I've built my own boxes, run Windows from 3.1 to XP (skipping ME), run a couple of Linux installs and set up several for friends to revitalize their old hardware. For the past two years, I've been running a Mac Pro desktop and I couldn't be happier with the purchase. That's a gloss over my background.
You should see why there are a bunch of folks on/. that don't like Macs. You can't tinker with them at all. No replacing hardware, no tweaking software, nothing. Apple's way or the highway.
There are many ways to tweak a Mac environment. It's Unix, after all. If you're not afraid of the command line, and since we're taking the "this is/." line then you're not, there's OOODLES of ways to tweak the system. It's visually quite workable, and the OSX scripting and automation works spectacularly well. I actually found it to be much easier to substantially tweak than XP, although XP gave me more gewgaws and shiny things to futz with. One of the things I admire about OSX is how "finished" it is out of the box, while stll being open to an enthusiastic reworking of its software innards. There's a learning curve available for a tweaker, but a user can skip it if they just want to run the machine.
I gather that Linux is more tweakable, but it's my least familiar environment and I've actually been more able to get my environment the way I like it in OSX than anything else I've tried. I attribute that to my lack of Linux-fu and to my compatibility with OSX, but there's nothing in OSX that I've wanted to tweak but couldn't.
Apple gives significantly fewer options for the hardware geek, but that works for me as I have never loved doing that so much as I enjoy actually working with the computer. Typically, I would build a box and use it, and not modify it. And there again, the software I prefer is either not available for Windows (Logic), or the alternatives work better for me on my Mac anyway (Pro Tools). There's very little I would futz with in the box - when I'm ready to upgrade the graphics card, I want a new CPU and likely a new motherboard as well and I'm more likely to buy a whole new machine rather than boxes of parts.
For I/O, I actually prefer using Firewire devices the Mac's Firewire device approach to the PC add/replace a card approach and I don't find myself at all limited that way. Yer mileage will vary - obviously. And so it should.
So I'm sure people here can understand why 'normal' users may like macs but to us, they're garbage.
Easily understood. These discussions get their share of fanboi bitching, but typically a/. thread will have more useful back and forth than, say, Engadget
Everybody spins, and Apple certainly isn't flawless. But they're not useless either, and an informed user can find a Mac of substantial value if they understand their hardware and software needs, and the meaning of all the options. For me, a quad-core Xeon machine had significant value and there wasn't an equivalent PC at the time. I spent the same as the wife spend on her Dell and got more power. But we both spent more than I would typically suggest people spend on a computer. At the same time, we both had great use for a high end computer, and the value of each purchase will amortize well, as each box will last us for years before being unable to run software that will be current then. Not the solution for everyone, but my Mac was the ideal solution for me.
Also, Sleepless In Seattle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frUPnZMxr08 - Shining is still my favourite. It's the first recut trailer I saw, and it seems so very genuine.
Funny doesn't conflict with informative or interesting. In fact, I'm more likely to find informative, interesting, or insightful things funny. Or sometimes, a really athletic prat fall.
"Laughter has a deep philosophical meaning, it is one of the essential forms of the truth concerning the world as a whole, concerning history and man; it is a peculiar point of view relative to the world; the world is seen anew, no less (and perhaps more) profoundly than when seen from the serious standpoint. Therefore, laughter is just as admissible in great literature, posing universal problems, as seriousness. Certain essential aspects of the world are accessible only to laughter" -- Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World
But yes indeed, the comment you point out was more than a mere "funneh", and made a true and relevant point - also, I thought it was funny.
We put a cheapish computer together just to hook up to the television, so we're doing both - sitting in front of the computer AND turning on the television. My sister and her husband are nearly technophobes, but with two kids running their schedule they've asked me to help them set up the same way. I can certainly see HD over the web taking off, although with the bandwidth issues you point out it's not going to kill off scheduled broadcast for a while.
The article, and the study it refers to both point out that while interesting, there is nothing conclusive (yet). From the study:
However, there is clearly a need for additional studies to investigate how task difficulty and the size of the table/form influence the effect of zebra striping.
For the time being, the decision about whether to use zebra striping probably comes down to a subjective assessment of likely gains versus the cost of implementation.
And I thought this comment from the article was particularly interesting:
Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, a number of participants in the study spontaneously reported using their finger, on or over the computer screen, to follow down columns and across rows. Other participants used their mouse to highlight rows of interest. These people were, in effect, creating their own "temporary" zebra striping. So we may be reducing the burden on our users if we do the zebra striping for them.
