If this were Fark, it would have become a furry porn thread filled with anthropomorphic mouses reclining on sofas playing Xbox while getting blowjobs. From catgirls, I guess.
Shortly thereafter, it would become a catgirl-in-bikini thread.
It has to give you a bigger penis. You should look for a $500 wireless mouse with a unified RF, a charging cradle, laser, 5000dpi, and at least 13 programmable buttons. It should also glow all over the place when in use, and have a sick silkscreened diamond pattern.
Sometimes, to go forward, you go back. Thing is, the Program Manager was a modal dialogue containing all windows, and could be minimized; you selected program by opening windows containing icons of programs to select. The Gnome Shell eliminates that modal dialogue and moves the icons to an interface off to the side; the current desktop shrinks into the shell's entire display area, allowing you to move to another desktop containing other windows.
In short, windows are brought inside, rather than moved outside, the working space; nothing is behind the working space, but rather, the UI tools move behind the working space when not in use. Instead of icons of windows, Gnome Shell scales the windows down and displays them in a tiled fashion, providing a broad overview of the current working space.
This contrasts with earlier attempts in which the modal dialogue making up the working space was flattened into the background, creating the desktop. All elements of the modal dialogue were scattered around the screen as decoration, and minimized windows appeared in a task bar as titles rather than icons--just as useless when many windows were opened. The step following that was to make multiple working spaces in the same fashion. Gnome Shell has banished most of this, leaving a clock at the top of the screen, but little else to intrude on the use of the work space.
I don't tap my screen; I remember what application I want, and go directly to it. Rather than Applications:Graphics:Krita, I just type "Kri" and click the Krita icon. I can also drag the Krita icon to a space between desktops, spawning the window there. I can also type "image" and have all the image viewing and editing software appear in front of me.
Rather than a single view of a hierarchical database of applications and operations, I have the ability to declare what I want and have it given to me in the same way that an SQL SELECT statement declares what data I want and how to organize it. This is an improvement, and it is what obsoleted the old Deskbar applet everyone was raving about when Beagle and Tracker were going head-to-head.
I dunno, Gnome 2 and KDE feel like Windows 3.1 when you've used Gnome 3. A blunt desktop, some virtual desktops to move around, menus or start menus... the usual.
Then you pull out Gnome 3, and suddenly you can tap Winkey or point the mouse at the top left corner, and you get a view of all the windows on your current desktop. You can start typing "DVD burner" or "Images" or "Firefox", and it brings up Thoggin or Gimp or some Web browsers, that you then click on. You can drag your windows to other desktops; you can drag your windows between desktops to spawn new desktops. You have infinite desktops just by opening a window on the empty desktop at the end.
I hold complaints about Gnome 3's alt-tab behavior. Beyond that, it's thrown out all this navigation through bullshit menus and cluttered windows scattered across a dozen desktops in favor of straight out opening the applications you want and scanning through your open windows across all desktops. It gets out of your way and lets you use the computer, instead of fucking around with the UI.
It's my understanding that the flight deck by international regulation is a "no alone" zone, meaning that when the pilot left, a flight attendant should have entered the flight deck so that the copilot was not alone. This rule is why it made sense to have a "Locked" position on the door.
The real question, to me, is, why was the flight attendant not on the flight deck while the pilot was away?
Proposed: Any store can refuse service to anyone. "No shirt, no shoes, no service". And to make this effective, the store must post its refusal criteria on the door, or within (x) feet of the door, in letters at least 3 inches tall, clearly legible before a customer enters the store, in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
As long as that's all you're using it for!
I bought lots of stuff off of RadioShack back in ye olden days. Two computers (an MC-10 and a CoCo3), several game ROMs, two printers, a one-sided floppy drive, OS/9 level 2, and dozens of doo-dads for various projects.
So yeah, if RadioShack wants to sell the fact that I bought a TP-10 thermal printer back in 1983, then go to town!
That won't happen. Ketchup is a non-newtonian fluid: its viscosity changes with shear force, and so it refuses to flow until adequate force is applied. That's why ketchup doesn't leave the bottle with gentle force, but spurts out when squeezed. It will retain its shape just fine until forced out.
Heinz will collapse as a company and be bought by Kraft or something stupid while Hunts goes on to advertise to housewives that they can get that last squirt with their bottle.
well, my team is a product team within a big software company. We aren't allowed to actively pursue hires. There's red tape and stuff. We've been given the green light to hire only 2 times in the past 4 years. Our candidates are handed down from HR. I don't believe that our lack of female team members has anything to do with my team. But I DO think it is strange that I have never even seen a female candidate since joining this team.
Maybe it's an issue with HR at your company, not passing resumes of women to you.
I think the real question is how often do we have scenes with two robots in them, talking about something other than humans.
No, not really.
I work on a team of 10 people. my understanding is that about 15% of the entire software workforce is women. given those numbers, it is unsurprising to me that a random sampling of 10 software engineers will contain no women.
Sure, but your earlier comment was that you haven't even seen a woman candidate in years. Unless you've also never seen any male candidates and have maintained the same team through that period, than that random sampling should be much more than 10. And depending on how many resumes you've received and interviews conducted, seeing no women candidates could start looking very strange statistically.
So, industry-wide, sure, it's a thing for sociologists and educators. But your team personally? Maybe there's something you've missed in your position advertising that convinces women never to apply.
yes. and it's not by any choice of ours. we haven't seen a woman candidate in years. I have no idea why.
Have you tried to figure out why that is, or is it not a focus?
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"
