I know not everyone is like me...in fact, I think I am the only person exactly like me...at any rate, many (most?) people would NEVER give up the remote - but I in fact sometimes enjoy letting my wife or a friend take control.
Nonetheless, there are indeed some friends who may not touch the remote - I will not allow it!
the whole stumble thing is basically directed randomness, I choose interests and then I hit a button. Viola! a random video starts to play, except in this case it is a random video within a specific scope defined by me.
These randomly intercepted channels are definitely not limited by a scope, so I would side with you in that it is like letting a stranger surf with your remote - that could get quite annoying.
Nevertheless, there is a certain charm to randomness, so long as it is not complete noise.
I use stumble video and will often check out what my friends have watched recently, but the real interesting videos are to be found within the logs of random users.
Solar is by far my favorite power source. But like every other power source, it is really just a byproduct of the actual energetic reaction. I think I can accurately say that solar power is second-hand nuclear power. Following this reasoning the other power sources may be seen as third-hand nuclear power.
As another posted stated, even if you make the solar 100% efficient (wouldn't that be something!) you still have to store or transport it - since on average the sun is hitting half the Earth's surface at any given time (with much of that surface being water).
I have high hopes for solar - but it always strikes me as strange that we already have this amazing technology of nuclear power - it's here now! We HAVE it!
Plus, nuclear power can make a nuclear rocket! I don't know of any solar rockets yet.
Ok, I agree on this point. I guess the lack of UI experience is really the point of the article.
But what really more can be done with the 2D GUI (and by '2D' I mean 'displayed on a 2D monitor' even if we are talking about 3D objects)?
I just posted a reply comparing GUI to the written word. Basically there is only so far you can go with a particular medium. We are stuck in a evolutionary chain of improvement in regards to UI - I feel that a revolutionary technological method for interfacing with a computer must become mainstream.
Tactile User Interface? Olfactory User Interface?
Probably as voice and visual recognition becomes better (spurred-on by processor power) we will start to see genuine shifts in UI - but until then UI remains merely the written word.
What really is that different about your car of today and one from the 50s?
Both eras have similar horsepower; gas mileage is better by far today, though by ratio adjusting for gas prices I think the cost per mile is still comparable; leather seats....what really is so much better about the cars of today?
How about words? Writing hasn't changed for thousands of years. We still use characters to represent things.
I think the truly big breakthroughs in user experience will occur with better voice commands and optical recognition technologies - all of which seem to require more and more powerful systems.
I wish there was some amazing UI paradigm shift that would validate all these cycles I'm wasting - but better resolution, prettier colors and effects are tolerable until the fruits of our processors are better realized by revolutionary interface technologies, not just evolutionary.
As with this article, what really would that prove?
I think I would find my words per minute would not vary. The legibility of the document would be identical. I could even say that the typewriter is superior in some ways - for instance, my document autosaves on every keystroke.
Calling features "bloat" strikes me the same as when a person will call a reason an "excuse". There are times and places when "bloat" and "excuses" are valid words, but they can be inserted where they are invalid just as easily.
Perhaps the law of diminishing returns holds true. After all, a typewriter really is all one needs to write a novel, and in fact I do not think a computer helps one write a novel thousands of times more quickly. However, there are features (spell check, formatting, fonts, predictive text, voice recognition...) that enhance the writing experience.
I guess I just don't get the point of this article.
Our company has generated > 700mb presentations for regional meetings, a particular one which required on-the-spot laptop upgrades to memory to even be able to run it.
It did turn out to be a very nice presentation, though.
These developers should have been REAL men and developed from scratch their own presentation software and released the presentation in their OWN format.
To me as a consumer, that says: "These guys are serious."
I wonder how well this would work for someone like myself who frequently uses stumbleupon.com (or del.icio.us) to surf the net, or indeed anyone who tends to explore the net outside their own backyard.
To me this profiling technology seems like going through someone's garbage to find out what kind of person they are. Works great, unless they live in an RV or on a boat....I'm not sure that analogy works perfectly, but I think I'm going to start putting my trash in my neighbor's bin from here on.
Note: Stumbleupon is a firefox toolbar which will take you to a random site when you click the Stumble button.
Re:Why Does Encryption Need to "Scramble" Informat
on
A Mighty Number Falls
·
· Score: 1
and come on, he's Jesus!
Ah yes, I saw this as a glaring problem as well!
Oh well, back to the drawing board to dream up a method for an "n times pad";)
Re:Why Does Encryption Need to "Scramble" Informat
on
A Mighty Number Falls
·
· Score: 1
I accept your reply.
It does make me wonder more, however. For example, imagine Alice, Bob and Jesus are having lunch. Alice turns to Bob and says, "Remember that thing I was telling you about?"
Bob says, "Oh, yes. Where that stuff was different than last time?"
"Yes, exactly. Only this time that same person did the same thing they did that one weekend."
Alice has transferred information to Bob and Jesus is confused. It seems that no amount of analysis could decipher what Alice and Bob are talking about. I suppose the implied information could still be considered a "key", but I imagine that this database of implicit information pieces could be very large.
Is there an analogy for this method of secret information exchange? It does seem that something akin to this method might work well.
Why Does Encryption Need to "Scramble" Information
on
A Mighty Number Falls
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Rather than just digesting using some key, It seems to me that you could set up two 'encryption' agents which talk to each other and form a random proprietary "language" that only each other can understand. This would be very much like a one time pad - which is basically the only truly unbreakable encryption:
Code Talkers.
The Navajo language basically served as a one time pad in WWII - why not use programs which generate their own method of communication (their own "language") for use in transmitting information.
You simply could not crack it unless you already knew the information being sent.
It's my favorite cognitive bias. For example, "Settin' up a server is like fishin' sturgeon..." That kind of thing:)
I would ask, however, if technology has not indeed solved any social issues. Has it yet?
If it has not yet, then it probably never will. However, if there is even one social issue that technology has solved or remedied, then there is reason to believe that other social issues can be relieved with the help of technology.
they need to be begging you for the chance to explain why you should want to work for them...
I've always had a bit of a problem with this line of reasoning. It rings too much like: "When opportunity comes knocking, just wait until it's begging on it's knees before you answer the door."
I absolutely love this kind of thing. Contests seem to inspire innovation. My favorite contest in recent years was the x-prize - that result was great!
After all, competition made life: Just so long as it does not become conflict, it is healthy.
You know why my leg is broken and I have this nasty bacterial infection? Because I tried to crawl down in the stream, over the rocks to pull out a rusty shopping cart.
*sarcasm off*
Your point is entirely valid, the real danger presented by the cart is minimal. Additionally, the fact that the cart is there (and any litter in the world) is because of humans.
Nevertheless, I still see nothing wrong with letting robots handle dirty and potentially injurious tasks.
How about a park lined with cleaner robots who will give a friendly talking-to at any person who it catches littering. Nothing Orwellian like saving the video of the act and then printing out a citation there and then. Just a gentle, responsible chiding.
"Sir, you really shouldn't litter."
"Oh, shut up robot. Don't tell me what to do."
"I have no right to tell you what to do, but you yourself know that littering is an ugly act."
I was just thinking about maintenance robots yesterday. It was during a nice walk along the creek in our town. I was admiring the quaint little stream of water and the stones over which it flowed and the grass through which it wound, and then the rusty shopping cart.
The world will be a more beautiful place when the autonomous robots start to finally appear.
Another example: "awesome" of course still means awe-inspiring. Thus a person may call a spectacular tragedy "awesome", even though the most common, spoken usage means "great".
I was just having a discussion the other day about the word "fantastic". These days it means "great" or "wonderful", but I have been informed that the century before last it meant "unlikely".
This was because it meant "fantasy-astic", in other words, "unrealistic".
This use of the word, "trusted" is seeming to me to be meaning "inflexible" or simply "restricted in action".
Slashdot Mirror
I know not everyone is like me...in fact, I think I am the only person exactly like me...at any rate, many (most?) people would NEVER give up the remote - but I in fact sometimes enjoy letting my wife or a friend take control.
Nonetheless, there are indeed some friends who may not touch the remote - I will not allow it!
the whole stumble thing is basically directed randomness, I choose interests and then I hit a button. Viola! a random video starts to play, except in this case it is a random video within a specific scope defined by me.
These randomly intercepted channels are definitely not limited by a scope, so I would side with you in that it is like letting a stranger surf with your remote - that could get quite annoying.
Nevertheless, there is a certain charm to randomness, so long as it is not complete noise.
Watching what other people watch can be fun.
I use stumble video and will often check out what my friends have watched recently, but the real interesting videos are to be found within the logs of random users.
People find and like the strangest things.
Solar is by far my favorite power source. But like every other power source, it is really just a byproduct of the actual energetic reaction. I think I can accurately say that solar power is second-hand nuclear power. Following this reasoning the other power sources may be seen as third-hand nuclear power.
As another posted stated, even if you make the solar 100% efficient (wouldn't that be something!) you still have to store or transport it - since on average the sun is hitting half the Earth's surface at any given time (with much of that surface being water).
I have high hopes for solar - but it always strikes me as strange that we already have this amazing technology of nuclear power - it's here now! We HAVE it!
Plus, nuclear power can make a nuclear rocket! I don't know of any solar rockets yet.
How are hacking tools really different from locksmith's tools?
;)
I certainly have found a locksmith to be very useful in very legal ways - but then again, I'm the kind of person who has key problems
Ok, I agree on this point. I guess the lack of UI experience is really the point of the article.
But what really more can be done with the 2D GUI (and by '2D' I mean 'displayed on a 2D monitor' even if we are talking about 3D objects)?
I just posted a reply comparing GUI to the written word. Basically there is only so far you can go with a particular medium. We are stuck in a evolutionary chain of improvement in regards to UI - I feel that a revolutionary technological method for interfacing with a computer must become mainstream.
Tactile User Interface? Olfactory User Interface?
Probably as voice and visual recognition becomes better (spurred-on by processor power) we will start to see genuine shifts in UI - but until then UI remains merely the written word.
What really is that different about your car of today and one from the 50s?
Both eras have similar horsepower; gas mileage is better by far today, though by ratio adjusting for gas prices I think the cost per mile is still comparable; leather seats....what really is so much better about the cars of today?
How about words? Writing hasn't changed for thousands of years. We still use characters to represent things.
I think the truly big breakthroughs in user experience will occur with better voice commands and optical recognition technologies - all of which seem to require more and more powerful systems.
I wish there was some amazing UI paradigm shift that would validate all these cycles I'm wasting - but better resolution, prettier colors and effects are tolerable until the fruits of our processors are better realized by revolutionary interface technologies, not just evolutionary.
As with this article, what really would that prove?
I think I would find my words per minute would not vary. The legibility of the document would be identical. I could even say that the typewriter is superior in some ways - for instance, my document autosaves on every keystroke.
Calling features "bloat" strikes me the same as when a person will call a reason an "excuse". There are times and places when "bloat" and "excuses" are valid words, but they can be inserted where they are invalid just as easily.
Perhaps the law of diminishing returns holds true. After all, a typewriter really is all one needs to write a novel, and in fact I do not think a computer helps one write a novel thousands of times more quickly. However, there are features (spell check, formatting, fonts, predictive text, voice recognition...) that enhance the writing experience.
I guess I just don't get the point of this article.
I loathe that application greatly.
Our company has generated > 700mb presentations for regional meetings, a particular one which required on-the-spot laptop upgrades to memory to even be able to run it.
It did turn out to be a very nice presentation, though.
These developers should have been REAL men and developed from scratch their own presentation software and released the presentation in their OWN format.
To me as a consumer, that says: "These guys are serious."
Only if you are collecting data.
I'm always collecting data. Except replace "data" with "food".
Yup, you read that right. "collecting food"...which I then eat.
What kind of software company uses PowerPoint to illustrate their application?
I wonder how well this would work for someone like myself who frequently uses stumbleupon.com (or del.icio.us) to surf the net, or indeed anyone who tends to explore the net outside their own backyard.
To me this profiling technology seems like going through someone's garbage to find out what kind of person they are. Works great, unless they live in an RV or on a boat....I'm not sure that analogy works perfectly, but I think I'm going to start putting my trash in my neighbor's bin from here on.
