Windows TF 7 takes over an hour to install updates
-
@Douglasac said:
@dhromed said:
The Save dialog is very small and encountered on a daily basis.
Double-click the title bar.This is the kind of thing that gets you kicked out of HCI class.
-
I'm really considering switching back to Windows again right now. With the proprietary nVidia driver, things got really laggy for some reason. Since I don't use 3D at the moment anyway, I switched over to nouveau... now things run smoothly (even 1080 video on YouTube!), but I can't use Wobbly Windows (:O) and there are some graphic glitches here and there. Also, a while ago, my PC randomly rebooted. And, if I run programs as root, they seem not to get accelerated at all. Stupid Linux... WORK!
-
@derula said:
I'm really considering switching back to Windows again right now. With the proprietary nVidia driver, things got really laggy for some reason. Since I don't use 3D at the moment anyway, I switched over to nouveau... now things run smoothly (even 1080 video on YouTube!), but I can't use Wobbly Windows (:O) and there are some graphic glitches here and there. Also, a while ago, my PC randomly rebooted. And, if I run programs as root, they seem not to get accelerated at all. Stupid Linux... WORK!
Careful! Matt Westwood might call you a cunt!
-
-
@dhromed said:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and think that you're saying that having a feature like that is dumb and unintuitive, and I agree. I only discovered it by accident one day when Force Of Habit made me double-click the title bar to make the window bigger (this was pre-7, so there was no dragging to the top of the screen or WinKey+Upping)@Douglasac said:
@dhromed said:
The Save dialog is very small and encountered on a daily basis.
Double-click the title bar.This is the kind of thing that gets you kicked out of HCI class.
-
@iphitus said:
Well, Excel 2007 can be a pain because of it's MDI-pretending-to-be-SDI layout (1 window, yet multiple taskbar entries) thus you can't use conventional window management for some tasks.
Excel Options > Advanced > Display > Uncheck "Show all windows in Taskbar".Happy now?
Or, as previously mentioned, you can open up a new instance of Excel for every document, if you prefer.
-
@Scarlet Manuka said:
Or, as previously mentioned, you can open up a new instance of Excel for every document, if you prefer.
Only if they have different filenames (or have they fixed that now?)
-
@PJH said:
@Scarlet Manuka said:
Or, as previously mentioned, you can open up a new instance of Excel for every document, if you prefer.
Only if they have different filenames (or have they fixed that now?)Sadly, that's on the list of "things they can't fix because it'll break VBA scripts from 1996 that basically run the entirety of the American economy." See, VBA can refer to open documents by filename.
-
@Zemm said:
I've released the butterflies and am waiting for them to cause a tsunami in China that will change the magnetic attraction of the sunlight to manipulate the individual bits of my harddrive.
Hey, learn the difference between China and Japan...
-
They say lightning never strikes twice
-
@nexekho said:
They say lightning never strikes twice
And those people are wrong as hell. Every lightning strike is actually multiple strokes between the same two locations. Get a new metaphor.
-
Well, if we're talking on an absolute level (that is relative to the centre of the universe) they're correct.
-
@nexekho said:
Well, if we're talking on an absolute level (that is relative to the centre of the universe) they're correct.
Assuming that point is itself stationary (and trying not to think about what that actually means). And why ignore time? We really don't have the tools to think about this kind of stuff at all, but for any definition of 'same place' which actually allows the possibility of 'same place' to exist, they're incorrect.
-
Does nothing ever happened more than once per spacetime quanta? That actually depends on if you're observing it...
-
@nexekho said:
Well, if we're talking on an absolute level (that is relative to the centre of the universe) they're correct.
According to our current best understanding of the shape of the universe, it does not have a centre.
-
@Someone You Know said:
According to our current best understanding of the shape of the universe, it does not have a centre.
How the fuck does something with a shape not have a definable center? Yeah, it might MOVE and there might be more than one way to define it, but if it has edges, it TOTALLY has a center.
-
@SQLDave said:
For example, to click on the "File" menu option of 99% of all windows, my hand+eyes know how to move the mouse depending on where the cursor is. In
But admit, it's better than Lotus Notes? Though unfortunate influence of Ray Ozzie (now gone, thankfully) is seen. In Vista and 7, the help has become pretty much unuseable, much like LN's help system.
