Yeah, I've found myself doing something like that too--not something I'm proud of. And as you say, NewEgg's filters are *much* better for finding what you want.
I don't think a single one of the "improvements" listed is of any interest. But one non-listed improvement is highly important: a fix to the bug (or several bugs) in the.NET garbage collector introduced with the spring 2017 release. That bug caused major issues for one program I use (SIL's Fieldworks Language Explorer), and I presume it must affect other programs built with.Net. Despite its being documented back in May, and (I'm told) fixed in Insider Releases in June, Ms has only now gotten around to releasing it to The Rest Of Us.
Everything else, with the possible exception of the "Anti-ransomware protection", is lipstick, IMHO.
Many years ago, before most of you were born, I was a spelunker. We couldn't communicate underground with radios, or even listen to radios, because (I was told) radio waves don't penetrate rock very well. So how is this radar detecting a tunnel hidden under many meters (I presume) of rock? Is it because the radar is sending out that many watts of power? Or is relatively wet rock (which limestone caves are surrounded by) much more effective at blocking radio waves?
The wikipedia article on ground-penetrating radar isn't very clear on this, but seems to imply that it can penetrate depths of up ~15m of dry rock. That seems too little, if the tunnel is really ~100m wide, I would think the roof would be >> 15m thick, if it lasted billions of years without (except for this skylight) collapsing.
Unicode version 1 preceded the Internet as most of us know it: 1992. 'Nuff said.
Ok, I'll say some more. I'm a computational linguist, and while Perl is far from my favorite language, I have used it with Unicode UTF-8, and it works just fine.
I believe there's also an effect from the solar "wind." Even though it's minuscule in terms of mass, over time it has an effect on satellites in Earth orbit--apparently it's an indirect effect, caused by the interaction of the particles in the wind with the upper atmosphere: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/impac.... And of course solar storms are (so far) unpredictable more than a few hours in advance.
Doc Brown, examining failed circuit: "No wonder this failed, it says 'made in Japan'." Marty: "All the best stuff is made in Japan." https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Last time I looked (a couple years ago), no. I could do a couple things, like map Ctrl-J to Down, but last time I looked it couldn't give me the two modes (selecting and non-selecting), nor could a single keystroke map to a sequence of commands. My memory is a bit vague, but I'm thinking it only worked in some apps; but I could be wrong about that.
"I remember only about a decade ago being amazed the first time I opened a computer's BIOS... Press PgUp to go to the previous tab... press PgDn to go to the next tab, press ESC to exit without saving changes... Ah, the good old days." Son, in the Good Old Days, we set the boot sequence with toggle switches. This topic actually came up last week on/. I'm proud to say that I really did work on such a computer once, a Cyber 170/750. There's a picture of a similar "deadstart panel" (for a different Cyber computer) here: https://www.eetimes.com/docume...
Email? What's that? (say these people, who probably use their thumbs to text, but think of email the same way I think of postage stamps)
Software? Not many people write software. I do, and maybe you do, but most people don't.
Games? I suspect that many games will become voice actuated (all the more reason to make young men live in the basement), plus other kinds of interfaces. (How do you aim a gun with your keyboard?) Except for a few diehards, I imagine the days of "you are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike" are long over. (That said, I haven't played computer games since the last time I played Flight Simulator, probably well over a decade ago. So I could be wrong...)
Now I too think keyboards will remain relevant for at least some kinds of work (including mine, computational linguistics). But for people who do nothing more than websurf, play games, and text--which I'm guessing is the majority of the population--keyboards may go the way of the typewriter.
Well, I can't say that He told me to. But it does allow me to edit stuff I'm writing in any application without taking my hands off the alphabetic part of the keyboard. When I'm on a computer that doesn't have my app, it's much more cumbersome to look over at the various cursor keys, move my right hand over there, and then move that hand back to find the JKL keys on the home row. Selecting is even worse, because I have to hold down the shift key as well; and if I want to select several words, or some other extended selection, that means holding down the control *and* shift keys. Much easier to type Ctrl-Q (start selecting), Ctrl-W a few times to select some words, and Ctrl-C to copy them.
