What I wonder is what they are thinking in Washington. First, there isn't enough money in million+ income hands to balance the budget. Not even close. Hell, you could take every dollar in profit every company in the US showed last year, and every cent of income from every millionaire, and you haven't even come close to closing the budget gap. Barely half, thinking of some presentation I saw not long ago.
No one change is going to balance the budget or pay off the federal debt. Raising taxes won't do it. Cutting entitlements won't do it. Cutting military spending won't do it. So by your logic, we should change nothing--just keep spending.
How is it class warfare to suggest that those those benefit most from a stable society and economy contribute proportionally to maintain that stability?
As has been pointed out elsewhere, a progressive tax rate is not class warfare.
Most/. regulars are familiar with the story of the Cisco plant in China and their extracurricular production. Are there similar stories of other companies and "off the books" production in Chinese factories?
My employer is currently in the process of setting up manufacturing in China. I'm wondering how bad of an idea this is. Is it a certainty counterfeits will appear in the market, or only a likelihood? Does it help the product has small parts assembled by hand?
I'd like this to be an exhibit at every trial in which gigantic money damages are claimed for copyright infringement.
Why? What relation does the exhibit have to a civil regarding copyrights? Or do you think wasting the judge's time will work in favor of the defense?
I've seen crime scene photos displayed in a gallery as art. Do you think those should be exhibits at the trial? (Obviously the crime scene photos are evidence. I mean, the particular fact that the photos could be displayed as art, is that relevant to the trial?)
"See judge, the blood splatter is art. Therefor this killing was not a crime!"
Unless you're going the other way, and saying, if anyone should have to pay big money for copyright infringement, it should be the pretentious arsehole who tries to pass off a commodity hard drive as art.
Going after emulators for Android is like the RIAA going after bit torrents. Going after emulators for Dreamcast is like the RIAA going after bootleg Edison cylinders.
(Not that I don't have emulators for the 2600 and NES for my Dreamcast--I do--but still. The phrase "bigger fish to fry" comes to mind.)
So you say they (Indian managers) are discriminating against people based on race and place of birth, but the guy who calls them out on it is being racist for doing so? Do you really not know what it means to be racist or bigoted means? That's as bad as a friend of mine once saying "I can't be racist, I'm black". Just because they're willing to tell you they're racist and bigots doesn't make it ok.
I did not express myself well. Some people do discriminate in hiring based country or region of birth. Like the OP, I think that is wrong, not okay. It does not make sense in terms of self interest, as I expect manager or company would want the best employees regardless of where they are from.
Where I disagree is that the situation is as simple as Indians prefer other Indians.
The whole thing is a red herring. Maybe red herring isn't the right term. It's B.S. Racism is an opiate of the masses. The Indian worker prefers to work with other Indians. The white guy feels Indians are taking his jobs. The rich guys laugh all the way to the...well, to nowhere. When you're that rich, the bank comes to you.
The racist in this situation is you, though you may not know it.
And the ass in this situation is you, though you may not know it.
Wouldn't the first time. But you're putting words in my mouth (or fingers) that greatly misrepresent what I'm trying to say.
To think of all Indians as a single group with some unifying characteristic (other than they are from India) is over simplistic. And I'm not saying all generalizations are racist. There are cultural and social factors that naturally unite people in to groups.
I suggest the people the OP was referring to have a worldview more complex than dividing people in to Indian and non-Indian. And nothing I said suggests I think it is okay.
If you do leave your age off your CV, or "mistype" it down by 10 or 15 years, you'll get interviews but no offers on the basis that you lied on your application. If you put in a tru age of 40+ you won't even get an acknowledgement email - and if you phone up, you'll be fobbed off.
And I just want to add, Yes! That's the way to fight age discrimination--by portraying yourself as a dottering old fool who doesn't know how to proof read, is too stubborn to have someone else review his CV, and doesn't realize he isn't 29 (or even 39) any more.
If you do leave your age off your CV, or "mistype" it down by 10 or 15 years, you'll get interviews but no offers on the basis that you lied on your application. If you put in a tru age of 40+ you won't even get an acknowledgement email - and if you phone up, you'll be fobbed off.
It may different in the UK, but in the US you should absolutely not put your age in your CV (unless you are a baby auditioning for diaper commercials).
