Another, probably more controversial example is MSPaint. I consider it to be model of good software. Before you snicker, consider how well it achieves its function. Its extremely easy to use. I can see where everything is. It handles 95% of the photo editing (cropping, relocating, resizing, flipping, adding text) that I need. What it lacks in features, it makes up for in ease of use.
Perhaps the best compromise is a complex design with a simple UI...?
Complexity isn't a problem if it's hidden from the user. For example, if you improve a car engine's efficiency. In software, you can (fortunately) add more features without adding complexity. It's called "advanced options" or "advanced mode". The more adept user will know how to get to it, and it doesn't intimidate new users.
You, the man of anarchism, are comfortable using T-Mobile, the cell phone branch of the German government's telephone monopoly, whose entire board of directors has ties to the Third Reich?
Your company will typically match half[emphasis added] of what you put into your 401(k), up to a maximum employer contribution of 3% of your pre-tax income.
I don't think 3% is the max employer match; mine does a 100% match and maxes at 4% of my pay.
But, far more importantly, I wanted to thank you from the depths of my heart for saying "half" instead of the much longer, more cutesy, "fifty cents on the dollar", that everyone seems to use instead when talking about 401k's. Why they do it, I'll never know. I just wanted to thank you for fighting the right side of that war.
1) When you set aside retirement money in stocks, you most certainly ARE doing something productive. You are contributing to the pool of capital that enhances productivity. The reason you are able to collect so much more at a much later date is because you contribution paved the way for proportionally greater productivity until that point. While you may be indifferent to when you get the money, society is not. It makes a HUGE difference to everyone else whether you will consume your output today (by spending your earnings) or allow the rest of society to "work with your output" over 40 years.
Imagine that the only good is sheep. You herd sheep for a living. You also eat sheep and use them for various products. What if instead of killing one, you let it multiply exponentially over the years. You then can consume a lot more. That is clearly not rent seeking. Yet this is exactly what you do when you invest: allow your output to grow instead of being destroyed (consumed).
2) Yes, "having everyone own almost anything and charging people for the use." is a viable retirement strategy, scalable to the ENTIRE population, even with zero birthrates worldwide. How? If people can see these demographic shifts coming, and they will, entrepreneurs will invest all of those savings to automate production of the goods people will want to consume on retirement, which can be operated by a skeleton crew of the people who at retirement would prefer the extra income for doing being in that skeleton crew.
3) Your vision of an ownership society is archaic. You are dreaming of a time when one's entire worth had to be tied up in a farm or a machine, with no other investments. This is a woefully undiversified portfolio, and exposes you to all kinds of risks. Modern capitalism allows people to fund ventures far to risky for one person, while at the same time, insuring one's self against things beyond one's control. You are twisting the concept of "rent-seeking" to disparage this.
Maybe you do own the box set of Friends on DVD, but do you own the box set of Seinfeld? If you're going to buy it, and now you have the choice between HD-DVD and just plain old DVD, are you really going to just buy the plain old DVDs if you have an HD-DVD player?
Except that Seinfeld wasn't originally recorded in HD, so it will look the same. What, you think they're going to go back in time and add resolution to Elaine's wrinkles?
1. why aren't companies like Pfizer investing in it? (probably they are?)
Well, libertarian or not, you're going to have to accept that just because a technology is really cool, doesn't mean the private sector wants to invest in it, even if they got guaranteed patent rights to it. The risk/return/time horizon profile may not be justified compared to other investments.
2. why doesn't the US Government have the sense to invest directly in such things?
I suppose you could ask the same thing about the space program.
This seems like a monumentally stupid way to recruit hackers. Let's see, leave a public record of you funding a student (rather than cold cash), then when he graduates, tell him, oops, you want him to break several laws. "Oh really? Well, thanks for the free education. Hey feds, over here!" *gets witness protection* *gets guaranteed income for life* *eliminates obligation to employer*
In order for this to work, you'd have to credibly threaten or capture a loved one. But if you've got the techie that way,... er, why do you need to pay for his education again?
He should be hailed. But the man who introduced fire to the world was burned at the stake. The man who introduced the wheel to the world was spun to death on the rack. The man who introduced sailing to the world was keelhauled. And the man who alerted others of a security flaw made his own country unsafe for him.
Or, more likely, they didn't immediately know what was meant by a "viewfinder" and assumed that "the viewfinder" referred to whatever was "finding a view" (i.e., the screen, the hole they looked through to take the picture, etc.). So they could have just force-fitted the term "viewfinder" to whatever they used that was closest in function to "finding a view".
Cause people assume, you know, surveys aren't trying to test them with trick questions.
That must have been in Zelda. On my startup (and within the Wii options), all I could say was whether the bar is above or below. It allows you to adjust the graphical output's position relative to the screen, but this is just a standard monitor calibration feature.
