Is this contest what I think it is? A way to come up with ideas about how to market this hardware?
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't diss this keyboard just because it's from MS. I am using Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 v.1, because it has a nice curve up, I type faster with it for real, the insert/home/page up are in one row and under those there are the delete/end/page down and the arrows are correctly underneath that, up is on top, and the three other arrows are in one correct row. Why is all of this important? Because I use the old Borland style shortcuts to cut/copy/insert/delete, most people I worked with can't do any of that as fast, the only problem is that it requires me to release control to select row up or down, the rest is correct.
I can at the very least see how an adaptive keyboard like that can be useful for specialty applications, with key labels changing for every application.
However there are other possibilities, how about taking an image (a picture) and putting a grid on top of it and thus splitting the image into a bunch of rectangles, and then each rectangle has its own part of the image on top of it. Now you can chose parts of the image by touching the correct keys.
Of-course changing from one language to another is obvious.
How about using it to play music, drawing a piano keyboard over the keys?
Things are possible, it's just the contest looks like it is a search of a problem for their solution to use that for marketing.
Check this out, the tilt is very visible on that picture. I can't imagine how much you need to load it to get the camber to 0 there. Do you know of any other truck that does this?
I always wondered why Tatra trucks had cambered tires, but they are cambered in the exact opposite way from what this story is talking about. So now I am thinking, maybe this tilt, when the top of the tire is looking outward from the truck body, helps the tire to live longer?
now that's a son of a bitch, imagine some poor schmucks losing their videos, photos, documents. This Masato Nakatsuji character should harakiri himself before someone else does it. I have created a number of viruses but never released them to unsuspecting audience, it's just mean, and in this case also stupid.
BTW., that video is actually taken with a camcorder, that's a riot.
Unions could never stop a company moving offshore. The reason companies were able to move to China and other cheap labor locations away from US first became Nixon and opening trade with China and then the collapse of the USSR.
How can a labor union prevent a company from opening a branch offshore and then from moving operations there? It would be probably a little more difficult but it couldn't stop it, after all even companies that had unions went offshore.
Personally I never wanted to be part of a union in any place I worked at, I don't want to be helping others to do less while getting more at work, I prefer to compete with them, gives me better ability to make more money. I am not interested in anybody getting better salary or being promoted due to seniority rather than due to them working better/smarter/faster/being more cost effective. Nobody has a right to things or to work, because such a right means somebody has to provide it to them, and once a right starts depending on other people's sacrifice, it is no longer a right I am interested in at all ever.
What does freedom of speech have to do with private corporations or any private contracts? Have you ever worked anywhere they asked you to sign a non-disclosure agreement? Well, quite a few people do that, and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is about not letting government to limit your freedom, not about your private deals.
So where in the FCC rules does it say that if you pay for the license to transmit/receive cell/internet signals you have to provide exactly the same access to all sites and not discriminate on protocols, etc.? Because if you have bought a license and there is nothing in those rules that prevents you from discriminating against different types of content, there is no case for net neutrality over the wireless.
Wireless spectrum is not a limited commodity and you can buy the license to operate in it, I never heard of legal requirements not to differentiate between different IP packets that are moving over that spectrum, so you are incorrect there, it's enough that you buy a license and pay royalties for the ability to use that resource.
But isn't that true today, that there is much more competition in wireless services than in wired ones exactly because it is so much simpler to enter that market? You still have to buy/rent a tens or hundreds of properties to install your equipment (antennas) and you have to connect your equipment to your servers, but once that is done, you can immediately provide service. Seems that it is a much cheaper way to provide service than by laying cable, so that's why there is more competition. So again, how many wireless carriers get government money?
Obviously cable is laid over land, etc., but you can't deny that for the right price it is always possible to just run your cable or to use the airwaves without any extra legal obligations. Of-course if the country decided that no, such thing is unacceptable for everybody and the votes came that way, and the laws were changed that you can't own a cable and buy the right to lay that cable unless that cable somehow carries a signal in a certain way, then yeah, it would be basically impossible to have that ability.
However I don't think that's the way things are right now, you can lay your cable if you have the money for everything.
If you own a cell phone company today, you already can charge differently based on location, so that's also sort of 'discrimination' (for example long distance calls or roaming charges,) so I don't think this is even a requirement for the way airways are used for wireless communications.
So if it is possible to buy a license to run your own cell network and then you buy your own pieces of land and install your own equipment, then what is the deal with government trying to enforce a particular kind of a contract between you, as a provider and your customer?
Is the infrastructure for the wireless services created without any government subsidy, government tax break, government money?
If there is no government money involved in creating the infrastructure for these services, then government cannot force their own vision of contract between the service provider and a customer. So as long as the customer is given a clear description of the service, and the description is real, there is nothing for net neutrality to do there.
What I mean is that most land lines were/are somehow subsidized by government money/regulations/power/tax benefits, whatever, and thus it is possible for government to exert power over the contracts that are sold to customers. But for the sake of an argument if there is a company that laid its own cables, paid all the taxes, didn't get any subsidies, then what is an argument against that company selling a service, that can discriminate against certain web sites, against certain protocols, whatever, as long as it's in the contract?
This is similar to somebody renting an apartment with Internet connection included, but with certain sites/protocols being filtered out.
I don't know, the social skills of a school yard may not be everything they are touted to be, I think I'd rather have kids socialize in some private clubs among their equal peers, than to subject them to the general public, it's like a zoo, like general prison population out there. The kids should learn social skills around people, they'd have to interact with, it's better if they understand those people. Sure this creates an inequality and sort of a cast system, but that's an inevitability of life, you cannot really put an equal sign among all people and expect both sides of the equation to have the same result.
Obviously the US students are now totally confused about what equality means, everything is equal to everything else, your work effort is equal to anybody else's work effort because based on liberal agenda the outcomes are supposed to be equal.
So clearly, women=men, black=white, all humans have equal rights, this inevitably leads to everything else being equal to everything else.
so 11=9, 0=1, Islam=Terrorism, America=Fuck Yeah=One Nation Under God=Obama=God Bless America=And No Place Else=Nuke The Whales=There Is No God=Gay Is Good=Gay Is Bad=Government Is Going To Fix Everything=Large Corporations That Are Monopolies Because Government Made Them Monopolies Are Going To Fix Everything
So you see, these students maybe confused, or maybe they are right and everybody else is stupid for not getting with the times.
I agree. I like how you just assume that because I believe in regulation I must also believe in subsidies. You also seem to have a flaw in your sarcasm detection chip.
- yeah, yeah, I see your sarcasm, but it's only partially sarcasm. Every joke is part joke.
ANY government regulation is a subsidy somehow and a tax somehow.
Why that you ask? Because my tiny company has to hire 7 people just to make sure we are in line with all the regulations, that are really set up to combat misdeeds of large companies, who are large because they enjoy government protections and help already. So government creates monsters and then it tries to control them to no avail, those monsters have economies of scale to deal with such nuisances at almost no additional cost, while tiny operations have to budget a pretty large amount in percentage terms to deal with these regulations, that don't even make any sense for tiny companies, because tiny companies could never have caused the kinds of problems these regulations are aimed to stop. Government creates monster companies and then creates monster regulations. Monster companies don't care, but monster regulations keep competition out very well. Small players who have managed to survive through the crazy regulations probably were in business before the regulations came to power, so they already had SOME income and could hire enough people to deal with the regulations, but no new companies in this sector can be setup anymore by small players. Sure, new companies can start in this, but only if the founders are already independently wealthy and can afford a million bucks a year right from the start just to comply with regulations.
So any government intervention is a tax, a burden, a subsidy somehow. Subsidy to industry of lawyers and accountants, extra tax on producers and burden to all, producers and customers.
You've got to be fucking kidding me. You just Godwined an argument about whether monopolies are caused by government
- no I didn't. The truth is simple: IBM enjoyed many privileges from many governments, it wouldn't be where it is, one of the largest companies in the world without that. They were a monopoly on and off in various sectors for that reason, they certainly enjoyed and enjoy an unparalleled number of government contracts in a number of markets. It is a big enough company to be a monopoly due to government help in some things, while not being a monopoly in others. It's a great way to start your business through them, if you are an exclusive provider of some service/product through them.
As to copyrights and patents, those are hurting competition in all industries and it's all governments' corruption, since the government creates and maintains those laws to help out their preferred corporations, and again, government must not be in businesses.
I can't buy a Linux PC from Apple, period. Helps if you read every word in the sentence.
- any Apple machine is a personal computer, what's your point? Do you want to buy with Windows tax or not? Also you can buy GNU/Linux machines from various vendors, here is Dell with Red Hat, and when I go to select models on Dell site I can choose to buy them with no OS and the price is decreased normally by at least 70USD. And Dell is is one of the largest, I didn't bother with other large suppliers, but there are plenty who'll sell you just Linux machines and you can buy empty boxes, or should I Google it for you?
Why is it the only form of policy you're familiar with is subsidies? Is net neutrality a subsidy? I don't think so. Is making a law that says, "you cannot hold your customers for ransom" a subsidy? This is what the thread is about, for chrissakes!
- Net Neutrality IS a subsidy AND a tax IF it applies to those providers, who create their own infrastructure without govern
You're right: I think we should only subsidize every segment of the market where there are TWO or MORE natural monopolies! Yeah!
- yeah yeah yeah, you'd subsidize everything.
No subsidies for any business, that's my position. I don't want to build businesses with my money through government power.
Except the "highly successful company" in question was not a monopoly. Re-read my post, then resume contorting away.
- it got where it got through tens of thousands of government contracts, including contracts with the government of Nazi Germany, not only to build computers to crunch large data sets to make movement of weapons and prisoners and supplies more efficient, but it also provided the necessary consultants to set it all up and to think of other ways to increase efficiencies - business analysis. Originally IBM started by getting a government contract to count census information. IBM had plenty of privilege, it even was able to sustain the anti-trust lawsuit from the US government long enough for it to go away, so they won that as well.
However surely, many things that MS did was also due to the government intervention into economy that kills competition, namely the entire concept of copyrights and patents.
Great example. Explain to me why I still can't buy a Linux PC from a major vendor without paying the Microsoft tax.
- You can't buy a PC from Apple without paying MS tax?
No, in my world the government would enter clearly inefficient markets and use policy tools to make them more efficient.
- dream on, pipe boy. Government making things more efficient without use of subsidies? Without using tax money, without getting into debt? Without creating unions on the way? Without creating special regulations to kill off competition? Without getting corrupted by the special interests in the process?
Government's only real money is the taxes they collect, so it's their real income, however that's not their entire budget. They print, they sell t-bills and bonds, they borrow, they take money from taxes supposedly created for one purpose and use that money for whatever they want.
Enjoy paying your social security tax? Well, you would have been better off taking your own money and investing yourself, now your social security will be destroyed, that money is gone. The entire population of an entire country is kept in check with a hope, that at some point they'll get old and be able to 'enjoy' their retirement. Good luck with that.
I know in Friedman-land it's trendy to believe that all unregulated markets are 100% efficient all of the time
- first off, nothing is 100% efficient all the time, that's why economy that is not distorted by powerful forces like government, goes through a cycle of pumping up (boom) and then deflating (bust), and during a bust prices must come down, people must lose jobs, companies must get eliminated, certain products/services must disappear and government must shrink.
But you and your government don't like that reality check, you want the boom to continue indefinitely, guess what, it's impossible.
Boom cannot continue indefinitely, and printing money and borrowing more only digs a deeper hole for you. I think the US will go bankrupt and USD will experience hyper-inflation, the interest rates will no longer be controlled by the government but by a market that will have to spike them to very high levels, the overall quality of life in US will go down the drain.
This will apply to US and to some degree to Europe, but Asia will come out better and stronger, with higher quality of life, the kind they have not experienced before, that they shipped all the fruits of their labor to other countries for money it lent them.
but here on Earth there are things called market failures that exist in real economies and can only be fixed by govern
Slashdot Mirror
Is this contest what I think it is? A way to come up with ideas about how to market this hardware?
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't diss this keyboard just because it's from MS. I am using Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 v.1, because it has a nice curve up, I type faster with it for real, the insert/home/page up are in one row and under those there are the delete/end/page down and the arrows are correctly underneath that, up is on top, and the three other arrows are in one correct row. Why is all of this important? Because I use the old Borland style shortcuts to cut/copy/insert/delete, most people I worked with can't do any of that as fast, the only problem is that it requires me to release control to select row up or down, the rest is correct.
I can at the very least see how an adaptive keyboard like that can be useful for specialty applications, with key labels changing for every application.
However there are other possibilities, how about taking an image (a picture) and putting a grid on top of it and thus splitting the image into a bunch of rectangles, and then each rectangle has its own part of the image on top of it. Now you can chose parts of the image by touching the correct keys.
Of-course changing from one language to another is obvious.
How about using it to play music, drawing a piano keyboard over the keys?
Things are possible, it's just the contest looks like it is a search of a problem for their solution to use that for marketing.
Just found this, looks like it's a really useful feature.
Check this out, the tilt is very visible on that picture. I can't imagine how much you need to load it to get the camber to 0 there. Do you know of any other truck that does this?
Possibly that's what it is, but they don't look any different when loaded, and I haven't seen other trucks with this feature except for Tatras.
Actually I have seen Tatra at full load, they don't spring like that.
Well, I don't know if it's a new idea.
I always wondered why Tatra trucks had cambered tires, but they are cambered in the exact opposite way from what this story is talking about. So now I am thinking, maybe this tilt, when the top of the tire is looking outward from the truck body, helps the tire to live longer?
now that's a son of a bitch, imagine some poor schmucks losing their videos, photos, documents. This Masato Nakatsuji character should harakiri himself before someone else does it. I have created a number of viruses but never released them to unsuspecting audience, it's just mean, and in this case also stupid.
BTW., that video is actually taken with a camcorder, that's a riot.
insane, they TALK about an image in this so called story instead of displaying it!
Ok, here are some pictures to make the story worth the 5 minutes /. is going to waste on it.
Unions could never stop a company moving offshore. The reason companies were able to move to China and other cheap labor locations away from US first became Nixon and opening trade with China and then the collapse of the USSR.
How can a labor union prevent a company from opening a branch offshore and then from moving operations there? It would be probably a little more difficult but it couldn't stop it, after all even companies that had unions went offshore.
Personally I never wanted to be part of a union in any place I worked at, I don't want to be helping others to do less while getting more at work, I prefer to compete with them, gives me better ability to make more money. I am not interested in anybody getting better salary or being promoted due to seniority rather than due to them working better/smarter/faster/being more cost effective. Nobody has a right to things or to work, because such a right means somebody has to provide it to them, and once a right starts depending on other people's sacrifice, it is no longer a right I am interested in at all ever.
that's a good thing, at least someone is enjoying life more
What does freedom of speech have to do with private corporations or any private contracts? Have you ever worked anywhere they asked you to sign a non-disclosure agreement? Well, quite a few people do that, and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is about not letting government to limit your freedom, not about your private deals.
Why wouldn't it be? If the cable is supplied as part of the rent and as long it says in your contract: only Keith Olbermann on TV, then it's all good.
OMG PONIES!
So where in the FCC rules does it say that if you pay for the license to transmit/receive cell/internet signals you have to provide exactly the same access to all sites and not discriminate on protocols, etc.? Because if you have bought a license and there is nothing in those rules that prevents you from discriminating against different types of content, there is no case for net neutrality over the wireless.
Wireless spectrum is not a limited commodity and you can buy the license to operate in it, I never heard of legal requirements not to differentiate between different IP packets that are moving over that spectrum, so you are incorrect there, it's enough that you buy a license and pay royalties for the ability to use that resource.
But isn't that true today, that there is much more competition in wireless services than in wired ones exactly because it is so much simpler to enter that market? You still have to buy/rent a tens or hundreds of properties to install your equipment (antennas) and you have to connect your equipment to your servers, but once that is done, you can immediately provide service. Seems that it is a much cheaper way to provide service than by laying cable, so that's why there is more competition. So again, how many wireless carriers get government money?
Obviously cable is laid over land, etc., but you can't deny that for the right price it is always possible to just run your cable or to use the airwaves without any extra legal obligations. Of-course if the country decided that no, such thing is unacceptable for everybody and the votes came that way, and the laws were changed that you can't own a cable and buy the right to lay that cable unless that cable somehow carries a signal in a certain way, then yeah, it would be basically impossible to have that ability.
However I don't think that's the way things are right now, you can lay your cable if you have the money for everything.
If you own a cell phone company today, you already can charge differently based on location, so that's also sort of 'discrimination' (for example long distance calls or roaming charges,) so I don't think this is even a requirement for the way airways are used for wireless communications.
So if it is possible to buy a license to run your own cell network and then you buy your own pieces of land and install your own equipment, then what is the deal with government trying to enforce a particular kind of a contract between you, as a provider and your customer?
Is the infrastructure for the wireless services created without any government subsidy, government tax break, government money?
If there is no government money involved in creating the infrastructure for these services, then government cannot force their own vision of contract between the service provider and a customer. So as long as the customer is given a clear description of the service, and the description is real, there is nothing for net neutrality to do there.
What I mean is that most land lines were/are somehow subsidized by government money/regulations/power/tax benefits, whatever, and thus it is possible for government to exert power over the contracts that are sold to customers. But for the sake of an argument if there is a company that laid its own cables, paid all the taxes, didn't get any subsidies, then what is an argument against that company selling a service, that can discriminate against certain web sites, against certain protocols, whatever, as long as it's in the contract?
This is similar to somebody renting an apartment with Internet connection included, but with certain sites/protocols being filtered out.
Overrated? What, it's not funny enough? Tough crowd!
I don't know what that means, but I assume it's offensive and I preemptively strike you, George Bush style with an = sign.
I don't know, the social skills of a school yard may not be everything they are touted to be, I think I'd rather have kids socialize in some private clubs among their equal peers, than to subject them to the general public, it's like a zoo, like general prison population out there. The kids should learn social skills around people, they'd have to interact with, it's better if they understand those people. Sure this creates an inequality and sort of a cast system, but that's an inevitability of life, you cannot really put an equal sign among all people and expect both sides of the equation to have the same result.
Insane? It's right in with the times!
a + ? = Insane Mod.
Which part of it, you liberal hating=Obama lover don't understand?
Obviously the US students are now totally confused about what equality means, everything is equal to everything else, your work effort is equal to anybody else's work effort because based on liberal agenda the outcomes are supposed to be equal.
So clearly, women=men, black=white, all humans have equal rights, this inevitably leads to everything else being equal to everything else.
so 11=9, 0=1, Islam=Terrorism, America=Fuck Yeah=One Nation Under God=Obama=God Bless America=And No Place Else=Nuke The Whales=There Is No God=Gay Is Good=Gay Is Bad=Government Is Going To Fix Everything=Large Corporations That Are Monopolies Because Government Made Them Monopolies Are Going To Fix Everything
So you see, these students maybe confused, or maybe they are right and everybody else is stupid for not getting with the times.
Obviously.
I agree. I like how you just assume that because I believe in regulation I must also believe in subsidies. You also seem to have a flaw in your sarcasm detection chip.
- yeah, yeah, I see your sarcasm, but it's only partially sarcasm. Every joke is part joke.
ANY government regulation is a subsidy somehow and a tax somehow.
Why that you ask? Because my tiny company has to hire 7 people just to make sure we are in line with all the regulations, that are really set up to combat misdeeds of large companies, who are large because they enjoy government protections and help already. So government creates monsters and then it tries to control them to no avail, those monsters have economies of scale to deal with such nuisances at almost no additional cost, while tiny operations have to budget a pretty large amount in percentage terms to deal with these regulations, that don't even make any sense for tiny companies, because tiny companies could never have caused the kinds of problems these regulations are aimed to stop. Government creates monster companies and then creates monster regulations. Monster companies don't care, but monster regulations keep competition out very well. Small players who have managed to survive through the crazy regulations probably were in business before the regulations came to power, so they already had SOME income and could hire enough people to deal with the regulations, but no new companies in this sector can be setup anymore by small players. Sure, new companies can start in this, but only if the founders are already independently wealthy and can afford a million bucks a year right from the start just to comply with regulations.
So any government intervention is a tax, a burden, a subsidy somehow. Subsidy to industry of lawyers and accountants, extra tax on producers and burden to all, producers and customers.
You've got to be fucking kidding me. You just Godwined an argument about whether monopolies are caused by government
- no I didn't. The truth is simple: IBM enjoyed many privileges from many governments, it wouldn't be where it is, one of the largest companies in the world without that. They were a monopoly on and off in various sectors for that reason, they certainly enjoyed and enjoy an unparalleled number of government contracts in a number of markets. It is a big enough company to be a monopoly due to government help in some things, while not being a monopoly in others. It's a great way to start your business through them, if you are an exclusive provider of some service/product through them.
As to copyrights and patents, those are hurting competition in all industries and it's all governments' corruption, since the government creates and maintains those laws to help out their preferred corporations, and again, government must not be in businesses.
I can't buy a Linux PC from Apple, period. Helps if you read every word in the sentence.
- any Apple machine is a personal computer, what's your point? Do you want to buy with Windows tax or not? Also you can buy GNU/Linux machines from various vendors, here is Dell with Red Hat, and when I go to select models on Dell site I can choose to buy them with no OS and the price is decreased normally by at least 70USD. And Dell is is one of the largest, I didn't bother with other large suppliers, but there are plenty who'll sell you just Linux machines and you can buy empty boxes, or should I Google it for you?
Why is it the only form of policy you're familiar with is subsidies? Is net neutrality a subsidy? I don't think so. Is making a law that says, "you cannot hold your customers for ransom" a subsidy? This is what the thread is about, for chrissakes!
- Net Neutrality IS a subsidy AND a tax IF it applies to those providers, who create their own infrastructure without govern
You're right: I think we should only subsidize every segment of the market where there are TWO or MORE natural monopolies! Yeah!
- yeah yeah yeah, you'd subsidize everything.
No subsidies for any business, that's my position. I don't want to build businesses with my money through government power.
Except the "highly successful company" in question was not a monopoly. Re-read my post, then resume contorting away.
- it got where it got through tens of thousands of government contracts, including contracts with the government of Nazi Germany, not only to build computers to crunch large data sets to make movement of weapons and prisoners and supplies more efficient, but it also provided the necessary consultants to set it all up and to think of other ways to increase efficiencies - business analysis. Originally IBM started by getting a government contract to count census information. IBM had plenty of privilege, it even was able to sustain the anti-trust lawsuit from the US government long enough for it to go away, so they won that as well.
However surely, many things that MS did was also due to the government intervention into economy that kills competition, namely the entire concept of copyrights and patents.
Great example. Explain to me why I still can't buy a Linux PC from a major vendor without paying the Microsoft tax.
- You can't buy a PC from Apple without paying MS tax?
No, in my world the government would enter clearly inefficient markets and use policy tools to make them more efficient.
- dream on, pipe boy. Government making things more efficient without use of subsidies? Without using tax money, without getting into debt? Without creating unions on the way? Without creating special regulations to kill off competition? Without getting corrupted by the special interests in the process?
Government's only real money is the taxes they collect, so it's their real income, however that's not their entire budget. They print, they sell t-bills and bonds, they borrow, they take money from taxes supposedly created for one purpose and use that money for whatever they want.
Enjoy paying your social security tax? Well, you would have been better off taking your own money and investing yourself, now your social security will be destroyed, that money is gone. The entire population of an entire country is kept in check with a hope, that at some point they'll get old and be able to 'enjoy' their retirement. Good luck with that.
I know in Friedman-land it's trendy to believe that all unregulated markets are 100% efficient all of the time
- first off, nothing is 100% efficient all the time, that's why economy that is not distorted by powerful forces like government, goes through a cycle of pumping up (boom) and then deflating (bust), and during a bust prices must come down, people must lose jobs, companies must get eliminated, certain products/services must disappear and government must shrink.
But you and your government don't like that reality check, you want the boom to continue indefinitely, guess what, it's impossible.
Boom cannot continue indefinitely, and printing money and borrowing more only digs a deeper hole for you. I think the US will go bankrupt and USD will experience hyper-inflation, the interest rates will no longer be controlled by the government but by a market that will have to spike them to very high levels, the overall quality of life in US will go down the drain.
This will apply to US and to some degree to Europe, but Asia will come out better and stronger, with higher quality of life, the kind they have not experienced before, that they shipped all the fruits of their labor to other countries for money it lent them.
but here on Earth there are things called market failures that exist in real economies and can only be fixed by govern