Round rectangles are using on signs and other physical objects because they remove the sharp, dangerous corners.
Why are they so useful in GUIs? I maintain that it's just an aesthetic thing, and do not serve an actual purpose. In fact, they take up screen real estate that could be used for more informative pixels instead.
I'm not arguing to change it, just that they aren't nearly so indispensable as Jobs makes it sound.
Does anyone still use OpenOffice.org? I was sure it imploded when LibreOffice was formed to get out from under Oracle's thumb? Plus, it doesn't have to have the stupid.org tacked onto it's name to avoid trademark issues.
If Apache is doing this right, they had better court the LibreOffice devs back into the fold.
Actually, over this and other recent actions by Sony, I won't. I cancelled my Vita pre-order.
I will be buying a few more ps3 games, and renting a few others... But I'm mostly moving away from consoles thanks to attitudes like this. And I won't buy Sony hardware at all. A company can make a few mistakes, but Sony has made just too many, and shown what they think of their customers.
Makeup looks bad. I mean, ugh. Horrifyingly bad. I can't count how many times I looked a girl's makeup-caked face in high school and felt like throwing up.
Unless you're a professional makeup artist. Those people know to use the absolute minimum, and exactly how to get the effect they want.
Of course, we're only hearing 1 side of this. I can easily imagine how this could come to be:
Oracle gives a quote that requires the University do things Oracle's way, on Oracle's timeline. University doesn't. Oracle then quotes a price to fix all the University's mistakes.
I can't for a minute imagine that Oracle wrote a contract for a fixed price that didn't outline exactly what the duties of each side were, and exactly what was covered.
However, I also can't imagine a University engaging in frivolous lawsuits.
It should be interesting to see what the facts are, and how this plays out.
Oh, you mean like OnLive? I'm not convinced enough people will buy into that yet to satisfy Sony and MS.
I personally find it convenient, especially since I rarely play a game after I finish it, and yet I don't sell the game used, either. But most people aren't like me, I think.
However, I will say that I have yet to purchase a game from OnLive at anything like the full price... And probably never will. I don't trust them not to go under and take all my games with them. Or even just retire some of my games because they are old and they don't want to support them any more. (Or can't.)
You then have the issue of having adequate hard drive space. The size of DVDs was keeping the games down in size, but without that limitation, they're going to grow a lot. The PS3 certainly had no issue reaching 8GB for their games.
That brings up a good point... What kind of innovations would we see if we had groups of humans who could no longer talk to each other easily? They could share research, but the daily interaction wouldn't be there. There's almost nowhere on Earth that is off the internet... And certainly nowhere that's easily inhabitable.
But moving some of us to Mars... Not only would the adverse conditions promote innovation, but the lack of easy contact with the rest of us would also promote home-grown solutions for things like social networks, and could actually promote growth.
I think the point wasn't that any of them have a monopoly, even though it's possible 1 of them has over 50% while the rest have considerably less and still add to 90%.
The point was that with only 6 major companies competing, it's easy for each of them to create garbage because none of the others are bothering to do better. They are technically competing with each other, but they aren't driven to do so.
And the remaining 10% don't have enough fans to make anything popular and upset the status quo.
I think some people would tell you that it's impossible for the little companies to make worthwhile content, but that's bunk. I watched a show from New Zealand called 'This is Not My Life' and it was some of the best scifi/drama I've seen in a while. I didn't even know New Zealand had TV shows of their own. It came completely out of nowhere.
Wow, everyone's really quick to jump on them and claim it's because they have profit motive in having more data. I won't deny that, but there are other factors that are possibly more important.
Human-scanning every single message would be nearly impossible. Even if they managed to handle the staffing problem, they couldn't afford it. And even if they could afford it, there's the ethical issues it presents.
There are plenty of other reasons for them to decline.
Actually, I'm a lot more worried about the bubble bursting than I am about the "snot nose guys".
Right now, I make nice money. If this is a bubble, that will go up. And I'll get comfortable with that, and adjust my life to suit. When the bubble pops, my income will go way back down again, and that is going to hurt.
While my numbers aren't as bad (probably 30% is actually for -me- and not a random citizen), my apartment complex has a garbage can next to the mailboxes. It's always full. Every single day.
You're still trusting random users to metamoderate properly as well. I think it helps keep the system fairer, but still not fair. Instead of moderating directly, meta-mods can choose whether or not to nullify a moderation according to their whim.
It's not only that. Those people think their messages are important, or they wouldn't be sending them. They now have to find some other way to get the word out. And they WILL find a way, no matter how annoying or painful it is to others.
