Then again, the movement you will be making with the mouse will be smaller (with the acceleration and all) than the one required to touch a spot on the touchscreen.
And similarly to the difficulty of moving the cursor (which you've learned to do with 'hardware'), co-ordinating where your finger goes is more complicated than you probably recognize. Think about all the joints. ^.^
I kind of agree with you that the UI for touchscreen should be designed from scratch to get it more efficient, but I wonder how far can you can go without losing the already existing frame of reference to computers that helps people to use such devises.
I'm confident the advances in technology in the last 20 years means your CPU will be perfectly fine playing that video or running that badly written javascript.
You do not need 100% total control over your CPU, unless you have absolutely nothing else going on in your life.
I'm confident that advances in technology will mean that there will be something else clogging the CPU in 20 years.
Having the word "Internet" in the browser name may help those people to choose as well. But that's ok, as long as they have the option to select something else if they are so inclined.
I'm mostly running 7 on single core, and no it isn't faster, but it isn't much slower than XP either. More memory is probably needed (than for usable XP), but if you have that, I would definitely use 7 rather than XP.
Have you tried XpanD 3D (active-shutter 3D glasses)? So far it is the only format I've tried. It was very immersive, although the glasses were a bit heavy... Very fast horizontal movements didn't look quite right in Monsters vs Aliens, but didn't have such problems with Avatar. I wonder if I now filter the problems away or have learned to watch it 'correctly'... The colours are ok, although a bit of range is lost when compared to 2D (I think).
Even small businesses here accept cards. Most very small ones don't accept credit cards, but do accept debit cards (where the sum is taken from bank account). I don't think any company accepts cheques here... Or maybe they do, I certainly haven't tried.
And there are ATMs pretty much everywhere, so finding a place where you can't use card isn't really a problem here.
Oh. And I've never, ever, written a check either. I've claimed two or three though, as they are sometimes used as a fancy way to give money as gift. Checks really are a curiousity around here.
Well, I'm slightly younger, nor Swede, but a long time ago I went to a bank with an account number and told them to transfer money to the account. A bit less time ago I went to banking automat with my 'bank card' and typed in the account number. Last ten (or so) years I've done this over internet.
"We know that 1 of these 300 people probably committed this crime. Now the police simply have to investigate to figure out which of them are likely to be tied to this crime either by proximity or possible motive." How is that not useful, from a law enforcement standpoint? You just narrowed your list of potential suspects from 300 million to 300, a large number of whom could probably be eliminated simply because they are not remotely related to the victim in any way, spatially or socially.
This here is the scary part. If I could believe that one person out of those 300 was always the criminal, this would be great. However, I fear it is very much likely that there would be cases where the police would go after 'the wrong DNA' and find a person that is tied to the crime either by proximity or motive...
The second non-optimal possibility would be sweeping the crime scene and harassing the persons that have visited it, because one of them 'must have done the deed'...
I don't think so (or rather, I think the need to educate is bigger than the risk of an opposite reaction). In my area the 'church' of scientology keeps delivering advertisements for books and courses that don't look that scientological (although not that scientific either). The word scientology is written on the form, but the size of the font is very very small...
If you were paranoid about it, why bother even giving them your password in the first place?
I must have missed a memo somewhere if changing password after giving it out somewhere counts as paranoid. Also, apparently I'm at least twice as paranoid, as I will never give out my e-mail password.
I can see your view and I appreciate it [*]. However, I think there is one fundamental difference: I think there should be explicit(ish) indication of the hotspot not being free. Both giving a name to the hotspot and securing it is trivial. Even the cheapest WLAN AP's I've seen come with instructions on how to do it. Some (most?) have the instructions also on a separate sheet or on the cover of the manual.
Then again, I'm not talking about constant use. In that case I think it would be a good idea to find out (if possible) that usage is approved by the owner of the hotspot. If I had an open hotspot, I wouldn't mind people checking their e-mails and such with it without asking me about it.
[*] without explicit signage of it being free [**]
[**] actually, quite the opposite, as "Comments are owned by the Poster."
By that reasoning, if you leave your front door open, and somebody actually wanders in and takes something, they cannot be charged with theft.
Nope. Not the way it works.
Similarly, using another person's computer resources without explicit permission to do so, even if those resources appear to be freely available, is still illegal.
Whether or not a person who leaves his computer open in such a way may appear to deserve to be inviting such activity is as irrelevant as the the fact that they make consumer vehicles that go over a hundred miles an hour could be perceived as inviting people to exceed the speed limit.
But considering that unsecured Wi-Fi stations basically send out invitations to nearby electronics, I don't think it only appears to invite activity.
If you invite some passerby to your home and he utilises your couch and watches your tv, it's not illegal, unless you say that the person must not do it
Actually anything could be random, because by its very nature a random process can create anything, including "Sort of looks like there are groups of character-types, but I guess it could be random."
However, it's still much more likely that you intentionally wrote that sentence, that that it just happened to be generated by a random process.
Indeed. It could be random, but I thought that it looks a bit pseudo-random, considering the apparent character space and the length of substrings of single character type. (Which doesn't prove anything, I know. The probability of getting those sub-strings could be surprisingly high. [at least to me])
Then again, the "How about this as random?" sounds like this was actually generated.
Slashdot Mirror
If Apple sold lemonade-flavored snow cones, here is how Slashdot would react:
But there would also be a new article about them every day for a month. :D
Then again, the movement you will be making with the mouse will be smaller (with the acceleration and all) than the one required to touch a spot on the touchscreen.
And similarly to the difficulty of moving the cursor (which you've learned to do with 'hardware'), co-ordinating where your finger goes is more complicated than you probably recognize. Think about all the joints. ^.^
I kind of agree with you that the UI for touchscreen should be designed from scratch to get it more efficient, but I wonder how far can you can go without losing the already existing frame of reference to computers that helps people to use such devises.
I'm confident the advances in technology in the last 20 years means your CPU will be perfectly fine playing that video or running that badly written javascript.
You do not need 100% total control over your CPU, unless you have absolutely nothing else going on in your life.
I'm confident that advances in technology will mean that there will be something else clogging the CPU in 20 years.
You can't buy the digital cable box? (or the more advanced box?)
That excludes a lot of iPhone frameworks out there (Unity, Corona, you name it). I'm sure that can't be what Apple means by that statement.
I'm sure that depend whether or not Apple likes the application in question...
Anonymous Cowards are not exactly the crowd of wise people most people listen to.
That doesn't make it less interesting. And if not evil, then perhaps stupid..?
You are quite sure the problem doesn't exist between the chair and the pedals?
Try to open saved html page - ditto.
Well. You can open a saved html page you've saved with Opera (without internet connection). At least on my measly phone.
And yes, it is very fast, especially when on a thin connection
Having the word "Internet" in the browser name may help those people to choose as well. But that's ok, as long as they have the option to select something else if they are so inclined.
For sure it's a memorable experience that you've just paid $1000 and can't taste the difference to $20 one. A learning experience as well ^.^
I'm mostly running 7 on single core, and no it isn't faster, but it isn't much slower than XP either. More memory is probably needed (than for usable XP), but if you have that, I would definitely use 7 rather than XP.
The Hobbit: Back to the past
Have you tried XpanD 3D (active-shutter 3D glasses)? So far it is the only format I've tried. It was very immersive, although the glasses were a bit heavy... Very fast horizontal movements didn't look quite right in Monsters vs Aliens, but didn't have such problems with Avatar. I wonder if I now filter the problems away or have learned to watch it 'correctly'... The colours are ok, although a bit of range is lost when compared to 2D (I think).
Even small businesses here accept cards. Most very small ones don't accept credit cards, but do accept debit cards (where the sum is taken from bank account). I don't think any company accepts cheques here... Or maybe they do, I certainly haven't tried.
And there are ATMs pretty much everywhere, so finding a place where you can't use card isn't really a problem here.
Oh. And I've never, ever, written a check either. I've claimed two or three though, as they are sometimes used as a fancy way to give money as gift. Checks really are a curiousity around here.
Well, I'm slightly younger, nor Swede, but a long time ago I went to a bank with an account number and told them to transfer money to the account. A bit less time ago I went to banking automat with my 'bank card' and typed in the account number. Last ten (or so) years I've done this over internet.
Indeed. I've been dreaming about that journey for a while now...
"We know that 1 of these 300 people probably committed this crime. Now the police simply have to investigate to figure out which of them are likely to be tied to this crime either by proximity or possible motive." How is that not useful, from a law enforcement standpoint? You just narrowed your list of potential suspects from 300 million to 300, a large number of whom could probably be eliminated simply because they are not remotely related to the victim in any way, spatially or socially.
This here is the scary part. If I could believe that one person out of those 300 was always the criminal, this would be great. However, I fear it is very much likely that there would be cases where the police would go after 'the wrong DNA' and find a person that is tied to the crime either by proximity or motive...
The second non-optimal possibility would be sweeping the crime scene and harassing the persons that have visited it, because one of them 'must have done the deed'...
I don't think so (or rather, I think the need to educate is bigger than the risk of an opposite reaction). In my area the 'church' of scientology keeps delivering advertisements for books and courses that don't look that scientological (although not that scientific either). The word scientology is written on the form, but the size of the font is very very small...
If you were paranoid about it, why bother even giving them your password in the first place?
I must have missed a memo somewhere if changing password after giving it out somewhere counts as paranoid. Also, apparently I'm at least twice as paranoid, as I will never give out my e-mail password.
I can see your view and I appreciate it [*]. However, I think there is one fundamental difference: I think there should be explicit(ish) indication of the hotspot not being free. Both giving a name to the hotspot and securing it is trivial. Even the cheapest WLAN AP's I've seen come with instructions on how to do it. Some (most?) have the instructions also on a separate sheet or on the cover of the manual.
Then again, I'm not talking about constant use. In that case I think it would be a good idea to find out (if possible) that usage is approved by the owner of the hotspot. If I had an open hotspot, I wouldn't mind people checking their e-mails and such with it without asking me about it.
[*] without explicit signage of it being free [**]
[**] actually, quite the opposite, as "Comments are owned by the Poster."
By that reasoning, if you leave your front door open, and somebody actually wanders in and takes something, they cannot be charged with theft.
Nope. Not the way it works.
Similarly, using another person's computer resources without explicit permission to do so, even if those resources appear to be freely available, is still illegal.
Whether or not a person who leaves his computer open in such a way may appear to deserve to be inviting such activity is as irrelevant as the the fact that they make consumer vehicles that go over a hundred miles an hour could be perceived as inviting people to exceed the speed limit.
But considering that unsecured Wi-Fi stations basically send out invitations to nearby electronics, I don't think it only appears to invite activity.
If you invite some passerby to your home and he utilises your couch and watches your tv, it's not illegal, unless you say that the person must not do it
Actually anything could be random, because by its very nature a random process can create anything, including "Sort of looks like there are groups of character-types, but I guess it could be random." However, it's still much more likely that you intentionally wrote that sentence, that that it just happened to be generated by a random process.
Indeed. It could be random, but I thought that it looks a bit pseudo-random, considering the apparent character space and the length of substrings of single character type. (Which doesn't prove anything, I know. The probability of getting those sub-strings could be surprisingly high. [at least to me])
Then again, the "How about this as random?" sounds like this was actually generated.
How about this as random?
Sr5&8w796Z6W9mVVM7HAuv43Yg8D523QwTf25646@SEKKEP3#m2t3f@2ap95295437852^5262S*qMK#b&B#^aXbxNfRQudSCz9P
Sort of looks like there are groups of character-types, but I guess it could be random.