The issue that both of your viewpoints sadly don't touch on is that a lot of driving that's being done just isn't for fun. I'm from the Netherlands - commuting isn't fun at all here, and there are daily traffic congestions - 4% of the roads are congested, totalling to 200km. Driving trucks isn't fun (competition is murderous - several East-European people are willing to drive for lower wages and have a buddy system eliminating sleep/stop times. Alright, that's market forces and European unity at work, but it doesn't make the existing drivers a lot happier.)
So yeah, you want driving for fun, no problem. A good solution wouldn't blanket the entire road network but would only overtake at certain points.
Having said that, being able to enjoy the view complete instead of having some asshole trying to cut of you off would be even better;).
No matter what prep school Forrest Gump may have gone to, he wouldn't exactly make a great quantum physicist.
Life is like a box of chocolates. Or cookies. But you won't know before you've opened it. You can tell which people have picked one, but you don't know how long it'll take for the box to go empty, or you know that the box is empty, but not who picked them.
I don't know, works pretty well for the basic principles.
I'm not sure where you got your idea, because the person you're quoting is right. We have a platonic ideal of subdivisions in time and subdivisions in frequency where of course the actual analog instruments we play deviate from, and we step through our well-tempered 12-tone system using mathematics. Coltrane's "Giant Steps"? That's maths for you, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltrane_changes . Bach? The genius of the man lies exactly in his ability to shape and recognize patterns.
Of course, an analysis misses the smoky bar and the husky voice of the buxom blonde, but that's the difference between theory and practice for you. Still, it boils down to mathematics, and denying that because maths gives you icky ideas about cold, unfeeling science is missing the point.
How do you plot this matrix of potential vibrati, infinite in two axes, in a mathematical simulation? A computer can plot a function through this space. A musician can traverse it at will.
Simple; you just need the two axes. All this infinite resolution talk ignores the fact that your resolution isn't infinite; it's only as good as your ears and memory are.
It pales in comparison with an XBOX 360 or PS3, though.
I'd love to get a Wii if only for the virtual console, but I'm probably served better for that by putting a few hacks on an XBOX classic.
Jobs doesn't have to make pledges; they just have to figure out how to convert the radiation of his reality distortion field to energy, and to use the pressure of the smugness from his customers to power iPods.
Ballmer is currently busy with research to tap heat from system administrator's heads when updating, and he's already made great strides to put the kinetic energy of chairs in something useful.
A better solution is a Moravec transfer which works somewhat like the philosophical question already posed in ancient Greece - if a ship has a part of it replaced, and this gradually happens with every single part of the ship, is the ship at the end still the same one that left the harbour when it was new?
You take someone's brain. You then disable a neuron, but at the moment you disable it, an artificial neuron starts acting just like the old one. The rest of the brain sees no difference (if you're lucky) and you repeat this action for every neuron until the brain is completely artificial. There, painless transfer of the mind while staying alive. It's just not quick (or possible), and you can't reuse the organic brain.
A more interesting matter would be to just scan the brain at an incredibly high resolution and then build a simulation off that. You'd get an artificial clone - but a very interesting one, because it would be able to think faster than realtime (given enough computer power).
The key here is clearly to keep the clone sedated, and do a nightly robocopy or rsync to keep it updated. Also, the clone should be stored offsite, probably in a fireproof vault.
You insensitive clod! I have no mouth and I must scream!
Computers think like submarines swim. Our "feelings" are based on millions of years of evolutionary history; the fact that robots don't carry that baggage is a desirable thing for now, but don't rule it out; after all, they're faster in building and training new generations.
Also, it'll still give us something to lord over 'm in immensely cheesy Hollywood productions.
It's easier to upload our minds into something that doesn't require all those pesky things like oxygen and all that. To create a bubble in a hostile environment just to get the least important parts of us there - the waterbags - that's a waste. We want our brains and senses there because those of the machines are too limited and too hampered by time and signal quality problems.
Yes it is, actually. You can choose from a list of file extensions in the Save As menu from JPG to PNG to GIF to BMP to whatever obscure format. You just can't adjust any settings.
