ray wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:23:22 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>>> There is no such thing as intuitive software.
>> ray writes:
>>> Yes and no. No, there is no perfectly inutitive software for everyone on
>>> the planet. Yes, there is some software which is intuitive enough that
>>> anyone with a decent grasp of what is to be done can get by without much
>>> additional help.
>> An original definition of "intuitive".
>
> Intuitive is relative. What is intuitive to one person is not necessarily
> to another.

Thats right, to be more accurate, what is perfectly
intuitive for normal people, is unthinkable for
programmers :-)

Edmund



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

ray wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:23:22 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>>> There is no such thing as intuitive software.
>> ray writes:
>>> Yes and no. No, there is no perfectly inutitive software for everyone on
>>> the planet. Yes, there is some software which is intuitive enough that
>>> anyone with a decent grasp of what is to be done can get by without much
>>> additional help.
>> An original definition of "intuitive".
>
> Intuitive is relative. What is intuitive to one person is not necessarily
> to another.

Thats right, to be more accurate, what is perfectly
intuitive for normal people, is unthinkable for
programmers :-)

Edmund



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Horton heard a Who named Edmund saying:
> Thats right, to be more accurate,
<snip>

What's that, 5 times now? Edmond, you're now on restriction for 30 days
in my kill file - congrats!, other than MI5 you're the only other one
there.
--
sk8r-365
The U.S. government is destroying our freedoms daily
but are themselves enjoying "liberties" at our expense!

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:13:58 +0100, Mark South wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:26:40 +0100, Edmund wrote:
>
>>> Intuitive is relative. What is intuitive to one person is not necessarily
>>> to another.
>>
>> Thats right, to be more accurate, what is perfectly
>> intuitive for normal people, is unthinkable for
>> programmers
>
> It was mildly amusing the first time, but now I'm bored of reading it.

Sorry my ISP is giving me problems with newsgroups
every now and then. I tried to post it with another
provider ( teranews ) and this one failed to post it
too. My Icedove newsreader only reported once it was
posted.

Edmund

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:10:59 -0600, sk8r-365 wrote:

> Horton heard a Who named Edmund saying:
>> Thats right, to be more accurate,
> <snip>
>
> What's that, 5 times now? Edmond, you're now on restriction for 30 days
> in my kill file - congrats!, other than MI5 you're the only other one
> there.

I have noticed that someone, perhaps the govenment, is trying to silence
M15victim. They don't want us to know.

Horton heard a Who named jellybean stonerfish saying:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:10:59 -0600, sk8r-365 wrote:
>>
>> What's that, 5 times now? Edmond, you're now on restriction for 30 days
>> in my kill file - congrats!, other than MI5 you're the only other one
>> there.
>
> I have noticed that someone, perhaps the govenment, is trying to silence
> M15victim. They don't want us to know.

I'm not for silencing him worldwide. I've never fully read a post by
M15. His posts are spammed and OT, so I silence him where it's proper
- on my computer.

--
sk8r-365
The U.S. government is destroying our freedoms daily
but are themselves enjoying "liberties" at our expense!

SteveSch wrote:

> There is a live cd with Cinelerra on it. From what I have read it is as
> far from intuitive as you can get but extremely powerful.

I wouldn't say 'FAR' from intuitive, but it's not as easy to use at it could
be. Nevertheless, after a using cinelerra for about three years 'til now,
the learning curve is still rising everytime.

BTW: It's really funny if you 'think' you know what you can do and by
incidentaly do something rather stupid you learn some new ways of video
editing:-)

I like cinelerra much more than the adobe software - not only because it's
way cheaper, but because cinelerra *works* nearly perfectly, if you know to
avoid getting trapped by a software bug...

--
panic("esp_handle: current_SC == penguin within interrupt!");
linux-2.2.16/drivers/scsi/esp.c

Rodney wrote:

> [edit]
>> And so is 127.0.0.1 smarty pants. Like just about every recipient
> of your post near enough.
>>
>
> Think about it a bit more deeply, Hadron. My munged address doesn't point
> at some innocent third party's server.

neither is it an email address though.... 127.0.0.1 isn't a FQDN and will
never be.

--
Zapp: You win again, gravity!

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:18:48 +0100, Ulrich Gierschner wrote:

> Rodney wrote:
>
>> [edit]
>>> And so is 127.0.0.1 smarty pants. Like just about every recipient
>> of your post near enough.
>>>
>>>
>> Think about it a bit more deeply, Hadron. My munged address doesn't
>> point at some innocent third party's server.
>
> neither is it an email address though.... 127.0.0.1 isn't a FQDN and will
> never be.

Yes Ulrich, it isn't a FQDN, it isn't a domain name at all, it's
a non-routable IP address. However, that <foo@127.0.0.1> doesn't point
to an address is the point exactly. One may not want to use a valid email
address in order to avoid their address being harvested, or for whatever
other reason, but it can be considered rude to use one that belongs to
someone else which might cause their address to be harvested and/or
spammed. If someone harvests <127.0.0.1> and tries to send to it...

Rodney <me@127.0.0.1> writes:

> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:18:48 +0100, Ulrich Gierschner wrote:
>
>> Rodney wrote:
>>
>>> [edit]
>>>> And so is 127.0.0.1 smarty pants. Like just about every recipient
>>> of your post near enough.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Think about it a bit more deeply, Hadron. My munged address doesn't
>>> point at some innocent third party's server.
>>
>> neither is it an email address though.... 127.0.0.1 isn't a FQDN and will
>> never be.
>
> Yes Ulrich, it isn't a FQDN, it isn't a domain name at all, it's
> a non-routable IP address. However, that <foo@127.0.0.1> doesn't point
> to an address is the point exactly. One may not want to use a valid email
> address in order to avoid their address being harvested, or for whatever
> other reason, but it can be considered rude to use one that belongs to
> someone else which might cause their address to be harvested and/or
> spammed. If someone harvests <127.0.0.1> and tries to send to it...

The point is simple enough : you have a fake that causes errors and
resends if someone replies to it. If you're going to lecture people then
get your own house in order first.