They should be looking to fix the problem, not the symptoms.
With a 3d monitor, it could be interesting to try. For 1 'eye', output the normal image. For the other, output exactly the opposite image. For normal vision, it would look like a solid image, but wearing 1 half of the 3D Glasses should give you the normal image.
I think I'll try this later, with the standard 3D image viewer app.
Everyone has already said 'You need a portfolio', and that is SO right. So I'll talk about the next step:
Find the right company.
The wrong company is a company that think college education means anything in and of itself. It doesn't. A portfolio shows your actual skill, and a good company will appreciate that. A good company will also have an interview that asks the right questions, and possibly asks you to show your ability. These are the companies you'll shine at. As a side effect, these are also good companies to work for, since they value skill and efficiency instead of paperwork.
Your complaint isn't with IT at all. It's with management. IT has to install and support those things, but management is making the decision of what you have.
You know what? That's what I love about America. Choice. For me, this is absolutely not an option any more, even when I was single. It was destroying my life, and I wasn't getting paid enough for it.
But for you, it's an option. You can choose to take that job, and I'm perfectly fine with it. I don't feel the need to run your life. Just mine.
Now if only we could get everyone else to feel the same way.:)
The best tool for on-call duty is a resume. And a list of jobs to apply for.
Even if you don't normally get called while on-call, it likely prevents you from going about your life. You can't go to a movie, go out of town, etc etc. They should be paying your for those services. If you aren't getting paid well for it, don't accept a job with on-call duties.
And besides all that, a job with on-call duties is a job that has need of them. That means they either have an unstable system or they aren't staffed properly. It's a huge sign that things are not right, and that company is best avoided.
I didn't realize all that until I got a job that didn't involve it. I kept making excuses for the company, and for myself. I'm so glad I'm not there any more.
Not only that, but it's not professional to do so. Depending on the subject, it might not be ethical, either. All signs point to 'Don't mix business with pleasure.' Yet people continue to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Round rectangles are using on signs and other physical objects because they remove the sharp, dangerous corners.
Why are they so useful in GUIs? I maintain that it's just an aesthetic thing, and do not serve an actual purpose. In fact, they take up screen real estate that could be used for more informative pixels instead.
I'm not arguing to change it, just that they aren't nearly so indispensable as Jobs makes it sound.
Does anyone still use OpenOffice.org? I was sure it imploded when LibreOffice was formed to get out from under Oracle's thumb? Plus, it doesn't have to have the stupid .org tacked onto it's name to avoid trademark issues.
If Apache is doing this right, they had better court the LibreOffice devs back into the fold.
Actually, over this and other recent actions by Sony, I won't. I cancelled my Vita pre-order.
I will be buying a few more ps3 games, and renting a few others... But I'm mostly moving away from consoles thanks to attitudes like this. And I won't buy Sony hardware at all. A company can make a few mistakes, but Sony has made just too many, and shown what they think of their customers.
Misleading advertising should be illegal anyhow. I don't see why this group should have to specifically ban it.
A guy's perspective here:
Makeup looks bad. I mean, ugh. Horrifyingly bad. I can't count how many times I looked a girl's makeup-caked face in high school and felt like throwing up.
Unless you're a professional makeup artist. Those people know to use the absolute minimum, and exactly how to get the effect they want.
Why can't you just say Q T? Why's it have to have to be pronounceable as a word?
Of course, we're only hearing 1 side of this. I can easily imagine how this could come to be:
Oracle gives a quote that requires the University do things Oracle's way, on Oracle's timeline. University doesn't. Oracle then quotes a price to fix all the University's mistakes.
I can't for a minute imagine that Oracle wrote a contract for a fixed price that didn't outline exactly what the duties of each side were, and exactly what was covered.
However, I also can't imagine a University engaging in frivolous lawsuits.
It should be interesting to see what the facts are, and how this plays out.
Oh, you mean like OnLive? I'm not convinced enough people will buy into that yet to satisfy Sony and MS.
I personally find it convenient, especially since I rarely play a game after I finish it, and yet I don't sell the game used, either. But most people aren't like me, I think.
However, I will say that I have yet to purchase a game from OnLive at anything like the full price... And probably never will. I don't trust them not to go under and take all my games with them. Or even just retire some of my games because they are old and they don't want to support them any more. (Or can't.)
You then have the issue of having adequate hard drive space. The size of DVDs was keeping the games down in size, but without that limitation, they're going to grow a lot. The PS3 certainly had no issue reaching 8GB for their games.