The rule is simple: if there's two choices that are simply binary (yes, no), use a single checkbox. If these choices are unrelated but exclusive, use two radiobuttons. If there are more than two choices, use a list of checkboxes, or, if they have to exclude eachother, a dropdownlist (for a lot of options) or a list of radiobuttons. Whenever the number of choices reaches a certain size, it's better to rethink the interface and reorder.
Saving for web is specifically a tweaker's menu; not so much a save as, but a detailed settings panel. Compare "Print" and "Print settings" where the latter still provides the "Print" button.
Providing multiple interface choices? No, not a great idea. You'll render any tutorial useless because people have to switch around between Classic and Modern. Furthermore, I am not looking forward to editing grid, snap and unit settings in some.conf file;)
The interface for photoshop has devolved to the point that when they bring out a new version, You NEED to buy the help book. Hell, I do! Things just are so far from being intuitivly obivious, and the guys doing UI design, they used to be good. The early versions from 1.0.7 to 5.5.1 were all fine, but 5.5.1 started to get a bit messy.
IMHO it started to get messy when they finally found out that their good old blurs and 4.0 Gallery Effects (surely you recall;) ) weren't doing the job anymore compared to Alienskin Eyecandy (which became mostly useless thanks to layer effects) and Kai's Power Tools (which had a quite amazing blur).
Enter the new plugin dialogs, supersized and put in different menus. All the old plugins still had this small preview window because a poor 486 with 8mb would spend half a minute applying the entire effect in realtime on the whole image. This is no longer the case.
So many things could have been made easier, and now a simpler UI is a feature? Sucks Less? Suck how much less? Why did tney screw it up in the first place? FEATURE BLOAT, just like Microsoft word.
Word actually has feature bloat because you're still dealing with text. Photoshop hasn't really, but it's got a different problem; that of giving a taste of the other products. Opening PDF files or vector files? No problem. But then you'd want to draw simple vector shapes, and you're not sure yet about buying Illustrator. Ideally Illustrator'd handle vectors, some kind of 3D program would do 3D objects, and Photoshop would do the pixels. Because every app tries to offer a taste of the other products, things get bloated.
The biggest power is that I can copy from Illustrator to Photoshop and have a tight integration; no conversion, no save-as-open-as and direct linking. The only thing missing here is doing the same with 3D objects; apply a mask in Photoshop on a Smart 3D object to make it fade out - background is automatically alpha'd - double-click it, re-render under a different camera angle and let an OpenGL/D3D preview fill in while 2 other cores are chugging on the radiosity.
You want to see simple? Look at Coyote Linux. Simple, small does its job well. a 4k web server!
But it's only a webserver. Similarly, vim is simple and small and does the job well, but it's not an IDE in the Visual Studio style.
Adobe get a CLUE! But the only way they make money is to redecorate the feature list...exactly how car companies sell new cars with diffrent tail lights. every year... diffrent tail lights.
It's easier to re-release and bloat than to venture into a new product market. Lowest risks, highest returns.
The idea of the rescaling toolbar in the Gimp is nice; I want my gradients and fills split over 2 buttons, but I want my shapes put under a single one. I want to copy vector art directly from Flash to Photoshop to Illustrator without dropping a beat, and this is where Inkscape/GIMP fails at the moment (and in other matters, but that's another discussion). I want a similar toolset in ImageReady - right now you just can't do some things in there for some bizarre reason and the windows handle differently, I want all the transformation options (perspective and distort) in Illustrator without resorting to Warp menus, and there's no reason to not do it.
If they're at it anyway, let the GPU handle some of the heavier calculations (blur, transform with full support for anisotropic filtering). If those features aren't there, put it in software; if Apple can do it, so can Adobe.
These people don't need silicon, they need morals, ethical institutions and just governments.
The same could be said of many other countries (including the US and Europe). What Africa needs is us to stop giving subsidies to farmers here so they have a chance to compete and to stop the help; it's not going to the right hands anyway, Bono be damned.
People there are still engaged in animal worship. Their problem is largely spiritual.
You're raving. As opposed to celebrity and money worship, which is not a spiritual problem?
What gives you the right to decide who can and can't have a car?
Notorious drunk drivers may have their license revoked. It treads on their freedoms, but that's considered a small sacrifice for the rest of us to use the road safely. But that wasn't the issue:).
My bigger gripe with the "nobody has to own a car" system proposed above is that there will be tracking. Any sort of system, be it of the Soviet Russia or Anarcho-Capitalism flavor will eventually try to achieve some kind of a panopticon - either to "prevent dissidents" or to "prevent shareholder loss".
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Let Hollywood get the facts about computers - ban the bleeping, swooshing, and fast scrolling text, as well as the ACCESS GRANTED and blowing up a single pixel into a high-resolution picture. That'd actually amaze me.
The syntax is used in the programming language Perl to denote a replacement of a part of a string; in this case a word in a sentence. Read it as "replace 'lazy' with 'desensitized'".
Slashdot Mirror
The issue that both of your viewpoints sadly don't touch on is that a lot of driving that's being done just isn't for fun. I'm from the Netherlands - commuting isn't fun at all here, and there are daily traffic congestions - 4% of the roads are congested, totalling to 200km. Driving trucks isn't fun (competition is murderous - several East-European people are willing to drive for lower wages and have a buddy system eliminating sleep/stop times. Alright, that's market forces and European unity at work, but it doesn't make the existing drivers a lot happier.)
;).
So yeah, you want driving for fun, no problem. A good solution wouldn't blanket the entire road network but would only overtake at certain points.
Having said that, being able to enjoy the view complete instead of having some asshole trying to cut of you off would be even better
Ah, but you missed something important; the fraternity was named Phi Alpha Gamma.
You mean, "will it fit on a frickin' shark?"
I don't know, works pretty well for the basic principles.
Of course, an analysis misses the smoky bar and the husky voice of the buxom blonde, but that's the difference between theory and practice for you. Still, it boils down to mathematics, and denying that because maths gives you icky ideas about cold, unfeeling science is missing the point. Simple; you just need the two axes. All this infinite resolution talk ignores the fact that your resolution isn't infinite; it's only as good as your ears and memory are.
Perhaps you may be the owner of a bright red stapler and they first started doing meeting notices in the past 3 months? ;)
It pales in comparison with an XBOX 360 or PS3, though. I'd love to get a Wii if only for the virtual console, but I'm probably served better for that by putting a few hacks on an XBOX classic.
Nobody wants to have this in their back yard. Glowing green giant ants and stuff like that, the usual scaremongering.
Jobs doesn't have to make pledges; they just have to figure out how to convert the radiation of his reality distortion field to energy, and to use the pressure of the smugness from his customers to power iPods. Ballmer is currently busy with research to tap heat from system administrator's heads when updating, and he's already made great strides to put the kinetic energy of chairs in something useful.
Goodwin's Laaw: Speelliing Naaziis aaree iineeviitaablee.
Obviously, the marketing team considered model names such as the Fahrenheit or the Amazon 451, but those went in the incinerator really fast.
A better solution is a Moravec transfer which works somewhat like the philosophical question already posed in ancient Greece - if a ship has a part of it replaced, and this gradually happens with every single part of the ship, is the ship at the end still the same one that left the harbour when it was new? You take someone's brain. You then disable a neuron, but at the moment you disable it, an artificial neuron starts acting just like the old one. The rest of the brain sees no difference (if you're lucky) and you repeat this action for every neuron until the brain is completely artificial. There, painless transfer of the mind while staying alive. It's just not quick (or possible), and you can't reuse the organic brain. A more interesting matter would be to just scan the brain at an incredibly high resolution and then build a simulation off that. You'd get an artificial clone - but a very interesting one, because it would be able to think faster than realtime (given enough computer power).
Computers think like submarines swim. Our "feelings" are based on millions of years of evolutionary history; the fact that robots don't carry that baggage is a desirable thing for now, but don't rule it out; after all, they're faster in building and training new generations.
Also, it'll still give us something to lord over 'm in immensely cheesy Hollywood productions.
Your plan is cunning but suffers from a social engineering flaw: for details, refer to the concept of Mardi Gras.
It's easier to upload our minds into something that doesn't require all those pesky things like oxygen and all that. To create a bubble in a hostile environment just to get the least important parts of us there - the waterbags - that's a waste. We want our brains and senses there because those of the machines are too limited and too hampered by time and signal quality problems.
Yes it is, actually. You can choose from a list of file extensions in the Save As menu from JPG to PNG to GIF to BMP to whatever obscure format. You just can't adjust any settings.
.conf file ;)
The rule is simple: if there's two choices that are simply binary (yes, no), use a single checkbox. If these choices are unrelated but exclusive, use two radiobuttons. If there are more than two choices, use a list of checkboxes, or, if they have to exclude eachother, a dropdownlist (for a lot of options) or a list of radiobuttons. Whenever the number of choices reaches a certain size, it's better to rethink the interface and reorder.
Saving for web is specifically a tweaker's menu; not so much a save as, but a detailed settings panel. Compare "Print" and "Print settings" where the latter still provides the "Print" button.
Providing multiple interface choices? No, not a great idea. You'll render any tutorial useless because people have to switch around between Classic and Modern. Furthermore, I am not looking forward to editing grid, snap and unit settings in some
Enter the new plugin dialogs, supersized and put in different menus. All the old plugins still had this small preview window because a poor 486 with 8mb would spend half a minute applying the entire effect in realtime on the whole image. This is no longer the case. Word actually has feature bloat because you're still dealing with text. Photoshop hasn't really, but it's got a different problem; that of giving a taste of the other products. Opening PDF files or vector files? No problem. But then you'd want to draw simple vector shapes, and you're not sure yet about buying Illustrator. Ideally Illustrator'd handle vectors, some kind of 3D program would do 3D objects, and Photoshop would do the pixels. Because every app tries to offer a taste of the other products, things get bloated.
The biggest power is that I can copy from Illustrator to Photoshop and have a tight integration; no conversion, no save-as-open-as and direct linking. The only thing missing here is doing the same with 3D objects; apply a mask in Photoshop on a Smart 3D object to make it fade out - background is automatically alpha'd - double-click it, re-render under a different camera angle and let an OpenGL/D3D preview fill in while 2 other cores are chugging on the radiosity. But it's only a webserver. Similarly, vim is simple and small and does the job well, but it's not an IDE in the Visual Studio style. It's easier to re-release and bloat than to venture into a new product market. Lowest risks, highest returns.
The idea of the rescaling toolbar in the Gimp is nice; I want my gradients and fills split over 2 buttons, but I want my shapes put under a single one. I want to copy vector art directly from Flash to Photoshop to Illustrator without dropping a beat, and this is where Inkscape/GIMP fails at the moment (and in other matters, but that's another discussion). I want a similar toolset in ImageReady - right now you just can't do some things in there for some bizarre reason and the windows handle differently, I want all the transformation options (perspective and distort) in Illustrator without resorting to Warp menus, and there's no reason to not do it.
If they're at it anyway, let the GPU handle some of the heavier calculations (blur, transform with full support for anisotropic filtering). If those features aren't there, put it in software; if Apple can do it, so can Adobe.
My bigger gripe with the "nobody has to own a car" system proposed above is that there will be tracking. Any sort of system, be it of the Soviet Russia or Anarcho-Capitalism flavor will eventually try to achieve some kind of a panopticon - either to "prevent dissidents" or to "prevent shareholder loss".
Most geeks will however have trouble with base 3.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Let Hollywood get the facts about computers - ban the bleeping, swooshing, and fast scrolling text, as well as the ACCESS GRANTED and blowing up a single pixel into a high-resolution picture. That'd actually amaze me.
The syntax is used in the programming language Perl to denote a replacement of a part of a string; in this case a word in a sentence. Read it as "replace 'lazy' with 'desensitized'".