I'm an anti-switcher. I loved Classic Mac OS. When OS X came out, I gave it a chance-- a long change (10.2 - 10.4), and I just... well, I can't like it. It drives me batty. Apple seems to have thrown everything they learned about usability out the window, and they still haven't re-implemented some features that Mac OS 9 had. Finder is a complete mess. It didn't help that, due to some faulty motherboards, I was doing this trial on a series of extremely crashy iBooks.
I switched because I figured, hey, if I have to deal with a non-spatial crappy file browser (Finder) and poorly-made hardware anyway, I might as well use the platform with more software.
Too bad they've been flushing the HIG down the toilet for the last 8 years.
But if you're going to use an alternate OS, you're still better off using Linux-- once the Windows market dries up, (or whatever), they'll be moving to the next-largest install base, which is OS X. You also get a teeny "security-though-obscurity" bonus in that every Linux distro is different from every other one, wheras OS X and Windows installs are all virtually identical.
Admittedly, you do have to plan your class out a little bit, or the problem you describe can happen. (Although, by the time you have orcish armor, you should have no problem with a clannfear as long as it's just one or two of them.)
As far as the magical weapons go, yah, sometimes you just have to turn tail and run, then come back later. I don't see that as a big deal.
I've always thought the best compromise is just to make all the roads safe. So you can explore high-level areas as much as you want as long as you stick to the roads. Not ideal, but at least you could get between towns and such.
I think Oblivion did it perfectly, with one gripe.
In Oblivion's system, you had a "easy - difficult" slider that influenced how the game auto-leveled opponents, so you could still create an extremely challenging game if you wanted, simply by sliding the bar all the way to the right. The default was in the middle, and if you put it on easy pretty much everything dies in one hit (i.e. boring.)
In older RPGs, if you wandered into an area the developers hadn't intended you to be yet, you just got nuked by the first random encounter you came across. That's no fun. At least with Oblivion, you can explore the whole map without being ganked.
(This is a complaint I have about a lot of MMOs, too: I like to explore. Just let me fucking explore without having to fight 46 monsters an hour or hitting a place I instantly die and I'd be happy! It's done that MMOs cater to people who like to RP, people who like to play PVP, people who like to craft... but if you like to just walk around? Nope.)
Anyway, the one exception to Oblivion is that the auto-leveling is kind of... weird. Some enemies, like goblins will remain decently tough the entire game, but others will hit a "cap" at some point and be really easy to beat-- even supposedly tough creatures like minotaurs. Also, highway robbers don't get the amounts they're trying to steal, so it's pretty ridiculous for them to accost you for 100 gold when they're wearing a full set of glass armor worth like 4000+ gold.
Back when I used OS X (10.2-10.4) all programs whose installation consisted of "open folder, drag icon into Applications" got a pass. Maybe they've changed how it works now, but at that time... yes, they got a pass.
Installers that actually ran like Windows installers do, I believe, asked a password. But most programs did not make use of those.
However, users don't default to Administrator in an Active Directory domain, which is somewhat standard for mid-size businesses or larger running Microsoft products.
Yes, and having worked support at one of these sites, I can tell you that figuring out which crazy permissions had to be hacked-together and applied for all of those buggy non-multiuser-aware apps was a huge pain in the ass. One of the reasons I like Vista: it'll save future generations from that pain.
So Microsoft should, what, remove the feature because geeky people (defined as: people who already know how to disable UAC) want to do all kinds of geeky, potentially insecure, stuff?
"Throw the average user to the wolves! Cater only to the uber-geeks!" That's the philosophy they should use?
And yeah, the UI is dog slow on a machine on which linux absolutely flies. Still. Core2Duo, Nvidia 8400GS, slow as crap.
There's no reason Vista should be "slow as crap" on that machine. Maybe you've just broken something by installing low-level crap.
That is because it only searches INDEXED content on a small subset of your system drive. Want to search a non-indexed directory/drive? Total massive huge pain in the ass. You have to get to "advanced mode" (Which you have to open search explicitly to do, in which case, you lose the context of where you wanted to search), and there you have MOST options you would with Windows previous search functionality... except SEARCHING *IN* FILES, case sensitivity, and whether to spider subdirectories, to name a few.
So, extremely unusual use-cases are slightly more difficult to use. And the 99.9% use-case is extremely quick and easy. Shocker.
Firstly, no I don't. An animated background image is completely possible outside of the DreamScene abomination.