I don't think bias or incompetence were demonstrated by the article or the study. But I think the tables used for the study were too simple to demonstrate much result in any event. Formulate is doing a follow up to the study, which you can particpate with at http://surveys.formulate.com.au/dtfu/, but having done it I don't expect that the results will be any more conclusive. The tables are not significantly detailed or complex. However, although my speed was fairly consistent, I was aware that the zebra stripes felt easiest to use, and subjective sense is in my view and important consideration for good design.
Agreed - this would be more appealing if it worked as a pre-order for an MMO. Put a few bucks down for a reserved copy of the game, get a bonus item (or in this case, time to goof around with the creature editor) when the game launches, and have the pre-order price come off what I pay the day the game launches.
Besides, it's a great way to lock someone into the game when it launches. Five or ten bucks is nothing for you (the amorphous, typical hominid "you") to put down for a game, but when the game launches you're gonna hate to have wasted that money and you'll pony up for the rest of the game.
It's meta-insightful! By it's example and success, it demonstrates insight into how the mod system works or doesn't work. It delves into the multiple layers and, as you mentioned, paradoxes of a self-monitoring society. It's neo-Dickensian/Hitchockian, with a po-mo Dadaist application.
I'd have most of this funny (and parent off-topic, but only for sport) if i had points. I hope I get meta-meta-mod points.
Any argument that tries to define what is or is not ethical presumes that ethics are a universally true set, but the case for that has not been made. That I'm sticking this reply under your post and not any one of a dozen more is only because that's when the notion popped into my head - your presumption of universal ethics is indistinct from everyone else's (see below... see above...).
Production, distribution, economics and politics are all bound together - we distribute to our political allies, we lack the resources to grow or share enough food, etc. etc. And I'm not pretending to understand the issues, all I'm certain of is the complexity and that I find it difficult to face up to it, while feeling compelled to by my sense that it's necessary for as many of us as possible to be aware of what's happening. Not despite that we don't all agree, but because we don't.
csnydermvpsoft wrote, "The Internet is becoming much too important to leave a significant amount of the population (pardon the pun) in the dark. We have the technology to help the blind navigate web sites independently. Unfortunately, CAPTCHAs are hindering much of that progress."
No, spammers are. The root problem of this "solution" is the spammers, who do not care our personal feelings of privacy. They don't care that their messages cause everyone else's costs to rise.
You're absolutely right that spammers are the root of the problem. But CAPTCHAs are the hinderance - they're designed to be a hindrance to spambots! Unfortunately, in a "baby with the bath water" way, some CAPTCHAs also hinder legitimate users who would otherwise be able to use the website (colour blind), as well as making it harder to enable a site for a special needs user (blind).
One of the great things about web technology is that it includes people who are already at a disadvantage to integrate with the rest of society, people who otherwise have valuable contributions they can make. It's important to not blame CAPTCHA for the problem, but it's also important to take precautions that CAPTCHA technologies be adopted that avoid contributing to a greater problem. How much effort should be given to that would be balanced by site content of course - image based CAPTCHAs for a photography site seems perfectly reasonable (but some great photographs have been taken by colour blind people).
It's not necessarily simple, but I think it's important that solutions move us forward and not merely transplant our current issues into new contexts. It's inappropriate that the blind don't drive, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to access information if the means exist or can be devised. And since the access and means already do exist, I think it significant to remember that CAPTCHA, while a useful solution to a genuine problem, can have negative repercussions.
For this reason, I think the penalties for convicted spammers should be far higher than what they are now. Their actions are subverting the ease of use for a very large group of people.
I assume you're absolutely correct on the economics. But I'm very uncertain that enough people are smart enough for 3D.
The hardest part about driving a car isn't operating the vehicle - it's avoiding all the yabbos on road who aren't paying attention. On an open, unoccupied road or a gentle off-road, driving is dead simple.
To steal a line from No Exit, "Driving is other people". But at least in 2D, I can track them all. In 3D, it's going to be a lot harder to monitor drivers where I can see 50 to 100 vehicles at a time. Which is not a lot of cars in my view on an 8 lane highway! The third dimension is going to exponentially add to the variables that other drivers can introduce into my drive.
Assuming that all the people that I can see on a multi-lane divided highway are in the air, all of them of course to different destinations. They're going to want to travel as the crow flies. Isn't that the significant advantage of flying? That means that instead of being protected from half of my fellow travellers and being parallel to the other half, I'm avoiding vectors from all directions.