I suspect most emacs and vi users would be familiar with this. The advantage of remapping the keyboard is I can have the same keys in any application that I use in my programmer's editor.
Ah--now that I've written the above, I see a possible reason for your response: I had said I map Ctrl-J to the Down arrow, etc., but somehow the Ctrl and the Down disappeared in my post. I probably put less-than and greater-than symbols to the left and right of the words Ctrl and Down, and Slashdot in its wisdom removed them. I'll try to make sure Slashdot doesn't butcher this post...
And don't you dare tell me I should be using the mouse for this!
What does "full programmability" mean? I ask because I use a keyboard remapper written in C that "hooks" the Windows input, so it maps things like J to , and does so for every program (even command-line based programs, like the Win10 Linux terminal). So far it's worked with every version of Windows since (IIRC) 3.1, but I fear some day it's going to stop working. (And indeed it doesn't work with Edge, although I fortunately don't use Edge.) And I've never been able to get something similar working for Linux. I'm sure it's possible to build a keyboard driver that does what I want, but that seems like a lot of work.
One of the things that makes my remapper different from other remappers (like SharpKeys) is that it actually has two states; one in which case all the cursor movement keys (Ctrl-J, Ctrl-H, etc.) behave like the key is pressed (so they select text), and one in which they behave like the key is released (so they don't select text). Toggling from the non-shift state to the shift state is done by Ctrl-Q, while shifting back can be done by Ctrl-Q, Ctrl-C (copy) etc.
Another thing that makes my remapper different is that some keystrokes emit a sequence of key up/down messages. Ctrl-D, for example, emits seven arrow key messages, while Ctrl-U emits seven arrow messages.
Anyway, I guess Soarer's converter doesn't work with a laptop's built-in keyboard...
Oddly, that's what some people (bosses, not necessarily very wealthy) used to have, before PCs came along. And having those people (secretaries, usually female) meant the managers at Xerox Parc couldn't see the Xerox Star for what it could have been: a PC before there were PCs. What Important Person (read: themselves) would want to type into a computer, when they already had a secretary to do that?
At least that's the story I've heard. And there were of course other issues with the Star, like the price.
I don't understand your math. If the average English word length is 7 chars (including the whitespace or punctuation at the end), then that's 7 chars/sec, not 60.
I'm with you, though, on writing; no way do I want to dictate documents to my computer out loud.
And I'm supposed to hold up my hand to create this response, or what? And no, I do NOT want to dictate to my computer (nor do the people who live or work around me want me to do that).
"A fuzzy little donut you can have a conversation with." Where I come from, donuts are for eating. Unless they're fuzzy, in which case it's time to throw them in the trash. And I would much rather have a conversation with my wife, or my children, or any other human.
I agree with virtually everyone else here; Google is Terrible at design.
And for the record, the author flunked Topology 101; that thing is not homeomorphic with a donut.
I'm not sure, but farhad's point might be that even if you don't have a clue what the Persian says, you can still figure out the UI. That's not quite true for me (the three large buttons(?) at the bottom don't seem to do anything), but it is an interesting idea. Hieroglyphics, I mean icons, almost never help me figure out a UI, and I like text. But perhaps for some purposes (maps, for example), one could build an a-lingual UI that would actually work. (Google Maps is not that UI.)
The reason the poster used so many words should be obvious to a nearsighted sea cucumber: there are so many things wrong with Google apps. And he only scratched the surface. Don't get me started on Google News.
The thing that has too many words is the article at the top of this page.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I've found myself doing something like that too--not something I'm proud of. And as you say, NewEgg's filters are *much* better for finding what you want.
I don't think a single one of the "improvements" listed is of any interest. But one non-listed improvement is highly important: a fix to the bug (or several bugs) in the .NET garbage collector introduced with the spring 2017 release. That bug caused major issues for one program I use (SIL's Fieldworks Language Explorer), and I presume it must affect other programs built with .Net. Despite its being documented back in May, and (I'm told) fixed in Insider Releases in June, Ms has only now gotten around to releasing it to The Rest Of Us.
Everything else, with the possible exception of the "Anti-ransomware protection", is lipstick, IMHO.
Many years ago, before most of you were born, I was a spelunker. We couldn't communicate underground with radios, or even listen to radios, because (I was told) radio waves don't penetrate rock very well. So how is this radar detecting a tunnel hidden under many meters (I presume) of rock? Is it because the radar is sending out that many watts of power? Or is relatively wet rock (which limestone caves are surrounded by) much more effective at blocking radio waves?
The wikipedia article on ground-penetrating radar isn't very clear on this, but seems to imply that it can penetrate depths of up ~15m of dry rock. That seems too little, if the tunnel is really ~100m wide, I would think the roof would be >> 15m thick, if it lasted billions of years without (except for this skylight) collapsing.
No aliens there, unless you count the Nazis.
I'd be satisfied with glider wings. But yes, to fly...
Unicode version 1 preceded the Internet as most of us know it: 1992. 'Nuff said.
Ok, I'll say some more. I'm a computational linguist, and while Perl is far from my favorite language, I have used it with Unicode UTF-8, and it works just fine.
I believe there's also an effect from the solar "wind." Even though it's minuscule in terms of mass, over time it has an effect on satellites in Earth orbit--apparently it's an indirect effect, caused by the interaction of the particles in the wind with the upper atmosphere: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/impac.... And of course solar storms are (so far) unpredictable more than a few hours in advance.
Doc Brown, examining failed circuit: "No wonder this failed, it says 'made in Japan'." Marty: "All the best stuff is made in Japan." https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You worked on one of those machines? You must be an old coot, like me...
Last time I looked (a couple years ago), no. I could do a couple things, like map Ctrl-J to Down, but last time I looked it couldn't give me the two modes (selecting and non-selecting), nor could a single keystroke map to a sequence of commands. My memory is a bit vague, but I'm thinking it only worked in some apps; but I could be wrong about that.
"I remember only about a decade ago being amazed the first time I opened a computer's BIOS... Press PgUp to go to the previous tab... press PgDn to go to the next tab, press ESC to exit without saving changes... Ah, the good old days." Son, in the Good Old Days, we set the boot sequence with toggle switches. This topic actually came up last week on /. I'm proud to say that I really did work on such a computer once, a Cyber 170/750. There's a picture of a similar "deadstart panel" (for a different Cyber computer) here: https://www.eetimes.com/docume...
Email? What's that? (say these people, who probably use their thumbs to text, but think of email the same way I think of postage stamps)
Software? Not many people write software. I do, and maybe you do, but most people don't.
Games? I suspect that many games will become voice actuated (all the more reason to make young men live in the basement), plus other kinds of interfaces. (How do you aim a gun with your keyboard?) Except for a few diehards, I imagine the days of "you are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike" are long over. (That said, I haven't played computer games since the last time I played Flight Simulator, probably well over a decade ago. So I could be wrong...)
Now I too think keyboards will remain relevant for at least some kinds of work (including mine, computational linguistics). But for people who do nothing more than websurf, play games, and text--which I'm guessing is the majority of the population--keyboards may go the way of the typewriter.
Well, I can't say that He told me to. But it does allow me to edit stuff I'm writing in any application without taking my hands off the alphabetic part of the keyboard. When I'm on a computer that doesn't have my app, it's much more cumbersome to look over at the various cursor keys, move my right hand over there, and then move that hand back to find the JKL keys on the home row. Selecting is even worse, because I have to hold down the shift key as well; and if I want to select several words, or some other extended selection, that means holding down the control *and* shift keys. Much easier to type Ctrl-Q (start selecting), Ctrl-W a few times to select some words, and Ctrl-C to copy them.