Well, it's reassuring that at least Zelda does that, but it's really something that should be done in the OS, since it's used across many games. If a game wants to use a different method, it's still free to do that. I mean, Trauma Center relies heavily on pointer accuracy, and it didn't have a calibration screen. Go fig.
I was thinking the same thing. For example, if on a history test, if a student answers "In what year did America declare independence from England?" with "1763", does that mean his history class "implanted false memories"? Or did the student... just forget and/or guess?
So how do you distinguish getting a false memory from just forgetfulness/confusion?
I don't understand why Nintendo didn't make it so you can better specify to the OS where your real screen boundaries are. I certainly understand why they wouldn't force you to do it on your first startup -- it might scare off too many new users. But to not even bury that kind of calibration deep within an "advanced options" menu?
It certainly seems possible to me that a developer could have their own in-game calibration, and then it could regularly convert the OS's variables about what it thinks you're pointing at, to where you're really pointing via some mathematical transformation. Combine that with dead reckoning through the accelerometers, and they could make all kinds of great ideas work. (Maybe strap a wiimote to each limb for a dancing game?)
The current method allows you to point -- but only if you can continuously *see* where it thinks you're pointing. What about shooting games where you're not supposed to have this luxury? It would have been so much easier to calibrate it all within the OS.
1) If they trust the adult to set up the system, and thereby determine if parental controls for games will be used, why not trust that adult to determine if friend codes are necessary?
2) Why won't they allow an online mode where you can hook up with anyone, but not talk (or are confined to standardized questions/comments)?
Slashdot Mirror
On Slashdot, if you want to find the articles about lasers, remember that the tag you should use is "sharks", not "laser" or "lasers".
You're supposed to disclose that you're a paid Apple rep, remember? ;-)
Paint doesn't crop. You must select a section and cut it out, then paste it into a new workspace.
Have you tried doing image->attributes and then decreasing the width/height?
Guess I was wrong about it being easy to use...
No good deed goes unpunished.
Another, probably more controversial example is MSPaint. I consider it to be model of good software. Before you snicker, consider how well it achieves its function. Its extremely easy to use. I can see where everything is. It handles 95% of the photo editing (cropping, relocating, resizing, flipping, adding text) that I need. What it lacks in features, it makes up for in ease of use.
Perhaps the best compromise is a complex design with a simple UI...?
Complexity isn't a problem if it's hidden from the user. For example, if you improve a car engine's efficiency. In software, you can (fortunately) add more features without adding complexity. It's called "advanced options" or "advanced mode". The more adept user will know how to get to it, and it doesn't intimidate new users.
I bet they could pull it off:
*dumps shiploads of biotoxins into ocean*
"No lifeforms present." "Alright, let's hit the green!"
Is it possible to be old and German enough to be on the board of directors for DT and not have a parent in the Nazi Party?
Think about it.
You, the man of anarchism, are comfortable using T-Mobile, the cell phone branch of the German government's telephone monopoly, whose entire board of directors has ties to the Third Reich?
Great post. I don't have much to add except:
Your company will typically match half[emphasis added] of what you put into your 401(k), up to a maximum employer contribution of 3% of your pre-tax income.
I don't think 3% is the max employer match; mine does a 100% match and maxes at 4% of my pay.
But, far more importantly, I wanted to thank you from the depths of my heart for saying "half" instead of the much longer, more cutesy, "fifty cents on the dollar", that everyone seems to use instead when talking about 401k's. Why they do it, I'll never know. I just wanted to thank you for fighting the right side of that war.
No, no, no, no, no.
1) When you set aside retirement money in stocks, you most certainly ARE doing something productive. You are contributing to the pool of capital that enhances productivity. The reason you are able to collect so much more at a much later date is because you contribution paved the way for proportionally greater productivity until that point. While you may be indifferent to when you get the money, society is not. It makes a HUGE difference to everyone else whether you will consume your output today (by spending your earnings) or allow the rest of society to "work with your output" over 40 years.
Imagine that the only good is sheep. You herd sheep for a living. You also eat sheep and use them for various products. What if instead of killing one, you let it multiply exponentially over the years. You then can consume a lot more. That is clearly not rent seeking. Yet this is exactly what you do when you invest: allow your output to grow instead of being destroyed (consumed).
2) Yes, "having everyone own almost anything and charging people for the use." is a viable retirement strategy, scalable to the ENTIRE population, even with zero birthrates worldwide. How? If people can see these demographic shifts coming, and they will, entrepreneurs will invest all of those savings to automate production of the goods people will want to consume on retirement, which can be operated by a skeleton crew of the people who at retirement would prefer the extra income for doing being in that skeleton crew.
