Yeah, the computer could get you a great start on finding things. But you could never fully trust it. Think of the situation where you're looking for the best version of eight Word drafts of the same document. The words have been rearranged so the computer thinks they are almost alike. You, on the other hand, like one edition so you'd have to tag it "best" or "final" or give it five stars or whatever. You always need intervention. But I like having three layers of "finding": brute machine search, tags, and directory structure.
And to respond to an earlier comment, tags are more than just folders. I can apply numerous tags to one file; it's a waste to put multiple copies of a file in multiple folders.
And some people have taken an Aperture-like approach to all files; look at Leap.
Rob
FIlm editors have a similar requirement -- there are often multiple takes and edits of a similar shot.
FCP X has a easy and intuitive way of handling this...
The user can define sets of keyword (tags) and assign them to kb keys. If needed (you forgot) Cmd-k opens the keyword HUD showing the keywords and their kb equivalent.
The user can select and/or play a clip and assign one or more keywords -- for example: best, Martha, close up.
Then a smart collection is created for each individual keyword and the combination of keywords -- the clip is placed in each smart collection.
Later, you can select one or more additional clips and just drag them to whichever smart collections apply -- and FCPX will tag each clip with the appropriate keywords.
I haven't used FCP X but I am assuming that it doesn't make it's own tags? Therefore the only way you would be able to group clips of a certain person together would be if you typed that person's name in? When I hear people talk about AI I think they mean that they want for the computer to figure out a person's name and they hasn't worked too successfully (look at iPhoto's faces feature for proof on this.)
Anyone using a mac in a business, large or small, will have hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of documents created by key applications. Sorting documents by applications would be insanely dumb. What has traditionally made the Mac great from the very beginning, in addition to the ease of creating documents, was the ease and flexibility of organizing documents. Each mac user could organize their world just the way they wanted it. If Apple has forgotten this already, I'm looking into the options for reincarnation.
AGREE. Macs should allow you to do what YOU want and how YOU want it.
OS X doesn't even let us put Apple's stupid apps where we want them. I moved QT Player and then updated 10.6.8 and it royally screwed the app up. I don't see a way to download QT Player X so I guess I'll have to apply combo 10.6.8 update to fix it. Ugh. All because I decided to put all my media player apps in a special folder "Players". Mac OS X is getting more and more dumbed down and restrictive.
I haven't used FCP X but I am assuming that it doesn't make it's own tags? Therefore the only way you would be able to group clips of a certain person together would be if you typed that person's name in? When I hear people talk about AI I think they mean that they want for the computer to figure out a person's name and they hasn't worked too successfully (look at iPhoto's faces feature for proof on this.)
Yes... and no!
If you have organized your files into folders... Say pictures if John...
You can import these and create a smart collection of each nested folder.
Then, if you wanted, you could open the smart collection , select all the clips and add the keyword John.
You probably don't need to do this -- but you could.
One of the AI capabilities is the grouping by the number of people... Not face recognition... But I suspect that's coming down the line.
I have found that iPhoto does a pretty good job, not perfect -- but better than nothing.
With FCP X you usually are dealing with a few number of unique faces -- so I expect the face recognition would be a lot easier and more accurate.
For example, in a movie you usually have a few number of major actors that you care about -- and it normally involves medium or close up shots with just a few actors.
AGREE. Macs should allow you to do what YOU want and how YOU want it.
OS X doesn't even let us put Apple's stupid apps where we want them. I moved QT Player and then updated 10.6.8 and it royally screwed the app up. I don't see a way to download QT Player X so I guess I'll have to apply combo 10.6.8 update to fix it. Ugh. All because I decided to put all my media player apps in a special folder "Players". Mac OS X is getting more and more dumbed down and restrictive.
They do let you have control of where you place app as you clearly acknowledged with your moving of QT X. What you're complaining about is a bug in the installer that wasn't able to find the app in a different directory.
Organising information based on the application used to create it, rather than by what its content means, is a classic case of failing to understand the difference between data and information.
It is necessary to be able to put together things that mean, or are about, the same subject - regardless of their data type.
It is also necessary to be able to organise based on multiple meanings. So while a folder may be used for the primary meaning, the Finder includes colours, spotlight comments, etc which allow other meaningful groups to be created in parallel.
When you are working with information, these things are important.