3D adds significant complexity, and I've seen and met drivers who are clearly too unaware and stupid to drive well. I shudder to think of them all in the air. And although I haven't met many pilots, I haven't met many who are morons - I'm not surprised that they find it easier to drive than a car. I believe that point, too (on your authority), but I don't think it's the operation of the vehicle but maneuvering it among other drivers that is the challenge in either case. You can't take the sky from me, but for now, at least, it's fairly empty up there.
I assume you're absolutely correct on the economics. But I'm very uncertain that enough people are smart enough for 3D.
The hardest part about driving a car isn't operating the vehicle - it's avoiding all the yabbos on road who aren't paying attention. On an open, unoccupied road or a gentle off-road, driving is dead simple.
To steal a line from No Exit, "Driving is other people". But at least in 2D, I can track them all. In 3D, it's going to be a lot harder to monitor drivers where I can see 50 to 100 vehicles at a time. Which is not a lot of cars in my view on an 8 lane highway! The third dimension is going to exponentially add to the variables that other drivers can introduce into my drive.
Assuming that all the people that I can see on a multi-lane divided highway are in the air, all of them of course to different destinations. They're going to want to travel as the crow flies. Isn't that the significant advantage of flying? That means that instead of being protected from half of my fellow travellers and being parallel to the other half, I'm avoiding vectors from all directions.
There may be currently possible or technically imaginable solutions, but I very much believe that "people are too dumb for 3D". Not all people, and not inherently, but enough of them and by their willingness to be (or unwillingness to learn better). I think there are people to dumb for shoes! 3D adds significant complexity, and I've seen and met drivers who are clearly too unaware and stupid to drive well. I shudder to think of them all in the air. And although I haven't met many pilots, I haven't met many who are morons - I'm not surprised that they find it easier to drive than a car. I believe that point, too (on your authority), but I don't think it's the operation of the vehicle but maneuvering it among other drivers that is the challenge in either case. You can't take the sky from me, but for now, at least, it's fairly empty up there.
But what happens to games today when they're cancelled? I read about games being put on "indefinite hiatus", or just being cancelled with the company essentially throwing their hands up in the air and saying "ain't gonna happen." What becomes of all that code? Since it just sits on the developer's machines, does it just get wiped when they start on a new project?
Slashdot Mirror
Flamebait? This is Funnybait!!
I've built my own boxes, run Windows from 3.1 to XP (skipping ME), run a couple of Linux installs and set up several for friends to revitalize their old hardware. For the past two years, I've been running a Mac Pro desktop and I couldn't be happier with the purchase. That's a gloss over my background.
You should see why there are a bunch of folks onThere are many ways to tweak a Mac environment. It's Unix, after all. If you're not afraid of the command line, and since we're taking the "this is /." line then you're not, there's OOODLES of ways to tweak the system. It's visually quite workable, and the OSX scripting and automation works spectacularly well. I actually found it to be much easier to substantially tweak than XP, although XP gave me more gewgaws and shiny things to futz with. One of the things I admire about OSX is how "finished" it is out of the box, while stll being open to an enthusiastic reworking of its software innards. There's a learning curve available for a tweaker, but a user can skip it if they just want to run the machine.
I gather that Linux is more tweakable, but it's my least familiar environment and I've actually been more able to get my environment the way I like it in OSX than anything else I've tried. I attribute that to my lack of Linux-fu and to my compatibility with OSX, but there's nothing in OSX that I've wanted to tweak but couldn't.
Apple gives significantly fewer options for the hardware geek, but that works for me as I have never loved doing that so much as I enjoy actually working with the computer. Typically, I would build a box and use it, and not modify it. And there again, the software I prefer is either not available for Windows (Logic), or the alternatives work better for me on my Mac anyway (Pro Tools). There's very little I would futz with in the box - when I'm ready to upgrade the graphics card, I want a new CPU and likely a new motherboard as well and I'm more likely to buy a whole new machine rather than boxes of parts.
For I/O, I actually prefer using Firewire devices the Mac's Firewire device approach to the PC add/replace a card approach and I don't find myself at all limited that way. Yer mileage will vary - obviously. And so it should.