I suspect most emacs and vi users would be familiar with this. The advantage of remapping the keyboard is I can have the same keys in any application that I use in my programmer's editor.
Ah--now that I've written the above, I see a possible reason for your response: I had said I map Ctrl-J to the Down arrow, etc., but somehow the Ctrl and the Down disappeared in my post. I probably put less-than and greater-than symbols to the left and right of the words Ctrl and Down, and Slashdot in its wisdom removed them. I'll try to make sure Slashdot doesn't butcher this post...
And don't you dare tell me I should be using the mouse for this!
Interesting!
What does "full programmability" mean? I ask because I use a keyboard remapper written in C that "hooks" the Windows input, so it maps things like J to , and does so for every program (even command-line based programs, like the Win10 Linux terminal). So far it's worked with every version of Windows since (IIRC) 3.1, but I fear some day it's going to stop working. (And indeed it doesn't work with Edge, although I fortunately don't use Edge.) And I've never been able to get something similar working for Linux. I'm sure it's possible to build a keyboard driver that does what I want, but that seems like a lot of work.
One of the things that makes my remapper different from other remappers (like SharpKeys) is that it actually has two states; one in which case all the cursor movement keys (Ctrl-J, Ctrl-H, etc.) behave like the key is pressed (so they select text), and one in which they behave like the key is released (so they don't select text). Toggling from the non-shift state to the shift state is done by Ctrl-Q, while shifting back can be done by Ctrl-Q, Ctrl-C (copy) etc.
Another thing that makes my remapper different is that some keystrokes emit a sequence of key up/down messages. Ctrl-D, for example, emits seven arrow key messages, while Ctrl-U emits seven arrow messages.
Anyway, I guess Soarer's converter doesn't work with a laptop's built-in keyboard...
Those things fail? I thought they were like Sequoya trees, immortal.
Oddly, that's what some people (bosses, not necessarily very wealthy) used to have, before PCs came along. And having those people (secretaries, usually female) meant the managers at Xerox Parc couldn't see the Xerox Star for what it could have been: a PC before there were PCs. What Important Person (read: themselves) would want to type into a computer, when they already had a secretary to do that?
At least that's the story I've heard. And there were of course other issues with the Star, like the price.
I don't understand your math. If the average English word length is 7 chars (including the whitespace or punctuation at the end), then that's 7 chars/sec, not 60.
I'm with you, though, on writing; no way do I want to dictate documents to my computer out loud.
See also: Hierarchical menu, WinXP or Win7 UI, Buttons
Color me jealous. I had a clicky keyboard (not the Model F) on my Christmas list.
They already did, it's called the Ribbon.
And I'm supposed to hold up my hand to create this response, or what? And no, I do NOT want to dictate to my computer (nor do the people who live or work around me want me to do that).
"A fuzzy little donut you can have a conversation with." Where I come from, donuts are for eating. Unless they're fuzzy, in which case it's time to throw them in the trash. And I would much rather have a conversation with my wife, or my children, or any other human.
I agree with virtually everyone else here; Google is Terrible at design.
And for the record, the author flunked Topology 101; that thing is not homeomorphic with a donut.
I think we all sit there. Perhaps this article was supposed to come out on April 1.
I'm not sure, but farhad's point might be that even if you don't have a clue what the Persian says, you can still figure out the UI. That's not quite true for me (the three large buttons(?) at the bottom don't seem to do anything), but it is an interesting idea. Hieroglyphics, I mean icons, almost never help me figure out a UI, and I like text. But perhaps for some purposes (maps, for example), one could build an a-lingual UI that would actually work. (Google Maps is not that UI.)
The reason the poster used so many words should be obvious to a nearsighted sea cucumber: there are so many things wrong with Google apps. And he only scratched the surface. Don't get me started on Google News.
The thing that has too many words is the article at the top of this page.