 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > "Cops have no obligation to timely defense of people in their own homes.", or some
similar idiocy.
>
> Unfortunately, when you actually look at the actual reality of things, this
> makes perfect sense. Most people who get outraged over things like this (or
> who propose, for example, a cap on incomes or similar nonsense) don't stop
> and think that the rule has to apply to cases other than the one they're
> specifically considering at the moment.
>
> Like Joel Spolsky bitching about the power menu
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html and ignoring the fact
> that not everyone is running a laptop with a lid that can be closed, or who
> might get on a plane and need to actually turn it off all the way, or might
> be connected to a computer in a different country and need to reboot it
> without turning it off, or ....
ZOMG, someone call the cops at this offending matter!
> (That, incidentally, was the post that taught me Mr Spolsky is a dipshit in
> many ways.)
he's an entertaining dipshit. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:46:57 -0500, Warp wrote:
> The police couldn't
> be bothered to investigate an ongoing kidnapping.
I think there's more to the story than the person making the video is
telling, because anything that mitigates the circumstances would clearly
break his narrative.
I would be surprised if there wasn't more to it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 26-1-2011 17:57, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> I am not sure I agree with you on this one. On most computers there is
>>> one way I normally turn it 'off'. That is the one that should be
>>> easily accessible, both as an icon and as button. For the special
>>> cases I'd be happy with a big GUI.
>>
>> And Windows has that. Joel is bitching that it duplicates what's on the
>> menu. He even talks about it having multiple icons in addition to the
>> menu and how stupid that is.
>>
>>> One that asks If I want power down completely or keep everything in
>>> RAM so I can reboot fast. I mean explain what the various option mean
>>> other than just the sleep/hibernate/whatever labels for the options
>>> that I normally don't use. And on the bottom line apply/cancel/use
>>> this in the future. That should also solve the problem of accidentally
>>> selecting the wrong option and going through a five minute
>>> hibernate/reboot cycle to select the right one.
>>
>> That's precisely what Windows does.
>
> On mine it doesn't. (I have a XP64 machine).
Well, XP isn't what Joel was talking about. But XP has a shutdown and a
hibernate and a sleep (the hibernate being shift-sleep, which is admittedly
a bit hidden), so I'm not sure what you are saying you're missing.
> To be clear what I would has preferred for myself and the poor souls
> that I have to explain what is there now is:
> One icon (ok perhaps two with one the equivalent of lock, windows-L)
> that I can press when I leave the machine. Right clicking brings up a
> GUI that let's me configure this and the physical power button. With
> explained options. Default should be that both act the same, but for
> knowledgeble people you might override that. I don't want a pull down
> for selection. And I definitely don't want options labelled
> sleep/suspend/hibernate.
You're arguing just like Joel: "I don't understand this, and I don't use it,
so it shouldn't be an option for anyone." Vista has two icons and a menu:
Icon - I'm leaving the computer for a long time. Sleep, hibernate, shut
down, install updates and shut down, whatever is appropriate.
Icon - I'm walking away but I'll still work, so lock the computer screen.
Menu - One option for each thing I might want to do.
Joel is arguing this could be turned into one button. I disagree.
> I think that indeed some configuration is possible in the configuration
> panels (I vaguely remember doing doing just that on my laptop), but a
> quick glance there did not ring a bell.
I don't know about XP any more, but "power" is where you look.
>> I don't think the interface is stupid at all. Certainly I don't think
>> there's any option there you can simply remove, except maybe "lock" vs
>> "switch user", altho I can see someone in a shared-computer environment
>> distinguishing those two: "lock" being "I'm in the can",
>
> What can would that be?
Slang for toilet.
>> with "switch
>> user" being "I'm at lunch." (For mac users, the difference between
>> "lock" and "switch user" is whether you get back to the "login name"
>> prompt or the "password" prompt, either of which can trivially take you
>> to the other.)
>
> I hope it is the other way around (or a Chiasmus) . Or I would be
> confused again.
Obviously. :-)
> I think he is mainly complaining that there is too much choice visible
> for the average use. It is OK for those that understand the differences.