That brings up a good point... What kind of innovations would we see if we had groups of humans who could no longer talk to each other easily? They could share research, but the daily interaction wouldn't be there. There's almost nowhere on Earth that is off the internet... And certainly nowhere that's easily inhabitable.
But moving some of us to Mars... Not only would the adverse conditions promote innovation, but the lack of easy contact with the rest of us would also promote home-grown solutions for things like social networks, and could actually promote growth.
It would be a truly interesting time.
I think the point wasn't that any of them have a monopoly, even though it's possible 1 of them has over 50% while the rest have considerably less and still add to 90%.
The point was that with only 6 major companies competing, it's easy for each of them to create garbage because none of the others are bothering to do better. They are technically competing with each other, but they aren't driven to do so.
And the remaining 10% don't have enough fans to make anything popular and upset the status quo.
I think some people would tell you that it's impossible for the little companies to make worthwhile content, but that's bunk. I watched a show from New Zealand called 'This is Not My Life' and it was some of the best scifi/drama I've seen in a while. I didn't even know New Zealand had TV shows of their own. It came completely out of nowhere.
Wow, everyone's really quick to jump on them and claim it's because they have profit motive in having more data. I won't deny that, but there are other factors that are possibly more important.
Human-scanning every single message would be nearly impossible. Even if they managed to handle the staffing problem, they couldn't afford it. And even if they could afford it, there's the ethical issues it presents.
There are plenty of other reasons for them to decline.
Actually, I'm a lot more worried about the bubble bursting than I am about the "snot nose guys".
Right now, I make nice money. If this is a bubble, that will go up. And I'll get comfortable with that, and adjust my life to suit. When the bubble pops, my income will go way back down again, and that is going to hurt.
While my numbers aren't as bad (probably 30% is actually for -me- and not a random citizen), my apartment complex has a garbage can next to the mailboxes. It's always full. Every single day.
You're still trusting random users to metamoderate properly as well. I think it helps keep the system fairer, but still not fair. Instead of moderating directly, meta-mods can choose whether or not to nullify a moderation according to their whim.
It's not only that. Those people think their messages are important, or they wouldn't be sending them. They now have to find some other way to get the word out. And they WILL find a way, no matter how annoying or painful it is to others.
They should be looking to fix the problem, not the symptoms.
With a 3d monitor, it could be interesting to try. For 1 'eye', output the normal image. For the other, output exactly the opposite image. For normal vision, it would look like a solid image, but wearing 1 half of the 3D Glasses should give you the normal image.
I think I'll try this later, with the standard 3D image viewer app.
Everyone has already said 'You need a portfolio', and that is SO right. So I'll talk about the next step:
Find the right company.
The wrong company is a company that think college education means anything in and of itself. It doesn't. A portfolio shows your actual skill, and a good company will appreciate that. A good company will also have an interview that asks the right questions, and possibly asks you to show your ability. These are the companies you'll shine at. As a side effect, these are also good companies to work for, since they value skill and efficiency instead of paperwork.
But you still need that portfolio.
Your complaint isn't with IT at all. It's with management. IT has to install and support those things, but management is making the decision of what you have.
You know what? That's what I love about America. Choice. For me, this is absolutely not an option any more, even when I was single. It was destroying my life, and I wasn't getting paid enough for it.
But for you, it's an option. You can choose to take that job, and I'm perfectly fine with it. I don't feel the need to run your life. Just mine.
Now if only we could get everyone else to feel the same way. :)
The best tool for on-call duty is a resume. And a list of jobs to apply for.
Even if you don't normally get called while on-call, it likely prevents you from going about your life. You can't go to a movie, go out of town, etc etc. They should be paying your for those services. If you aren't getting paid well for it, don't accept a job with on-call duties.
And besides all that, a job with on-call duties is a job that has need of them. That means they either have an unstable system or they aren't staffed properly. It's a huge sign that things are not right, and that company is best avoided.
I didn't realize all that until I got a job that didn't involve it. I kept making excuses for the company, and for myself. I'm so glad I'm not there any more.
Not only that, but it's not professional to do so. Depending on the subject, it might not be ethical, either. All signs point to 'Don't mix business with pleasure.' Yet people continue to do so.
Not 2.7013 time larger. 2.7013 times as large. It's a massive difference.
I don't buy the wages thing, though. If that were the case, they wouldn't bother using recruiters in the first place.
Unless the brother-in-law thing were already true. In which case, the percentage still doesn't matter, since it was never an option.
I think his point was that implementing a solution without further investigation is the wrong approach. Collaboration is also desired.