Re: A cunning plan
Not Baldrick. This is Yes Minister Series 1, Episode 1: "Getting rid of the difficult bit in the title".
Sir Humphrey lives!
42407 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE WIN95-WIN2K DESIGN LANGUAGE?"
Nowt!
And, contrary to what Rupert says Linux desktops (always excepting Gnome) have remained pretty consistent - differences between the various DEs but on the whole they seem to roll on from one iteration to the next. The one thing that I lack from KDE3 is the ability to specify a corner rather than an edge to unhide the panel (is that tool-bar in Wondows parlance? The thing across the bottom with icons on it.).
Given the right collection of artwork for buttons, colours etc. a KDE desktop can look very much like something from the W95/NT/W2K era. In fact that's just what mine looks like except the desktop icons & fonts look a bit better then the W2K that lurks in a VB. That and multiple workspaces.
The theory behind splitting the interface from the implementation was that the interface could remain stable while the implementation could be changed for improvement. This releives consumers of the interface from having to change to keep up with the mplementation. Microsoft seem to have turned that on its head: the interface is changed for dis-improvement whilst the implementation doesn't necessarily change that much (or so we are reassured from time to time).
Maybe you never used CDE - a block of several in the middle of the bottom of the screen. That gave us the "Which menu is it on" problem. A good set of cascading menus in one place is a better solution. I've always assumed it was a inspired by a desire to simplify the CDE UI.
But then with a WIMP interface you have other alternatives. You can have application links on the desktop. And you can automate the choice of application according to the file to be opened and have file icons on the desktop. There's two additional approaches. You can have most frequently used applications as buttons on tool bars. So the premise - everything si squished into one button - is false and it's not intrinsically a bad idea any way. And there's no sign of it being patented - the KDE desktop in front of me also has a single button in the bottom left although arguably it's better implemented.
Maybe it's just a touch of "Not Invented Here" where "Here" is the latest lot of crayon wielders.
I'm not sure if the typography of the KDE menu would suit this particular critic but it just works and what's more, just works the way I want it because I can edit the options as I want them. Just works is the first thing that should be expected of any UI gadget.
One quote from TMMM is particularly relevant here: “The programmer, like the poet, works only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff. He builds his castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the imagination.”
Many of the professions quoted previously are rooted in basic laws of physics. Biology*, the root of medicine and pharmacy, is slightly less well tied down (we're usually pleased to get 2 sigma) but still based on the physical world. The difference between these and software is real.
* A long time ago there were threats to make the practice of various sciences dependent on membership of the relevant chartered institutions so I took the pre-emptive step of joining mine. If its regular publication was any guide it seemed to be largely populated by biology teachers and the best bit of said publication was the regular page of exam howlers.
The application used both the fixed and removable disks. The problem was then to back up both of these whilst only having the removable drive. The only backup route is fixed to removable.
So first remove the working removable and replace with a blank disk to back up the fixed. Half the job done.
Now how do we back up the working removable? Because it can only be backed up from the fixed disk it has to be downloaded to that first, then backed up to a second blank disk.
We now have the fixed disk occupied by the copy of the working removable so that has to be overwritten by the backup taken at the first stage.
All understandable when you think about it. It's also easy to understand how it can go wrong if you're not thinking too carefully about it.
There is the opposite phenomenon - appearance of teaspoons dissimilar to those already present. I think quantum tunnelling is responsible.
Then there's the mystery of disappearing socks although it has been claimed that socks are the larval form of coat-hangers.
My first car was an Anglia so I never thought a Ford gearbox was in any way mysterious. One day we were helping out with a student field trip to a site which my wife was investigating. We rolled up on site with the equipment, possibly in my car, more likely in the Botany Dept Mini. No sign of the lecturer with the hired Transit-based mini-bus full of students. When he finally arrived it turned out he'd missed a turn-off, Never having driven a Ford (his car was a Hillman Imp) he couldn't find reverse and ended up driving miles to find his way back without reversing.
I love the "Crkrkrkrk" when you pull it up that leaves you feeling secure that it's not going anywhere.
Press the button to release the ratchet, pull it up silently so the teeth are not wearing with the "Crkrkrkrk". Then release the button. That way that you increase the probability that it's not going anywhere.
This nonsense cost Subaru at least one sale.
I'd had two second hand and was in the market for new one when I discovered that they'd adopted this. I looked into "what happens if the handbrake jams?". It turns out that some sealed cover has to be removed and some tool used to release it with some inordinate number of turns. Because the sealed unit has now been unsealed it has to be replaced at some similarly inordinate cost. And how do I do hill starts? It seem that this is to automate hill starts. Including riding motorbikes I've been doing hill starts for the last 60 years or more and given that there are a lot of hills round here and everywhere else I've lived, I think I've got the hang of it.
The premise of archaeological dating is that you can put objects into sequence, estimate dates for the sequence and then apply those dates to other, similar objects. It all depends on (a) getting the sequence right and (b) getting the dates right. No problem, the dates for new objects fall into the right places and confirm the system.
Such circular reasoning fell apart many times when C14 arrived. For instance rustic Western European passage graves must be derived from the magnificent Egyptian pyramids so add on a few years to allow for the idea to be spread and you get more recent dates for the passage graves. Oops, the passage graves turned out to be older.
The premise of this DNA technique is that you can put mutations into sequence, estimate rates of mutation and get dates out of them. The dates will confirm each other brilliantly. Can anyone spot the similarity?
The advantage of C14 is that it depends on a measurable quantity, the half life of the isotope*. Just like the traditional archaeological dating systems this DNA dating depends on assumptions. Like many other fields of archaeological research DNA's value will come from combining it with a better dating technique such as C14, much as C14 itself was improved by applying the better technique of dendrochronology.
* It does, in fact, depend on a couple of assumptions: freedom from contamination and the constancy of C14 concentrations in the atmosphere. The first is a problem which DNA shares, of course. The solution is clean up techniques to get as close as possible to the component of the sample which is meaningful. It was something we were looking at when I was working in C14 dating half a century ago and something which exercises my successors in forensic science to this day in regard to DNA. The second is calibration against tree ring sequences which reminds me that dendrochronology is another dating technique which has come into its own since Libby invented carbon dating over 70 years ago.
I should have added the explanation as to why Latin terms were used. In medieval times written records were usually in Latin. The original transactions in court would have been conducted in English but they were written up in Latin so naturally the words used for money, even in abbreviation, were Latin.
"The country used £s, shillings, and pence well before the Victorian era, and only started the £sd nonsense during the Victorian Imperial era."
At the first surviving court recorded in the Wakefield manorial court rolls - 16 Oct 1274 - the second entry records half a dozen local worthies paying lxxiijjs. iiijd. for the farm of Soureby mill for a year. That's a while before Victoria.
The only reason it's as late as the second record entry is that the first, for Rastrick mill, was given in marks.