AGREE. Macs should allow you to do what YOU want and how YOU want it.
OS X doesn't even let us put Apple's stupid apps where we want them. I moved QT Player and then updated 10.6.8 and it royally screwed the app up. I don't see a way to download QT Player X so I guess I'll have to apply combo 10.6.8 update to fix it. Ugh. All because I decided to put all my media player apps in a special folder "Players". Mac OS X is getting more and more dumbed down and restrictive.
This "dumbing down" meme is an anathema. Often I read about something "dumbing down" in some self aggrandizing post meant to substantiate the Power User status of the poster I presume.
However I think it's anything but dumbing down. The metamorphosis of the modern day personal computer is moving towards automating the mundane stuff so the user doesn't have to.
Many brilliant minds in history have had many quirky ways but the common denominator of many IMO was an ability to focus their brain power on areas that needed it and reduce to urge to micro manage everything. In fact Einstein said
"Never memorize something that you can look up"
If you know an app is in the applications folder and you're wasting time trying to create another layer of folder structure it's futile and a waste of your brain power. In essence it is YOU that may be dumbing down and failing to see the efficiency increase in simply trusting your tool.
This "dumbing down" meme is an anathema. Often I read about something "dumbing down" in some self aggrandizing post meant to substantiate the Power User status of the poster I presume.
However I think it's anything but dumbing down. The metamorphosis of the modern day personal computer is moving towards automating the mundane stuff so the user doesn't have to.
Many brilliant minds in history have had many quirky ways but the common denominator of many IMO was an ability to focus their brain power on areas that needed it and reduce to urge to micro manage everything. In fact Einstein said
"Never memorize something that you can look up"
If you know an app is in the applications folder and you're wasting time trying to create another layer of folder structure it's futile and a waste of your brain power. In essence it is YOU that may be dumbing down and failing to see the efficiency increase in simply trusting your tool.
Well said. Thank-you.
I think you particularly hit the nail on the head with the self-aggrandizing that goes with this line of thought-- it comes from the same place as the tiresome "real work" and how iOS can't do it meme that we keep hearing about, which I guess ultimately derives from the old "Macs are toys" canard of yore.
All of it hides behind the pretense that the critic is doing some kind of super awesome intense extra hard stuff that only the most powerful, sophisticated, customizable devices could possibly handle, possibly coding and hacking and air traffic control and aircraft carrier design, all simultaneously, on 8 monitors with a custom interface and a home automation controller to keep the neighbors at bay.
It will take some time before file system jockeys die out, until then anyone who has mastered some kind of arcane folder-fu will bristle and preen that making such manipulations transparent is like taking a hammer from their hands. In fact, I would say in general that the computer world is full of people who believe the means are the ends-- that endless dicking around with computer cruft is the "real work" that we all need to be doing. I will not miss them.
This "dumbing down" meme is an anathema. Often I read about something "dumbing down" in some self aggrandizing post meant to substantiate the Power User status of the poster I presume.
However I think it's anything but dumbing down. The metamorphosis of the modern day personal computer is moving towards automating the mundane stuff so the user doesn't have to.
Many brilliant minds in history have had many quirky ways but the common denominator of many IMO was an ability to focus their brain power on areas that needed it and reduce to urge to micro manage everything. In fact Einstein said
"Never memorize something that you can look up"
If you know an app is in the applications folder and you're wasting time trying to create another layer of folder structure it's futile and a waste of your brain power. In essence it is YOU that may be dumbing down and failing to see the efficiency increase in simply trusting your tool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Well said. Thank-you.
I think you particularly hit the nail on the head with the self-aggrandizing that goes with this line of thought-- it comes from the same place as the tiresome "real work" and how iOS can't do it meme that we keep hearing about, which I guess ultimately derives from the old "Macs are toys" canard of yore.
All of it hides behind the pretense that the critic is doing some kind of super awesome intense extra hard stuff that only the most powerful, sophisticated, customizable devices could possibly handle, possibly coding and hacking and air traffic control and aircraft carrier design, all simultaneously, on 8 monitors with a custom interface and a home automation controller to keep the neighbors at bay.
