The official WWDC prediction / reaction thread
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Graeme on 9 Jun 2010 14:20 In message <8793l0Fcc6U1(a)mid.individual.net> Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: [snip] > > Why would you smear a mouse in peanut butter? > It turns other mice on. -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/>
From: Gareth John on 9 Jun 2010 15:28 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > > > > It's pretty disgusting, actually, and shows complete contempt - "this > > > zwinky toolbar which was like, I dont know, I downloaded it once and > > > couldn't get rid of it". > > > > > > What kind of person can do such awful things to the English language? > > > > The Gerald Ratner of online game developers? > > > > "Shoddy" is obviously the mission statement of Zynga. > > > > Shoddy development - they just cloned Farm Town. > > Shoddy ethics - they scammed users into signing up for bogus phone > > services. > > Shoddy gameplay - "Things will go wrong." > > Oh, I could live with that. > > > Shoddy English - "like, I dont know". > > But not that. Everytime one of my children says 'like,', he gets sent > straight to bed and is not allowed out until it's time to get up for > school. > > The one who did it on Wednesday in half-term was really sorry by Monday > morning. > > Daniele Oh, man, you're just so, like, square, daddio! Dude, where's my half-term? -- From Gareth John Please pull out the plug if you want to reply by email
From: zoara on 9 Jun 2010 16:02 Gareth John <g.john(a)PLUG.btinternet.com> wrote: > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: >> >>> I -lived- in dBaseII (and then later IV, missing III mostly) for > > > about a >>> decade. I also dabbled in Clipper (dBaseIII compiler). >> >> There you go. I only encountered dBaseII via a friend who wrote a >> lepidopterists' database, so I always associated that dot with > > beetles, >> and somehow imagined there must be a dBaseI out there. And ever > > since, >> I've hated all databases. >> >>> I want those years back. >> >> Aaaaah. The beetles were so beautiful. > > Lepidopterist? Moths and butterfiles, shurely? Beetles are for > coleopterists, I think. Coleopterists are people who design Apple's new Rectal Display technology. -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: zoara on 10 Jun 2010 05:41 Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >> Except that the iPhone's folders are a more realistic metaphor than > > the >> Mac's - after all, how many people have real folders that contain >> folders full of folders? > > At least two. Both my wife and I have filing cabinets with hanging > files, which are essentially folders full of folders. And some of > those > folders contain folders. A filing cabinet is only a "folder" by analogy. In which case why not say the filing cabinet is represented by one of the home screens? Or the whole springboard? The iPhone hierarchy runs: Springboard -> individual home screen -> folder -> application where folder is optional; applications can be (and more likely is) stored directly on a screen. The real life hierarchy (in your case) runs Filing cabinet -> individual drawer -> hanging file -> folder -> document where folder is optional as a document can (and more likely is) stored directly in a hanging file. My point is that each of these things can store items that themselves store items, but they are *different* to one another. You can store a folder in a hanging file but you're unlikely to store a hanging file inside a hanging file (at least, unless you're storing them for later use). The iPhone allows hierarchy but allows it in a more real-world way, where container objects can contain other types of container objects but can't contain objects identical to themselves. Also, it doesn't allow infinite depth; in fact restricting it to a very few levels, which is again a bit more real-world. -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: Pd on 10 Jun 2010 05:51
zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > My point is that each of these things can store items that themselves > store items, but they are *different* to one another. You can store a > folder in a hanging file but you're unlikely to store a hanging file > inside a hanging file (at least, unless you're storing them for later > use). No, but as I say, we do have folders within folders. And the hanging file itself is a folder, just with extra hooks to hang on the runners. So yes it's slightly different, but still a folder. I wish real life was more like the Finder, with virtually infinite hierarchy, fast finding, several different views, sort by different criteria etc. -- Pd |