1. Industrial design of this type is more about math and data, not about intuitive understanding.

So controlling things with your hands looks like a gimmick which would be useless for power-users. For power-users, their mouse and keyboard shortcuts become extensions of their mind.


2. I had no idea we can 3d print now using titanium, rather than just plastic

That part really does conjure up the Iron Man movies... the lone designer designing and printing in his garage without needing to wait for a titanium factory 10,000 miles away to create your prototype and ship it to you.

I hadn't even noticed that the loathing of this band had become so ubiquitous as to become cliché.

I'm pretty happy about it, though.

Really, I'm just so tired of all these retro-fetishist, nature-romanticist hipsters with their beards and their work boots and their flannel shirts, treating masculinity as an accessory because they honestly just don't know any better. They're all just perpetual adolescents who for the life of them cannot seem to figure out what it means to become an adult. So they try to find shortcuts.

Dylan was pretentious, but he was also a genius lyricist. Seriously, no bandwagon here, and I don't know if I'd call him the greatest songwriter of all time, but... he was good. Dylan was also highly political, and could be fairly incisive, while these confused little boys, all these hipster douchebags who seem to think that honesty can be bought at a thrift store, only ever sing about flowers and trees and broken hearts.

And they're all the same. Always. As a group, they are so homogenous that it becomes offensive to me.

With regards to that first paragraph. No.

Prejudice - an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge

Although humans categorize and use shortcuts to make sense of the world, the use of prejudice in any real or meaningful way is always to the detriment of those involved.

Instead of condoning prejudice in any form, how about condoning the application of knowledge, compassion, and intelligence for any given situation/event based on the reality of the immediate situation instead of relying on things like prejudice and stereotype to take the easy way out?

In other words...as we've all been told do not judge a book by it's cover (or title page/table of contents to extend the analogy) but instead by the full contents within.

Oddly enough, I did write what I meant: I stopped reading. There was no need to read any further.

Quotes are quite a fun concept. You can literally transcribe what someone said, as in; Paul said, "I went to the mall." Or, you can use them as people would in actual dialogue between people. At that point they're referred to as "air quotes." For instance: "I told her I'd "help" her out." It requires an understanding of context. For instance, when I say "properly cleared" I very explicitly mean the person clearing the gun thinks they have done it properly, and would testify to said statement, but in reality they have done something wrong.

The person may honestly believe they have done everything correctly, or they may take shortcuts believing they are still in the right. Most people would refer to using quotes in this sense as being "ironic." Of course, that is technically an improper use of the word, however, it is colloquially correct.

In this case, my quotes would indicated that the gun owner believes they have properly cleared the gun, but in fact, has not. However, the gun owner would claim they "properly cleared" the gun before they shot themselves in the face. Of course, the use of quotes is also to illustrate that those of us who understand that most gun accidents similar to this stems from a lack of respect for the proper mechanics of clearing a firearm for safety.

For the sake of brevity I will say that the major cause of accidents is the owner believes they have "properly cleared" the firearm. Or, if you'd like, you can read the above 3 paragraphs. The point of the written word and the years and years of English education is so we can communicate succinctly, not write novels in a medium where anything longer than 2 paragraphs is dismissed as "too long." (In this case, the quotes are to indicate that the definition of "too long" can obviously be interpreted differently and thus giving a set value would be a gross misrepresentation.)

It's just the Chrome/Flash combo and embedded YouTube videos, right? HTML5 embeds working fine?

If so, you can either switch to HTML5 or try this workaround for the time being: deactivate hardware/GPU acceleration for both Flash and Chrome.

1) Add "--disable-accelerated-compositing" to your Chrome shortcut, so that it links to: /chrome.exe --disable-accelerated-compositing
2) Right-click on the video -> settings -> left-most tab -> uncheck hardware acceleration
3) Restart Chrome

Again, that's just a workaround until they fixed whatever is wrong with it.

I didn't know there ever was a button or keyboard shortcuts. I just typed the HTML tags myself.

I'm not sure I understand either.

Do you mean making a link in a comment? Right now you have to type in the HTML for it (<a href="LINK">My hyperlink</a>).

We've also lost our keyboard shortcuts for certain things like Italics (ctrl+i) and Bold (ctrl+b) that I would like back.

Even the most profligate girl-labeller would use 'grown woman' to refer to the other kind of guy in that scenario.

This is actually the key to our disagreement.

