Then you're an idiot. You don't get your own way with the US government just because you wield a gun. It never ends well for the idiot libertarians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
If you're that easily angered, you probably shouldn't be allowed to have a gun.
There was nothing wrong with Empire Strikes Back.
Those are hyperlinks. That's the generally accepted, even traditional, look for a hyperlink. You do know what a hyperlink [apple.com] is, do you not? When I click a hyperlink, I expect to arrive on a web page forthwith. That's what they mean. But that's not what these mean. These mean... random stuff. Normal words... are words. Underlined and/or blue-colored words are hyperlinks.
You're making a distinction that doesn't exist. A hyperlink is a clickable item of text. What happens after you click on it is irrelevant to the point because you've already worked out that it's a clickable thing by the time you've clicked on it.
And they haven't been predictably blue-coloured and underlined since the 1990s.
Buttons, despite Ive's insane, drooling jihad against skeuomorphism, should look like you are expected to reach over and press them.
You say it like an item of faith. Despite your long post you provide no justification for putting boxes around clickable things to pretend they're buttons. Again, back in the 1990s, toolbar icons used to have boxes round them to pretend they were buttons. But we don't need that kind of hand-holding any more. We know we can click on them without needing those boxes.
When someone's learned to ride a bike they don't need training wheels any more.
How would you react to a stereo that had no buttons, just words on its face? Is that intuitive? Of bloody course it isn't. You press a button, it depresses, it looks different, it clicks, you know to expect the action to occur.
Those are actual buttons, not pretend ones. Look, if you have something made out of wood, it has a wood grain, and that's very nice. If you have something made of plastic, then decorating it to look like it's wood is not nice, it's cheap and unnecessary.
The over-love of buttons leads you to horrible designs like this:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/...
You are in no position to criticise anyone's design chops, let alone Ive's.
No, your ORIGINAL point was that any individual word, by itself, was just meaningless sounds, and doesn't cause harm.
Correct. And that's NOT what your "experiment" was. Two people have told you, several times.
Wow, just
No, but believing self-censorship of an arbitrary list of words, or replacing single letters in them with punctuation makes you a better person most certainly is a sign of irrational thinking.
Do you by comparison hold people with Tourettes in very high esteem based on their use of swear words? Or is it because you lack the self-control to control what comes out of your own mouth, so you feel a need to belittle those who can do better?
No and no. You really are showing your ignorance here. Rejecting an assertion isn't the same as asserting the opposite.
Why do people swear? It's an emotional response - it "feels good." So rather than deal with a situation rationally, they respond emotionally.
You could say the same about words of affection. There's nothing wrong with emotion, especially if it makes you feel good. It doesn't indicate an inability to think.
But this isn't about emotion. It's about a list of unsayable words.
And too often, that emotional response becomes the goal, rather than solving the problem at hand - people just start swearing at each other as debate gets more and more heated, because it makes them feel good. This is a dysfunctional response over the medium and long term, but it "sure feels good" in the short term.
Now you're talking about arguing. Which again isn't about "swear words". People can argue just as harshly without "swear words". And most of the time swear words are used it's not in an argument.
Same excuse that addicts use for any other dysfunctional behavior. But it's still the dysfunctional, immature response for dealing with life's problems.
You're beginning to sound like a temperance movement. How successful was prohibition? Was the demon drink really the root of all ills, or was it a pleasant pastime for most people, with only a few having a problem? Were the teetotallers really better people?
I don't have to. I can do the math.
That's your mistake. Thinking you can judge through math rather than actually seeing one.
Beyond a certain reasonable limit, pixel density does nothing for me at all.
But you haven't yet found out what that limit is.
I accept that some people will want screens larger than 27". But that's not what I was disputing. It was your assertion that the higher resolution would make no difference because your maths tells you they are invisible.
As I say, having seen the difference between normal screens and retina screens on MacBooks, it's night and day. The clarity is jaw-dropping. It's like looking at something printed on paper, not a screen at all.
Nope. Your ORIGINAL point was words by themselves. NO extra context. Single words.
I know what my original point is. Your misunderstanding it doesn't change what it was. I've explained several times, so I can only conclude now that you're too stupid to get it.
Oh, and your "explanation" is just words
Sentences.
Why? Because we don't need training wheels any more.
Continuing the web analogy, back in the 1990s, we needed blue or purple permanently underlined text to indicate a link. Now we are more sophisticated and don't need to have it spelled out in the same way on every page. As a result designers have more scope for making pages look attractive. On occasions when you find a page that hasn't been updated since the 1990s, it's horrendously ugly.
On native UIs, it used to be the case that every toolbar icon had it's own box, to show that it was clickable button. But that was abandoned more than a decade ago, with no loss. No one wants that anymore. Here's reminders of button toolbars:
http://toastytech.com/guis/win...
http://lscr.berkeley.edu/advic...
You see it's been a long time since every clickable thing in a UI needed to be dressed up as a button. Yosemite is just another step towards a less fussy UI that accentuates the content rather than unnecessary chrome.
As to the save icon, I have't see a floppy disk icon for years. Not because it's been replaced by a different icon, but because on a modern OS it shouldn't be necessary for the user to initiate saving their data, other than the first time to give it a name. Closing a window autosaves, prompting for a filename if it doesn't already have one. And autosaves happen periodically inbetween times.
If you think UIs should stop, where do you think? Some people (particulary Linux fans) think they should have stopped at CLIs. Do you think they should have stopped at Mac OS 9? Windows 95? What makes you think that the UI as of 6 months ago was the perfect place to stop?
