Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:A patch closer to usability, few more to go (Score 1) 294

by cavebison (#46710743) Attached to: Windows 8.1 Update Released, With Improvements For Non-Touch Hardware

The rest is still browseable (and easy to organize if I care to), and searchable

Searchable? Pretend you're not computer-savvy, search for "uninstall" or "remove" to get rid of a program, and try working out which link to click.

Then try searching for the screen-shot.. sorry, screen-grab.. I mean snapshot.. whatever tool, if you can't remember it's called "snipping tool".

Search only works if you already know exactly what you're looking for. On the other hand, having cascading menus, like XP's Start menu, made it very clear what your options were. Plus you could rearrange them as you please, and even launch things with simple keypresses - eg. Win+S+C for Control Panel. Win+P for Programs, Win+R for Run. Windows 7's menu makes that kind of quick navigation impossible.

Comment: Re:Ltetres odrer (Score 1) 224

by cavebison (#46710623) Attached to: Online Skim Reading Is Taking Over the Human Brain

Acocdrnig to an elgnsih unviesitry sutdy

This is interesting... as a programmer, I read every word of that smoothly, but stumbled on the word "rset", which my brain interpreted as "RESET". I had to go back and read it again, because the phrase "the reset can jumbled" didn't make sense. Interesting. Makes me wonder if there's something specifically about English which makes this work for us, or if it also works in other phonetic languages.

And does it work for everyone, or just with people who read by "sounding" the words in their mind as they read? Do some people read by visual mapping instead?

Comment: Re:Seems pretty different, not a gesture (Score 1) 408

by cavebison (#46710595) Attached to: Apple: Dumb As a Patent Trolling Fox On iPhone Prior Art?

and that I have far fewer peers on this hunk of rock than I thought I did, and it's deeply depressing.

And comments like that make me feel similarly.

Be aware that you're making a value judgement of another human being. People are the product of their education, upbringing, culture, etc. "Stupidity", in the way you use the term, is not associated with the capabilities of a person's brain, just that they have come to see an issue differently to you. You have 7 billion "peers", it's just that most of them do not have the same upbringing and influences as you do. So... cheer up.

Comment: Re:If you're going to screw... (Score 1) 325

by cavebison (#46657879) Attached to: Wants More H-1B Visas, But 50% Go To Offshore Firms

Essentially it makes sense to bring in tech talent with the purpose of filling vacancies that can not otherwise be filled with the domestic talent

Does it? What's wrong with the "old ways", where a company would hire someone with lesser skills and allow them to grow into the role? Or perhaps *gasp* provide training and mentoring? Otherwise how do people get relevant experience on their resume? How do people even know what to study at university - what career to follow - if everything can be outsourced in the future?

Then there's the shameless hypocrisy of the "job creators" argument. In a capitalist society, companies are supposed to compete and innovate, thereby creating jobs and contributing to the economy. But, instead, importing workers does little for the domestic job market or economy (as does off-shoring their tax bills).

The idea of working visas to give some short-term flexibility to employers, where domestic applicants don't exist, is fine. But, as with most things in the U.S., a rational, considered idea has been taken to its extreme by vested interests and turned into a monster.

Comment: Re:Wow, that was so full of stupid... (Score 1) 449

by cavebison (#46627595) Attached to: WSJ: Prepare To Hang Up the Phone — Forever

I[n] REAL capitalism, when you screw over your customers, they leave you and go to the competition.

No, Capitalism - the free market - does NOT LIKE competition. While every *small* company is trying to outdo their competition (which is good and manageable), every *big* company is trying to *kill* their competition (which is very very bad).

You seem to ignore the fact that nothing can work without rules. Capitalism is not - and has never, ever been - about letting companies off their leash and go crashing about like bulls in China shops. When there is less regulation, things like the GFC happens, as well as people dying from smoking, asbestos, pollution, etc.

Without government regulation of the market, you would not currently have cheap water, because there would only be 2 major water companies (after they'd killed all the smaller competition) and you'd have a choice between cheap and nasty, or clean and expensive. Give me one example of a deregulated market which has ended up providing consistent quality at affordable prices.

The only time Capitalism works well, is when government regulates to *ensure* quality and competition. Smell the air in Beijing. That's the smell of lack of regulation. The GFC - lack of regulation. Yes, *too much* regulation is bad, and *not enough* (or inappropriate) regulation is also bad. It's not a zero-sum game, it's about getting the balance right.

Comment: Re:Demand all you want (Score 1) 667

by cavebison (#46557593) Attached to: Creationists Demand Equal Airtime With 'Cosmos'

> You have no rights of speech with a privately owned business.

What an odd attitude for someone to have these days.

So we don't have a right to expose companies using slave-wage labour in bad conditions in other countries? We don't have a right to protest having our personal data sold, or given away to government agencies? Or about mining companies messing up our environment? Or to form unions to protect workers' rights?

Comment: Re:Fire = Good (Score 1) 167

by cavebison (#46499245) Attached to: Forests Around Chernobyl Aren't Decaying Properly

The fire "risk" is natures form of healing. By re-distributing the radiation the area can heal. We humans take issue with the idea of the radiation spreading outside "the zone" but nature doesn't.

We humans also like attributing "intent" to natural systems - like "balance" and "healing" - but nature doesn't.

Nature doesn't "heal", in the same way that it doesn't "hurt". Organisms just do what they do. Their interaction and interrelation - the patterns our human brains identify are just temporary states. Thing are always changing, but they usually change so slowly (ie. we live so briefly), we think we perceive a "system" and call it "nature" and think it somehow cares what happens.

There is no intent in nature. There is no "healing". Nature is neither benign nor belligerent. In fact, "nature" doesn't exist. There's no such thing, except as a concept in our human minds.

Comment: Re:Who would characterize Gates as a hero? (Score 1) 335

by cavebison (#46499159) Attached to: Snowden A Hero? Gates Says No, Woz Says Yes

It's all perspective.

True, but the fact is there is more than one type of "hero". It doesn't have a simplistic definition.

Snoden is a hero, in one definition, because anyone who risks their personal wellbeing to help others is a hero.

Gates is a hero also, as his efforts have saved lives; albeit via money, without personal risk.

Of course, one can be a hero for a period of time, then go and do something stupid and not be a hero anymore. It's just a word, not a permanent tattoo on one's forehead.

Every young man should have a hobby: learning how to handle money is the best one. -- Jack Hurley