-
@alegr said:
@SQLDave said:
For example, to click on the "File" menu option of 99% of all windows, my hand+eyes know how to move the mouse depending on where the cursor is. In
But admit, it's better than Lotus Notes? Though unfortunate influence of Ray Ozzie (now gone, thankfully) is seen. In Vista and 7, the help has become pretty much unuseable, much like LN's help system.
Very interesting. I don't keep up too much on the people side of this bidness. On several ocassions when adjusting to Win 7 I actually did have the thought "Man, this is almost Notes-like in its derpitude". And now I know it wasn't just my imagination. I wonder if it's really him posing as all the Notes fanboys on ihatelotusnotes.com.
-
@Weng said:
It would be better to say that 'centre' is not a meaningful concept when talking about the universe (although I think people generally mean cosmos when they say universe).@Someone You Know said:
According to our current best understanding of the shape of the universe, it does not have a centre.
How the fuck does something with a shape not have a definable center? Yeah, it might MOVE and there might be more than one way to define it, but if it has edges, it TOTALLY has a center.Whilst we're talking about this, if anyone finds this stuff at all interesting, and hasn't read Neal Stephenson's Anathem, get to the bookshop/library/torrent site.
-
@intertravel said:
It would be better to say that 'centre' is not a meaningful concept when talking about the universe
Yeah, it wraps around like Pac-Man. Everybody knows that.
-
@Weng said:
@Someone You Know said:
According to our current best understanding of the shape of the universe, it does not have a centre.
How the fuck does something with a shape not have a definable center? Yeah, it might MOVE and there might be more than one way to define it, but if it has edges, it TOTALLY has a center.I admit that I'm not a cosmologist, but as I understand it the universe does not have edges either. The universe appears to be finite, but unbounded. A commonly used analogy is to the surface of a sphere, which is finite but has neither edges nor a center. By "center" I mean a point on the thing I'm talking about that is equidistant from all other points on the thing I'm talking about. There is no point on the surface of a sphere that is equidistant to all other points on the surface of the sphere. The universe is structured similarly, just with more dimensions.
Perhaps I misused the word "shape" and should have said "structure" instead.
-
@Someone You Know said:
I admit that I'm not a cosmologist, but as I understand it the universe does not have edges either. The universe appears to be finite, but unbounded. A commonly used analogy is to the surface of a sphere, which is finite but has neither edges nor a center. By "center" I mean a point on the thing I'm talking about that is equidistant from all other points on the thing I'm talking about. There is no point on the surface of a sphere that is equidistant to all other points on the surface of the sphere. The universe is structured similarly, just with more dimensions.
@blakeyrat said:
Yeah, it wraps around like Pac-Man. Everybody knows that.
Not sure if Blakey was joking, but he was right. And if I'm being pedantic (and I am, because it's necessary here if we want to make sense), you're still confusing cosmos and universe. The universe is, by definition, everything that exists (for suitably broad values of 'exists'), whereas the cosmos is only (!) those bits of it that are a result of the Big Bang. And yes, I know there are cosmologists who talk about the 'multiverse', but that's even worse than people talking about PIN numbers.
-
@Scarlet Manuka said:
@iphitus said:
Well, Excel 2007 can be a pain because of it's MDI-pretending-to-be-SDI layout (1 window, yet multiple taskbar entries) thus you can't use conventional window management for some tasks.
Excel Options > Advanced > Display > Uncheck "Show all windows in Taskbar".Perhaps I'm being dim here but that doesn't seem to achieve the goal of having 2 Excel spreadsheets open in 2 separate Excel windows. Now I have just a single Excel item on the taskbar and I have to choose which spreadsheet I want to work on through the View ribbon.
(Having the option unchecked, which I did, shows both spreadsheets as a separate item but when you select them they just switch in the same Exel window.)
-
I admit that I'm not a cosmologist, but as I understand it the universe does not have edges either. The universe appears to be finite, but unbounded.
There is a point all of the galaxies observed are travelling away from, yes? This would be the centre of the universe as we know it?