It will take some time before file system jockeys die out, until then anyone who has mastered some kind of arcane folder-fu will bristle and preen that making such manipulations transparent is like taking a hammer from their hands. In fact, I would say in general that the computer world is full of people who believe the means are the ends-- that endless dicking around with computer cruft is the "real work" that we all need to be doing. I will not miss them.
The parable of Slim and Jamie...
In 1960, I went to work as a (the) programmer for a subsidiary of a large aerospace company who was going to be one of the 1st installations of the new IBM 1401 computer (to replace their punched-card accounting machines).
The computer manager (data processing) reported to the Payroll department headed by Slim..
One of the first applications I programmed was computing the various amounts (Gross, withholding, deductions, Net...) for writing paychecks for several thousand employees,
Several of the mandated "withholding" deductions involved calculating a percent of gross pay up to a maximum limit of a certain amount per year.
So, I wrote the program to compute the percent deduction, add it to the year-to-date withheld, then if it would exceed the maximum limit -- reduce the deduction so it would just meet the maximum.
I worked hard on the app and proudly asked Slim to supply some test data so I could really shake down the program for bugs...
After, several weeks of testing, Slim said he had found something wrong -- nobody ever went over the maximum withholding limits.
Confused, I asked him to explain. Slim demonstrated how a percentage deduction applied to gross pay would take an employees deduction over the maximum limit for that deduction (there were several).
I asked what they did then? Slim said that after the payroll checks were printed, they would make another pass at thousands of weekly payroll records to see who had too much deducted and how much they needed to refund to each employee. Then, they would make another "special" tax refund payroll all the way through and cut "tax refund" paychecks for those affected.
I showed Slim how the computer program avoided this issue by adjusting the deduction so it would never go over the limit -- thus eliminating the need for the whole "tax refund" process.
Slim said you couldn't do it that way -- the "company" had been doing the "tax refund" process for 30 years and it was the only way to do it.
To no avail, I tried to convince Slim that the "new way" was common practice and better and cheaper -- it cost "the company" about $20 to process each paycheck.
I escalated as far up in the organization as I dared go, and lost. After walking around the airfield for 2 hours, I swallowed my ego and reluctantly changed the program...
A month or so later, I got my first "tax refund" check for 19 cents -- yes, "the company" paid $20 to print a check for 19 cents.
I put it in my wallet and forgot about it...
A few weeks went by and Slim approached me: The bank reconciliation showed that I had not cashed my 19 cent "tax refund" check.
I explained that it wasn't worth my time -- and that most local places charged a fee of 25 cents to cash a payroll check.
Slim insisted that I had to cash the check. I insisted that I didn't. Slim said that if I didn't he would cancel the check (from the bank's end) and write it off...
I told Slim when he did that, I would pay the 25 cent fee and cash the 19 cent paycheck at a popular local establishment...
=============================
Jamie was an assistant to the president of this same aerospace subsidiary -- and had convinced them to buy the computer in the first place.
Jamie, was frequently called upon for special duties and to solve unusual problems.
The company was a prime government contractor and we had slews of government auditors on site -- continuously auditing our books.
One of the "problems" Jamie was charged to solve:
Each month "the company" received telephone bills for several tens of thousands of dollars. The individual calls needed to be identified and apportioned/charged to the various government contracts (that were continuously audited).
The bills were analyzed, encoded, and keypunched into cards (most calls were apportioned to multiple contracts).
Jamie asked if I would write a computer program to report the calls and allocate/apportion them to the contracts -- it was currently being done manually.
Jamie explained what was needed, and I wrote the program! When Jamie got his first report he was ecstatic! Weeks of error-prone manual effort was done in less than an hour.
He checked out the computer report line-for-line against the manual report... He was happy -- everything balanced, but he was a little confused...
When apportioning a call to multiple contracts, the situation often arose where the cost of the call could not be evenly apportioned -- a $1.00 call / 7 contracts == $.1428 == $.14 per contract... $.14 x 7 == $.98 ~= $1.00.
I asked Jaimie how he handled it manually. He explained that they would carry the extra decimals for all calls and arbitrarily round up a certain contract's allocation to the next penny -- so the total of all call allocations == the total apportioned to all contracts.
He showed me how he did it manually... I told him the computer program was doing the same thing using a process called decimal accumulation... and showed him how it was less arbitrary than the manual method.
