I have a friend who is a Beavis-and-Butthead level pyro. He loves blowing things up, and he feels that little things like forewarning may spoil the surprise. He has many claims to fame, but this is among the most notorious:

In the mid-90s, at the place we've been camping for 30+ years, he poured an entire can of Red Dot Smokeless gunpowder down an anthill, then lit it. This was cool for all of about three seconds when it hissed and sputtered like a little volcano. It was far less cool when the gunpowder-packed anthill suddenly went off like Mt. St. Helens. Dirt and REALLY fucking pissed off biting ants blasted high in the air before raining down on the heads of the unwitting spectators, and promptly taking their revenge.

There's nothing quite like being showered with burned, angry biting ants to round out a weekend. Jeff thought this was funny as Hell, because he'd scampered out of range when he realized things were going to go very wrong -- things ALWAYS went very wrong -- and had taken shelter upwind. Later, as in 4:00am the next morning, he set off a stick of dynamite in a creek for an encore, also without warning. And after the booming echoes settled down, the only sound for miles around was this maniacal, hysterical laughter echoing in the impenetrable dark.

To this day, if he starts laughing, I RUN.

My condolences on your loss(es), Ant.

LOL That drone scampered out of there after seeing that coast guard helicopter.

The first third or so of Far Cry 3 was brilliant. Far Cry 4 was probably technically a better game, but it was nearly exactly the same game and I'd had enough of it by then.

Maybe if they change it up enough it will be good. What made the first part of Far Cry 3 so good was how novel and threatening the environment was. You'd be making your way carefully through the jungle, paranoid about tigers and stuff and then you'd hear a car coming and you'd scamper off into a ditch to hide until it passed. It was awesome. But after a bit, you figured it out and had lots of guns and bullets and you didn't have to care anymore. You just picked an icon on your map and walked directly towards it, machine-gunning anything that got in your way.

If they could somehow distill the essence of playing Far Cry 3 for the first two or three hours into the whole of Far Cry 5, they might have something. I don't think it's possible though.

omg...LOL.the shit you notice mate.
/scampers to go check out 6:47

But they will scamper like cockroaches should their *beneficiaries stop leaving their lights off and their fucking food uncovered!

*for instance, the "beneficiary" named in a life insurance policy ultimately becomes a victimized benefactor

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I agree with most of your points. I would like to make a small defense of the inability to change things in OS X. With mutability can come a lot of overhead and chaos. There is something to be said for an iron hand on the tiller of user interfaces - but only if you trust the group making decisions.

I am not a UX expert. Up until Lion I trusted the UX people at Apple to have a better idea about how humans can optimally interact with a computer. For the most part, I think they were right. Up until Lion - now I think I'm starting to be sold a crock. The decisions they have made don't seem to be based on making efficient interactions happen - but instead about some grand unified melding of Macs and iOS devices. It's bullshit.

The mandatory click to focus thing is really a taste thing. For me, personally it drives me batty. I don't want focus until I've clicked.

Bouncy in your face icons - agreed, annoying - but not as bad modal windows you have to dismiss.


>> ^srd:

>> ^dag:
Up until Lion I would completely disagree with you and say the UX of OS X is simply the best. Yes, I'm talking against Windows 7, Gnome, KDE et al. Now however, I'm starting to cast a wandering eye back towards Linux.
Windows 7 however, is a frigging awful experience any way you slice it. It's stupid little things like the alt-tab selecting whatever window is in the background when really you just want to cycle through the icons. Also, I can't believe they still haven't killed the dysfunctional bloatware ridden system tray. The retarded nanny-ware labyrinth that has to be navigated to connect to a wireless network makes my eyes bleed.
The way I'm feeling now is that all operating systems suck hard, but OS X sucks a little less, at least until Lion - which, again, is starting to suck much harder for all the reasons outlined in this video - and more.


Gnome, KDE, Windows et al have been scampering after the OSX UX for some years now, and I agreee have been doing it rather badly. And this is a trend I'm very skeptical of. However, if you like the workflow that OSX/Quarz imposes, I'm sure you can be happy with it. Where I take exception is having no choice except for what some people in a meeting in Cupertino decide is how I should do my work.
Things that really put me off:
- Menu bar at the top of the screen instead of attached to the individual application... Sure, thats traditional on apple computers and that made sense back in the days when the Mac didn't have real multitasking. But nowadays it's just terribly confusing and imposes longer mouse travel distances.
- Mandatory click-to-focus, which can be seen as a neccessary corrolary of the previous point. I've been using the focus-follows-mouse model (without raise-on-focus) for 15 years now and the difference is jarring. Imagine having to click away an overlay on each and every page you go to in your browser.
- Bouncy in-your-face animations and notification boxes that are reminiscent of Paperclip. Shut up already and get out of my face, I'm trying to work, not playing a game of whack-an-icon.
- Apple marketing OSX as 64 bit but delivering it in 32 bit mode and not telling you until you a) find out by accident and then b) spend 10 minutes gooling around until you find the command to switch it to 64bit default mode (no GUI level preference here for whatever reason).
I'd be a lot happier if I had a choice. Either by having real preferences that goes beyond what color scheme do I want and in what way do I want to stroke my touchpad to do what. Or open up the possibility for alternative window managers.
For all the "think different" attitude that Apple likes to spread, the OSX ecosystem seems to be hard at work to remove individual preferences. Apple turned into the opposite of what the 1984 commercial implied.
Dag, if you're looking at linux again, both KDE and Gnome (especially Gnome 3) are IMO horrible too. If you don't like them, give XFCE a go. I've been using it since '03 IIRC, when I grew tired of Blackbox. And you'd be in good company too

>> ^dag:

Up until Lion I would completely disagree with you and say the UX of OS X is simply the best. Yes, I'm talking against Windows 7, Gnome, KDE et al. Now however, I'm starting to cast a wandering eye back towards Linux.
Windows 7 however, is a frigging awful experience any way you slice it. It's stupid little things like the alt-tab selecting whatever window is in the background when really you just want to cycle through the icons. Also, I can't believe they still haven't killed the dysfunctional bloatware ridden system tray. The retarded nanny-ware labyrinth that has to be navigated to connect to a wireless network makes my eyes bleed.
The way I'm feeling now is that all operating systems suck hard, but OS X sucks a little less, at least until Lion - which, again, is starting to suck much harder for all the reasons outlined in this video - and more.



Gnome, KDE, Windows et al have been scampering after the OSX UX for some years now, and I agreee have been doing it rather badly. And this is a trend I'm very skeptical of. However, if you like the workflow that OSX/Quarz imposes, I'm sure you can be happy with it. Where I take exception is having no choice except for what some people in a meeting in Cupertino decide is how I should do my work.

Things that really put me off:

- Menu bar at the top of the screen instead of attached to the individual application... Sure, thats traditional on apple computers and that made sense back in the days when the Mac didn't have real multitasking. But nowadays it's just terribly confusing and imposes longer mouse travel distances.

- Mandatory click-to-focus, which can be seen as a neccessary corrolary of the previous point. I've been using the focus-follows-mouse model (without raise-on-focus) for 15 years now and the difference is jarring. Imagine having to click away an overlay on each and every page you go to in your browser.

- Bouncy in-your-face animations and notification boxes that are reminiscent of Paperclip. Shut up already and get out of my face, I'm trying to work, not playing a game of whack-an-icon.

- Apple marketing OSX as 64 bit but delivering it in 32 bit mode and not telling you until you a) find out by accident and then b) spend 10 minutes gooling around until you find the command to switch it to 64bit default mode (no GUI level preference here for whatever reason).

I'd be a lot happier if I had a choice. Either by having real preferences that goes beyond what color scheme do I want and in what way do I want to stroke my touchpad to do what. Or open up the possibility for alternative window managers.

For all the "think different" attitude that Apple likes to spread, the OSX ecosystem seems to be hard at work to remove individual preferences. Apple turned into the opposite of what the 1984 commercial implied.

Dag, if you're looking at linux again, both KDE and Gnome (especially Gnome 3) are IMO horrible too. If you don't like them, give XFCE a go. I've been using it since '03 IIRC, when I grew tired of Blackbox. And you'd be in good company too

holy...
did anybody see that?
hope there are no security cameras...
/scampers away

fucking failing species.cant wait for extinction.

>> ^dag:

Let's keep things civil please. Just calling someone a troll and scampering away is a pretty trollish thing to do.
I think it is important to view the video before casting a vote. If, after watching the video - the title is completely mismatched to the video content, then a down vote may be appropriate.


I just wanted to voice that I still feel its bullshit, even just by semantics, title does not conclude content, when you press play, what is visually,or audible shown after the .00001 second mark denotes what is content of a VIDEO. we dont go and vote for the uploads page layout. get into the 2011's

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Let's keep things civil please. Just calling someone a troll and scampering away is a pretty trollish thing to do.

I think it is important to view the video before casting a vote. If, after watching the video - the title is completely mismatched to the video content, then a down vote may be appropriate.

Hi...noticed you're a Pearl Jam fan.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Pearl-Jam-Man-of-the-Hour-live

*scampers off*

I've only seen his work on Flickr.
Sorry.

In reply to this comment by ant:
Does he have a Web site of his ant ones? Or only on Flickr?

In reply to this comment by Lann:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoffhaberman/2242420202/in/set-72157603848670020/

*Scampers off*

Does he have a Web site of his ant ones? Or only on Flickr?

In reply to this comment by Lann:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoffhaberman/2242420202/in/set-72157603848670020/

*Scampers off*

Thanks. I think I have seen that before. I do look at Flickr all the time for ants.


In reply to this comment by Lann:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoffhaberman/2242420202/in/set-72157603848670020/

*Scampers off*