Then what makes you think it's Windows' fault and not the fault of whatever program you're using to animate the background?
Regardless, lets say I DID use it... does it mean because you don't that it is any less of an issue?
Nope. I was just making a joke. Also: fucking relax.
Obviously, some drawing optimizations are getting in the way, and Windows isn't as multi-monitor aware that it should be.
Possibly, but at least it can hot-swap monitors when you use it on a laptop. I've never been able to get Linux to pull that one off without a reboot.
Do people who are huge fans of Frozen Bubble realize it's just a rip-off of Bust-A-Move? I'm just so sick of it being name-dropped without any credit given to the original. (Including, as far as I can tell, in the game itself.)
Vista (and Windows 7) are still plagued with problems. Some are "We made a wrong design decision" (Like the search functionality).
In what way is the search functionality "a wrong design decision?" That's my favorite feature, and it works tons better than the similar feature in XP. (For example, it's fast enough to use as a launcher. The XP one never was on my machines.)
(Maximize a window on your primary monitor will halt the animated background on your second monitor).
You actually *use* DreamScene? Wow, that's like finding Bigfoot.
And needing more graphics power than was considered normal in order to display a modern UI.
Slightly, perhaps. But that's because of backwards compatibility, not some sort of horribly conspiracy against the public. OS X has the advantage that all the apps written for it knew they'd be rendering to the GPU.
And UAC being maybe the most annoying thing ever added to any piece of software ever.
Except you only really get UAC prompts:
1) When you first install all your software. After the first two weeks, and all the programs you're likely to use are already installed, you only see UAC when patching. (This is what gave people the bad impression, but what's the alternative? If Microsoft game installers a pass, like Apple does, they would have been crucified for insecurity.)
2) For buggy applications. Applications that break the multi-user contract pop-up UAC prompts often, yes, but those applications were already broken-- Vista is just exposing their brokenness. (And, UAC enables them to run *at all* automatically, without you having to use "Run As... Admin" like you would on XP and Windows 2000. In Windows XP, a broken app like that would just fail with a vague error message.)
And if UAC is throwing up multiple alerts for one task, you're tinkering with the guts of the OS. Stop doing that.
And inexpicably long file transfer times.
Patched over 2 years ago.
And backward compatibility.
Possibly worse than other Windows releases (although the compatibility from Windows 98 to Windows 2000/XP was pretty iffy, too), but still better than any other OS on the market.
Especially when the 'top tier' version boiled down to "we might someday decide to give you some free crap, but not really".
Yah, ditto that. The "Ultimate Extras" were a cruel joke.
I still think Microsoft should do something to make up for it... grab some of the Microsoft-published older video games that you thhey make money off of anymore, and release them as Ultimate Extras for free-- games like Shadowrun, Halo 2 PC maybe, the latest Flight Simulator. That might make the whole thing worthwhile. Probably not going to happen though, sigh.
Ditto. It's really annoying, from my experience with Tabula Rasa (which uses the same schema.)
"Hey where are you?" "City A." "I'm in City A too, meet near the bank?" "I'm standing in the bank." "Oh, I am too but I don't see you..." "Which City A are you in?" "City A3" "Oh damn, I'm in A6, let me find a portal so I can move from City A back into the other City A."
There are few ways to break immersion quicker than that.
No, it's the only one that ties HTML rendering code into the core OS.
Like... what?
Do you consider the Help system the "core OS?" Then I guess you're correct-- personally, I don't.
The file browser doesn't use MSHTML for anything, unless you happen to type in a URL starting with "http" in which case is starts your *default* browser to view it. I can't imagine what component you think is part of the "core OS" which uses it, but then again, since you didn't define "core OS" I guess you can just make up whatever you like.
They didn't make a nice, useful general purpose library, they made a rendering engine *for* IE. Now they're using it for everything which it wasn't designed for.
It was *designed* to be a nice, useful general purpose library. The help system uses it, Steam uses it, you can grab a HTML viewer control in Visual Studio and drag it into a window... would a library not designed for general purpose use be able to do that?
You realize that berating someone in order to try and invalidate what they say makes you look like an idiot trying to sound important, right? So far I'm seeing more ignorance on your side.
Call me ignorant, fine. Then correct me. What, exactly, did I say that was ignorant?
Because it's their OS? If they want to really improve it it's really up to them. I don't see it as a priority for them though.