I don't like what Apple is doing. I'm sorry but I don't think I'll use Mountain Lion. My idea of "the future of computing" isn't iOS. I'm sorry but I believe I'm moving to Linux in a year or so.
I don't like what Apple is doing. I'm sorry but I don't think I'll use Mountain Lion. My idea of "the future of computing" isn't iOS. I'm sorry but I believe I'm moving to Linux in a year or so.
You're wrong. And two years after Apple makes the big change, Linux and Windows will copy what they've done and THEN what will you do? Kick yourself for being wrong? Or will you just come sliding back?
You're wrong. And two years after Apple makes the big change, Linux and Windows will copy what they've done and THEN what will you do? Kick yourself for being wrong? Or will you just come sliding back?
I don't know what Windows will do.
Regarding open-source OSs, you're wrong. Maybe Ubuntu will copy everything Apple does, but Linux is more than Ubuntu, and open-source is more than Linux. There're also the BSD variants, and more OSs. Most of them are UNIX-like, with tech users who don't want their UNIX machine to behave like iOS. So, no matter if some Linux flavor copies what Apple does, you'll always have a current OS behaving with a correct file I/O paradigm.
So, no matter if some Linux flavor copies what Apple does, you'll always have a current OS behaving with a correct file I/O paradigm.
I have no idea why you feel competent to comment on technical things if you incorrectly believe that OSX Lion handles file I/O incorrectly. Neither versions nor autosave changes basic i/o behavior.
Apps that want to implement versioning can take advantage of the new feature and it's all pretty much encapsulated in NSDocumentController and NSPersistentDocument if I remember right. The versioning/generation data is stored in a SQLite DB with pointers to the files. And developers can ignore the whole thing but really shouldn't with any document centric apps.
But you'd know that if you had a clue instead of spouting off that files are never closed in Lion.
But you'd know that if you had a clue instead of spouting off that files are never closed in Lion.
Ok, then I'm sure you'll be able to tell me how I disable Autosave and versions in all software that comes bundled with Mac OSX, as well as with iWork, and all Apple software.
I'm sure you'll also be able to tell me how I disable this (broken) file I/O behavior in Preview, so that I don't modify a file when I'm just viewing it.
Comments
Yeah, the computer could get you a great start on finding things. But you could never fully trust it. Think of the situation where you're looking for the best version of eight Word drafts of the same document. The words have been rearranged so the computer thinks they are almost alike. You, on the other hand, like one edition so you'd have to tag it "best" or "final" or give it five stars or whatever. You always need intervention. But I like having three layers of "finding": brute machine search, tags, and directory structure.
And to respond to an earlier comment, tags are more than just folders. I can apply numerous tags to one file; it's a waste to put multiple copies of a file in multiple folders.
And some people have taken an Aperture-like approach to all files; look at Leap.
Rob
FIlm editors have a similar requirement -- there are often multiple takes and edits of a similar shot.
FCP X has a easy and intuitive way of handling this...
The user can define sets of keyword (tags) and assign them to kb keys. If needed (you forgot) Cmd-k opens the keyword HUD showing the keywords and their kb equivalent.
The user can select and/or play a clip and assign one or more keywords -- for example: best, Martha, close up.
Then a smart collection is created for each individual keyword and the combination of keywords -- the clip is placed in each smart collection.
Later, you can select one or more additional clips and just drag them to whichever smart collections apply -- and FCPX will tag each clip with the appropriate keywords.
It really is nice and easy!
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...WgYwOrOzxdpzUw
http://fcp.co/final-cut-pro/tutorial...nal-cut-pro-x-
I disagree to some extent...
I haven't used FCP X but I am assuming that it doesn't make it's own tags? Therefore the only way you would be able to group clips of a certain person together would be if you typed that person's name in? When I hear people talk about AI I think they mean that they want for the computer to figure out a person's name and they hasn't worked too successfully (look at iPhoto's faces feature for proof on this.)
Anyone using a mac in a business, large or small, will have hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of documents created by key applications. Sorting documents by applications would be insanely dumb. What has traditionally made the Mac great from the very beginning, in addition to the ease of creating documents, was the ease and flexibility of organizing documents. Each mac user could organize their world just the way they wanted it. If Apple has forgotten this already, I'm looking into the options for reincarnation.
AGREE. Macs should allow you to do what YOU want and how YOU want it.