Only list positions from the last 15 or so years, not every job you've ever held. If you did relevant work in those older positions, you can have a "skills" section that isn't tied to an employer or time period.
For education, list school and concentration, but not graduating year.
And don't lie. Especially about something like your age. The UK may be different, but in the US at some point you will have give your employer your date of birth, even if it's just on your ID establishing you can legally work in the US.
I also hate to say it, but there is racism, too. I look around and find the indian guys trying to thumbs-down the westerners. makes me sick to even say such things but I'm finding its true. I enjoy working with indian guys but I am very much turned off by the 'take-over' that I'm seeing right before my eyes. over the last 10 years, the tech industry is flushing out western guys and making it an 'import only' field.
The racist in this situation is you, though you may not know it.
India is a big country. There are a lot of groups within India--by culture, by language, by social status. What you're likely seeing is not Indian guys who show preference in hiring only other folks from India. What I suspect is happening is the guys from a particular area in India have a preference for people from that same area, who just happen to be Indian as well. The discrimination is as much against folks from other areas of India as it is against non-Indians.
Talk to your Indian friends about it. My experience is they are quite frank on what you can expect from Indian managers, Indian out-sourcing, etc.
And if you're working in an industry with a large number of Indians and people of Indian ancestry, and you've never made friends with an Indian, maybe you should try being a little less anti-social, a little less racist, or both.
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that green technology is not profitable and therefore a big scam, or a modern religion if you will, with all of its guilt, shame and asking for money, let me state an opinion that might not be popular here: Maybe, just maybe, the subsidies was too low? I know what you think but let me play an evil's advocate for a second. How much the fresh air is worth to you? To your children? To your children's children? To your children's children's grandchildren? Well, you get the idea. And what about fresh water? What about cold weather? I am not saying that all of those things should be worth more than 500 billion to everyone but I suggest that we have to account for them in the business plans of companies developing green technology. We have to ask ourselves: Why do we develop green technology? How much money are we willing to waste? What sacrifices are we willing to make? What do we expect to get in return? Those are the most important questions that we should at least try to answer.
You make a good point about my children. But not my children's children. Because I don't think children should be having children.
I like to help people picture how easy it is to change CO2 levels this way. Picture you have the Hindenburg full of pre-industrial-revolution air. How much gasoline would you have to burn to bring its CO2 levels up from that to modern CO2 levels?
Interesting. But how many Hindenburgs is the entire atmosphere?
Put another way, it took us about 300 years to get atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial levels to current.
...at least locally, we have a number of Hmong and Somali immigrants (quick, guess which US city!) who for various reasons refuse to be vaccinated - cultural, religious, etc. that have nothing to do with the autism nonsense.
I don't quite see the connection to this case with vaccines. There are other options to the birth control pill, up to and including giving the guy a beej instead. The correlation from "the BBC said the pill causes cancer" to "now I have to have an abortion" is not the same as "I have polio because Jenny McCarthy told my parents vaccines were evil."
There are other birth control options besides the pill. There aren't other options to the polio vaccine.
Hmmm. That's actually not too bad. Subjects are cut off in the email listings, but the combination of sender and first few words of the subject are a pretty good indicator of whats in the message.
Even with the To-Do and People panes open, this layout still shows a good dozen or so decent length lines of message body.
Thank you for conceding that point. There are four 'things' (3 panes and a ribbon) on the four sides of the Outlook which reduce the space available for displaying emails. And they behave in four different ways. That's all I'm trying to say.
If that were true, I'd sympathize. But it's not. And I've already explained why it's not. And it's not sinking in.
Depending on formatting and length of the message header (subject, To: CC:), I'm able to see up to 3 lines of the email body at a time.
That's not an acceptable configuration in my mind, and it's not the way I work. I have dual monitors (17 and 19 inch widescreens).
3 lines of email at a time, on a 17" monitor? Liar. How does it feel to have your pants constantly on fire?
So we're at a point in the conversation where 1) you aren't actually absorbing any information I provide, and 2) you're blatantly lying to me. I think it's time to end this thread. Good bye.
I'm honestly trying to understand. You say updating the configuration of the panes is consistent. When I point out the inconsistencies, you say 'apples and oranges'. When I retort, 'that's my point, they're all different,' you say, that's not true. Maybe it's one of those things that will make sense after I use the product more.