So I'm sure people here can understand why 'normal' users may like macs but to us, they're garbage.Easily understood. These discussions get their share of fanboi bitching, but typically a /. thread will have more useful back and forth than, say, Engadget
Everybody spins, and Apple certainly isn't flawless. But they're not useless either, and an informed user can find a Mac of substantial value if they understand their hardware and software needs, and the meaning of all the options. For me, a quad-core Xeon machine had significant value and there wasn't an equivalent PC at the time. I spent the same as the wife spend on her Dell and got more power. But we both spent more than I would typically suggest people spend on a computer. At the same time, we both had great use for a high end computer, and the value of each purchase will amortize well, as each box will last us for years before being unable to run software that will be current then. Not the solution for everyone, but my Mac was the ideal solution for me.
Also, Sleepless In Seattle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frUPnZMxr08 - Shining is still my favourite. It's the first recut trailer I saw, and it seems so very genuine.
Funny doesn't conflict with informative or interesting. In fact, I'm more likely to find informative, interesting, or insightful things funny. Or sometimes, a really athletic prat fall.
"Laughter has a deep philosophical meaning, it is one of the essential forms of the truth concerning the world as a whole, concerning history and man; it is a peculiar point of view relative to the world; the world is seen anew, no less (and perhaps more) profoundly than when seen from the serious standpoint. Therefore, laughter is just as admissible in great literature, posing universal problems, as seriousness. Certain essential aspects of the world are accessible only to laughter" -- Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World
But yes indeed, the comment you point out was more than a mere "funneh", and made a true and relevant point - also, I thought it was funny.
That's how I red it.
You've got a point.
Fortunately, the light saber is form only, and not function.
We put a cheapish computer together just to hook up to the television, so we're doing both - sitting in front of the computer AND turning on the television. My sister and her husband are nearly technophobes, but with two kids running their schedule they've asked me to help them set up the same way. I can certainly see HD over the web taking off, although with the bandwidth issues you point out it's not going to kill off scheduled broadcast for a while.
If all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.
Until some philosopher proves that black is white.
The article, and the study it refers to both point out that while interesting, there is nothing conclusive (yet). From the study:
And I thought this comment from the article was particularly interesting:
I don't think bias or incompetence were demonstrated by the article or the study. But I think the tables used for the study were too simple to demonstrate much result in any event. Formulate is doing a follow up to the study, which you can particpate with at http://surveys.formulate.com.au/dtfu/, but having done it I don't expect that the results will be any more conclusive. The tables are not significantly detailed or complex. However, although my speed was fairly consistent, I was aware that the zebra stripes felt easiest to use, and subjective sense is in my view and important consideration for good design.
He is among peers...
Agreed - this would be more appealing if it worked as a pre-order for an MMO. Put a few bucks down for a reserved copy of the game, get a bonus item (or in this case, time to goof around with the creature editor) when the game launches, and have the pre-order price come off what I pay the day the game launches.
Besides, it's a great way to lock someone into the game when it launches. Five or ten bucks is nothing for you (the amorphous, typical hominid "you") to put down for a game, but when the game launches you're gonna hate to have wasted that money and you'll pony up for the rest of the game.
Demo critter creator for me.
It's meta-insightful! By it's example and success, it demonstrates insight into how the mod system works or doesn't work. It delves into the multiple layers and, as you mentioned, paradoxes of a self-monitoring society. It's neo-Dickensian/Hitchockian, with a po-mo Dadaist application.
I'd have most of this funny (and parent off-topic, but only for sport) if i had points. I hope I get meta-meta-mod points.
Inflation.
Maybe if you're Jack Thompson. I mean, insofar as he can discern "realism" from "gobbledygook".
Any argument that tries to define what is or is not ethical presumes that ethics are a universally true set, but the case for that has not been made. That I'm sticking this reply under your post and not any one of a dozen more is only because that's when the notion popped into my head - your presumption of universal ethics is indistinct from everyone else's (see below ... see above ...).
With enough wine in her, the wife draws the curtains over the windows and reaches for the trojans.
d) All of the above.
Production, distribution, economics and politics are all bound together - we distribute to our political allies, we lack the resources to grow or share enough food, etc. etc. And I'm not pretending to understand the issues, all I'm certain of is the complexity and that I find it difficult to face up to it, while feeling compelled to by my sense that it's necessary for as many of us as possible to be aware of what's happening. Not despite that we don't all agree, but because we don't.