OS X doesn't even let us put Apple's stupid apps where we want them. I moved QT Player and then updated 10.6.8 and it royally screwed the app up. I don't see a way to download QT Player X so I guess I'll have to apply combo 10.6.8 update to fix it. Ugh. All because I decided to put all my media player apps in a special folder "Players". Mac OS X is getting more and more dumbed down and restrictive.
I haven't used FCP X but I am assuming that it doesn't make it's own tags? Therefore the only way you would be able to group clips of a certain person together would be if you typed that person's name in? When I hear people talk about AI I think they mean that they want for the computer to figure out a person's name and they hasn't worked too successfully (look at iPhoto's faces feature for proof on this.)
Yes... and no!
If you have organized your files into folders... Say pictures if John...
You can import these and create a smart collection of each nested folder.
Then, if you wanted, you could open the smart collection , select all the clips and add the keyword John.
You probably don't need to do this -- but you could.
One of the AI capabilities is the grouping by the number of people... Not face recognition... But I suspect that's coming down the line.
I have found that iPhoto does a pretty good job, not perfect -- but better than nothing.
With FCP X you usually are dealing with a few number of unique faces -- so I expect the face recognition would be a lot easier and more accurate.
For example, in a movie you usually have a few number of major actors that you care about -- and it normally involves medium or close up shots with just a few actors.
AGREE. Macs should allow you to do what YOU want and how YOU want it.
OS X doesn't even let us put Apple's stupid apps where we want them. I moved QT Player and then updated 10.6.8 and it royally screwed the app up. I don't see a way to download QT Player X so I guess I'll have to apply combo 10.6.8 update to fix it. Ugh. All because I decided to put all my media player apps in a special folder "Players". Mac OS X is getting more and more dumbed down and restrictive.
They do let you have control of where you place app as you clearly acknowledged with your moving of QT X. What you're complaining about is a bug in the installer that wasn't able to find the app in a different directory.
It is necessary to be able to put together things that mean, or are about, the same subject - regardless of their data type.
It is also necessary to be able to organise based on multiple meanings. So while a folder may be used for the primary meaning, the Finder includes colours, spotlight comments, etc which allow other meaningful groups to be created in parallel.
When you are working with information, these things are important.
AGREE. Macs should allow you to do what YOU want and how YOU want it.
OS X doesn't even let us put Apple's stupid apps where we want them. I moved QT Player and then updated 10.6.8 and it royally screwed the app up. I don't see a way to download QT Player X so I guess I'll have to apply combo 10.6.8 update to fix it. Ugh. All because I decided to put all my media player apps in a special folder "Players". Mac OS X is getting more and more dumbed down and restrictive.
This "dumbing down" meme is an anathema. Often I read about something "dumbing down" in some self aggrandizing post meant to substantiate the Power User status of the poster I presume.
However I think it's anything but dumbing down. The metamorphosis of the modern day personal computer is moving towards automating the mundane stuff so the user doesn't have to.
Many brilliant minds in history have had many quirky ways but the common denominator of many IMO was an ability to focus their brain power on areas that needed it and reduce to urge to micro manage everything. In fact Einstein said
"Never memorize something that you can look up"
If you know an app is in the applications folder and you're wasting time trying to create another layer of folder structure it's futile and a waste of your brain power. In essence it is YOU that may be dumbing down and failing to see the efficiency increase in simply trusting your tool.
This "dumbing down" meme is an anathema. Often I read about something "dumbing down" in some self aggrandizing post meant to substantiate the Power User status of the poster I presume.
However I think it's anything but dumbing down. The metamorphosis of the modern day personal computer is moving towards automating the mundane stuff so the user doesn't have to.
Many brilliant minds in history have had many quirky ways but the common denominator of many IMO was an ability to focus their brain power on areas that needed it and reduce to urge to micro manage everything. In fact Einstein said
"Never memorize something that you can look up"
If you know an app is in the applications folder and you're wasting time trying to create another layer of folder structure it's futile and a waste of your brain power. In essence it is YOU that may be dumbing down and failing to see the efficiency increase in simply trusting your tool.
Well said. Thank-you.
I think you particularly hit the nail on the head with the self-aggrandizing that goes with this line of thought-- it comes from the same place as the tiresome "real work" and how iOS can't do it meme that we keep hearing about, which I guess ultimately derives from the old "Macs are toys" canard of yore.