As for the number of lines visible in the reading pane...I took a couple screen shots with Outlook 2010 full screen on 19" widescreen. I'll play with them tonight to obscure any details my employer might object to me posting.
Thank you for conceding that point. There are four 'things' (3 panes and a ribbon) on the four sides of the Outlook which reduce the space available for displaying emails. And they behave in four different ways. That's all I'm trying to say.
You haven't yet explained how having the People Pane visible was preventing you from reading email. But fair warning, it's going to be hard to explain, because it's complete bullshit!
I just returned Outlook to what I believe is close to the original configuration I saw when I opened 2010 for the first time. Ribbon down, To-Do and People panes maximized, Nav pane on the left, and in the middle of it all the list of messages in the current folder and the reading pane with the current message.
Depending on formatting and length of the message header (subject, To: CC:), I'm able to see up to 3 lines of the email body at a time.
Is it possible to read email 3 lines at a time? Yes, mostly. Sometimes emails include embedded images too large for 3 lines. Is it possible to open an email in a new window? Yes. So to say this configuration completely prevents me from reading emails is not true, I grant you that. But it doesn't make it easy.
That's not an acceptable configuration in my mind, and it's not the way I work. I have dual monitors (17 and 19 inch widescreens). Why should I have to read emails in a reading pane smaller than the display on my phone?
Of course, the answer is I don't. I can change the configuration for my preferences. That's the wonder of configurable software. So I learned how to minimize the ribbon. And I learned how to turn off the To-Do pane.
But when I got around to the People pane, what I learned about the ribbon didn't work. And what I learned about the To-Do pane didn't work. So to say my issues are because I'm resistant to learning is bullshit. And to say there's some consistency to the way the panes work is bullshit.
Actually, this conversation has been helpful for me. In the process of going back forth between Outlook, and ribbon in Word, and/. (mostly to check that the things I were bitching about were not bullshit) I've learned a few things.
The People pane is actually sort of neat. I can get a list of emails from the same sender as the current email. (I wonder if I can get it to display which folder each email is in.) I can get a list of meetings with that person. (Or at least where that person is the organizer, but not where that person is a fellow invitee.) But I still see it as something I'll have off for the vast majority of the time.
Also, when the ribbon is minimized, and the tab labels are displayed, I can click on the label, and ribbon tab is displayed. The interesting bit is in the top right corner, where the up/down chevron usually is, there is a thumb tack! Clicking the tack fixes the tab so the ribbon stays open! Exactly how I would expect it to work.
If only the panes that come out of the other 3 sides of the window worked the same way...
Thank you! That worked. And it does make sense (now that I know how to do it).
It worked, it makes sense, and it's IN THE EXACT SAME SPOT THAT FUNCTION WAS IN BEFORE. If you couldn't find it in the ribbon View tab, why in hell do you think you would have been able to find it in the View menu? You're whining about your own ignorance, not anything relevant to Outlook's UI.
I don't recall there being a People pane in Outlook 2003, so your suggestion that the controls would be in same place for 2010 as for 2003 didn't make sense to me. Did a little Google. Turns out...the "Social Connector" was in 2003, and the option to hide it was under the View menu. Well, learn something new every day.
As for "whining about your own ignorance," that's the whole point. When I open Outlook, I want to manage my email, not learn about Outlook. Yes, I should learn to use the tool properly, but always with the goal of getting my work done. Now I know how to hide the People pane. Something I will never need to do again. So how is it useful for me to learn the location of a button I will click once?
In my copy of Outlook, the People Pane has the exact same chevron, which behaves in the exact same way. (The minimize/maximize it.) To hide it completely you use the View tab. Let's see, what if you wanted to hide the Folder Pane completely instead of just minimizing it... lo and behold, you do that from the View tab as well! Looks pretty fucking consistent to me.
(The irony here is that there is an inconsistency in Outlook's UI, the Reading Pane doesn't have the minimize chevron that all other panes to have. But somehow you didn't notice that, and instead complained about the People Pane which is entirely consistent with the rest of the UI. WTF?)
Apparently some of my complaints are misdirected towards MS when they should be going towards the folks who rolled out Office 2010 for my employer. There must be some customization, because my Outlook does not work they way yours does.
Right-click the ribbon, get context menu which includes 'minimize' (which hides the ribbon). Right-click To-Do, get context menu, which includes 'off' (which hides the To-Do pane). Right-click People pane, nothing. No context menu.