Except they have been improving it. IE8 is leaps and bounds above 7, which is a big improvement on 6. What version are you using? Are you even qualified to judge? (If I had a fiver for every post on Slashdot that says "Firefox is better than IE8" from someone who's never even tried IE8, I'd be a rich man.)
Wait, just a second ago you were saying it wasn't up to Microsoft to do the work and write one but now you're saying it's already there? Please make you mind up.
No; the OP said that Microsoft should create a interface so that a third-party could replace MSHTML. I said that the interface is already in place.
To re-iterate: I did not say that a third-party had already modified their rendering engine to replace MSHTML. I said that the interface to do so is already available.
Reading is fundamental.
I see no assumptions in the OP post.
Really? Because there are tons.
Microsoft has tied their rendering engine into the OS and it's made a mess (don't pretend it hasn't, there are dozens of security problems that have been well documented over the years).
Yes, they did. I'm not denying that.
But here's the part you're missing: then they *undid* that. The rendering engine is no longer tied into the core OS at all, as of Vista. Why are you assuming it still is? Can you give me a single example of a scenario where Vista's "core OS" will use MSHTML? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
This may come as a shock to you, but things change over time.
Or at the very least, stop with all the childish cussing and name calling and try posting an adult rebuttal so that we can actually have some debate on the topic.
Regarding sequels, I never actually said they were worse. I said it showed a lack of creativity, which I admit usually means the same thing. But I do not think a "near-universal" phenomena needs to be argued about.
Yes, well, the main point here is that you're decrying movies, TV and (presumably) video games that you've never even watched. You're no different from the fundamentalist Christians holding up signs outside Harry Potter screenings, in my eyes.
I admit to taking a lot of physics in school.
In other words, you're not a physicist.
I think this is the best of all possible worlds and always has been.... Take it as meaning it is always possible to meet necessity, and so you might have a future, though it is not guaranteed.
So this is the best of all possible worlds, but I'm still going to die horribly, alone and afraid?
Stop with this vague nonsense and just come out and TELL me why I have no future. What's your theory? What the fuck am I supposed to be so concerned about, exactly? "Lack of new physics breakthroughs" doesn't exactly equate to "horrible nuclear holocaust" or whatever the hell you have in-mind. Be specific.
You are dealing with microeconomics. Your future will be determined by larger phenomena, which do not even seem to be on your radar screen. I will go out on a limb and predict another major economic downturn this year. There is some possibility of it happening this month.
Oh, so you're an economist, too?
Ok, so let's pretend you're not just grasping at straws. Let's assume, further, that the economy does downslide... so what? I'm still better off in the year 2009 with a god-awful economy than I would be if I was born in 1809. The worst that'll happen is that we all have to work a little harder... I'm not even so sure that's a *bad* thing, and it's definitely no harbinger of vague destruction.
In the 1820's we had a fairly sane economic system. For instance, we had a national credit bank, eventually destroyed by the New York financial interests. We were doing a lot of infrastructure development, mainly canals. I suspect people were pretty much happy.
Prove they were happy. Give me data, or shut the hell up. (By the way, it's going to be a pretty hard proof, considering the number of slaves at the time!)
I disagree that everything in the past sucked hard.
Then you haven't studied enough history.
Often in the profound ideas generated by a few of the elite. But for the average person, life often tended to suck hard.
I hate to break this to you, but I'm an average person. And, this is what sets us apart, my life is pretty great! I didn't even have to be born to some asshole who's ancestors tricked or killed people into declaring him king to get enough food on the table.
History is an interesting topic. There are a lot of theories of history and they give different results. A common one these days is sort of the present as a thin bubble and the next instance is determined by what is in the bubble. I reject that approach. Since you repeatedly cite your historical knowledge, you might have a position on theory.
What the fuck are you even talking about at this point? A bubble? Like that episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation with Dr. Crusher?
I never said the modern world was horrible.
You don't? Then how come you keep saying we're all going to suffer some kind of calamity? Like you did 5 paragraphs ago? (And you still haven't even gotten close to explaining what a lack of new physics discoveries has anything to do with it.)
Jesus Christ. Do you talk like this at parties? You must be a real hit.
I did go on to comment on the prevelence of sequels. This is hard to miss even if you do not go to movies.
And?
Without any proof that sequels are worse movies than average, that means nothing. (Now, given, sequels very well might be nearly-universally worst than average movies, but you sure as hell didn't show it.)
