Be the time G+ came along, I guess a lot of the more tech-savvy people had become clued-up and wary about the data-collection. I for one didn't want to give more data to yet another company...
This is what not only killed FB for me, but also kept me off of G+. It was one thing for a social network to ask me to share my phone number or physical location, and quite another when widgets and beacons started appearing on nearly EVERY website in a blatant attempt to track my every move in the name of analytics.
By the tine G+ came along, I was a bit jaded about the whole data collection issue and didn't see the benefit of sharing my life details with yet another website that that not only didn't offer anything new, but just seemed like an inferior copy of a service with which I was slowly becoming disengaged due to a lack of quality interaction. By the time Google started pushing G+, my FB news feed was already becoming a cesspool of rehashed memes, sappy quotes pasted onto stock photos, partisan politics, and "quiz" surveys. And I was more than ready to move on from the whole "social network" concept...
These "features" are pretty much all literally unavoidable in all cars these days.
True for some models, but not for all, despite what dealers want you to think. The reason that fully loaded vehicles are pushed so heavily is because it means more money for the dealerships, who can charge a ridiculous premium for each extra feature. Even worse is the practice of bundling features into a "package" with one feature you want and another half dozen that you don't. If you aren't set on a specific model and can find a dealer who is willing to work with you (none of the usual, "I can't get one of those on my lot without the extras" bs), you can definitely find a vehicle without those features.
For example, I have a friend who just purchased a Honda Fit with no extra features, manual transmission, manual everything else - probably not the vehicle you had in mind but it does lack all of those extras.
There are plenty of laptops out there but if you want a somewhat decent one, go for a Macbook Pro.
That was my first thought, until I noticed that the submitter specified this: "...3-6 disk slots which we badly need...."
and this: "....manual fan control plus easy access to the fan for cleaning."
My counter-point would be, why do you need 3-6 disk slots? Could any of that storage be networked?
Also, there used to be third party utilities for OS X that could manually control MBP fans, but I don't think that's been the case for several years and I don't think it could ever be done reliably in Windows. However, the submitter didn't specify which OS they'd be running.
I too have off-the-grid dreams as a house-owner, but the power companies always find a way, same thing with the electrical car that could run on water. Lobbyist will manipulate (read: FORCE) politicians into their direction, so you'll be depending on them one way or the other.
Huh? I guess there are places where you are required by law to hook up your house to the power grid, but nobody can force you to USE electricity. What's to stop you from just keeping the main breaker switched off?
I've actually known more than one person who didn't have utility power to their house, and they made it just fine. One of them engineered a small hydroelectric turbine system using a small creek that flowed across their land (they had several hundred acres in the North Carolina mountains) which they used to power a small refrigerator and occasionally a computer. The other used a collection of lead-acid car batteries which they charged up using a solar panel, then could hook up to an inverter as they needed.
Maybe it's also because I hate the new skeuomorphic design aesthetic. What's wrong with gloss, gradients, transparency, and attractive animations, or even a bevel or link here and there so we can actually tell something is clickable rather than playing mystery-meat navigation? I swear, everything is going flat-shaded, blocky, ugly, and indistinguishable, all because that's now the new "hip" look.
Skeumorphism - the use of design elements that mimic real life objects with similar functions, is actually the opposite phenomenon from the flat, light-on-pastel design trend. Though I fully agree with you - both of these UI philosophies have been severely overused.
A bit of googling will turn up plenty of articles analyzing the history of the skeuomorphism-versus-flat debate particularly at Apple, which I would argue has been one of the biggest influences in UI design over the last few years. Basically, the loss of skeuomorphism advocates such as Steve Jobs and Scott Forstall led to the pendulum swinging completely in the other direction, and many gimmicky and dated interface elements such as notes apps that look like real paper and a game center that looks like a cheap felt billiard table have been stripped away. But - what to replace it with? Well, everybody wants to stay on top of the latest design trend, and Microsoft and others seem to be migrating to flat designs, so flat it is.
Although you could argue over who copied who, essentially what you have is Microsoft and Apple in a race to see who can flatten their interfaces and strip out any traces of skeuomorphism the fastest. Sure, it looks trendy, but it's reached the point where we are sacrificing usability and accessibility in order to have the most "modern" design. Here's where I have a problem with the whole thing: computer interface elements have been pretty consistent over the last 20+ years or so. Everything behaved as expected and usually acted pretty consistent between operating systems. This is great for users, since they can focus on the task rather than the tools needed to accomplish them, and using the interface becomes second nature. To those who *design* computers rather than *use* them, this is a problem - you want the bling to be noticed. The old way of doing this was to show off your new hardware by making the UI flashy, bright, colorful, inviting - basically by ramping up the skeuomorphic elements to 11.
The problem is, the novelty of this wears off fast, and these interfaces quickly become dated. Now, flat is in, and anything that even remotely resembles skeuomorphism is stripped out. I have a number of problems with the current trend:
1) interface elements are hidden or played down, making them hard to find. Often it's hard to tell if I'm just not looking hard enough for that feature, or if it has been removed altogether.
2) It does away with conventions that have been standard for decades. This means that every time designers go wild designing a new interface, users have to spend time and effort learning a new way to accomplish a task.
3) It's less accessible. Razor thin text is hard for some people to see. Pastel on white and white on pastel text may look "hip" but can incredibly difficult to read. Interface elements that are marginalized can be hard to hunt down if the user doesn't know where to look.
4) It's inconsistent. Some programs hide buttons and scroll bars, some do not. Some use vastly different elements for simple actions such as "close window" so that the user is left guessing at the function of a UI element.
My prediction is that in a few years, "flat" will look as equally dated as skeuomorphism does now.
When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers. -- The Wall Street Journal