Click the chevron for the ribbon, ribbon gone. Click the chevron for the folders (Navigation pane), folders gone. Click the chevron for the People pane, pane smaller, but still there.
To say there's any sort of consistency or logic to the way these panes work just is not true.
So how is this obvious? How it is logical design when I could do what I wanted to do for every other pane without going to the View tab?
The To-Do Pane is the only one with that contextual menu; if you wanted to remove the Folder Pane or Reading Pane or People Pane you have to use the View tab in the ribbon. To-Do is the odd man out here, not the normal case.
Again, it seems my issues are with my specific implementation of Outlook 2010. For all the other panes and ribbons I wanted to hide, I did not need to go to the View tab. Maybe that has something to do with which panes I wanted to hide. But when I can hide A, B, and C without going to the View tab, I don't see how you can argue that for D obviously my first stop should have been the View tab.
As far as odd-men out, ribbon and To-Do have right-click menus; People and Nav panes do not. Ribbon and Nav panes hide all details when minimized; Person and To-Do do not. Nav, Person, To-Do panes can be controlled from the View tab in the ribbon; the ribbon itself is not. I've got four panes flying out from the four sides of the Outlook window. I've got four different sets of behaviors. So what's normal in this case?
So honestly, using my experience with Outlook 2010, based on the ribbon, the folders pane, the To-Do pane, it never occurred to me to look in the View tab.
I admit I don't understand people who don't like the ribbon, but I *really* don't understand people who find the ribbon confusing. It uses the exact sane mnemonics as the menu that came before it! If it's something you would have found in the View menu in Office 2003, odds are it's in the View ribbon in Office 2010. And, oh look, there it fucking is!
So honestly, using your experience with past UIs, where exactly would you have expected to find the function "turn the people pane off"? If you were a UI designer at Microsoft, and were forced at gunpoint to design a ribbon, where would you have put that function?
1) Thank you! That worked. And it does make sense (now that I know how to do it).
But I have to add 2) no, this is nothing like any other app I've worked with. It's not even consistent with itself.
I want to hide the ribbon. How do I do that? Oh, that's easy. There's this little chevron pointing up in the top-right corner of the ribbon. Click that, ribbon goes up. Chevron becomes down arrow. Click that, ribbon comes back down.
That folder list on the left side have a similar left-pointing chevron. Click that, folder list disappears to the left. Chevron now points right. Click again, and folder list comes back.
People pane? Well, obviously that's in the View menu!
Seriously, usually with side panes like that, the controls are right in the pane. Up/Down or Left/Right arrows to open and close. Thumbtack to pin the pane down. X to close.
I go the view tab of the ribbon in Outlook. Where's the control to hide the ribbon?
How about the To-Do bar on the right side? Oh, so there is a control for that in the View ribbon, right next to the control for the people pane. So how did I get rid of the To-Do bar without seeing the control for the people pane?
Because if you open the To-Do bar, you'll see 1) It has the left/right arrows to minimize.
And 2) You can right-click for a menu, which include the option to turn it off.
Go to the People pane, and it has up/down arrows, but they don't work the same way the ribbon arrows or folder pane arrows work. And no right-click menu.
So how is this obvious? How it is logical design when I could do what I wanted to do for every other pane without going to the View tab?
So honestly, using my experience with Outlook 2010, based on the ribbon, the folders pane, the To-Do pane, it never occurred to me to look in the View tab.
If you were a UI designer at Microsoft, and were forced at gunpoint to design a ribbon, where would you have put that function?
Click the VIEW tab. On the right side of the ribbon click the unhelpfully designed "People Pane" button. Click on the "Die. Just Fucking Die" option. It will also inform you that it is part of the Microsoft Outlook Social Connector
Slashdot Mirror
Couldn't your clients break in to the court computers after the trial and change the verdict to "not guilty"?
What I wonder is what they are thinking in Washington. First, there isn't enough money in million+ income hands to balance the budget. Not even close. Hell, you could take every dollar in profit every company in the US showed last year, and every cent of income from every millionaire, and you haven't even come close to closing the budget gap. Barely half, thinking of some presentation I saw not long ago.