I notice you did not comment on my example, which was in physics.
That's because I'm not a physicist. Are you?
In my field, web development and usability, there has been AMAZING change in the last 10 years, heck, the last 5 years. And it didn't even exist 15 years ago.
I think you have no future, know it in your heart, and cannot face it. So you attack someone who gives you a partial explanation of why.
You're the hopeless pessimist. Why don't you just go put a pistol in your mouth and end it all, if the world is so horrible? Plus it would spare us your whining.
Or do you believe the media's reassurance on the economy?
I don't believe anything the media tells me.
But here's what I know about the economy: my job hasn't, for even a split second, ever been in doubt. Our company is doing quite well, actually. I got a raise last week, and not just a wimpy cost of living raise. Things are pretty damned good, from my perspective.
If you do not, how bad do you think it will get?
Look, our "crash" is nothing, compared to the 1929 crash.
And you know what? Even during the darkest, poorest days of the Great Depression, the average man was orders of magnitude better-off than he would have been a century before. Orders of magnitude.
But see, here's one difference between me and you: I know history. You quickly learn that you live in the best society that has ever existed, and everything in the past sucked hard.
You tell me, our modern world is so horrible, where do you want to live? The Roman Empire? The Renaissance? Look it up: what was the life expectancy in your ideal place? (Odds are, if you lived there, you'd already be dead.) What was quality of life like? What are your odds of being a free man vs. slave? Then come back and we'll talk.
Mine's about 8 months old. Sent: 186 MB, Received: 2.9 GB. (I think those numbers are low... do the stats get reset when the firmware updates?)
Anyway, I used to listen to streaming radio on the bus, I imagine that was 50-75 MB per day for at least 45 days. Now I mostly just listen to iTunes and browse the web, which uses much less bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
What's your point?
I'm an anti-switcher. I loved Classic Mac OS. When OS X came out, I gave it a chance-- a long change (10.2 - 10.4), and I just ... well, I can't like it. It drives me batty. Apple seems to have thrown everything they learned about usability out the window, and they still haven't re-implemented some features that Mac OS 9 had. Finder is a complete mess. It didn't help that, due to some faulty motherboards, I was doing this trial on a series of extremely crashy iBooks.
I switched because I figured, hey, if I have to deal with a non-spatial crappy file browser (Finder) and poorly-made hardware anyway, I might as well use the platform with more software.
Too bad they've been flushing the HIG down the toilet for the last 8 years.
But if you're going to use an alternate OS, you're still better off using Linux-- once the Windows market dries up, (or whatever), they'll be moving to the next-largest install base, which is OS X. You also get a teeny "security-though-obscurity" bonus in that every Linux distro is different from every other one, wheras OS X and Windows installs are all virtually identical.
Seems to demonstrate that they picked the right tactic. At least for the next 70 years.
at 2am, I, and most mammals, are not at their mental best,
I'm a black-footed ferret, you insensitive clod!
Admittedly, you do have to plan your class out a little bit, or the problem you describe can happen. (Although, by the time you have orcish armor, you should have no problem with a clannfear as long as it's just one or two of them.)
As far as the magical weapons go, yah, sometimes you just have to turn tail and run, then come back later. I don't see that as a big deal.
I've always thought the best compromise is just to make all the roads safe. So you can explore high-level areas as much as you want as long as you stick to the roads. Not ideal, but at least you could get between towns and such.
I think Oblivion did it perfectly, with one gripe.
In Oblivion's system, you had a "easy - difficult" slider that influenced how the game auto-leveled opponents, so you could still create an extremely challenging game if you wanted, simply by sliding the bar all the way to the right. The default was in the middle, and if you put it on easy pretty much everything dies in one hit (i.e. boring.)
In older RPGs, if you wandered into an area the developers hadn't intended you to be yet, you just got nuked by the first random encounter you came across. That's no fun. At least with Oblivion, you can explore the whole map without being ganked.
(This is a complaint I have about a lot of MMOs, too: I like to explore. Just let me fucking explore without having to fight 46 monsters an hour or hitting a place I instantly die and I'd be happy! It's done that MMOs cater to people who like to RP, people who like to play PVP, people who like to craft... but if you like to just walk around? Nope.)