The average user is supposed to push the power icon, or close the laptop
lid, or hit the power button. I mean, there's a *button* on the machine
marked "turn off". How much easier can you make it? Why are people
complaining that there are options available for people who actually know
how to work their computer? Do you think Joel would have stopped complaining
if there was a checkbox somewhere in the control panel that says "let me
pick how the heck I turn off the computer, already!?"?
> 'Even' I am always confused between a couple, having to handle
> inconsistent translations on different machine does not make it easier.
Then just ... use the icons with the pretty pictures on them. Green, Yellow,
Red? Those are pretty universal, aren't they? But having those three
choices seems like they're still too confusing.
I hate to say it, but cars have both ignition keys, door locks, *and* brake
pedals (heck, *two* brake pedals!). I haven't heard anyone complaining about
that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-1-2011 0:45, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 26-1-2011 17:57, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> I am not sure I agree with you on this one. On most computers there is
>>>> one way I normally turn it 'off'. That is the one that should be
>>>> easily accessible, both as an icon and as button. For the special
>>>> cases I'd be happy with a big GUI.
>>>
>>> And Windows has that. Joel is bitching that it duplicates what's on the
>>> menu. He even talks about it having multiple icons in addition to the
>>> menu and how stupid that is.
>>>
>>>> One that asks If I want power down completely or keep everything in
>>>> RAM so I can reboot fast. I mean explain what the various option mean
>>>> other than just the sleep/hibernate/whatever labels for the options
>>>> that I normally don't use. And on the bottom line apply/cancel/use
>>>> this in the future. That should also solve the problem of accidentally
>>>> selecting the wrong option and going through a five minute
>>>> hibernate/reboot cycle to select the right one.
>>>
>>> That's precisely what Windows does.
>>
>> On mine it doesn't. (I have a XP64 machine).
>
> Well, XP isn't what Joel was talking about. But XP has a shutdown and a
> hibernate and a sleep (the hibernate being shift-sleep, which is
> admittedly a bit hidden), so I'm not sure what you are saying you're
> missing.
I am not arguing that I am missing something, I just said that it does
not look like I would have implemented it.
>> To be clear what I would has preferred for myself and the poor souls
>> that I have to explain what is there now is:
>> One icon (ok perhaps two with one the equivalent of lock, windows-L)
>> that I can press when I leave the machine. Right clicking brings up a
>> GUI that let's me configure this and the physical power button. With
>> explained options. Default should be that both act the same, but for
>> knowledgeble people you might override that. I don't want a pull down
>> for selection. And I definitely don't want options labelled
>> sleep/suspend/hibernate.
>
> You're arguing just like Joel: "I don't understand this, and I don't use
> it, so it shouldn't be an option for anyone."
Nope, I said I understand why these options are needed, but they should
not be visible when inappropriate.
> Vista has two icons and a menu:
>
> Icon - I'm leaving the computer for a long time. Sleep, hibernate, shut
> down, install updates and shut down, whatever is appropriate.
With at least in XP not a logical interface to change that. Right
clicking the buttin brings up a menu, with one item: properties.
Of the taskbar, not the button. ??
> Icon - I'm walking away but I'll still work, so lock the computer screen.
>
> Menu - One option for each thing I might want to do.
That is the one that should not be visible or at least not in this format.
> Joel is arguing this could be turned into one button. I disagree.
me to.
>> I think that indeed some configuration is possible in the
>> configuration panels (I vaguely remember doing doing just that on my
>> laptop), but a quick glance there did not ring a bell.
>
> I don't know about XP any more, but "power" is where you look.
Indeed it is. In Dutch 'Energiebeheer', what the machine should do when
you don't use it to save energy. Definitely the place you'll look for if
you want to change the behaviour of a button.
>
>>> I don't think the interface is stupid at all. Certainly I don't think
>>> there's any option there you can simply remove, except maybe "lock" vs
>>> "switch user", altho I can see someone in a shared-computer environment
>>> distinguishing those two: "lock" being "I'm in the can",
>>
>> What can would that be?
>
> Slang for toilet.
Thanks, didn't know that.