-
@RTapeLoadingError said:
@Scarlet Manuka said:
The original post wasn't clear about whether they wanted one window and one taskbar entry, or multiple windows and multiple taskbar entries; just that they didn't like having one window with multiple taskbar entries. So I gave them the option that turns that off. I also mentioned the way to get multiple windows, namely opening a new instance of Excel for each document...@iphitus said:
Perhaps I'm being dim here but that doesn't seem to achieve the goal of having 2 Excel spreadsheets open in 2 separate Excel windows. Now I have just a single Excel item on the taskbar and I have to choose which spreadsheet I want to work on through the View ribbon.Well, Excel 2007 can be a pain because of it's MDI-pretending-to-be-SDI layout (1 window, yet multiple taskbar entries) thus you can't use conventional window management for some tasks.
Excel Options > Advanced > Display > Uncheck "Show all windows in Taskbar".(Having the option unchecked, which I did, shows both spreadsheets as a separate item but when you select them they just switch in the same Exel window.)
@PJH said:
@Scarlet Manuka said:
If you're opening up a separate instance of Excel, the same filename shouldn't be a problem since each instance can only see the files opened in that instance.Or, as previously mentioned, you can open up a new instance of Excel for every document, if you prefer.
Only if they have different filenames (or have they fixed that now?)@nexekho said:
Well... there is a point like this, yes. However, every other point is also like this. Every point is moving away from every other point.I admit that I'm not a cosmologist, but as I understand it the universe does not have edges either. The universe appears to be finite, but unbounded.
There is a point all of the galaxies observed are travelling away from, yes? This would be the centre of the universe as we know it?
-
@nexekho said:
I admit that I'm not a cosmologist, but as I understand it the universe does not have edges either. The universe appears to be finite, but unbounded.
There is a point all of the galaxies observed are travelling away from, yes?
No. There is not a point like this; every point is like this.
Really. This is part of how we know that the universe/cosmos/whatever itself is expanding, rather than just things within it moving around.
-
@intertravel said:
And if I'm being pedantic (and I am, because it's necessary here if we want to make sense), you're still confusing cosmos and universe. The universe is, by definition, everything that exists (for suitably broad values of 'exists'), whereas the cosmos is only (!) those bits of it that are a result of the Big Bang.
I have never heard of this usage of the word "cosmos" before, but it seems reasonable.
Out of curiosity, is there anything observable that is part of the universe but not part of the cosmos? Is it possible for such a thing to be observable by us?
-
@Someone You Know said:
@nexekho said:
I admit that I'm not a cosmologist, but as I understand it the universe does not have edges either. The universe appears to be finite, but unbounded.
There is a point all of the galaxies observed are travelling away from, yes?
No. There is not a point like this; every point is like this.
But since we're only looking from ONE point, how do we know? Unless we've sent space probes to another galaxy and I haven't heard about it...
-
@blakeyrat said:
But since we're only looking from ONE point, how do we know? Unless we've sent space probes to another galaxy and I haven't heard about it...
Really? dhromed used to talk about it all the time!
-
@Someone You Know said:
Out of curiosity, is there anything observable that is part of the universe but not part of the cosmos? Is it possible for such a thing to be observable by us?
Everything beyond the edge of the "observable universe" is unobservable by us, but still a product of the big bang.
Until such time when we develop methods of travel that allow us to overcome the speed of spatial expansion.
-
-
@Someone You Know said:
Out of curiosity, is there anything observable that is part of the universe but not part of the cosmos?
That's a very good question. I don't think anyone would be at all sure, but quantum effects might be related. As far as I know, there is no mainstream polycosmic theory with any practical backing, but I don't think any serious cosmologist would pretend to know enough to rule it out.@Someone You Know said:
Is it possible for such a thing to be observable by us?
You have to be careful with exactly what you mean with this kind of thing. Is it possible that we might indirectly prove something along these lines? Well, there are some very clever people out there, and I wouldn't rule anything out given another few thousand years. Could we see it directly? I suspect not - as a matter of definition - but again, it's more a matter of what we mean by the words than anything else. Depending on how you define observable, the answer might be yes, no, or unknowable.[Edit: I'm already drunk enough that I wrote 'know' for 'no' above, so everything I write may well be bollocks.]
