* Posts by Squander Two

1109 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Mar 2012

Page:

Unemployed? Ugly? Ugh, no thanks, says fitties-only job website

Squander Two

Re: Ha

I personally don't see the problem with some people getting certain jobs based on how good they look in a swimsuit and other people getting other jobs based on their ability to write code. Society has lots of different roles to fill, and we should all be allowed to find our niche.

The problem arises because the mistakes only go in one direction: some fuckwits will hire, say, a C# programmer based on their looks, but no-one would ever hire a swimsuit model because they can multiply hexadecimal numbers together in their head.

Squander Two

Re: At least with this site...

You're missing part of the equation here. Looks are an ice-breaker: we approach people initially because we like the way they look and/or because we're being realistic about the chances of their liking the way we look. But that's not enough by itself for a long-term relationship. So, yes, people in long-term relationships tend to be roughly as good-looking as each other because of that first hurdle of initial physical attraction. But that doesn't mean that that's why they're together: you're ignoring all the dozens of people who got past that first hurdle cause they looked right for each other but haven't ended up together long-term because they couldn't stand each other's conversation. People aren't being hypocritical when they say that looks aren't what matter; they've learnt it from experience, having approached dozens of people based on looks alone and only found one or two of them they really liked.

There is also a major exception to your rule, where hordes of absolutely stunning women get together with hideously bog-ugly men. That exception is Glasgow. God, I love Glasgow.

STROKE this mouse to make apps POP, says Microsoft

Squander Two

Re: Well, I love Windows 8. There, I said it.

I haven't missed the point at all: as I've said a couple of times, I do understand that people can't abide 8. I'm just not one of them, that's all. I'm finding the whole shebang to be quite gloriously easy. Similarly, I understand that IOS represented a revolution in usability despite the fact that I can't use an iPhone without wanting to hurl the bloody thing against a wall.

And I do find some of the complaints weird. Like what's wrong with full-screen-only applications? I'm supposed to want to see the various corners of windows I'm not using in the background, am I? What for? I understand that this is annoying a lot of people, I'm just baffled as to why. Various apps (Scrivener, for instance) advertise their fullscreenness as a seeling point, as it enables you to concentrate on your work without extraneous crap on the screen. For Microsoft to adopt that design ethos OS-wide is great, as far as I'm concerned.

I also note that Windows 8 allows me to instantly search not only for apps but also files, settings, map locations, emails, music, the app store, Web results, etc, all just by typing from the start screen. Windows 7 didn't do that. And I like it.

I think it just annoys me that the people who dislike Windows 8 insist on claiming that everyone hates it. Well, clearly not. I'm not arrogant or naive enough to think I'm completely unlike everyone else in my tastes, so I can't be the only one.

Squander Two

Re: Well, I love Windows 8. There, I said it.

No, I'm seriously suggesting that I like Windows 8 and it works extremely well for me.

That being said, I would suspect that someone with 600 items on their Start menu is an at least fairly advanced user who knows how to do things like create custom toolbars and dock folders on the Taskbar, right? Which you can still do in Windows 8. I do think real-time search is a pretty good way of narrowing down a list of 600, though.

Does that really work in 7? Hit the Windows key and type some letters and it immediately shows you every app on the system whose name contains a word starting with those letters? I honestly never noticed. Still, I find the criticism odd. What exactly is wrong with Windows 8 doing something that worked in Windows 7? Why did I never hear a single complaint from anyone that Windows XP contained some of the same useful features as Windows 2000? How is that a bad thing?

Squander Two

Re: Well, I love Windows 8. There, I said it.

I don't think real-time search is quite the same as the CLI, no. If I type "scr" into the CLI, it doesn't instantly offer me a choice of Scrivener, On-Screen Keyboard, and Mobile Digital Scribe. This is CLI to the same extent as Google is.

Squander Two

Re: Well, I love Windows 8. There, I said it.

Oh, no reluctance required. I get that the world doesn't like it; I just find it baffling when people talk about, for instance, how very very difficult, almost impossible it is to find the old Windows 7 desktop.

I too have icons for my most-used apps on my taskbar or in the quick-start area, but I'm always surprised by how many users, even IT pros, don't. If you're going to create a shortcut to an app and put it somewhere convenient, of course you're going to find Windows 8 & Windows 7 roughly the same in terms of the convenience of starting that app, so I didn't think that comparison was worth making. Finding stuff in its default location without any customisation is quicker in 8.

Squander Two

Well, I love Windows 8. There, I said it.

I honestly don't get what all the fuss is about. I have generally disliked Microsoft's interface design in the past, but have been blown away by just how bloody good Windows 8 is. I appear to be the only one, but come on. Register readers find this OS difficult? What's difficult about it? To open, say, Notepad in Windows 7: click Start > All Programs > Accessories > Notepad; to open Notepad in Windows 8: type "Windows N O T E Enter". MS have taken the Start menu, removed its multiple layers of embedded folders, made it full-screen, given you the ability to easily rearrange everything in it, dragging each button wherever you like and even changing its size, added instant search that activates automatically the moment you start typing, and people miss the old Start menu? Why? It was an awkward pain in the arse; now it's useful.

And I don't have a touchscreen. I keep reading on here that Windows 8 is useless for non-touch devices. It's a major upgrade to my non-touch laptop, and I generally don't even bother plugging a mouse in; just with a touchpad, this OS is great.

I'm not taking the piss here. I've found this thing so ridiculously easy to pick up and so fast and useful, I am genuinely baffled by the apparent failure of the entire rest of Planet Earth to do the same. I'm just disappointed that Microsoft are going to start changing the OS in response to complaints. I hope they don't break my nice new OS.

I'll also add that I find it odd that people are criticising Windows 8 on the grounds that most users are using it as Windows 7. Is that not a good thing? What would Apple do -- indeed, what did they do with the launch of OSX? "We've got a new OS. We're scrapping the old one. If you liked it, fuck you." Microsoft provide, as ever, a world-beating level of backwards-compatibility, clearly having decided to give users years to gradually adjust, and this is somehow proof that they've fucked up? How?

I guess I'm going to get excoriated now. Sorry.

So, what IS the worst film ever made?

Squander Two

Blair Witch

"The Blair Witch Project" is worse by an order of magnitude than other merely bad films. Most films have some redeeming feature -- nice idea, bad script; woeful direction, nice lighting... some little thing that someone on the crew did well. "Love Actually", for instance, contains a lot of superb acting. Only "Blair Witch" is unremittingly awful in every single way: script, camerawork, lighting, acting, direction, editing, story, sound, the lot.

Squander Two

Re: every

The Thomas Crown Affair. At no point in the original did Steve McQueen manage to give the impression that he'd ever even met a businessman; his entire performance comes across as a hippy's idea of what a successful financier might be like -- which it was. The remake isn't just good; it's great.

And The Talented Mr Ripley is way better than Plein Soleil.

Page: