Sigh. Yet another case of "Microsoft does something, so we've all got to follow suit". Seems like any time Microsoft makes a UI change, no matter whether it's liked or not, all other Windows program UIs eventually adopt it.
Freeware != Open Source. Open Source is just that, the source is open to view and interprete. Freeware can be closed source and distributed for free under various licensing. The confusing part is many open source projects are released free of charge, and therefore open source and also be freeware (but doesnt have to be).
Thank you for that very irrelevant lecture, now here's some relevant lecture for you.
I'd rather have text menus than vast numbers of tiny obscure icons.
And if we have to have tiny obscure icons, someone as good as Susan Kare is needed to design them.
And my point was that corporate greed from cable, internet, and telephone companies have turned the national data networks into a capitalist free-for-all battle for market dominance and new customers.
Caveat: I understand that the competition between profit-oriented companies creates innovation which leads to order-of-magnitude increases in quality. I just don't see that happening effectively in either the data network industry or health care industry.
It seems like the competition is less an effort to enlarge the pie than to distribute the pie. I'm not convinced that health insurance companies and hospital conglomerates are interesting in improved patient outcomes; I think they are just looking to get people to buy their plans and buy their services, regardless of what they are.
Corporatists will say that the people will make choices on who they buy from and what they buy such that the money will end up going to the right places, but the problem is that healthcare is an area where one can't make decisions for himself -- the patient has to trust the doctor that's making the recommendation that the patient buy this procedure, that test, this prescription.
To what extent can you trust the subject matter expert when the SME is the one you're buying all that stuff from? I just don't know...
next week they will announce that after they made thier browser totally unusable, their going to start charging $199.95 *usd) for ir. and sue everyone who has used it in the past and hasnt registered.
i guess ill start writing my own broswer, maybe i can make a logical one
Leopard let's you search the menu from the (wait for it) help menu. If it finds a match, it will open the menu and display a big, honking pointer next to it.
IHMO, a killer feature for usability. That's real innovation.
You know what you are?
You're a ribbon bully!
If they check 1 line of code every second it would take 133,101.85 years to check 11.5 billion lines of code. At 1000 lines of code every second you are looking at 133.10 years to check that much code. At 4000 lines of code every second (e.g. 4GHz) you are looking at 33.2 years to check that much code.
A: We know they didn't check the code by hand.
B: The methodology didn't classify defects (cosmetic, seucrity, minor, major. etc.)
C: The numbers aren't normalized nor broken by application size.
D: The use of a bug reporting database needs to be measured in regards to a baseline filing\fix % not a total volume (as we need to correlate new lines of code being added)
I'll only say this. Their methodology is not very good and thus any outcome they draw from is only as vaid as their methodology...
A 1% defect rate in an application, say the size of the Linux Kernel is a very different animal then say a 1% defect rate in say, VIM. In addition, 44 minor defects is very different then 6 majors. A minor defect could be as trival as a field not being aligned properly on a form.
You need to see a comparison such that:
App A
23 Minor
14 Major
3 Critical
and the accompaning resolution rates for the MMCs.
Usually it's
Minor : 95%
Major : 99%
Critical : 100%
Volume of defects is proportional to complexity, not lines of code.
That's like crying there is an epidemic of 5000 people dead every year... With a population of billions that is not even in the area of insignificant. 5000 people dead in a since town... that is a serious problem when the population is only 65000... SCOPE counts in data analysis.
This is garbage reporting... I don't care about the outcome, I don't agree or disagree but the methdology I see so far... I would fail this as an assignment in high school... If you are going to publish news about a report, part of the reporting is to indicate the methodology...
It reads like something from the Onion. "Gartner reported today that Gumby is more popular then Spongbob by using a computer!"
At the very least you need to throw in "Gartner reported today that Gumby is more popular then Spongebob by using a computer model that took people between the ages of 50 and 89 and had them fillout a survey. After normalizing the data and eliminating outliers Gartner consultants were able to determine that Gumby was more recognizable then Spongbob by a margin of over 90%."
Dear Lord journalism is dead...
Slippery slope arguments are not valid. Not doing something now because something else bad could happen under different circumstances in the future is not a logical argument. If there ever was a proposal to secretly track speeding offenders and ticket them based on that secret tracking then would be the time to object.
The main point here I think is that if a judge will sign a warrant the the right to privacy for that individual is null and void.
but why would the government restrict "private" companies from strong arming (free market!!!) YOU into survaillence tech Government can later get a warrant for? Government plays the "free market" card whenever it suits them.. they've already got a similar thing where they remotely turned on the OnStar phone to spy on some suspected drug dealer... the courts view was that "there wasn't a law against it" expect the same treatment for these "voluntary" insurance cameras.
I think you may hold the record for most progress on a real KS! Well my email address is the same as always (the one I have for you is 4 years old) so if you'd really be interested in the RM80, let me know. And I'd love to hear about the SCSI project!
Being small costs a lot. Netbooks are cheap because they use relatively cheap components, usually underpowered and ordered in bulk to keep costs low. And they're still large enough that they can use some commodity components; hard drives, memory, adapters, etc., can all be borrowed from larger laptops. The problem is that miniaturization costs more as you get smaller and smaller. Once you drop below the netbook size range, into the sub-7" screens, it's hard to fit everything into the package without:
One way or another, you'll have to compromise on the design; a general purpose phone that performs well without overheating will require expensive components. The phone can be much cheaper if it's less versatile and/or underpowered (which is how regular cell phones are kept in the $100 range). Similarly, a short battery life can keep costs down. Few phones compromise on this, but a lot of laptops and older MP3 players keep costs down this way. They require more frequent charging, allowing the use of either cheaper, more wasteful CPUs and storage or smaller/cheaper batteries.
Then perhaps it should be built as a power-coop?
You know a nice non-profit, perhaps even given a government loan?
I'm also surprised to hear it isn't mandatory.
Typing was a mandatory class in my public high school in the late 80's. And while manually setting tab stops and figuring out how to center text on an electric typewriter are certainly wasted, the rest of the skills, learning to type efficiently without getting all carpel-tunnely, were very timely.
But of course at that time no one needed to type before high school. Now kids are typing as soon as they can recognize letters, and that's the time to teach typing. By high school they'll have long entrenched crappy behaviors that will be impossible to break, and frankly be a frustrating waste of time to all involved.
May Euell Gibbons eat your only copy of the manual!