You're absolutely right that spammers are the root of the problem. But CAPTCHAs are the hinderance - they're designed to be a hindrance to spambots! Unfortunately, in a "baby with the bath water" way, some CAPTCHAs also hinder legitimate users who would otherwise be able to use the website (colour blind), as well as making it harder to enable a site for a special needs user (blind).
One of the great things about web technology is that it includes people who are already at a disadvantage to integrate with the rest of society, people who otherwise have valuable contributions they can make. It's important to not blame CAPTCHA for the problem, but it's also important to take precautions that CAPTCHA technologies be adopted that avoid contributing to a greater problem. How much effort should be given to that would be balanced by site content of course - image based CAPTCHAs for a photography site seems perfectly reasonable (but some great photographs have been taken by colour blind people).
It's not necessarily simple, but I think it's important that solutions move us forward and not merely transplant our current issues into new contexts. It's inappropriate that the blind don't drive, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to access information if the means exist or can be devised. And since the access and means already do exist, I think it significant to remember that CAPTCHA, while a useful solution to a genuine problem, can have negative repercussions .
For this reason, I think the penalties for convicted spammers should be far higher than what they are now. Their actions are subverting the ease of use for a very large group of people.I agree with tremendous enthusiasm.
I assume you're absolutely correct on the economics. But I'm very uncertain that enough people are smart enough for 3D.
The hardest part about driving a car isn't operating the vehicle - it's avoiding all the yabbos on road who aren't paying attention. On an open, unoccupied road or a gentle off-road, driving is dead simple.
To steal a line from No Exit, "Driving is other people". But at least in 2D, I can track them all. In 3D, it's going to be a lot harder to monitor drivers where I can see 50 to 100 vehicles at a time. Which is not a lot of cars in my view on an 8 lane highway! The third dimension is going to exponentially add to the variables that other drivers can introduce into my drive.
Assuming that all the people that I can see on a multi-lane divided highway are in the air, all of them of course to different destinations. They're going to want to travel as the crow flies. Isn't that the significant advantage of flying? That means that instead of being protected from half of my fellow travellers and being parallel to the other half, I'm avoiding vectors from all directions.
3D adds significant complexity, and I've seen and met drivers who are clearly too unaware and stupid to drive well. I shudder to think of them all in the air. And although I haven't met many pilots, I haven't met many who are morons - I'm not surprised that they find it easier to drive than a car. I believe that point, too (on your authority), but I don't think it's the operation of the vehicle but maneuvering it among other drivers that is the challenge in either case. You can't take the sky from me, but for now, at least, it's fairly empty up there.
A wizard did it.
I assume you're absolutely correct on the economics. But I'm very uncertain that enough people are smart enough for 3D.
The hardest part about driving a car isn't operating the vehicle - it's avoiding all the yabbos on road who aren't paying attention. On an open, unoccupied road or a gentle off-road, driving is dead simple.
To steal a line from No Exit, "Driving is other people". But at least in 2D, I can track them all. In 3D, it's going to be a lot harder to monitor drivers where I can see 50 to 100 vehicles at a time. Which is not a lot of cars in my view on an 8 lane highway! The third dimension is going to exponentially add to the variables that other drivers can introduce into my drive.
Assuming that all the people that I can see on a multi-lane divided highway are in the air, all of them of course to different destinations. They're going to want to travel as the crow flies. Isn't that the significant advantage of flying? That means that instead of being protected from half of my fellow travellers and being parallel to the other half, I'm avoiding vectors from all directions.
There may be currently possible or technically imaginable solutions, but I very much believe that "people are too dumb for 3D". Not all people, and not inherently, but enough of them and by their willingness to be (or unwillingness to learn better). I think there are people to dumb for shoes! 3D adds significant complexity, and I've seen and met drivers who are clearly too unaware and stupid to drive well. I shudder to think of them all in the air. And although I haven't met many pilots, I haven't met many who are morons - I'm not surprised that they find it easier to drive than a car. I believe that point, too (on your authority), but I don't think it's the operation of the vehicle but maneuvering it among other drivers that is the challenge in either case. You can't take the sky from me, but for now, at least, it's fairly empty up there.
"The Escapist" is running a few articles on that theme:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_146/4814-Cyberpunked-the-Fall-of-Black9
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_146/4817-Inside-David-Jaffe-s-Heartland
Also, somebody got their hands on an old Infocom drive: http://waxy.org/2008/04/milliways_infocoms_unreleased_sequel_to_hitchhikers_guide_to_the_galax
(The follow-up comments also tell a helluva tale.)