Are you unwilling to allow that the same words can suggest completely different meanings in different contexts?
I'm not talking about 'bear' and 'bear'. I'm not even talking about 'boy - a five year old male' and 'boy - a forty year old black guy'. I'm talking about 'boy - a forty year old black guy' and 'boy - a forty year old black guy'.

We're both aware 'boy' and 'girl' can be used in denigrating ways, so can, say, 'liberal', 'geek' and 'yankee'; and all of these have neutral and positive applications.

In fact no word has a meaning independent of the context in which it's used, this is literally true - words depend entirely on interaction with each other and on the circumstances of their transmission to impart information; rhetoricians call this 'interinanimation', dictionary writers call this 'damned annoying'. It's also true that no communication is possible where words have meaning only to their speaker. Consequently, language is an ongoing negotiation.

So, my position isn't that these words are literally interchangeable, in every context, but that they are interchangeable in a lot more contexts than you will admit. You have to look to the attitude of the speaker; to do that you have to examine what they're saying contextually. Monitoring individual word usage is a cheap, futile shortcut to understanding where a person is coming from.

>> ^bareboards2:
I still think it is mostly about power, though, and your example of "grown man" kind of proves it to me. Why couldn't you say "grown boy"? If boy is the same as man, just as girl is the same as woman? A grown boy is indeed a man, yes? It actually is more accurate than "grown man."

I agree....
Wait here while I control+C this comment and control+V somewhere else. Then I'll control+S and Alt+F4 this window.

>> ^Deano:

>> ^Sagemind:
Double 27" screens here and 7 programs running at once - I too am tight
Just a minute whilst I move one window to the other screen.

I love the way anything remotely "advanced" e.g me showing someone a keyboard shortcut like control+A, is now compared to Minority Report. I guess that film was good for something.

>> ^Sagemind:

Double 27" screens here and 7 programs running at once - I too am tight
Just a minute whilst I move one window to the other screen.


I love the way anything remotely "advanced" e.g me showing someone a keyboard shortcut like control+A, is now compared to Minority Report. I guess that film was good for something.

Ctrl+L is not esoteric and plenty of people use keyboard shortcuts. I don't care whether it's part of a Windows library or not but if it's widely used across existing Windows installations you'd expect to be able to use them again in the new version of Windows. But if the new interface is going to disconnect from the desktop experience I just don't understand why it has to be linked at all to the desktop. Schizophrenic indeed. The user-interface needs to be consistent and harmonious. Hasn't everyone got that memo by now?

What they're showing with the search failures is that demonstrates a lack of focus on making the desktop interface as polished and user-friendly as possible. If nothing else it appears rushed and sloppy.

I want the system to be gleaming right out of the box - I don't want to have to note all the little exceptions and workarounds . Clearly in some aspects they've put in some work with multi-monitor support and Explorer but in other areas it looks incomplete.

>> ^spoco2:

Yeah, I'm not sold on the whole interface at all. BUT these guys are also missing things which I got pretty much straight away.
The typing to search for things, and not finding 'device manager' et al... if they just looked then below the search box it shows that it's matched items within Apps/Settings/Files So the default is to show just the apps that match, but if he clicked on 'Settings' then it would have shown him what he was looking for without having to actually go to control panel first. And my guess is there's an option for the search results to list all three of those things. DO THEY NOT LOOK AT THE SCREEN... Arg... now they're doing it for printers. The screen says 'NO APPS MATCH YOUR SEARCH', and then it has 17 matches in settings, and some matches in files.

Then they start bitching about Control L, which isn't a windows thing at all
The tabs thing is definitely something to bitch about, as it makes zero logical sense to have everything hidden off screen and not be able to access things without right clicking.

Yes, it looks like Microsoft have not considered non touch interfaces enough, which is a huge oversight. And it really seems they've taken something that was working really well, Windows 7, and stuffed touch stuff over the top and then said it was all done without looking at whether it was a cohesive whole.

So I don't like the look of windows 8 for non touch devices, but these guys jump to conclusions, don't read the interface properly and assume that everyone is a power user who uses the esoteric key combos they use (even when they're specific to particular apps).

There are two things that I think are overlooked with Windows 8...

First up it's an operating system that has a UI designed specifically for touch input. The UI is obviously not intended for regular desktop usage, and is Microsoft's attempt at reaching out to the consumer market. Let's face it, Microsoft has pretty much got the business side of things covered with Windows 7, and there is still a large business user base who have yet to put migrations to Windows 7 into effect. Why use a keyboard and mouse with an operating system designed for touch input? Windows 7 will be available for a long time yet, because Microsoft know Windows 8 is a stretch too far for most businesses.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the whole desktop UI is still there, and you can run your entire Windows session in the traditional desktop without having to step in and out of the "modern UI" (aka metro) shell. The start menu is lacking, but easily recreated with a shortcut to the start menu folder in your user profile pinned to the task bar.