Note: Stumbleupon is a firefox toolbar which will take you to a random site when you click the Stumble button.
Ah yes, I saw this as a glaring problem as well!
Oh well, back to the drawing board to dream up a method for an "n times pad"
I accept your reply.
It does make me wonder more, however. For example, imagine Alice, Bob and Jesus are having lunch. Alice turns to Bob and says, "Remember that thing I was telling you about?"
Bob says, "Oh, yes. Where that stuff was different than last time?"
"Yes, exactly. Only this time that same person did the same thing they did that one weekend."
Alice has transferred information to Bob and Jesus is confused. It seems that no amount of analysis could decipher what Alice and Bob are talking about. I suppose the implied information could still be considered a "key", but I imagine that this database of implicit information pieces could be very large.
Is there an analogy for this method of secret information exchange? It does seem that something akin to this method might work well.
Rather than just digesting using some key, It seems to me that you could set up two 'encryption' agents which talk to each other and form a random proprietary "language" that only each other can understand. This would be very much like a one time pad - which is basically the only truly unbreakable encryption:
Code Talkers.
The Navajo language basically served as a one time pad in WWII - why not use programs which generate their own method of communication (their own "language") for use in transmitting information.
You simply could not crack it unless you already knew the information being sent.
Yes, yes. This is a Déformation professionnelle
:)
It's my favorite cognitive bias. For example, "Settin' up a server is like fishin' sturgeon..." That kind of thing
I would ask, however, if technology has not indeed solved any social issues. Has it yet?
If it has not yet, then it probably never will. However, if there is even one social issue that technology has solved or remedied, then there is reason to believe that other social issues can be relieved with the help of technology.
Without a (good) company do the people make something?
I do agree with your stance on employment being an equal agreement, but I do not approach the process without a fair mind.
I've always had a bit of a problem with this line of reasoning. It rings too much like: "When opportunity comes knocking, just wait until it's begging on it's knees before you answer the door."
I absolutely love this kind of thing. Contests seem to inspire innovation. My favorite contest in recent years was the x-prize - that result was great!
After all, competition made life: Just so long as it does not become conflict, it is healthy.
You know why my leg is broken and I have this nasty bacterial infection? Because I tried to crawl down in the stream, over the rocks to pull out a rusty shopping cart.
*sarcasm off*
Your point is entirely valid, the real danger presented by the cart is minimal. Additionally, the fact that the cart is there (and any litter in the world) is because of humans.
Nevertheless, I still see nothing wrong with letting robots handle dirty and potentially injurious tasks.
How about a park lined with cleaner robots who will give a friendly talking-to at any person who it catches littering. Nothing Orwellian like saving the video of the act and then printing out a citation there and then. Just a gentle, responsible chiding.
"Sir, you really shouldn't litter."
"Oh, shut up robot. Don't tell me what to do."
"I have no right to tell you what to do, but you yourself know that littering is an ugly act."
"Maybe I want to be ugly!"
"That is fully your right, sir. Farewell."
I was just thinking about maintenance robots yesterday. It was during a nice walk along the creek in our town. I was admiring the quaint little stream of water and the stones over which it flowed and the grass through which it wound, and then the rusty shopping cart.
The world will be a more beautiful place when the autonomous robots start to finally appear.
Hmm, I will agree with you one this.
Another example: "awesome" of course still means awe-inspiring. Thus a person may call a spectacular tragedy "awesome", even though the most common, spoken usage means "great".
Euphemisms mangle language.
I was just having a discussion the other day about the word "fantastic". These days it means "great" or "wonderful", but I have been informed that the century before last it meant "unlikely".
This was because it meant "fantasy-astic", in other words, "unrealistic".
This use of the word, "trusted" is seeming to me to be meaning "inflexible" or simply "restricted in action".
...when a program was a single executable file?
And by "file" I mean made of manila paper, and by "executable" I mean with holes punched in it.
Seriously though, why aren't most modern desktop applications portable by design?
great, now I can get sued just for mousing-over the RIAA headquarters!
Thanks a lot guys...