No one change is going to balance the budget or pay off the federal debt. Raising taxes won't do it. Cutting entitlements won't do it. Cutting military spending won't do it. So by your logic, we should change nothing--just keep spending.
How is it class warfare to suggest that those those benefit most from a stable society and economy contribute proportionally to maintain that stability?
As has been pointed out elsewhere, a progressive tax rate is not class warfare.
Flocks are social constructs, highly organized. They can include birds from other species (show me a human tribe that does that).
Any tribe with dogs or horses.
Dear Slashdot,
I never thought it would happen to me, but...
which may well be a fake, but seems to reflect accurately the thinking behind a series of DHS
In other words, it probably fake, but we want to believe.
If I wanted to grapple with reality, I wouldn't be playing a video game.
A better question is, why aren't there bathrooms or latrines in military video games?
Most /. regulars are familiar with the story of the Cisco plant in China and their extracurricular production. Are there similar stories of other companies and "off the books" production in Chinese factories?
My employer is currently in the process of setting up manufacturing in China. I'm wondering how bad of an idea this is. Is it a certainty counterfeits will appear in the market, or only a likelihood? Does it help the product has small parts assembled by hand?
I'd like this to be an exhibit at every trial in which gigantic money damages are claimed for copyright infringement.
Why? What relation does the exhibit have to a civil regarding copyrights? Or do you think wasting the judge's time will work in favor of the defense?
I've seen crime scene photos displayed in a gallery as art. Do you think those should be exhibits at the trial? (Obviously the crime scene photos are evidence. I mean, the particular fact that the photos could be displayed as art, is that relevant to the trial?)
"See judge, the blood splatter is art. Therefor this killing was not a crime!"
Unless you're going the other way, and saying, if anyone should have to pay big money for copyright infringement, it should be the pretentious arsehole who tries to pass off a commodity hard drive as art.
In that, I'm with you 100%.
Going after 2600 emulators for Dreamcast?
Going after emulators for Android is like the RIAA going after bit torrents. Going after emulators for Dreamcast is like the RIAA going after bootleg Edison cylinders.
(Not that I don't have emulators for the 2600 and NES for my Dreamcast--I do--but still. The phrase "bigger fish to fry" comes to mind.)
So you say they (Indian managers) are discriminating against people based on race and place of birth, but the guy who calls them out on it is being racist for doing so? Do you really not know what it means to be racist or bigoted means? That's as bad as a friend of mine once saying "I can't be racist, I'm black".
Just because they're willing to tell you they're racist and bigots doesn't make it ok.
I did not express myself well. Some people do discriminate in hiring based country or region of birth. Like the OP, I think that is wrong, not okay. It does not make sense in terms of self interest, as I expect manager or company would want the best employees regardless of where they are from.
Where I disagree is that the situation is as simple as Indians prefer other Indians.
The whole thing is a red herring. Maybe red herring isn't the right term. It's B.S. Racism is an opiate of the masses. The Indian worker prefers to work with other Indians. The white guy feels Indians are taking his jobs. The rich guys laugh all the way to the...well, to nowhere. When you're that rich, the bank comes to you.
The racist in this situation is you, though you may not know it.
And the ass in this situation is you, though you may not know it.
Wouldn't the first time. But you're putting words in my mouth (or fingers) that greatly misrepresent what I'm trying to say.
To think of all Indians as a single group with some unifying characteristic (other than they are from India) is over simplistic. And I'm not saying all generalizations are racist. There are cultural and social factors that naturally unite people in to groups.
I suggest the people the OP was referring to have a worldview more complex than dividing people in to Indian and non-Indian. And nothing I said suggests I think it is okay.
If you do leave your age off your CV, or "mistype" it down by 10 or 15 years, you'll get interviews but no offers on the basis that you lied on your application. If you put in a tru age of 40+ you won't even get an acknowledgement email - and if you phone up, you'll be fobbed off.
And I just want to add, Yes! That's the way to fight age discrimination--by portraying yourself as a dottering old fool who doesn't know how to proof read, is too stubborn to have someone else review his CV, and doesn't realize he isn't 29 (or even 39) any more.
If you do leave your age off your CV, or "mistype" it down by 10 or 15 years, you'll get interviews but no offers on the basis that you lied on your application. If you put in a tru age of 40+ you won't even get an acknowledgement email - and if you phone up, you'll be fobbed off.