Yep, there'll be many geeks who wanted to persuade their bosses that everyone needs their monitors replaced with touchscreens but let's face it, Windows 8 is a consumer product and is not yet geared up for business use. Touch input is slowly creeping into the business world with many executives loving their shiny pads/tablets/slabs that make them look professional. It'll be a bit longer before tech departments start envisioning an overhaul of their entire workstation setups and are willing to embrace Windows 8.

One last thought crossed my mind... As far as touch input goes, Windows 8 is pretty sweet.

42 is also the number of minutes it would take to travel to any point on Earth if you bore a tunnel through it and used a gravity train. Curiously, it is 42 whether you bisect the Earth, or drill a shortcut, say from London to Athens; it still take the same amount of time.

Thanks QI!

@dystopianfuturetoday's list seems somewhat biased to me. I also appreciate him taking the time to provide links to his objections, kudos for that.

This is how I would honestly try to answer each of them, I think most can be dismissed, but some should be looked into.

Abortion

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on abortion, his political opinion is that it's not a Federal issue, it's a state's rights' issue because it's too controversial. So whether people like abortion or not, they have the choice of taking it up with their local governments.

Evolution

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on evolution. If I were a Christian, I'd have trouble dealing with the theory of evolution too, because I'd believe in a book written by God that says the universe was created in 6 days. I don't see how would that negatively influence him as a president or his policies.

Does not believe in separation of church and state

Sounds like total BS to me. That is just a very biased interpretation of the linked article. Libertarians understand separation of church and state because having them together is even more dangerous than fascism (corporations and state together). It threatens many liberties they hold dear, including free speech, religious freedom, sexual freedom and not using laws to impose morality.

Believes Education is not a right and wants to privatize all schools

Correct, unconstitutional, against libertarian ideals. Even though he'd like to privatize them all, he would have to stop at the Federal level and let states choose whether to run their own schools or privatize.

Wants to repeal the federal law banning guns in school zones

Correct, probably because it would encroach on guns rights, besides, it's in accordance with the point above: Federal government has no business educating children anyway, and should not impose gun restrictions on state-run schools, that's up to the states themselves.

Denies Global Warming, "There is no convincing scientific evidence..."

He does believe that global warming claims are a FUD tactic for environmental regulations at the Federal level.

Wants to get rid of FEMA and says we shouldn’t help people in disasters

Correct about FEMA being dispensable, but "we" means the Federal government. States can help. Private charities can help. Churches can help. Concerned individuals can help. Insurance companies can help.

Wants to build a fence at the US/Mexico Border

Wierd, I mean, it's in accordance with defending our borders, but seems like a costly idea.

Repeatedly has tried to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy

I don't know what to say about that, sorry.

Pull out of the UN because "they have a secret plan to destroy the US"

He presented more than one reason to pull out of the UN. I personally agree that the UN is not in alignment with american values. I wish the UN all the best in whatever they want to achieve, but I don't think they should do it with the US' money and military, specially since we're broke and fighting too many wars as it is.

Disband NATO

Link is not working. NATO is a remnant of the Cold War era, it costs us money to outsource our military protection to other countries, disbanding NATO makes sense to me.

End birthright citizenship

Sounds like a reasonable position to me. He's in favor of immigrants entering the country, but birthright citizenship is a legal shortcut that is often abused and imposes an unnecessary burden on American citizens and the welfare system.

Deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style"

If he had his way, a lot of federal funding to all non-essential organizations would be denied, period. When it comes to the issue of homossexuality, regardless of his personal opinions, he seems to be arguing against using taxpayer money to promote or impose lifestyles taxpayers themselves might not approve of.

Hired former head of Anti Gay Group to be Iowa State Director of the campaign

I don't know, that's a tough one. That might reflect poorly on Ron Paul if this person was hired for being an anti-gay activist. Maybe he's just a good campaign director? I don't think Ron Paul is against homossexuals politically, and he's allowed the same level of homophobia as any other straight christian guy, as long as he doesn't project it into active anti-gay policies.

Wants to abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard

Correct, even though he mostly talks about commodity-based currencies. He doesn't want to impose the gold standard, but allow competing currencies, in which case, I'm sure many people will prefer to use gold as money since it has been historically preferred for millenia.