Anyway, the one exception to Oblivion is that the auto-leveling is kind of... weird. Some enemies, like goblins will remain decently tough the entire game, but others will hit a "cap" at some point and be really easy to beat-- even supposedly tough creatures like minotaurs. Also, highway robbers don't get the amounts they're trying to steal, so it's pretty ridiculous for them to accost you for 100 gold when they're wearing a full set of glass armor worth like 4000+ gold.
But all-in-all, Oblivion is my favorite RPG.
This is a new meaning of the word "reliably" with which I was not previously familiar.
Back when I used OS X (10.2-10.4) all programs whose installation consisted of "open folder, drag icon into Applications" got a pass. Maybe they've changed how it works now, but at that time... yes, they got a pass.
Installers that actually ran like Windows installers do, I believe, asked a password. But most programs did not make use of those.
However, users don't default to Administrator in an Active Directory domain, which is somewhat standard for mid-size businesses or larger running Microsoft products.
Yes, and having worked support at one of these sites, I can tell you that figuring out which crazy permissions had to be hacked-together and applied for all of those buggy non-multiuser-aware apps was a huge pain in the ass. One of the reasons I like Vista: it'll save future generations from that pain.
Yes, if you ran as a normal User. Unfortunately, 2000 and XP defaulted to XP.
So Microsoft should, what, remove the feature because geeky people (defined as: people who already know how to disable UAC) want to do all kinds of geeky, potentially insecure, stuff?
"Throw the average user to the wolves! Cater only to the uber-geeks!" That's the philosophy they should use?
And yeah, the UI is dog slow on a machine on which linux absolutely flies. Still. Core2Duo, Nvidia 8400GS, slow as crap.
There's no reason Vista should be "slow as crap" on that machine. Maybe you've just broken something by installing low-level crap.
That is because it only searches INDEXED content on a small subset of your system drive. Want to search a non-indexed directory/drive? Total massive huge pain in the ass. You have to get to "advanced mode" (Which you have to open search explicitly to do, in which case, you lose the context of where you wanted to search), and there you have MOST options you would with Windows previous search functionality... except SEARCHING *IN* FILES, case sensitivity, and whether to spider subdirectories, to name a few.
So, extremely unusual use-cases are slightly more difficult to use. And the 99.9% use-case is extremely quick and easy. Shocker.
Firstly, no I don't. An animated background image is completely possible outside of the DreamScene abomination.
Then what makes you think it's Windows' fault and not the fault of whatever program you're using to animate the background?
Regardless, lets say I DID use it... does it mean because you don't that it is any less of an issue?
Nope. I was just making a joke. Also: fucking relax.
Obviously, some drawing optimizations are getting in the way, and Windows isn't as multi-monitor aware that it should be.
Possibly, but at least it can hot-swap monitors when you use it on a laptop. I've never been able to get Linux to pull that one off without a reboot.
Do people who are huge fans of Frozen Bubble realize it's just a rip-off of Bust-A-Move? I'm just so sick of it being name-dropped without any credit given to the original. (Including, as far as I can tell, in the game itself.)
Vista (and Windows 7) are still plagued with problems. Some are "We made a wrong design decision" (Like the search functionality).
In what way is the search functionality "a wrong design decision?" That's my favorite feature, and it works tons better than the similar feature in XP. (For example, it's fast enough to use as a launcher. The XP one never was on my machines.)
(Maximize a window on your primary monitor will halt the animated background on your second monitor).
You actually *use* DreamScene? Wow, that's like finding Bigfoot.
This is the same old complaints over again.
And needing more graphics power than was considered normal in order to display a modern UI.
Slightly, perhaps. But that's because of backwards compatibility, not some sort of horribly conspiracy against the public. OS X has the advantage that all the apps written for it knew they'd be rendering to the GPU.
And UAC being maybe the most annoying thing ever added to any piece of software ever.
Except you only really get UAC prompts:
1) When you first install all your software. After the first two weeks, and all the programs you're likely to use are already installed, you only see UAC when patching. (This is what gave people the bad impression, but what's the alternative? If Microsoft game installers a pass, like Apple does, they would have been crucified for insecurity.)
2) For buggy applications. Applications that break the multi-user contract pop-up UAC prompts often, yes, but those applications were already broken-- Vista is just exposing their brokenness. (And, UAC enables them to run *at all* automatically, without you having to use "Run As... Admin" like you would on XP and Windows 2000. In Windows XP, a broken app like that would just fail with a vague error message.)
And if UAC is throwing up multiple alerts for one task, you're tinkering with the guts of the OS. Stop doing that.
And inexpicably long file transfer times.
Patched over 2 years ago.
And backward compatibility.
Possibly worse than other Windows releases (although the compatibility from Windows 98 to Windows 2000/XP was pretty iffy, too), but still better than any other OS on the market.
Especially when the 'top tier' version boiled down to "we might someday decide to give you some free crap, but not really".
Yah, ditto that. The "Ultimate Extras" were a cruel joke.
I still think Microsoft should do something to make up for it... grab some of the Microsoft-published older video games that you thhey make money off of anymore, and release them as Ultimate Extras for free-- games like Shadowrun, Halo 2 PC maybe, the latest Flight Simulator. That might make the whole thing worthwhile. Probably not going to happen though, sigh.
Ditto. It's really annoying, from my experience with Tabula Rasa (which uses the same schema.)
"Hey where are you?"
"City A."
"I'm in City A too, meet near the bank?"
"I'm standing in the bank."
"Oh, I am too but I don't see you..."
"Which City A are you in?"
"City A3"
"Oh damn, I'm in A6, let me find a portal so I can move from City A back into the other City A."
There are few ways to break immersion quicker than that.
No, it's the only one that ties HTML rendering code into the core OS.
Like... what?
Do you consider the Help system the "core OS?" Then I guess you're correct-- personally, I don't.
The file browser doesn't use MSHTML for anything, unless you happen to type in a URL starting with "http" in which case is starts your *default* browser to view it. I can't imagine what component you think is part of the "core OS" which uses it, but then again, since you didn't define "core OS" I guess you can just make up whatever you like.
They didn't make a nice, useful general purpose library, they made a rendering engine *for* IE. Now they're using it for everything which it wasn't designed for.
It was *designed* to be a nice, useful general purpose library. The help system uses it, Steam uses it, you can grab a HTML viewer control in Visual Studio and drag it into a window... would a library not designed for general purpose use be able to do that?
You realize that berating someone in order to try and invalidate what they say makes you look like an idiot trying to sound important, right? So far I'm seeing more ignorance on your side.
Call me ignorant, fine. Then correct me. What, exactly, did I say that was ignorant?
Because it's their OS? If they want to really improve it it's really up to them. I don't see it as a priority for them though.
Except they have been improving it. IE8 is leaps and bounds above 7, which is a big improvement on 6. What version are you using? Are you even qualified to judge? (If I had a fiver for every post on Slashdot that says "Firefox is better than IE8" from someone who's never even tried IE8, I'd be a rich man.)
Wait, just a second ago you were saying it wasn't up to Microsoft to do the work and write one but now you're saying it's already there? Please make you mind up.
No; the OP said that Microsoft should create a interface so that a third-party could replace MSHTML. I said that the interface is already in place.
To re-iterate: I did not say that a third-party had already modified their rendering engine to replace MSHTML. I said that the interface to do so is already available.
Reading is fundamental.
I see no assumptions in the OP post.
Really? Because there are tons.
Microsoft has tied their rendering engine into the OS and it's made a mess (don't pretend it hasn't, there are dozens of security problems that have been well documented over the years).
Yes, they did. I'm not denying that.
But here's the part you're missing: then they *undid* that. The rendering engine is no longer tied into the core OS at all, as of Vista. Why are you assuming it still is? Can you give me a single example of a scenario where Vista's "core OS" will use MSHTML? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
This may come as a shock to you, but things change over time.
Or at the very least, stop with all the childish cussing and name calling and try posting an adult rebuttal so that we can actually have some debate on the topic.
Buttface.
Regarding sequels, I never actually said they were worse. I said it showed a lack of creativity, which I admit usually means the same thing. But I do not think a "near-universal" phenomena needs to be argued about.
Yes, well, the main point here is that you're decrying movies, TV and (presumably) video games that you've never even watched. You're no different from the fundamentalist Christians holding up signs outside Harry Potter screenings, in my eyes.
I admit to taking a lot of physics in school.
In other words, you're not a physicist.
I think this is the best of all possible worlds and always has been. ... Take it as meaning it is always possible to meet necessity, and so you might have a future, though it is not guaranteed.
So this is the best of all possible worlds, but I'm still going to die horribly, alone and afraid?