It may different in the UK, but in the US you should absolutely not put your age in your CV (unless you are a baby auditioning for diaper commercials).
Only list positions from the last 15 or so years, not every job you've ever held. If you did relevant work in those older positions, you can have a "skills" section that isn't tied to an employer or time period.
For education, list school and concentration, but not graduating year.
And don't lie. Especially about something like your age. The UK may be different, but in the US at some point you will have give your employer your date of birth, even if it's just on your ID establishing you can legally work in the US.
I also hate to say it, but there is racism, too. I look around and find the indian guys trying to thumbs-down the westerners. makes me sick to even say such things but I'm finding its true. I enjoy working with indian guys but I am very much turned off by the 'take-over' that I'm seeing right before my eyes. over the last 10 years, the tech industry is flushing out western guys and making it an 'import only' field.
The racist in this situation is you, though you may not know it.
India is a big country. There are a lot of groups within India--by culture, by language, by social status. What you're likely seeing is not Indian guys who show preference in hiring only other folks from India. What I suspect is happening is the guys from a particular area in India have a preference for people from that same area, who just happen to be Indian as well. The discrimination is as much against folks from other areas of India as it is against non-Indians.
Talk to your Indian friends about it. My experience is they are quite frank on what you can expect from Indian managers, Indian out-sourcing, etc.
And if you're working in an industry with a large number of Indians and people of Indian ancestry, and you've never made friends with an Indian, maybe you should try being a little less anti-social, a little less racist, or both.
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that green technology is not profitable and therefore a big scam, or a modern religion if you will, with all of its guilt, shame and asking for money, let me state an opinion that might not be popular here: Maybe, just maybe, the subsidies was too low? I know what you think but let me play an evil's advocate for a second. How much the fresh air is worth to you? To your children? To your children's children? To your children's children's grandchildren? Well, you get the idea. And what about fresh water? What about cold weather? I am not saying that all of those things should be worth more than 500 billion to everyone but I suggest that we have to account for them in the business plans of companies developing green technology. We have to ask ourselves: Why do we develop green technology? How much money are we willing to waste? What sacrifices are we willing to make? What do we expect to get in return? Those are the most important questions that we should at least try to answer.
You make a good point about my children. But not my children's children. Because I don't think children should be having children.
I like to help people picture how easy it is to change CO2 levels this way. Picture you have the Hindenburg full of pre-industrial-revolution air. How much gasoline would you have to burn to bring its CO2 levels up from that to modern CO2 levels?
Interesting. But how many Hindenburgs is the entire atmosphere?
Put another way, it took us about 300 years to get atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial levels to current.
...at least locally, we have a number of Hmong and Somali immigrants (quick, guess which US city!) who for various reasons refuse to be vaccinated - cultural, religious, etc. that have nothing to do with the autism nonsense.
Springfield?
I don't quite see the connection to this case with vaccines. There are other options to the birth control pill, up to and including giving the guy a beej instead. The correlation from "the BBC said the pill causes cancer" to "now I have to have an abortion" is not the same as "I have polio because Jenny McCarthy told my parents vaccines were evil."
There are other birth control options besides the pill. There aren't other options to the polio vaccine.
Hmmm. That's actually not too bad. Subjects are cut off in the email listings, but the combination of sender and first few words of the subject are a pretty good indicator of whats in the message.
Even with the To-Do and People panes open, this layout still shows a good dozen or so decent length lines of message body.
Thank you for conceding that point. There are four 'things' (3 panes and a ribbon) on the four sides of the Outlook which reduce the space available for displaying emails. And they behave in four different ways. That's all I'm trying to say.
If that were true, I'd sympathize. But it's not. And I've already explained why it's not. And it's not sinking in.
Depending on formatting and length of the message header (subject, To: CC:), I'm able to see up to 3 lines of the email body at a time.
That's not an acceptable configuration in my mind, and it's not the way I work. I have dual monitors (17 and 19 inch widescreens).
3 lines of email at a time, on a 17" monitor? Liar. How does it feel to have your pants constantly on fire?
So we're at a point in the conversation where 1) you aren't actually absorbing any information I provide, and 2) you're blatantly lying to me. I think it's time to end this thread. Good bye.
I'm honestly trying to understand. You say updating the configuration of the panes is consistent. When I point out the inconsistencies, you say 'apples and oranges'. When I retort, 'that's my point, they're all different,' you say, that's not true. Maybe it's one of those things that will make sense after I use the product more.