He was the sole vote against divesting US Gov investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan

I don't understand that sentence and the link is broken, could you elaborate on it, please?

Was also the ONLY vote against a ban on Lead in childrens' toys

Correct, as the linked article points out, he "frequently votes against measures expanding the federal government's reach". It doesn't mean Ron Paul is in favor of lead in children's toys, only that there are other more effective ways to ensure that children's toys don't have lead in them. Leave the Federal government out of this.

Thinks Sexual Harassment shouldn't be illegal

Correct, not at the federal level, that is a states' issue. Whatever else he said on the subject is irrelevant.

Is against the popular vote

Correct, it's a libertarian thing. Libertarians like to protect minorities, namely the smallest and most numerous minority, which is the individual. That's why they always talk about individual rights. Democracy sometimes ignores and tramples over individuals in favor of the majority, so libertarians don't always regard democracy as this unquestionable improvement for civilization.

Wants the estate tax repealed

Correct, it's a useless tax in terms of revenue, most people waste as much money avoiding it than paying it, so it's destroying resources, and its not morally justified. Why would someone have to pay taxes when they die? Why pay taxes to inherit what someone rightfully gives you when they die?

Believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States

Don't know what to say about that. If it was built with US taxpayer money, maybe it should? Idk.

Has associated with the founder of Stormfront, a White Power/Nazi Website

This is bullshit. A picture of them together just implies they conspired to stand in front of a camera.

Keeps their donations
And does nothing to prevent their association with his campaign.

Also, bullshit. Taking their money means he accepts their support, it does not mean that Ron Paul supports them. Like Ron Paul explained many times, it would be impractical to do a background check on all the hundreds of thousands of people who support him and send him money.

Has gone on record that he had no knowledge of the content of the racist newsletters that bore his name AND signature,
But has not only quoted them, but personally defended the newsletters in the past,
And later admitted he WAS aware of the contents and that only "some of [it was] offensive."
...
Ron Paul's Newsletters. Scanned. See the originals for yourself. They're worse than they've been quoted for.

He didn't write it and they already found the guy responsible for the offensive content. Move on.

His issues with race go as far as to vote against the Rosa Parks medal (sole vote, again), saying it is a "waste of taxpayer dollars" and that it was unconsitiutional...
Despite the fact that the bill itself is very clear about a separate fund. All profit from this fund is returned to the Treasury.
However, he had no issues with using taxpayer funds to mint coins for the Boy Scouts
AND introduce legislation that would spend $240 Million making medals for EVERY veteran of the Cold War

Ouch, I don't know what to say, at first it seems inconsistent. Maybe he doesn't have a perfect voting record after all. I'll look into that. I don't buy that he's against Rosa Parks or that there is any race issues involved.

Introduced legislation, twice, that would allow schools to re-segregate.

Endorsing the removal of federal regulations and the freedom that comes with that is not an endorsement of what people or states do with these freedoms.

His SuperPAC is headed by Thomas Woods who is the founder of the League of the South, of which the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled a "racist hate group."

Bullshit, an exageration of guilt by association. Thomas Woods is not the founder, he was present at the founding. He contributed in a limited capacity and is no longer involved with that group. He also publicly admits to being a textbook neoconservative before changing his mind and becoming a Ron Paul supporter. I only expect Ron Paul to be consistent, not everyone who works for him or endorse him, people can change their minds and their ways.

Also in association with the League of the South via Thomas Woods is the Mises Institute, of which Lew Rockwell is an Administrator...

Bullshit, exagerated guilt by an even more distant level of association. The Mises Institute is about austrian economics, most likely they're associated only in regards to their opinions on economics.

Would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Very easy to misinterpret. He's partly against the Civil Rights Act regarding the regulations on private individuals and businesses that are open to the public because they reduce individual liberties. Makes sense for a libertarian to say such things.

Earmarks

I see it as Ron Paul making the most to get money back to the states and local communities using a flawed system.

And during his entire tenure, he has managed only one, out of 620, of his bills to get signed into law.

Can be considered a testament to his innefectiveness, or as a testament to his backbone, and how screwed up Congress and Washington is.

Ron Paul is not a constitutionalist. He is not a civil libertarian. He's a secessionist, a fundamentalist and a confederate.

And the guy who wrote that article is an Anti-Ron Paul nut.

Want more? Go here.

Maybe Slanderpedia.com would be more appropriate, btw I checked and the domain name is available!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/shortcuts/2011/dec/19/kim-jong-il-things-never-knew?intcmp=239