3) Your vision of an ownership society is archaic. You are dreaming of a time when one's entire worth had to be tied up in a farm or a machine, with no other investments. This is a woefully undiversified portfolio, and exposes you to all kinds of risks. Modern capitalism allows people to fund ventures far to risky for one person, while at the same time, insuring one's self against things beyond one's control. You are twisting the concept of "rent-seeking" to disparage this.
Shut up.
A state farm? Yeah, I'm not suprised a commie is enamored by it.
Beat you to it, commie.
And anyone who can give a 24-year old male comprehensive insurance for $400 per six months, does not deserve your insults.
I get the feeling the scientists said they're switching to Geico as their insurer, and the reporter got it all mixed up.
I mean, one can legitimately mistake "gecko" and "Geico".
You don't have to worry about which titles will be released, when, and how much they'll cost.
True. You merely have to worry about having Bubba as a cellmate.
Maybe you do own the box set of Friends on DVD, but do you own the box set of Seinfeld? If you're going to buy it, and now you have the choice between HD-DVD and just plain old DVD, are you really going to just buy the plain old DVDs if you have an HD-DVD player?
Except that Seinfeld wasn't originally recorded in HD, so it will look the same. What, you think they're going to go back in time and add resolution to Elaine's wrinkles?
Or that you shouldn't fall in love with any new movie format until it is to DVD what DVD was to VHS.
Seriously, I'm going to upgrade my collection every time you add a zero onto the storage capacity?
1. why aren't companies like Pfizer investing in it? (probably they are?)
Well, libertarian or not, you're going to have to accept that just because a technology is really cool, doesn't mean the private sector wants to invest in it, even if they got guaranteed patent rights to it. The risk/return/time horizon profile may not be justified compared to other investments.
2. why doesn't the US Government have the sense to invest directly in such things?
I suppose you could ask the same thing about the space program.
This seems like a monumentally stupid way to recruit hackers. Let's see, leave a public record of you funding a student (rather than cold cash), then when he graduates, tell him, oops, you want him to break several laws. "Oh really? Well, thanks for the free education. Hey feds, over here!" *gets witness protection* *gets guaranteed income for life* *eliminates obligation to employer*
... er, why do you need to pay for his education again?
In order for this to work, you'd have to credibly threaten or capture a loved one. But if you've got the techie that way,
[And how else] Is one going to put the trigger under the remote?
And how else is one going to reduce a commercial transaction to one click?
He should be hailed. But the man who introduced fire to the world was burned at the stake. The man who introduced the wheel to the world was spun to death on the rack. The man who introduced sailing to the world was keelhauled. And the man who alerted others of a security flaw made his own country unsafe for him.
It's the burden of being a genius.
Or, more likely, they didn't immediately know what was meant by a "viewfinder" and assumed that "the viewfinder" referred to whatever was "finding a view" (i.e., the screen, the hole they looked through to take the picture, etc.). So they could have just force-fitted the term "viewfinder" to whatever they used that was closest in function to "finding a view".
Cause people assume, you know, surveys aren't trying to test them with trick questions.
That must have been in Zelda. On my startup (and within the Wii options), all I could say was whether the bar is above or below. It allows you to adjust the graphical output's position relative to the screen, but this is just a standard monitor calibration feature.
Well, it's reassuring that at least Zelda does that, but it's really something that should be done in the OS, since it's used across many games. If a game wants to use a different method, it's still free to do that. I mean, Trauma Center relies heavily on pointer accuracy, and it didn't have a calibration screen. Go fig.
I was thinking the same thing. For example, if on a history test, if a student answers "In what year did America declare independence from England?" with "1763", does that mean his history class "implanted false memories"? Or did the student ... just forget and/or guess?
So how do you distinguish getting a false memory from just forgetfulness/confusion?
I've said this before, and I'll say it again:
I don't understand why Nintendo didn't make it so you can better specify to the OS where your real screen boundaries are. I certainly understand why they wouldn't force you to do it on your first startup -- it might scare off too many new users. But to not even bury that kind of calibration deep within an "advanced options" menu?
It certainly seems possible to me that a developer could have their own in-game calibration, and then it could regularly convert the OS's variables about what it thinks you're pointing at, to where you're really pointing via some mathematical transformation. Combine that with dead reckoning through the accelerometers, and they could make all kinds of great ideas work. (Maybe strap a wiimote to each limb for a dancing game?)
The current method allows you to point -- but only if you can continuously *see* where it thinks you're pointing. What about shooting games where you're not supposed to have this luxury? It would have been so much easier to calibrate it all within the OS.
Two questions:
1) If they trust the adult to set up the system, and thereby determine if parental controls for games will be used, why not trust that adult to determine if friend codes are necessary?
2) Why won't they allow an online mode where you can hook up with anyone, but not talk (or are confined to standardized questions/comments)?