own rules and content (or use that provided by others, as they see fit). Players can move between servers if the creators want to link their worlds.
It very much allows each person to tailor-make a world for the style and type of gameplay that he enjoys most.
It's a shame that there seem to be no successors on the horizon - perhaps something that is not built around the D&D rulset.
If you really think that users can 'enhance' anything than you inexperienced, uninformed or just plain stupid. ...thinking that random users will enhance your game is like thinking that DIY bike enthusiast can beat Yamaha. You will wreck your game period, but may be we have a different game in mind..
Excluding your user base from the possibility of creating content because of your preconceived notions shows a lack of forethought and imagination.
Ah, what am I saying. We all know that users can't create content that's worth a damn, especially not for free.
Those examples are fan creations for a game that's more-or-less a niche game that does not have top-end graphics. You really believe there's no talent in an audience many hundreds of time the size? Good thing you're not in charge...
Am I the only one here who doesn't want the collective impulses of 1 million 15 year olds impacting my game experience? Instead of theorizing about how awesome it would be to have a server with 5 million people on it at the same time, why don't they try to design a game that would actually be fun to play with 5 million other people on your server. I can't think of any, but if they can, I'd at least be willing to listen to their ideas.
There's this great game with over 6 billion people playing on the same server!!! It's pretty fun, too.
Or so I've heard, at least.
Fair enough - at the point I'd posted this, I'd just seen you actively involved in a few discussions in this thread, then stop just when folks raised points that were (IMO) quite valid. Not being online does indeed make it difficult to respond...
Make them walk the plank. Duh.
No, the game companies ought to give the games away for free, and charge people to connect to their servers.
Which would be great, is multiplayer games built around centralized servers...
Totally. I just finished posting the same day you did too, how's that for coincidence!
When someone has a valid point, Mr Fredrickson stops replying. Still, not wasted time - interesting info.