>>> with "switch
>>> user" being "I'm at lunch." (For mac users, the difference between
>>> "lock" and "switch user" is whether you get back to the "login name"
>>> prompt or the "password" prompt, either of which can trivially take you
>>> to the other.)
>>
>> I hope it is the other way around (or a Chiasmus) . Or I would be
>> confused again.
>
> Obviously. :-)
>
>> I think he is mainly complaining that there is too much choice visible
>> for the average use. It is OK for those that understand the differences.
>
> The average user is supposed to push the power icon, or close the laptop
> lid, or hit the power button. I mean, there's a *button* on the machine
> marked "turn off". How much easier can you make it? Why are people
> complaining that there are options available for people who actually
> know how to work their computer? Do you think Joel would have stopped
> complaining if there was a checkbox somewhere in the control panel that
> says "let me pick how the heck I turn off the computer, already!?"?
>
>> 'Even' I am always confused between a couple, having to handle
>> inconsistent translations on different machine does not make it easier.
>
> Then just ... use the icons with the pretty pictures on them. Green,
> Yellow, Red? Those are pretty universal, aren't they? But having those
> three choices seems like they're still too confusing.
>
> I hate to say it, but cars have both ignition keys, door locks, *and*
> brake pedals (heck, *two* brake pedals!). I haven't heard anyone
> complaining about that.
Why would they? Different physical objects with a clear interface.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Nope, I said I understand why these options are needed, but they should
> not be visible when inappropriate.
They're not. You have to click on the button that says "show me these
options." At least in Vista.
> With at least in XP not a logical interface to change that. Right
> clicking the buttin brings up a menu, with one item: properties.
> Of the taskbar, not the button. ??
That's a fair point. Right-clicking on the actual power button should take
you to the appropriate page of the power control panel thingie.
> That is the one that should not be visible or at least not in this format.
I don't understand why. Where would you put it? Does it confuse you? Do you
not know what those words mean?
>> Joel is arguing this could be turned into one button. I disagree.
>
> me to.
I'm not sure how you put six or seven options onto one button.
>> I hate to say it, but cars have both ignition keys, door locks, *and*
>> brake pedals (heck, *two* brake pedals!). I haven't heard anyone
>> complaining about that.
>
> Why would they? Different physical objects with a clear interface.
And you have different buttons on the screen to do different things with
your PC, yet Joel is complaining he has too many buttons.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:46:57 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > The police couldn't
> > be bothered to investigate an ongoing kidnapping.
> I think there's more to the story than the person making the video is
> telling, because anything that mitigates the circumstances would clearly
> break his narrative.
> I would be surprised if there wasn't more to it.
That's very probably so. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if
legal courts weren't extremely cautious about lawsuits against the police
force, and hence show strong bias in favor of the police and use all the
excuses in the book to not to proceed.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:03:54 -0500, Warp wrote:
> I wouldn't be surprised if
> legal courts weren't extremely cautious about lawsuits against the
> police force,
Sure, but that's also why there's a jury (unless a bench trial is
specifically requested, AFAIK).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:03:54 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > I wouldn't be surprised if
> > legal courts weren't extremely cautious about lawsuits against the
> > police force,
> Sure, but that's also why there's a jury (unless a bench trial is
> specifically requested, AFAIK).
A jury doesn't help if the case doesn't even go to court because of
some technicalities.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> legal courts weren't extremely cautious about lawsuits against the police
I think it's not that so much as it is all the steps leading up to the lawsuit.
If a crime is committed by a policeman, first the police have to arrest him,
then the District Attorney (the government's prosecuting head lawyer) has to
charge him with a crime, *then* you get to go to court. But the policeman
works for the police, and the DA needs the police's cooperation to do his
job, so that's usually where it gets stymied.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:53:30 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:03:54 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> > I wouldn't be surprised if
>> > legal courts weren't extremely cautious about lawsuits against the
>> > police force,
>
>> Sure, but that's also why there's a jury (unless a bench trial is
>> specifically requested, AFAIK).
>
> A jury doesn't help if the case doesn't even go to court because of
> some technicalities.
In the US, it depends - in some cases, a grand jury is called to
determine whether or not there's enough evidence to go to trial.
But your point is certainly valid.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