As for the number of lines visible in the reading pane...I took a couple screen shots with Outlook 2010 full screen on 19" widescreen. I'll play with them tonight to obscure any details my employer might object to me posting.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
Thank you for conceding that point. There are four 'things' (3 panes and a ribbon) on the four sides of the Outlook which reduce the space available for displaying emails. And they behave in four different ways. That's all I'm trying to say.
You haven't yet explained how having the People Pane visible was preventing you from reading email. But fair warning, it's going to be hard to explain, because it's complete bullshit!
I just returned Outlook to what I believe is close to the original configuration I saw when I opened 2010 for the first time. Ribbon down, To-Do and People panes maximized, Nav pane on the left, and in the middle of it all the list of messages in the current folder and the reading pane with the current message.
Depending on formatting and length of the message header (subject, To: CC:), I'm able to see up to 3 lines of the email body at a time.
Is it possible to read email 3 lines at a time? Yes, mostly. Sometimes emails include embedded images too large for 3 lines. Is it possible to open an email in a new window? Yes. So to say this configuration completely prevents me from reading emails is not true, I grant you that. But it doesn't make it easy.
That's not an acceptable configuration in my mind, and it's not the way I work. I have dual monitors (17 and 19 inch widescreens). Why should I have to read emails in a reading pane smaller than the display on my phone?
Of course, the answer is I don't. I can change the configuration for my preferences. That's the wonder of configurable software. So I learned how to minimize the ribbon. And I learned how to turn off the To-Do pane.
But when I got around to the People pane, what I learned about the ribbon didn't work. And what I learned about the To-Do pane didn't work. So to say my issues are because I'm resistant to learning is bullshit. And to say there's some consistency to the way the panes work is bullshit.
Actually, this conversation has been helpful for me. In the process of going back forth between Outlook, and ribbon in Word, and /. (mostly to check that the things I were bitching about were not bullshit) I've learned a few things.
The People pane is actually sort of neat. I can get a list of emails from the same sender as the current email. (I wonder if I can get it to display which folder each email is in.) I can get a list of meetings with that person. (Or at least where that person is the organizer, but not where that person is a fellow invitee.) But I still see it as something I'll have off for the vast majority of the time.
Also, when the ribbon is minimized, and the tab labels are displayed, I can click on the label, and ribbon tab is displayed. The interesting bit is in the top right corner, where the up/down chevron usually is, there is a thumb tack! Clicking the tack fixes the tab so the ribbon stays open! Exactly how I would expect it to work.
If only the panes that come out of the other 3 sides of the window worked the same way...
Thank you! That worked. And it does make sense (now that I know how to do it).
It worked, it makes sense, and it's IN THE EXACT SAME SPOT THAT FUNCTION WAS IN BEFORE. If you couldn't find it in the ribbon View tab, why in hell do you think you would have been able to find it in the View menu? You're whining about your own ignorance, not anything relevant to Outlook's UI.
I don't recall there being a People pane in Outlook 2003, so your suggestion that the controls would be in same place for 2010 as for 2003 didn't make sense to me. Did a little Google. Turns out...the "Social Connector" was in 2003, and the option to hide it was under the View menu. Well, learn something new every day.
As for "whining about your own ignorance," that's the whole point. When I open Outlook, I want to manage my email, not learn about Outlook. Yes, I should learn to use the tool properly, but always with the goal of getting my work done. Now I know how to hide the People pane. Something I will never need to do again. So how is it useful for me to learn the location of a button I will click once?
In my copy of Outlook, the People Pane has the exact same chevron, which behaves in the exact same way. (The minimize/maximize it.) To hide it completely you use the View tab. Let's see, what if you wanted to hide the Folder Pane completely instead of just minimizing it... lo and behold, you do that from the View tab as well! Looks pretty fucking consistent to me.
(The irony here is that there is an inconsistency in Outlook's UI, the Reading Pane doesn't have the minimize chevron that all other panes to have. But somehow you didn't notice that, and instead complained about the People Pane which is entirely consistent with the rest of the UI. WTF?)
Apparently some of my complaints are misdirected towards MS when they should be going towards the folks who rolled out Office 2010 for my employer. There must be some customization, because my Outlook does not work they way yours does.