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Someone You Know said:
@nexekho said:
I admit that I'm not a cosmologist, but as I understand it the universe does not have edges either. The universe appears to be finite, but unbounded.
There is a point all of the galaxies observed are travelling away from, yes?
No. There is not a point like this; every point is like this.
But since we're only looking from ONE point, how do we know?
If we see that not only is everything moving away from us, but that further away objects are moving faster...
This is beyond my knowledge of what proper cosmologists actually think, but seems logical. Makes no great sense to say that only every bit of space we can see has that property - simpler assumption is that all space (FSVO space) is like that, although we don't know much either way.
-
@Someone You Know said:
I admit that I'm not a cosmologist, but as I understand it the universe does not have edges either. The universe appears to be finite, but unbounded.
Well thank god I'm here (string theorist, not comsologist, but whatever).
The visible universe has no boundary, and the universe probably has no boundary. It may or may not be topolotically a sphere, it seems to be very close to spatially flat so if it is a sphere (or some other shape) it is a very very large one (if it's a sphere, e.g., the radius of the universe is much larger than the radius of the visible universe).
@intertravel said:
And if I'm being pedantic (and I am, because it's necessary here if we want to make sense), you're still confusing cosmos and universe. The universe is, by definition, everything that exists (for suitably broad values of 'exists'), whereas the cosmos is only (!) those bits of it that are a result of the Big Bang. And yes, I know there are cosmologists who talk about the 'multiverse', but that's even worse than people talking about PIN numbers.
No, it turns out the scientists know what the words they're using mean. The "universe" is everything created in the big bang (i.e., in some sense the largest causally connected region that you can draw). The "visible universe" is the part of the universe visible to us due to the finite speed of light. "Multiverse" is all non-causally connected things that may exist. For example, if there were some region were multiple big bangs took place at over some time. Cosmos is not really a term that's used.
@Scarlet Manuka said:
@nexekho said:
Well... there is a point like this, yes. However, every other point is also like this. Every point is moving away from every other point.I admit that I'm not a cosmologist, but as I understand it the universe does not have edges either. The universe appears to be finite, but unbounded.
There is a point all of the galaxies observed are travelling away from, yes? This would be the centre of the universe as we know it?"On average" every point in the visible universe is moving away from every other.
@blakeyrat said:
But since we're only looking from ONE point, how do we know? Unless we've sent space probes to another galaxy and I haven't heard about it...
Well we can see other points... So, you know, you can see for example *two* other points and then you know what they're doing relative to each other.
-
@cfgauss said:
The "universe" is everything created in the big bang (i.e., in some sense the largest causally connected region that you can draw). The "visible universe" is the part of the universe visible to us due to the finite speed of light. "Multiverse" is all non-causally connected things that may exist. For example, if there were some region were multiple big bangs took place at over some time. Cosmos is not really a term that's used.
Cosmology 101: semester final (counts for 100% of your grade)
One question. You have two hours.
1. Define "universe" and give two examples.
-
The definition is the definition I gave before, fancier versions of which can more-or-less be found in any advanced or intermediate-level general relativity book.
At any rate, here are two examples at random:
The FRW solution to Einstein's field equations, and the "standard model of cosmology"'s solution to the field equations. Bonus example: Godel's universe (which allows for real-life star trek episodes).
That took me about 6 seconds of the two hours. Just like in my real college classes!
-
@blakeyrat said:
@SQLDave said:
You seem well connected. Can you tell me the name and address of the dickhead who decided to remove the "up one folder" button (which is NOT always the same as "back", goddamit) so I can mail him some anthrax? Or call in an air strike.. something...
Move your mouse to the URL bar. Click the folder name second from the right. Congratulations, you've gone "up one folder". In a single click. With a larger active region than the UI widget. Without the need for a UI widget.
Yes.
Unless the current folder name is very long.
Then you see only that folder.
And wish you had the UI widget (or some anthrax)
-
True Windows lusers know that you only use one window at a time, and you keep them all maximized at all times.
So long folder names shouldn't be a problem on your modern widescreen.
-
@cfgauss said:
@Someone You Know said:
I admit that I'm not a cosmologist, but as I understand it the universe does not have edges either. The universe appears to be finite, but unbounded.