Stop with this vague nonsense and just come out and TELL me why I have no future. What's your theory? What the fuck am I supposed to be so concerned about, exactly? "Lack of new physics breakthroughs" doesn't exactly equate to "horrible nuclear holocaust" or whatever the hell you have in-mind. Be specific.
You are dealing with microeconomics. Your future will be determined by larger phenomena, which do not even seem to be on your radar screen. I will go out on a limb and predict another major economic downturn this year. There is some possibility of it happening this month.
Oh, so you're an economist, too?
Ok, so let's pretend you're not just grasping at straws. Let's assume, further, that the economy does downslide... so what? I'm still better off in the year 2009 with a god-awful economy than I would be if I was born in 1809. The worst that'll happen is that we all have to work a little harder... I'm not even so sure that's a *bad* thing, and it's definitely no harbinger of vague destruction.
In the 1820's we had a fairly sane economic system. For instance, we had a national credit bank, eventually destroyed by the New York financial interests. We were doing a lot of infrastructure development, mainly canals. I suspect people were pretty much happy.
Prove they were happy. Give me data, or shut the hell up. (By the way, it's going to be a pretty hard proof, considering the number of slaves at the time!)
I disagree that everything in the past sucked hard.
Then you haven't studied enough history.
Often in the profound ideas generated by a few of the elite. But for the average person, life often tended to suck hard.
I hate to break this to you, but I'm an average person. And, this is what sets us apart, my life is pretty great! I didn't even have to be born to some asshole who's ancestors tricked or killed people into declaring him king to get enough food on the table.
History is an interesting topic. There are a lot of theories of history and they give different results. A common one these days is sort of the present as a thin bubble and the next instance is determined by what is in the bubble. I reject that approach. Since you repeatedly cite your historical knowledge, you might have a position on theory.
What the fuck are you even talking about at this point? A bubble? Like that episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation with Dr. Crusher?
I never said the modern world was horrible.
You don't? Then how come you keep saying we're all going to suffer some kind of calamity? Like you did 5 paragraphs ago? (And you still haven't even gotten close to explaining what a lack of new physics discoveries has anything to do with it.)
Jesus Christ. Do you talk like this at parties? You must be a real hit.
I did go on to comment on the prevelence of sequels. This is hard to miss even if you do not go to movies.
And?
Without any proof that sequels are worse movies than average, that means nothing. (Now, given, sequels very well might be nearly-universally worst than average movies, but you sure as hell didn't show it.)
I notice you did not comment on my example, which was in physics.
That's because I'm not a physicist. Are you?
In my field, web development and usability, there has been AMAZING change in the last 10 years, heck, the last 5 years. And it didn't even exist 15 years ago.
I think you have no future, know it in your heart, and cannot face it. So you attack someone who gives you a partial explanation of why.
You're the hopeless pessimist. Why don't you just go put a pistol in your mouth and end it all, if the world is so horrible? Plus it would spare us your whining.
Or do you believe the media's reassurance on the economy?
I don't believe anything the media tells me.
But here's what I know about the economy: my job hasn't, for even a split second, ever been in doubt. Our company is doing quite well, actually. I got a raise last week, and not just a wimpy cost of living raise. Things are pretty damned good, from my perspective.
If you do not, how bad do you think it will get?
Look, our "crash" is nothing, compared to the 1929 crash.
And you know what? Even during the darkest, poorest days of the Great Depression, the average man was orders of magnitude better-off than he would have been a century before. Orders of magnitude.
But see, here's one difference between me and you: I know history. You quickly learn that you live in the best society that has ever existed, and everything in the past sucked hard.
You tell me, our modern world is so horrible, where do you want to live? The Roman Empire? The Renaissance? Look it up: what was the life expectancy in your ideal place? (Odds are, if you lived there, you'd already be dead.) What was quality of life like? What are your odds of being a free man vs. slave? Then come back and we'll talk.
What are you doing about it?
Nothing.
It just sounds funny. Relax.
Nostalgia has ruined your brain.
I do not go to movies, watch TV or do DVD's. I figure I have better things to do. So I am not sure what the current offerings are like.
You admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about, so why do you keep talking?
Mine's about 8 months old. Sent: 186 MB, Received: 2.9 GB. (I think those numbers are low... do the stats get reset when the firmware updates?)
Anyway, I used to listen to streaming radio on the bus, I imagine that was 50-75 MB per day for at least 45 days. Now I mostly just listen to iTunes and browse the web, which uses much less bandwidth.