Right-click the ribbon, get context menu which includes 'minimize' (which hides the ribbon). Right-click To-Do, get context menu, which includes 'off' (which hides the To-Do pane). Right-click People pane, nothing. No context menu.
Click the chevron for the ribbon, ribbon gone. Click the chevron for the folders (Navigation pane), folders gone. Click the chevron for the People pane, pane smaller, but still there.
To say there's any sort of consistency or logic to the way these panes work just is not true.
So how is this obvious? How it is logical design when I could do what I wanted to do for every other pane without going to the View tab?
The To-Do Pane is the only one with that contextual menu; if you wanted to remove the Folder Pane or Reading Pane or People Pane you have to use the View tab in the ribbon. To-Do is the odd man out here, not the normal case.
Again, it seems my issues are with my specific implementation of Outlook 2010. For all the other panes and ribbons I wanted to hide, I did not need to go to the View tab. Maybe that has something to do with which panes I wanted to hide. But when I can hide A, B, and C without going to the View tab, I don't see how you can argue that for D obviously my first stop should have been the View tab.
As far as odd-men out, ribbon and To-Do have right-click menus; People and Nav panes do not. Ribbon and Nav panes hide all details when minimized; Person and To-Do do not. Nav, Person, To-Do panes can be controlled from the View tab in the ribbon; the ribbon itself is not. I've got four panes flying out from the four sides of the Outlook window. I've got four different sets of behaviors. So what's normal in this case?
So honestly, using my experience with Outlook 2010, based on the ribbon, the folders pane, the To-Do pane, it never occurred to me to look in the View tab.
the Black Death was ugly. Imagine half the population of your entire city or town dying off in 1 or 2 years. Nasty business that.
But imagine the morning commute. Or finding a parking spot at the mall. Getting a last minute table at your favorite restaurant.
Just saying.
It's in the View ribbon. View - People Pane - Off
I admit I don't understand people who don't like the ribbon, but I *really* don't understand people who find the ribbon confusing. It uses the exact sane mnemonics as the menu that came before it! If it's something you would have found in the View menu in Office 2003, odds are it's in the View ribbon in Office 2010. And, oh look, there it fucking is!
So honestly, using your experience with past UIs, where exactly would you have expected to find the function "turn the people pane off"? If you were a UI designer at Microsoft, and were forced at gunpoint to design a ribbon, where would you have put that function?
1) Thank you! That worked. And it does make sense (now that I know how to do it).
But I have to add 2) no, this is nothing like any other app I've worked with. It's not even consistent with itself.
I want to hide the ribbon. How do I do that? Oh, that's easy. There's this little chevron pointing up in the top-right corner of the ribbon. Click that, ribbon goes up. Chevron becomes down arrow. Click that, ribbon comes back down.
That folder list on the left side have a similar left-pointing chevron. Click that, folder list disappears to the left. Chevron now points right. Click again, and folder list comes back.
People pane? Well, obviously that's in the View menu!
Seriously, usually with side panes like that, the controls are right in the pane. Up/Down or Left/Right arrows to open and close. Thumbtack to pin the pane down. X to close.
I go the view tab of the ribbon in Outlook. Where's the control to hide the ribbon?
How about the To-Do bar on the right side? Oh, so there is a control for that in the View ribbon, right next to the control for the people pane. So how did I get rid of the To-Do bar without seeing the control for the people pane?
Because if you open the To-Do bar, you'll see 1) It has the left/right arrows to minimize.
And 2) You can right-click for a menu, which include the option to turn it off.
Go to the People pane, and it has up/down arrows, but they don't work the same way the ribbon arrows or folder pane arrows work. And no right-click menu.
So how is this obvious? How it is logical design when I could do what I wanted to do for every other pane without going to the View tab?
So honestly, using my experience with Outlook 2010, based on the ribbon, the folders pane, the To-Do pane, it never occurred to me to look in the View tab.
If you were a UI designer at Microsoft, and were forced at gunpoint to design a ribbon, where would you have put that function?
I'd pull the trigger.
Click the VIEW tab. On the right side of the ribbon click the unhelpfully designed "People Pane" button. Click on the "Die. Just Fucking Die" option. It will also inform you that it is part of the Microsoft Outlook Social Connector
Thank you! It seems obvious now.