video playback through emacs
I think I figured out your problem...
video playback through emacs
I think I figured out your problem...
Have you asked yourself: do you actually know anything about user interface design? Google employs Ph.D.s by the dozen. Maybe you need to stop offering uninformed criticisms? Google doesn't do these things randomly or on a whim. These changes were debated, thought over by smart people, and then implemented. It's like Roger Ebert vs. the opinion of J. Random Moviegoer here.
I guess I'm not experienced enough in UI design to be allowed to express an opinion either (at least, according to you), but I'll share my opinion anyway: I don't like the multi-column G+ design either, because I find it tiresome to shift my attention back and forth between columns, and keep track of where I am in each column.
I also find G+ slow (even on my fast CPU) and cluttered. I find the text is too small and if I zoom it two levels (to make it large enough to easily read), the rightmost column partially renders under the Hangouts column.
Page up and page down don't work quite right a large fraction of the time (try it), and I hate it when web sites pin content (if I scroll, I want everything to scroll).
I miss the old Google when UI designs were simple, intuitive, uncluttered, and fast. They seem to be junking up all their UIs (including Gmail).
There's no battle going on. Google Docs is nowhere near Microsoft Office. If there is a battle, it's only on the Google side.
Google Docs (Drive) replaced Microsoft Office on my computer and my wife's computer.
Lazy programers with no foresight.
Yes, it couldn't possibly have been the result of time pressure the developer was under...
yeah there will always be people like you and my father who like the small form factor. As I pointed out above i know very few people who want sub 14 in laptops, as a 28 year old i know very few people who want sub 17 inch laptops to be completely honest
10" laptop when out-and-about, hook up to external keyboard / mouse / display when at home.
Um, I weigh 143 pounds and even I can carry a laptop around all day long without panting. I mean, come on!
I can (and used to) carry around typical laptops (14" to 15") on business trips, and found their weight in my backpack was annoying. If the weight never annoys you, that's great! But it did annoy me.
In addition, you completely ignored the "bulky" part of my comment. As a sometimes-business-traveler, trying to operate a laptop on those tiny tray tables on airplanes where you can't even open your laptop display at usable angles sucks.
I was hoping netbooks would be the perfect compromise, and bought one for $250, but the user experience sucked so bad (thanks a lot, Microsoft) that I gave it away.
For now, I'll stick with the iPad. If and when I recognize a different compromise as the superior choice, I'll be happy to switch.
So you're saying that tablets have an audience of people who are too infirm to carry around a laptop that weighs a few pounds...?
Nice troll. Let me know if you decide you want to discuss it like adults.
I've got news for you... Most Android manufacturers stop providing updates the day their devices hit the market. If your sole concern is that yoy want a tablet that is going to have updates for years to come, there are a variety of Windows slates on the market.
I've gotten burned by Microsoft enough times over the years (decades, actually) that I fundamentally don't trust them anymore.
That being said, next time I'll be more careful to research devices where I can reasonably expect they'll get updates for at least 5+ years.
I agree completely. Tablets are a fad. The form factor is terrible and the functionality is lacking. I think that most people are going to continue using phones and laptops.
Laptops are bulky and heavy. Netbooks offer a terrible user experience (mostly thanks to Microsoft forcing lousy specs on vendors as a prerequisite for Windows Starter licensing).
I've taken my iPad with me on my last few business trips. It was light and with a big enough display for comfortable use without being too big (or too small like smartphone displays). (Although I'm not happy Apple has already abandoned updates on my not-even-3-years-old iPad 1 -- might have to consider an Android tablet next time.)
Not sure where the market will go, but tablets aren't a fad for me, they're just the best compromise of all the alternatives (when traveling, at least).
We already know the outcome.
Are you sure about that? I'm not advocating doom-and-gloom, but at the same time, the "don't bother worrying about it, it's always worked out in the past" optimism doesn't seem appropriate, either. I'd sure like something more solid than "past performance does predict future performance," which I think is just plain wrong in this context.
Because Sony is somehow better? Removing functionality, backward compatibility, being more expensive, root-kits, etc? How hasn't Sony fucked up in this generation of consoles?
Sony doesn't make people buy a monthly subscription just to watch Neftlix, which is an important factor for me. I'll probably switch from Xbox to PS for the next generation for that reason alone. It'll save me hundreds of dollars over the life of the console, I can't ignore that huge savings.
Sorry, but there's nothing useful in either place AND they're both at the bottom of another god damned gravity well.
The whole point is having two homes in case of an extinction level event happening (asteroid, nuclear war, plague, etc.).
I used to upset my C64 friends... The CoCo's casette deck would load a program FASTER than the C64 Floppy drive. C64 was cool, but the CoCo was the real hackers computer.
I had both a CoCo and C64 (not at the same time) and found the C64 superior in every way, except for the CPU (the CoCo's 6809 was better than the C64's 6510).
The C64 had superior graphics, superior sound, more interrupt options (so you could have, e.g., a graphics mode terminal emulator with reasonable performance, since the CoCo had to poll for data, while the C64 waited on an interrupt), etc.
I would say the C64 was -- by far -- a better hacker's PC than the CoCo. It was a lot cheaper, too.
What the hell are you smoking? I'm an agnostic atheist, and I dare say that I believe most atheists are the same way. You're treating agnosticism as some sort of 'middle ground' (feces fiesta), and that's really not what it is.
Language evolves, and it is my impression that the definition for atheist and agnostic has evolved, as well. Or perhaps better stated, there are multiple valid definitions for each.
Atheism can mean a lack of belief in god, or it can mean the belief that god does not exist. When I use the term atheist, I generally use the term that seems to be in more widespread use these days, which is the second one.
Agnosticism can mean the belief that it is unknowable whether or not god exists, or it can mean a lack of belief about god one way or the other. When I use the term agnostic, I generally use the term that seems to be in more widespread use these days, which is the second one.
And this is why I self identify as an agnostic, but I do not self identify as an atheist. By the way, your attitude towards me demonstrates nicely why I'm hesitant to join the "skeptical community" in any meaningful way.
I asked the question regarding whether a Christian could be a skeptic. I called Martin Gardner a "self-described liberal Christian" which I tried to correct in a comment to my original post. He was a theist and was raised as a Christian, but my thinking of him as a liberal Christian was based on a misreading of one of his books where he appealed to "Liberal Christians" or "Philosophical Theists" using both terms. So I confounded them. On further reading it seems clear to me that he rejected religious traditions including Christianity while retaining as stance as a philosophical theist. Randi's answer was both accurate and charitable. He is a great man.
I really liked your question. Thanks for asking it. Unfortunately, I didn't feel the answer fully addressed your question.
I started out as a Christian , and throughout my life have switched between generic (non-Christian) theist, agnostic, and atheist several times. I've kind of settled on agnostic as the most intellectually honest place to be. As an agnostic, I feel downright unwelcome in the "skeptical community" which, as you say, seems joined at the hip with atheism. Their position (spoken or unspoken) seems to be that if you're not an atheist, you're a dummy. As much as I enjoy and appreciate all the things the "skeptical community" does, I'm not really eager to join their ranks when they think I'm a dummy for being agnostic rather than atheist. Oh well...
 I was a child at the time, so it's probably more accurate to say that I was the child of Christian parents, and far too young to make my own decision about what I was or was not.
Due to circumstances beyond your control, you are master of your fate and captain of your soul.