I understand what you mean, but I disagree with your reasoning. I don't think text wins out because it was less visual, but because it is more standard and simple. It is easier for an individual to express a higher degree of detail without artistic talent.
For instance, if we were using pictograms, and I wanted to write a story about a crow, a raven, and a blackbird, I would need decent painting skill and you would need to be an ornithologist to make any sense of it. With text, however, it is easy to simply and quickly convey these ideas since "raven", "crow", and "blackbird" are more easily distinguishable when written than when seen as a crudely drawn image. That does not mean we are less visually oriented though, because the three are pretty easily distinguishable from each other when seen in real life.
Even in cases where pictures are used (pretty much limited to icons on toolbars), a heck of a lot of people find the pictures completely unintuitive
I would say that's probably more the fault of the icon designer, the people who name their programs, and the image size limitation. Seriously, even if you just had the words the image represents, most of them wouldn't be close to intuitive either. If you didn't know FireFox was a web browser, the word would mean nothing as well. Who would think "Vegas Pro" was a video studio? Sounds like poker training software. "Safari"? Must be an African vacation simulator.
It also doesn't help that most things referred-to on a computer are abstract concepts, like the Internet. There is no direct visual representation of the Internet because you would have to draw a billion tiny computers connected together to do so effectively (in order to distinguish from just "a network").
Even so, some icons ARE intuitive when they have real-world counterparts. For instance, how many EMail programs do you know of that have an icon that includes an envelope? Quite a few, and if I saw an icon with an envelope I would assume it had to do with mail, even if I was not aware of the EMail concept. An icon with a printer? Assuming I knew what one was, I'd assume it was a way to control or set up a printer, or a way to print documents. Same goes for a scanner. A speaker icon? Related to sound somehow.
Icons are not always as bad as you seem to think, if there is a way to make it intuitive, and the designer puts some thought into it.
> I don't think some degree of concern [...] is completely unreasonable--which is what a phobia implies.
I do not believe you are correct. A phobia is an intense, and generally irrational, fear of something. In other words, an extreme degree of concern, rather than just "some".
> just sta[r]ting Flash on my computer raises the CPU activity to a minimum of 10% (and usually about 30%)
Sounds like you are in need of a computer that was built this century. If Flash makes your CPU jump to 30% usage then there is something seriously wrong or underpowered.
Well, I suppose it could depend on what you mean by covering it up. If you mean so the victim doesn't know, that's difficult, since he would have to report the problem in the first place. What I wonder is if they cover up the scale of the problem. I honestly have no idea if those numbers are available and if they are, if they are reliable.
> why in the world are medical tests on machines, like MRI's, increasing in price? It's not because these machines are more expensive now than they where 15 years ago.
Actually, they are. I work for a hospital and am directly involved with the DI (Radiology) department. When I started 5.5 years ago, they bought a new CT scanner, which was pretty decent at the time. Now we are looking at getting a new one and it's more expensive. Why? Because the resolution and speed have increased so dramatically. Back then it was a 6-slice scanner (each "slice" is a detector in the gantry, so it makes 6 images per rotation). Last year, a 256-slice scanner was announced. That means the tests run much faster and have higher resolution, allowing the radiologists to see more detail and give a better diagnosis.
It's a similar situation with MRIs. We have a 1.0 Tesla MRI at our disposal, but 3.0 ones are available now.
Then there are new back-end processes. These devices now create digital images, so there are software costs for the software to run the device. If a hospital/clinic gets one of these devices and doesn't already have a PACS (Picture Archival and Communication System) they almost have to buy one of those (they can get around it, but it's extremely inconvenient). Many PACS systems can run well over a million dollars by themselves, and then there is image storage... The images created by these machines get to be quite large, especially with high-slice scanners, and laws require you to store all of these images online for a long time. Here we have filled our 6TB NAS in about 2 years, and we are a very small hospital. So there are continuing storage costs. We're looking at adding another 12TB very soon, and still worry it's not enough.
Then there's the CIS, HIS, LIS, and all these other information systems that need to work together to keep track of patients' medical records. Those are horribly expensive as well, not to mention the ungodly amount of money good interface programmers demand to connect these systems together...
It's not just a single technology that gets cheaper over time, it has to adapt and get better, which increases the price.
He didn't say website, he said "web servers" which, despite the name "web", could serve an internal web-based service to a large company that only exists in one region of the world.
If you mean writing something for someone other than the current employer, that might not be such a good idea, depending on the scope of non-compete clauses and other such things on which I am no expert.
Perhaps my Calc professor was a moron, but if you are suggesting that the entirety of calculus can boiled down to y/x and one simple variation of it... I suspect you should reevaluate the qualifications of your professor.
> I believe that freedom of speech refers to the government's abilities to restrict your speech
He said that it was "ILLEGAL for any company to give you a derogatory reference". Illegal means against the law, and a law must be created by the government. Ergo, if such a law were to be passed, it would be the government restricting your ability to give an honestly-negative review of a person's work habits/attitude.
It's a moot point anyway, though, because it's a lie.
I guess boring is a matter of presentation and preference. I should have said I would find it boring. Of course, I also think flight sims are gut-wrenchingly tedious, and tons of people love them to death.
For some reason your description reminded me of a "game" that used to be on some UNIX boxes, and I thought it was called "life", but I can't seem to find any mention of it after a (very) quick googling. Basically, you gave it some simple input data (blocks of color) and then it played like a movie as it followed certain preset rules to evolve. It sounds really stupid... and it was, but it was neat to watch a couple times. I know that's not very similar to what you describe, but I felt like mentioning it for some reason.
Slashdot Mirror
> But why would they do such a bad job?
Because they didn't figure it was a big deal and weren't going to spend a lot of time on it? No need for conspiracy theories.
I understand what you mean, but I disagree with your reasoning. I don't think text wins out because it was less visual, but because it is more standard and simple. It is easier for an individual to express a higher degree of detail without artistic talent.
For instance, if we were using pictograms, and I wanted to write a story about a crow, a raven, and a blackbird, I would need decent painting skill and you would need to be an ornithologist to make any sense of it. With text, however, it is easy to simply and quickly convey these ideas since "raven", "crow", and "blackbird" are more easily distinguishable when written than when seen as a crudely drawn image. That does not mean we are less visually oriented though, because the three are pretty easily distinguishable from each other when seen in real life.
Even in cases where pictures are used (pretty much limited to icons on toolbars), a heck of a lot of people find the pictures completely unintuitive
I would say that's probably more the fault of the icon designer, the people who name their programs, and the image size limitation. Seriously, even if you just had the words the image represents, most of them wouldn't be close to intuitive either. If you didn't know FireFox was a web browser, the word would mean nothing as well. Who would think "Vegas Pro" was a video studio? Sounds like poker training software. "Safari"? Must be an African vacation simulator.
It also doesn't help that most things referred-to on a computer are abstract concepts, like the Internet. There is no direct visual representation of the Internet because you would have to draw a billion tiny computers connected together to do so effectively (in order to distinguish from just "a network").
Even so, some icons ARE intuitive when they have real-world counterparts. For instance, how many EMail programs do you know of that have an icon that includes an envelope? Quite a few, and if I saw an icon with an envelope I would assume it had to do with mail, even if I was not aware of the EMail concept. An icon with a printer? Assuming I knew what one was, I'd assume it was a way to control or set up a printer, or a way to print documents. Same goes for a scanner. A speaker icon? Related to sound somehow.
Icons are not always as bad as you seem to think, if there is a way to make it intuitive, and the designer puts some thought into it.
There are other tools for moving around in 3d space, such as the space ball/quote.
Or a Winnebago with wings.
> I don't think some degree of concern [...] is completely unreasonable--which is what a phobia implies.
I do not believe you are correct. A phobia is an intense, and generally irrational, fear of something. In other words, an extreme degree of concern, rather than just "some".
> I am a cloud expert
Do you specialize in cumulus?
sorry...
> The web developer in me just screamed[...]
They are supposed to be dead and chopped up before you eat them, not swallowed whole!
> just sta[r]ting Flash on my computer raises the CPU activity to a minimum of 10% (and usually about 30%)
Sounds like you are in need of a computer that was built this century. If Flash makes your CPU jump to 30% usage then there is something seriously wrong or underpowered.
> I'd be amazed to find out we have cellphone carriers that are more reliable than those in Holland or the USA.
As an American, I would be surprised if your were NOT more reliable than ours. Especially because I live in a small town in a pretty rural area.
Learn to have a proper reaction, you insulting twit.
Well, I suppose it could depend on what you mean by covering it up. If you mean so the victim doesn't know, that's difficult, since he would have to report the problem in the first place. What I wonder is if they cover up the scale of the problem. I honestly have no idea if those numbers are available and if they are, if they are reliable.
A little bit of #1 and #2, and a whole lot of #3.
> why in the world are medical tests on machines, like MRI's, increasing in price? It's not because these machines are more expensive now than they where 15 years ago.
Actually, they are. I work for a hospital and am directly involved with the DI (Radiology) department. When I started 5.5 years ago, they bought a new CT scanner, which was pretty decent at the time. Now we are looking at getting a new one and it's more expensive. Why? Because the resolution and speed have increased so dramatically. Back then it was a 6-slice scanner (each "slice" is a detector in the gantry, so it makes 6 images per rotation). Last year, a 256-slice scanner was announced. That means the tests run much faster and have higher resolution, allowing the radiologists to see more detail and give a better diagnosis.
It's a similar situation with MRIs. We have a 1.0 Tesla MRI at our disposal, but 3.0 ones are available now.
Then there are new back-end processes. These devices now create digital images, so there are software costs for the software to run the device. If a hospital/clinic gets one of these devices and doesn't already have a PACS (Picture Archival and Communication System) they almost have to buy one of those (they can get around it, but it's extremely inconvenient). Many PACS systems can run well over a million dollars by themselves, and then there is image storage... The images created by these machines get to be quite large, especially with high-slice scanners, and laws require you to store all of these images online for a long time. Here we have filled our 6TB NAS in about 2 years, and we are a very small hospital. So there are continuing storage costs. We're looking at adding another 12TB very soon, and still worry it's not enough.
Then there's the CIS, HIS, LIS, and all these other information systems that need to work together to keep track of patients' medical records. Those are horribly expensive as well, not to mention the ungodly amount of money good interface programmers demand to connect these systems together...
It's not just a single technology that gets cheaper over time, it has to adapt and get better, which increases the price.
He didn't say website, he said "web servers" which, despite the name "web", could serve an internal web-based service to a large company that only exists in one region of the world.
You're assuming the web servers are for an international service.
> That person may even be you.
If you mean writing something for someone other than the current employer, that might not be such a good idea, depending on the scope of non-compete clauses and other such things on which I am no expert.
You seriously think "my vaccuum is way too small for me to fit in" was a serious statement? Wow.
Sense of humor FAIL.
My PC is submerged in Krelm, with the miracle ingredient 345-4900 (347-3816 after 6pm).
A couple people I work with, who use computers regularly call it a modem.
Perhaps my Calc professor was a moron, but if you are suggesting that the entirety of calculus can boiled down to y/x and one simple variation of it... I suspect you should reevaluate the qualifications of your professor.
He said they defend scumbags: you have only reinforced his point!
(That's sarcasm, my friends.)
> I believe that freedom of speech refers to the government's abilities to restrict your speech
He said that it was "ILLEGAL for any company to give you a derogatory reference". Illegal means against the law, and a law must be created by the government. Ergo, if such a law were to be passed, it would be the government restricting your ability to give an honestly-negative review of a person's work habits/attitude.
It's a moot point anyway, though, because it's a lie.
Actually, you thought it was his girlfriend... but it was actually him.
> save the children, the cheerleader, and the world, from X.
Everyone gives X too much undue blame... all he wants is Birdman's crest!
I guess boring is a matter of presentation and preference. I should have said I would find it boring. Of course, I also think flight sims are gut-wrenchingly tedious, and tons of people love them to death.
For some reason your description reminded me of a "game" that used to be on some UNIX boxes, and I thought it was called "life", but I can't seem to find any mention of it after a (very) quick googling. Basically, you gave it some simple input data (blocks of color) and then it played like a movie as it followed certain preset rules to evolve. It sounds really stupid... and it was, but it was neat to watch a couple times. I know that's not very similar to what you describe, but I felt like mentioning it for some reason.