The reality is most people are a bit reactionary. They don't like change when it happens. But once they get used to the change, they look back at the old thing they wanted to keep, and realise it was worse.
At some point, I predict that someone high enough in the food chain is going to realize that the emperor has no clothes, and people actually like shine, gloss, transparency, gradients, and color schemes other than white on white (Apple) or kindergarten construction paper (Microsoft), and we'll see a return to those types of design elements.
Actually Yosemite introduces some transparency that wasn't there before. That is a mistake, and I predict that will disappear, along with all the other cheap embellishments you list. Part of the reason they were there is that gradients and shadows can pimp up relatively low resolution displays. The eye doesn't pick out jaggies so much if you blend colors. With new retina displays, beautiful design can come with accurate hard edges, both in typography and in graphical elements.
You seem to think it's just a matter of fashion. For sure there's some fashion in there, but there are other more real motivations that guide where that fashion goes. And there's no reason for it to go back to novelty lickable items and pseudo 3D.
Pretty plain and easy for anyone to parse.
Except for by you it seems.
Oh, so now you are saying that experiments are valid only if there is zero context? No specific inputs? No theory to test against? That's not an experiment.
My point is that context matters. You picking a specific one in your "experiment" only demonstrates it. Pick a different context and there would be different results. That would also demonstrate my point. Between the two they prove my point.
Fact: Those are single words.
They are single word sentences in a context of name calling. If instead a woman had said to her partner "Mmmm... I like it when you lick my cunt." there would have been no insult, no offence, and no reason not to use the word cunt.
You're proving yourself to be a moron. But then you'd already given that impression with the whole avoiding swear words and substituting a punctuation for letters thing.
the real world IS the context
Absolute nonsense. The real world has a multiplicity of possible contexts. You presented one very specific one.
Either admit your hypothesis as originally formulated was weak, or flawed, or did not apply to the real world, or was simply wrong. Your explanations of how you're "still right", coupled with your continued insults at myself and anyone else who disagrees, are simply not going to cut it.
The fact that you don't see how you are wrong doesn't make you right. What I said from the start was 100% correct. I've explained why 3 times now. And another poster has done too.
coupled with your continued insults at myself
Note I'm being insulting without using swear words. Equally I could be non-insulting whilst using them. Another nice illustration of my point that it's not the individual words that matter but the meaning conveyed in a specific context.
"buttons" that are nothing but text... who was the dimwit that thought that was an "advance", I wonder?
Most clickable things on the web don't have boxes to make them look like physical buttons. No one has a problem with that. The only reason you think you need them in native apps is because you're used to them.
Apple gets rid of that blind, tasteless cluetard Ives
Are you determined to look like you haven't a clue yourself? Ives is probably the worlds foremost product designer, or certainly in the top 10. Who are you? What's your design claim to fame?
It's not just your Mac that's past it's sell-by date. It's your opinions. You're one of these people that will always be a reactionary against change. Not because it's bad but because you don't like the unfamiliar.
You haven't actually seen the screen yet have you.
It wasn't possible to appreciate the difference when MacBooks went Retina without actually seeing them. And it's just as impossible to do so now with the Retina iMac.
What's certainly true is it will be far better than the setup you describe as having at the moment. You just don't realise it.
Whether the difference is worth the money is a subjective choice for each person. There's no way of making an objective claim that it's a waste of money.
Well, it doesn't seem to be a problem in the solution I'm currently using. Mind you, sarcasm>I probably have no clue how it works, given that I implemented it/sarcasm>.
Your lashed together script that operates git is neither here nor there. If it uses git is does not automatically resolve conflicts, and it is not suitable for end users. So it's not solving the hard problems at all. That you have the gall to criticise Apple's real "iCloud" solution on the basis of this is laughable.
You don't even understand the problem of data sync.
Anyhow, this is pointless. You've moved beyond simple ignorance of proper data sync to empty insults. End of discussion.
I provided an experiment to prove otherwise.
Once again, you did not. You provided very specific context for the words. If that's your idea of an experiment, your scientific method is as flawed as as your grasp of linguistics.
The other posters point that in your scenario they were single sentence words is also true. Another fault with your experiment.
The point that it's the context that words are said in rather than the individual words that are offensive is absolutely true. If you make a list of sayable words and unsayable words, that's the action of a simpleton.
Correct. And that leads to there being no live editing, which leads to sync conflicts."
Well, did I not also say this?
The acknowledgement of the part you said is in the word "correct". What you haven't realised is the difficult part is automatically resolving sync conflicts.
If you think anything you're blathering on about is new
I didn't say it was new, I said it was hard. And it is.
and hasn't been solved for decades
It's never solved. This isn't a one solution fits all problem. Every scenario has it's own set of issues and solutions.
Furthermore, the real-time collaborative aspect of iCloud is something new that's being introduced in Yosemite.
No it's not. That was a part of iCloud from the start. What's been introduced this time is hand off. Which is the notification from one machine to another that a task is in process, without having to explicitly load it on the second machine.
The only reason you think it's new is because it has the word "cloud" attached to it; it's been done since the 70's, though.
The word cloud wasn't used for this stuff when I was first working on it. Of course it was at the time iCloud was introduced. But I've been using the phrase data sync here, not cloud. So your accusation is even less grounded in rational thinking than the rest of what you say.
Since the 70s? No. In the 1970s, everything was working on client server model. Data sync started being a thing in the 1980s. But I wasn't involved till the late 90s.
Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall
