they'd be slick if you could turn them off. i have to cover them every time i want to sleep. sucks. also sucks that thing makes power LED on my midiman 2x2 midi interface pulse too... too many goddamn blinking lights.
you can't protest an action if they-who-are-protested do not know WTF you are protesting.... or if they can point to something else, say....the really fucked up economic climate? they'll interpret their numbers in their best interest, never mind reality.
However SOMEONE will go to all the trouble to rip the music
You know what the best thing about this is? The people most likely to have nice, high-quality, unrestrictive D/D | A/D equipment......are musicians like me. And hell yeah - music is worth sharing. I think I can speak for musicians in general when I say that we're obsessive enough to wait for the realtime transfer.;-)
The genie will not go back. Get yourself a new genie, and we'll see what that one can do... and decide which one we like best.
that sounds potentially dangerous. you don't necessarily want information sources to "evolve", you want them to stay complete. that's what makes them useful. knowing what everyone else is clicking on could arguably be a huge detriment to "natural selection" of links. the tech you're talking about is like information eugenics, and i think there's enough of that going around as it is. it's good for analysis, not so good for first-degree abstract presentation.
There is no field of software engineering, and there never will be.
I think you're wrong about the future... but I also think that the future will resemble the past of other forms of engineering. Consider how long software has existed - we're still in the mud and wattle phase of software construction!
It seems a little premature... the artistry will be elevated once we've really got the basics down. The basics will be developed with view towards the possible massive complexities, which is why things might seem so slow - or so error-prone - right now. We're just getting started. Give it time, and try to contribute. Pretty soon we'll be working on the pyramids, and fantasize about heavy machinery and pre-fab housing.
and a bit more anecdotal evidence:
on my g4 867, os 10.1 runs *much* faster with equivalent tasks than OS 9.2. much more pleasant... can't wait till the things i actually bought the machine to work with are finished porting.
Seriously... think about what you're getting at, then go hunt down a few episodes of The Prisoner, and use that as a hint. Decide for yourself how pleasant an idyllic (surveillance) society could be. Yes, it's fiction. Yes, it makes a *very* good point.
So far open source solutions have not caught up even with maturing product categories in the application and toolbox space.
I think this is precisely the area in which open-source production has the greatest potential. OSS development essentially defines its own standards implicitly (sometimes explicitly). If you have the source, you have the complete description.
I really believe that all it takes is one ground-breaking, well-designed application in this space - preferably a generalist application with a clear, fully extensible framework, so that it may be used by *anyone* to participate in OSS iteration.
What do I mean? I mean that the killer app for OSS is making everyone a developer. 'Macros', in the MS Office view, should be working towards this, but they suck....
Mozilla can debug itself. Each element of the program can be edited individually, and a lot of it is built in high-level script. Picture this as a blindered example: click on an element, bring up the source for that element's behaviour, change it using some wonderful IDE paradigm yet to be developed which just handles logic, Moz auto-describes the changed behaviour in the correct language and incorporates the change, lists the auto-description (with any intentional notes, of course) and its associated code somewhere central, this becomes public... etc.
quite silly, really, but i think at some point necessary... because why do 'we' like OSS so much, anyway? where is the real value? how do you expand that?
so I think there is a division possible here: enterprise software that is absolutely crucial to your business, software that is merely very useful to have around, and software that's nice but not necessary.
in the first case, open source is a good idea, since no matter what happens, you have control over a crucial part of your business. you may reach a point where it's costly to maintain your business (if the project dies), but you can then either (a) move with documentation to another solution or (b) maintain it yourself, or hire someone to do so.
in the second case, go ahead and use closed-source software if you want to. it's a known quantity, with more business and legal precedent. you could also go the OSS way... this is the area that's really being examined. the first and third areas are much more cut-and-dry.
in the third case, use OSS again if you can - since it doesn't matter much, and it will get the job done, and it's generally cheap, easily tested, etc....
this is a close cousin of max/msp (combined), by the original author of max, running on Irix, Linux, and NT. it doesn't have the same object variety or community size, but *you can fix that*. with both PD and max/msp (mac only), you can write your own low-level objects in C, if what's there doesn't work for you. hence extensibility, low latency, etc.
no one - and i do mean no one - is stopping you from sending a check or money order for $15 to your beloved artists.
and as an artist, i'd really enjoy that. that's direct appreciation, that's you liking my music enough to let me know about it directly, without anyone else's involvement.
in addition, it's a fuck of a lot more money going to me than usual. but your point is also good: donate to the EFF! donate to your artists. fuck the RIAA, they're just nasty all around, not to mention a wee bit slow.
Everyone knows, if it can be heard it can be copied. Working a line-in jack on a stereo or computer isn't hard.
yeah... and some of us have all-digital mixing facilities, so there will be no degradation whatsoever (and any funky signals can be processed right out, dammit). i hereby vow to *only* distribute high-quality mp3's of material which disallows fair use through "protection".
when is everyone going to realize that the OS should *be* the application? take the UNIX modularity concept as far as it can go - and developers will be where they want to be, playing with blocks. your app? a schematic for how the blocks should be put together, nothing more. very high level programming, low level optimization, standardized *everything*.
yeah, i'm babbling on and i don't know what i'm talking about.
IBM wants linux on *all* IBM platforms. S/390 is least threatening to current strategy and poses the greatest short-term gain. Long-term gain: IBM wants to displace *everyone*, and the best way to do that is...
IBM may be doing well in the high-end market (big money), but it's still trying to gain share from Sun/Wintel at the lower end - because that's where the big market is. Tie all that together and you've got some good feeding grounds for Global Services.
For example, for several years there's been really strong correlation between the number of Babtist preachers and number of people arrested for drinking in public. There's jack causality present as the dominant effect is the fluctuations in the population of US.
It's very hard to perform statistical analysis on measures like "desperation", which I'd think would be a leading cause of both of those trends.
One other problem I can see with these is that someone who basically has the layout memorized may get crossed up by a menu item moving or disappearing as different features are used more or less.
Absolutely. Part of good UI is either (a) knowing where to look, or (b) not having to look. Both is better. An explicit 3-way choice is best.
Give me a main window with the option to open other windows for specific controls and/or inspectors. If you want to go full-tilt, let users put those inspector windows into the main window as borders (blech).
Whereas I prefer not to waste my time getting other windows open when I could access a specific function - the one I want - with a single click or a single hotkey.
i expect that having a blind usability developer would be good for skilled interface navigators (probably most of/.'s readership), not just the blind. having predictable key combinations and standardized effects is good for the blind and the quick.
Slashdot Mirror
they'd be slick if you could turn them off. i have to cover them every time i want to sleep. sucks. also sucks that thing makes power LED on my midiman 2x2 midi interface pulse too... too many goddamn blinking lights.
you can't protest an action if they-who-are-protested do not know WTF you are protesting.... or if they can point to something else, say.. ..the really fucked up economic climate? they'll interpret their numbers in their best interest, never mind reality.
your plan will not work.
You know what the best thing about this is? The people most likely to have nice, high-quality, unrestrictive D/D | A/D equipment... ...are musicians like me. And hell yeah - music is worth sharing. I think I can speak for musicians in general when I say that we're obsessive enough to wait for the realtime transfer. ;-)
The genie will not go back. Get yourself a new genie, and we'll see what that one can do... and decide which one we like best.
this could have some interesting ramifications for contractors / services-type businesses...
instead, just save a copy of the map detailing camera locations. do this occasionally. use your brains!
that sounds potentially dangerous. you don't necessarily want information sources to "evolve", you want them to stay complete. that's what makes them useful. knowing what everyone else is clicking on could arguably be a huge detriment to "natural selection" of links. the tech you're talking about is like information eugenics, and i think there's enough of that going around as it is. it's good for analysis, not so good for first-degree abstract presentation.
you wouldn't be hearing much for long.
This would perhaps not be the ideal way to do this... last I checked, IR was directional.
I think you're wrong about the future... but I also think that the future will resemble the past of other forms of engineering. Consider how long software has existed - we're still in the mud and wattle phase of software construction!
It seems a little premature... the artistry will be elevated once we've really got the basics down. The basics will be developed with view towards the possible massive complexities, which is why things might seem so slow - or so error-prone - right now. We're just getting started. Give it time, and try to contribute. Pretty soon we'll be working on the pyramids, and fantasize about heavy machinery and pre-fab housing.
and a bit more anecdotal evidence:
on my g4 867, os 10.1 runs *much* faster with equivalent tasks than OS 9.2. much more pleasant... can't wait till the things i actually bought the machine to work with are finished porting.
Seriously... think about what you're getting at, then go hunt down a few episodes of The Prisoner, and use that as a hint. Decide for yourself how pleasant an idyllic (surveillance) society could be. Yes, it's fiction. Yes, it makes a *very* good point.
I think this is precisely the area in which open-source production has the greatest potential. OSS development essentially defines its own standards implicitly (sometimes explicitly). If you have the source, you have the complete description.
I really believe that all it takes is one ground-breaking, well-designed application in this space - preferably a generalist application with a clear, fully extensible framework, so that it may be used by *anyone* to participate in OSS iteration.
What do I mean? I mean that the killer app for OSS is making everyone a developer. 'Macros', in the MS Office view, should be working towards this, but they suck. ...
Mozilla can debug itself. Each element of the program can be edited individually, and a lot of it is built in high-level script. Picture this as a blindered example: click on an element, bring up the source for that element's behaviour, change it using some wonderful IDE paradigm yet to be developed which just handles logic, Moz auto-describes the changed behaviour in the correct language and incorporates the change, lists the auto-description (with any intentional notes, of course) and its associated code somewhere central, this becomes public... etc.
quite silly, really, but i think at some point necessary... because why do 'we' like OSS so much, anyway? where is the real value? how do you expand that?
in the first case, open source is a good idea, since no matter what happens, you have control over a crucial part of your business. you may reach a point where it's costly to maintain your business (if the project dies), but you can then either (a) move with documentation to another solution or (b) maintain it yourself, or hire someone to do so.
in the second case, go ahead and use closed-source software if you want to. it's a known quantity, with more business and legal precedent. you could also go the OSS way... this is the area that's really being examined. the first and third areas are much more cut-and-dry.
in the third case, use OSS again if you can - since it doesn't matter much, and it will get the job done, and it's generally cheap, easily tested, etc. ...
this is a close cousin of max/msp (combined), by the original author of max, running on Irix, Linux, and NT. it doesn't have the same object variety or community size, but *you can fix that*. with both PD and max/msp (mac only), you can write your own low-level objects in C, if what's there doesn't work for you. hence extensibility, low latency, etc.
you could probably run it on an iPaq. ;-)
and as an artist, i'd really enjoy that. that's direct appreciation, that's you liking my music enough to let me know about it directly, without anyone else's involvement.
in addition, it's a fuck of a lot more money going to me than usual. but your point is also good: donate to the EFF! donate to your artists. fuck the RIAA, they're just nasty all around, not to mention a wee bit slow.
yeah... and some of us have all-digital mixing facilities, so there will be no degradation whatsoever (and any funky signals can be processed right out, dammit). i hereby vow to *only* distribute high-quality mp3's of material which disallows fair use through "protection".
yeah, i'm babbling on and i don't know what i'm talking about.
IBM may be doing well in the high-end market (big money), but it's still trying to gain share from Sun/Wintel at the lower end - because that's where the big market is. Tie all that together and you've got some good feeding grounds for Global Services.
flare != flair
flare is perhaps more appropriate in the "flamebait" context, imo.
The article says that NEC built this thing. Not a single mention of IBM. Why does the blurb say IBM? I don't know.
Absolutely. Part of good UI is either (a) knowing where to look, or (b) not having to look. Both is better. An explicit 3-way choice is best.
Whereas I prefer not to waste my time getting other windows open when I could access a specific function - the one I want - with a single click or a single hotkey.
To each...
i expect that having a blind usability developer would be good for skilled interface navigators (probably most of /.'s readership), not just the blind. having predictable key combinations and standardized effects is good for the blind and the quick.