Comment Re:Still on (Score 2) 826
Sortof. But even if this were 100% true, it still doesn't solve the problem that systemd is present.
Sortof. But even if this were 100% true, it still doesn't solve the problem that systemd is present.
That sounds like a truly excellent reason to stop using Gnome.
I have to admit, I've never understood this fetishism for boot times. Boot times stopped being unreasonably long years ago. Why do people still care about modest improvements in speed to something that doesn't happen that often?
If flying were always voluntarily, I'd never fly again. As it is, I fly about twice a year, involuntarily. Regardless of that, though, it absolutely is the government violating my privacy. That I technically "consent" to it doesn't make it any less of a privacy invasion.
Even here, many of the highly rated comments are really just wisecracks which might be funny, but don't add anything to the discussion.
So? The point is that the readers here value those comments. The system works. Whether or not you think they should be valued is beside the point. A different site, with different readers, will value different kinds of comments.
Don't kill commenting just because Jezebel has a terrible commenting system. I've long known that Jezebel's system was bad from the perspective of a commenter, now I know that it's awful from the other side of the fence as well.
We finally got to the point where we have an effective standard and I no longer had to use all the various adapters to be able to plug various devices in. Now Type-C USB comes along to ruin that? Reversibility is a minor advance at best, certainly not enough to be worth giving up having to go back to cable adapters and such.
If you spend time in an urban area, basically anything remotely "downtown" then it is a BIG win.
This must depend on which urban area you live in. In mine, this is not a big win at all. It's a bit pointless, since you're almost always in range of a public wifi hotspot anyway.
determining the RL identities of the bullies likely would reduce bullying, as they could be held socially and legally accountable for what they are doing.
I don't see any reason to think this is true. The RL identities of most bullies are already known to those being bullied, yet the bullying persists.
You disregard all the harm that anonymity causes online, from bullying, to hate speech, to terrorism.
I haven't actually seen any evidence that anonymity causes any of those things. I have seen evidence that the lack of anonymity doesn't reduce those things. So yes, I disregard it until there is a good reason not to.
We need to find a middle ground that will help curtain online abuse with minimal impact on Freedom of Speech, but the statue quo is not sustainable.
Well, I don't agree that there is some kind of crisis that needs to be addressed immediately (let alone that we need to give up any rights for), but ignoring that: please explain how removing anonymity will curtail any of the things you bring up. Since it hasn't worked in parts of the internet where it's been tried, I seriously and honestly don't think it will.
Presumably, if you're paying a particular rate in exchange for service, that's because you believe that the service has at least that much value to you. As long as that's the case, then the company providing the service isn't "ripping you off."
This argument might make some sense if we're talking about a business where there's something like competition. However, at least where I live, there isn't. If you want broadband internet, your choice is Comcast, Comcast, or Comcast. In that situation, Comcast is absolutely ripping me off by charging an absurdly high rate (not to mention using my money in order to effect legislation that is harmful to the internet) even though I continue to do business with them. The alternative is to not have broadband at all -- which isn't an option for me.
Fortunately, I'm moving soon to an area where I'll have another option. And I'll take that other option.
I actually don't see what would be wrong with just explaining that you didn't feel that the service was a good value, and that you feel they don't display respect for their customers.
What's wrong with it is that it opens a time-wasting conversation that doesn't need to happen. Comcast doesn't care why you're dropping, they just use the question as a ploy to engage you so they can give you a sales pitch.
What other disadvantages do you ascribe to it?
My main objection is that it provides no serious advantage over menus, it's hard to find the things that are used less frequently, it changes dynamically, meaning that I often have to hunt around to find the item I need rather than knowing exactly where it is no matter what, it's cluttered and visually confusing, it requires configuration to become remotely usable, and so on.
It doesn't take up meaningfully more space than the menu bar would (it takes significantly *less* space than a menu bar plus a single toolbar)
Not on my machines. I'm looking at the ribbon in Outlook right now, and it take up three times the space that a menu + toolbar does.
it scales to multiple resolutions and window sizes better than menus do, it makes it easy to see what the effect of an action will be before you click
I disagree with both of these assertions.
A lot of this (maybe most) boils down to taste, so let me just leave you with my #1 objection: I'm much less efficient working with the ribbon than with the menus. The ribbon just gets in my way.
It's very similar to the osx launchpad.
You say that as if that were a good thing...
Do you really think that the only reason people could hate the ribbon is because they don't know how to use it? That's simply delusional. At least now I know where the equally mistaken belief that the only reason people could hate Metro is because they don't know how to use it comes from.
Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?