All of it hides behind the pretense that the critic is doing some kind of super awesome intense extra hard stuff that only the most powerful, sophisticated, customizable devices could possibly handle, possibly coding and hacking and air traffic control and aircraft carrier design, all simultaneously, on 8 monitors with a custom interface and a home automation controller to keep the neighbors at bay.
It will take some time before file system jockeys die out, until then anyone who has mastered some kind of arcane folder-fu will bristle and preen that making such manipulations transparent is like taking a hammer from their hands. In fact, I would say in general that the computer world is full of people who believe the means are the ends-- that endless dicking around with computer cruft is the "real work" that we all need to be doing. I will not miss them.
This "dumbing down" meme is an anathema. Often I read about something "dumbing down" in some self aggrandizing post meant to substantiate the Power User status of the poster I presume.
However I think it's anything but dumbing down. The metamorphosis of the modern day personal computer is moving towards automating the mundane stuff so the user doesn't have to.
Many brilliant minds in history have had many quirky ways but the common denominator of many IMO was an ability to focus their brain power on areas that needed it and reduce to urge to micro manage everything. In fact Einstein said
"Never memorize something that you can look up"
If you know an app is in the applications folder and you're wasting time trying to create another layer of folder structure it's futile and a waste of your brain power. In essence it is YOU that may be dumbing down and failing to see the efficiency increase in simply trusting your tool.
Well said. Thank-you.
I think you particularly hit the nail on the head with the self-aggrandizing that goes with this line of thought-- it comes from the same place as the tiresome "real work" and how iOS can't do it meme that we keep hearing about, which I guess ultimately derives from the old "Macs are toys" canard of yore.
All of it hides behind the pretense that the critic is doing some kind of super awesome intense extra hard stuff that only the most powerful, sophisticated, customizable devices could possibly handle, possibly coding and hacking and air traffic control and aircraft carrier design, all simultaneously, on 8 monitors with a custom interface and a home automation controller to keep the neighbors at bay.
It will take some time before file system jockeys die out, until then anyone who has mastered some kind of arcane folder-fu will bristle and preen that making such manipulations transparent is like taking a hammer from their hands. In fact, I would say in general that the computer world is full of people who believe the means are the ends-- that endless dicking around with computer cruft is the "real work" that we all need to be doing. I will not miss them.
The parable of Slim and Jamie...
In 1960, I went to work as a (the) programmer for a subsidiary of a large aerospace company who was going to be one of the 1st installations of the new IBM 1401 computer (to replace their punched-card accounting machines).
The computer manager (data processing) reported to the Payroll department headed by Slim..
One of the first applications I programmed was computing the various amounts (Gross, withholding, deductions, Net...) for writing paychecks for several thousand employees,
Several of the mandated "withholding" deductions involved calculating a percent of gross pay up to a maximum limit of a certain amount per year.
So, I wrote the program to compute the percent deduction, add it to the year-to-date withheld, then if it would exceed the maximum limit -- reduce the deduction so it would just meet the maximum.
I worked hard on the app and proudly asked Slim to supply some test data so I could really shake down the program for bugs...
After, several weeks of testing, Slim said he had found something wrong -- nobody ever went over the maximum withholding limits.
Confused, I asked him to explain. Slim demonstrated how a percentage deduction applied to gross pay would take an employees deduction over the maximum limit for that deduction (there were several).
I asked what they did then? Slim said that after the payroll checks were printed, they would make another pass at thousands of weekly payroll records to see who had too much deducted and how much they needed to refund to each employee. Then, they would make another "special" tax refund payroll all the way through and cut "tax refund" paychecks for those affected.
I showed Slim how the computer program avoided this issue by adjusting the deduction so it would never go over the limit -- thus eliminating the need for the whole "tax refund" process.
Slim said you couldn't do it that way -- the "company" had been doing the "tax refund" process for 30 years and it was the only way to do it.
To no avail, I tried to convince Slim that the "new way" was common practice and better and cheaper -- it cost "the company" about $20 to process each paycheck.
I escalated as far up in the organization as I dared go, and lost. After walking around the airfield for 2 hours, I swallowed my ego and reluctantly changed the program...