Well thank god I'm here (string theorist, not comsologist, but whatever).
Can you recommend a book/books/website/whatever that would help a programmer who took a few physics classes in college understand this stuff better?
-
@Someone You Know said:
Can you recommend a book/books/website/whatever that would help a programmer who took a few physics classes in college understand this stuff better?
The Elegant Universe. It's about
astrologystring theory, but it's very good.
-
@dhromed said:
@Someone You Know said:
Can you recommend a book/books/website/whatever that would help a programmer who took a few physics classes in college understand this stuff better?
The Elegant Universe. It's about
astrologystring theory, but it's very good.
I concur most wholeheartedly. It's a bit dated now in terms of "latest thinking" in string theory, but it's very well written and the first part of the book contains the best explanation of "Einsteinian" physics I've ever encountered. For example, after reading it I finally understood why I'd age more slowly than you if I was travelling faster than you.
-
@dhromed said:
@Someone You Know said:
Can you recommend a book/books/website/whatever that would help a programmer who took a few physics classes in college understand this stuff better?
The Elegant Universe. It's about
astrologystring theory, but it's very good.Must... resist... urge... to link to... xkcd... string theory... cartoon... must... resist...
-
@SQLDave said:
@dhromed said:
@Someone You Know said:
Can you recommend a book/books/website/whatever that would help a programmer who took a few physics classes in college understand this stuff better?
The Elegant Universe. It's about
astrologystring theory, but it's very good.
I concur most wholeheartedly. It's a bit dated now in terms of "latest thinking" in string theory, but it's very well written and the first part of the book contains the best explanation of "Einsteinian" physics I've ever encountered. For example, after reading it I finally understood why I'd age more slowly than you if I was travelling faster than you.Kindled!
The eBook version is only $2.11 on Amazon, which makes me think that there's a new edition or something coming out soon, but whatever.
-
@Someone You Know said:
Can you recommend a book/books/website/whatever that would help a programmer who took a few physics classes in college understand this stuff better?
A lot of the popular books out there are crap, but Brian Greene's books are good, there is the elegant universe, and he has a new one "the hidden reality" that I've heard is good. Hawking's books are also good. If you want something more technical, but not a textbook, Penrose has a popular book with lots of math in it, "The Road To Reality". There is also of course superstringtheory.com.
-
@intertravel said:
@Zemm said:
I've released the butterflies and am waiting for them to cause a tsunami in China that will change the magnetic attraction of the sunlight to manipulate the individual bits of my harddrive.
Hey, learn the difference between China and Japan...
Hey, learn how to tell time. I posted that a full day before the earthquake and tsunami in Japan! I have spent time in Japan, but mostly in Osaka which was completely unaffected.
I mentioned China as a reversal of a popular definition of The Butterfly Effect: "the possibility that a large storm in New England may be caused by a butterfly wing flap in China."
-
@Zemm said:
I think you might have missed the joke there.@intertravel said:
@Zemm said:
I've released the butterflies and am waiting for them to cause a tsunami in China that will change the magnetic attraction of the sunlight to manipulate the individual bits of my harddrive.
Hey, learn the difference between China and Japan...
Hey, learn how to tell time. I posted that a full day before the earthquake and tsunami in Japan! I have spent time in Japan, but mostly in Osaka which was completely unaffected.
I mentioned China as a reversal of a popular definition of The Butterfly Effect: "the possibility that a large storm in New England may be caused by a butterfly wing flap in China."
-
@intertravel said:
@Zemm said:
I think you might have missed the joke there.@intertravel said:
@Zemm said:
I've released the butterflies and am waiting for them to cause a tsunami in China that will change the magnetic attraction of the sunlight to manipulate the individual bits of my harddrive.
Hey, learn the difference between China and Japan...Hey, learn how to tell time. I posted that a full day before the earthquake and tsunami in Japan! I have spent time in Japan, but mostly in Osaka which was completely unaffected.
I mentioned China as a reversal of a popular definition of The Butterfly Effect: "the possibility that a large storm in New England may be caused by a butterfly wing flap in China."
And how to properly train butterflies, dude improve your aim.
