A rather large hospital out west implemented an entire EMR in FileMaker Pro. It wasn't anything to look at, was somewhat feature bereft, etc., but it supported the workflows they needed it to, exactly how they wanted it to.
Reporting can be done by an utter novice, since you can do a full-text search on every field in FileMaker Pro. No SQL - just keep clicking find, and you have your ad-hoc report. I guess you can say it's "accessible."
So, no, it's definitely not a "professional" solution, and I wouldn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. But, they wrote an Electronic Medical Record in it, with no technical knowledge whatsover.
Why should you scroll, when the always-on status bar is already included when calculating window height?
Because you want to read what's behind the status bar? The post I replied to complained Chrome's (lack of) status bar might cover the text he was reading. My response was that an always-on status bar would always cover that text.
I'll leave why that would cause scrolling as an exercise to the reader.
All we can observe is this pretty correlation between introduction of FF4 with radically changed UI and acceleration of FF's user share decline
Yes. The status bar is the only reason people are leaving Firefox or using 3.6. This is clearly a more reasonable figure than "number of people who actually turned the status bar back on."
both for you and many UX designers *snip*
I'm not a UX designer. I don't care what you think about them, and I don't care to defend the profession.
P.S.: And again you refer to "exceptionally small number of toxic users". You must be a real hit at parties.
This is a nerd message board, not a party. I don't drink with people that confuse the two.
Only 156,000 people care enough to restore the old behavior. Unless you can provide better figures, that's 0.058% that care about the status bar, not 6%.
As for your take on Unity or UX designers, I couldn't care less. I'm not a UX designer, my Linuces don't have GUIs, and none of that has anything to do with why Google should pander to an exceptionally small number of toxic users.
Are you telling me Firefox users have problems finding extensions, especially when they're linked directly from the "what happened to the status bar" help topic? If they don't care enough to google "Firefox status bar", they don't count towards the "number of people who care about the status bar" statistic.
Even if you assume that every Firefox 3.6 user is on 3.6 solely because of the status bar, that means no more than six percent of web users actually care.
o we can ask them whether the page successfully loaded but didn't render, ("Done"), or if it's hung up because the web server is slow ("transferring data from..."), or if it's stuck trying to do a DNS lookup ("Looking up... / Connecting to...")
Chrome somehow manages to do just that. It's only autists that have problems using software without "Ready" or "Num Caps Ins Scr" permanently burned on the bottom of their screen.
Yes, it's 1%. Back in 2009, there were ~270 million Firefox users. Only 150 thousand of them care about the status bar.
Given that not even 1% of Firefox users care about the status bar, I think the UI designers are entirely correct to say to say, quote, "fuck you, you exceptionally whiny bitches."
Because it isn't worth having to test yet another code path just to placate an exceptionally whiny 1%.
Put another way: It's yet another bug report that amounts to "Chrome isn't Firefox 3.6." If Henry Ford had a bug tracker, it'd be filled with "this car is not a horse," "I don't like the color black," and "implement vim key bindings."
The heck is with you status bar fetishists? I don't feel compelled to burn ~20 precious vertical pixels, displaying nothing, just in case I might hover over a link.
Between you and the "every program must have a file menu" guys, you'd double the amount of chrome in Chrome and gain exactly zero functionality.
This is the approach that MS supports for x86 systems, but not for ARM-based ones. I say, screw MS!
I don't see a problem with them locking down the "designed for Windows 8"-emblazoned ARM tablets. Apple proved there's a market for unconfigurable iDevices, so let Microsoft have a stab at the "it just works" crowd. x86 tablets will be just as free as Windows has ever been.
Not that I'm likely to buy either, mind you. I just don't take personal offense to Microsoft trying to sell to my grandma.
I've seen some of what you're talking about. As part of my job I get to support software installs at hospitals, all too much of which consists of idling at nursing stations, trying to be the right combination of visible and helpful.
Apparently my best impression of an IBM salesman was insufficient to disturb some (female) nurses' gossip, despite performing it live in the midst of their labor and delivery nursing station. The catting followed a brisk agenda regarding the topic of a male nurse wanting to transfer into the L&D, and adjourned with the conclusion that he was a freak. Noted in the minutes was the fact that no man would ever work in their L&D; overlooked was me and my Y chromosome doing just that not fifteen feet from them, however temporarily.
So, I wish you the best of luck as a nurse, or a paramedic, or wherever you decide to move your career. Seems even tougher to break into than teaching.
Ceteris paribus, tariffs can resolve economic externalities. But, we don't have the luxury of enacting them in a vacuum.
What kind of tariff do you think it would take to, say, make Foxconn relocate to the United States? What do you think China would do in response? What do you think would happen to the price of electronics? Would the net job gain even be positive?
If we could build something better or cheaper, we'd already be making it here. If tariffs were actually effective in promoting economic growth, every country would have them cranked up to eleven and North Korea would be an industrial powerhouse.
Tariffs aren't any more practical. Ignoring things like WTO sanctions, other countries will retaliate with their own tariffs, or perhaps cut off trade entirely.
You can say, "Well, who needs all those other countries, anyway." It's an appealing philosophy called Junche
Those are massive assumptions considering an awful lot of companies already don't care to operate in America. You're also not going to prevent them from having American customers and clients without resorting to equally massive import tariffs.
Being able to work "very long hours" doesn't cause unemployment. For example, France tried cutting their workweek to force businesses to hire more people to do the same job. It didn't work, nor do most schemes along the lines of "replace one full-time worker with two part-time workers."
In the long run, an increase in productivity simply means you can either
Work fewer hours for the same pay
Work the same hours for more pay
There's nothing wrong with choosing option two, and there's nothing stopping you from picking option one instead.
That's a foolish notion. All national currencies eventually are bound to the capital value of a country, it's land and resources. The currency drops in value when more is printed than the country is worth
Congratulations; you just confused "currency" with "shares of stock."
Besides, if Leviticus is that utterly meaningless, then why bother putting it in the Bible at all?
Why leave old commits in the SVN tree? It's not like the authors of the New Testament, especially Matthew, weren't informed by Leviticus and the other Old Testament books.
Slashdot Mirror
A rather large hospital out west implemented an entire EMR in FileMaker Pro. It wasn't anything to look at, was somewhat feature bereft, etc., but it supported the workflows they needed it to, exactly how they wanted it to.
Reporting can be done by an utter novice, since you can do a full-text search on every field in FileMaker Pro. No SQL - just keep clicking find, and you have your ad-hoc report. I guess you can say it's "accessible."
So, no, it's definitely not a "professional" solution, and I wouldn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. But, they wrote an Electronic Medical Record in it, with no technical knowledge whatsover.
Why should you scroll, when the always-on status bar is already included when calculating window height?
Because you want to read what's behind the status bar? The post I replied to complained Chrome's (lack of) status bar might cover the text he was reading. My response was that an always-on status bar would always cover that text.
I'll leave why that would cause scrolling as an exercise to the reader.
Let's go back to my original reply, which is why Chrome doesn't have a status bar. With various evidence, I posited that:
You argue that Firefox is "spitting" on its users by changing the status bar. Why would Chrome changing its status bar be any different?
With always-on, you always have to scroll. With Chrome, you might have to scroll, if you can't wait for your page to finish loading.
All we can observe is this pretty correlation between introduction of FF4 with radically changed UI and acceleration of FF's user share decline
Yes. The status bar is the only reason people are leaving Firefox or using 3.6. This is clearly a more reasonable figure than "number of people who actually turned the status bar back on."
both for you and many UX designers *snip*
I'm not a UX designer. I don't care what you think about them, and I don't care to defend the profession.
P.S.: And again you refer to "exceptionally small number of toxic users". You must be a real hit at parties.
This is a nerd message board, not a party. I don't drink with people that confuse the two.
Yeah, that's just wonderful until it displays while there is a viewable page, covering up elements at the bottom.
Which you also would not have seen with your always-on status bar.
Like status popups covering up part of a web page I'm trying to read. Which happens ALL THE %^@^% TIME.
If you had the always-on status bar, you wouldn't have been able to those 20 pixels in the bottom left-hand corner anyway.
Only 156,000 people care enough to restore the old behavior. Unless you can provide better figures, that's 0.058% that care about the status bar, not 6%.
As for your take on Unity or UX designers, I couldn't care less. I'm not a UX designer, my Linuces don't have GUIs, and none of that has anything to do with why Google should pander to an exceptionally small number of toxic users.
Are you telling me Firefox users have problems finding extensions, especially when they're linked directly from the "what happened to the status bar" help topic? If they don't care enough to google "Firefox status bar", they don't count towards the "number of people who care about the status bar" statistic.
Even if you assume that every Firefox 3.6 user is on 3.6 solely because of the status bar, that means no more than six percent of web users actually care.
o we can ask them whether the page successfully loaded but didn't render, ("Done"), or if it's hung up because the web server is slow ("transferring data from..."), or if it's stuck trying to do a DNS lookup ("Looking up... / Connecting to...")
Chrome somehow manages to do just that. It's only autists that have problems using software without "Ready" or "Num Caps Ins Scr" permanently burned on the bottom of their screen.
Yes, it's 1%. Back in 2009, there were ~270 million Firefox users. Only 150 thousand of them care about the status bar.
Given that not even 1% of Firefox users care about the status bar, I think the UI designers are entirely correct to say to say, quote, "fuck you, you exceptionally whiny bitches."
Because it isn't worth having to test yet another code path just to placate an exceptionally whiny 1%.
Put another way: It's yet another bug report that amounts to "Chrome isn't Firefox 3.6." If Henry Ford had a bug tracker, it'd be filled with "this car is not a horse," "I don't like the color black," and "implement vim key bindings."
The heck is with you status bar fetishists? I don't feel compelled to burn ~20 precious vertical pixels, displaying nothing, just in case I might hover over a link.
Between you and the "every program must have a file menu" guys, you'd double the amount of chrome in Chrome and gain exactly zero functionality.
This is the approach that MS supports for x86 systems, but not for ARM-based ones. I say, screw MS!
I don't see a problem with them locking down the "designed for Windows 8"-emblazoned ARM tablets. Apple proved there's a market for unconfigurable iDevices, so let Microsoft have a stab at the "it just works" crowd. x86 tablets will be just as free as Windows has ever been.
Not that I'm likely to buy either, mind you. I just don't take personal offense to Microsoft trying to sell to my grandma.
I've seen some of what you're talking about. As part of my job I get to support software installs at hospitals, all too much of which consists of idling at nursing stations, trying to be the right combination of visible and helpful.
Apparently my best impression of an IBM salesman was insufficient to disturb some (female) nurses' gossip, despite performing it live in the midst of their labor and delivery nursing station. The catting followed a brisk agenda regarding the topic of a male nurse wanting to transfer into the L&D, and adjourned with the conclusion that he was a freak. Noted in the minutes was the fact that no man would ever work in their L&D; overlooked was me and my Y chromosome doing just that not fifteen feet from them, however temporarily.
So, I wish you the best of luck as a nurse, or a paramedic, or wherever you decide to move your career. Seems even tougher to break into than teaching.
You were probably thinking of Cracked.
Ceteris paribus, tariffs can resolve economic externalities. But, we don't have the luxury of enacting them in a vacuum.
What kind of tariff do you think it would take to, say, make Foxconn relocate to the United States? What do you think China would do in response? What do you think would happen to the price of electronics? Would the net job gain even be positive?
If we could build something better or cheaper, we'd already be making it here. If tariffs were actually effective in promoting economic growth, every country would have them cranked up to eleven and North Korea would be an industrial powerhouse.
Which solves what, exactly? Other countries can raise tariffs just as easily as we can.
Tariffs aren't any more practical. Ignoring things like WTO sanctions, other countries will retaliate with their own tariffs, or perhaps cut off trade entirely.
You can say, "Well, who needs all those other countries, anyway." It's an appealing philosophy called Junche
Those are massive assumptions considering an awful lot of companies already don't care to operate in America. You're also not going to prevent them from having American customers and clients without resorting to equally massive import tariffs.
Being able to work "very long hours" doesn't cause unemployment. For example, France tried cutting their workweek to force businesses to hire more people to do the same job. It didn't work, nor do most schemes along the lines of "replace one full-time worker with two part-time workers."
In the long run, an increase in productivity simply means you can either
There's nothing wrong with choosing option two, and there's nothing stopping you from picking option one instead.
You know how you stop companies from going overseas? You tax the ever living fuck out of them, that's how.
Unless you're planning on bringing American imperialism to a whole new level, good luck taxing a company after it's moved overseas.
Cute, but it takes a special kind of person to
That's a foolish notion. All national currencies eventually are bound to the capital value of a country, it's land and resources. The currency drops in value when more is printed than the country is worth
Congratulations; you just confused "currency" with "shares of stock."
Besides, if Leviticus is that utterly meaningless, then why bother putting it in the Bible at all?
Why leave old commits in the SVN tree? It's not like the authors of the New Testament, especially Matthew, weren't informed by Leviticus and the other Old Testament books.