A month or so later, I got my first "tax refund" check for 19 cents -- yes, "the company" paid $20 to print a check for 19 cents.
I put it in my wallet and forgot about it...
A few weeks went by and Slim approached me: The bank reconciliation showed that I had not cashed my 19 cent "tax refund" check.
I explained that it wasn't worth my time -- and that most local places charged a fee of 25 cents to cash a payroll check.
Slim insisted that I had to cash the check. I insisted that I didn't. Slim said that if I didn't he would cancel the check (from the bank's end) and write it off...
I told Slim when he did that, I would pay the 25 cent fee and cash the 19 cent paycheck at a popular local establishment...
=============================
Jamie was an assistant to the president of this same aerospace subsidiary -- and had convinced them to buy the computer in the first place.
Jamie, was frequently called upon for special duties and to solve unusual problems.
The company was a prime government contractor and we had slews of government auditors on site -- continuously auditing our books.
One of the "problems" Jamie was charged to solve:
Each month "the company" received telephone bills for several tens of thousands of dollars. The individual calls needed to be identified and apportioned/charged to the various government contracts (that were continuously audited).
The bills were analyzed, encoded, and keypunched into cards (most calls were apportioned to multiple contracts).
Jamie asked if I would write a computer program to report the calls and allocate/apportion them to the contracts -- it was currently being done manually.
Jamie explained what was needed, and I wrote the program! When Jamie got his first report he was ecstatic! Weeks of error-prone manual effort was done in less than an hour.
He checked out the computer report line-for-line against the manual report... He was happy -- everything balanced, but he was a little confused...
When apportioning a call to multiple contracts, the situation often arose where the cost of the call could not be evenly apportioned -- a $1.00 call / 7 contracts == $.1428 == $.14 per contract... $.14 x 7 == $.98 ~= $1.00.
I asked Jaimie how he handled it manually. He explained that they would carry the extra decimals for all calls and arbitrarily round up a certain contract's allocation to the next penny -- so the total of all call allocations == the total apportioned to all contracts.
He showed me how he did it manually... I told him the computer program was doing the same thing using a process called decimal accumulation... and showed him how it was less arbitrary than the manual method.
Jamie said "cool!".
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"
-- Leonardo Da Vinci
I don't like what Apple is doing. I'm sorry but I don't think I'll use Mountain Lion. My idea of "the future of computing" isn't iOS. I'm sorry but I believe I'm moving to Linux in a year or so.
You're wrong. And two years after Apple makes the big change, Linux and Windows will copy what they've done and THEN what will you do? Kick yourself for being wrong? Or will you just come sliding back?
You're wrong. And two years after Apple makes the big change, Linux and Windows will copy what they've done and THEN what will you do? Kick yourself for being wrong? Or will you just come sliding back?
I don't know what Windows will do.
Regarding open-source OSs, you're wrong. Maybe Ubuntu will copy everything Apple does, but Linux is more than Ubuntu, and open-source is more than Linux. There're also the BSD variants, and more OSs. Most of them are UNIX-like, with tech users who don't want their UNIX machine to behave like iOS. So, no matter if some Linux flavor copies what Apple does, you'll always have a current OS behaving with a correct file I/O paradigm.
So, no matter if some Linux flavor copies what Apple does, you'll always have a current OS behaving with a correct file I/O paradigm.
I have no idea why you feel competent to comment on technical things if you incorrectly believe that OSX Lion handles file I/O incorrectly. Neither versions nor autosave changes basic i/o behavior.
Apps that want to implement versioning can take advantage of the new feature and it's all pretty much encapsulated in NSDocumentController and NSPersistentDocument if I remember right. The versioning/generation data is stored in a SQLite DB with pointers to the files. And developers can ignore the whole thing but really shouldn't with any document centric apps.
But you'd know that if you had a clue instead of spouting off that files are never closed in Lion.
But you'd know that if you had a clue instead of spouting off that files are never closed in Lion.
Ok, then I'm sure you'll be able to tell me how I disable Autosave and versions in all software that comes bundled with Mac OSX, as well as with iWork, and all Apple software.
I'm sure you'll also be able to tell me how I disable this (broken) file I/O behavior in Preview, so that I don't modify a file when I'm just viewing it.
this button looking too much helpful to read documents.
it will save lot of time.
great.
Lilash & Kodak Playsport HD