Yeah, what would be nice is if Microsoft allowed us to easily open/reopen a file we are/was working with in a different application. Why should we need to find it again with a file browser? The GUI/OS should know where it is so that we can open/reopen it with another app.
The Recent Items thing could work for that but you still have to right click while holding down shift and copy as path if you want to open it with a different app (unless you already have the app in your "sendto" - which was a great UI feature by the true geniuses who made Windows 9x ).
In the old days augmenting humans was a higher priority than today. Nowadays dumbing things down appears to be a high priority.
I make some recordings because often I don't spot the errors I make while playing. Then when watching the video I realize I should have done something else instead.
p.s. I doubt it's a driver level thing. It's likely to be one of those utilities that are bundled with the card.
I don't see anywhere in the summary (who reads the articles anyway?;) ) that implies it would be driver level. So I'd just assume they aren't that crazy.
I use MSI's Afterburner to record video from games and it works well enough for me (price seems right too): http://event.msi.com/vga/afterburner/download.htm The output file ends up quite big and I need to use virtualdub or vlc to compress it. But that's because my PC isn't powerful enough to do on-the-fly H264 video compression of the capture at 60fps.
It's a Windows utility I wrote that allows you to quickly assign alt+[number] to the 9 most recently used set of windows. Then you can use those keyboard shortcuts from then on for those windows till you reassign them. It's a bit like screen or the linux/BSD console but for GUI windows.
I find it handy for times where I need to edit stuff in more than two windows, while referring to another document. No need to move hand to mouse and back.
Long ago I did propose something like this to KDE etc first but they weren't interested. And I wasn't that interested in "Desktop Linux".
Windows 7 has that winkey+number thing which is similar but not so useful if you have many windows of the same app (e.g. spreadsheets, word processor docs).
I've long wondered if you can set up a quantum computer to process "all possible paths" and then "collapses" on the most probable right answer.
After all you can have light beams (and other quantum state friendly stuff) that are superpositions of all possible states and perform functions on them.
having electrical systems under the highways would be well worth the money
The Tesla Model S with a 85kWh battery has a claimed range of 500km travelling at 90kph (55mph). That means it uses about 15 kilowatts to travel at 90kph.
Thus to charge the 85kWh battery within 1 hour while driving at 90kph, you'd have to supply 85 kilowatts (to charge the car) + 15 kilowatts (just to keep the car moving) for one hour. After including transmission and battery charging losses it'll be well over 100 kilowatts.
Assuming the cars aren't tailgating each other and forming a road train, you'd have to supply 100+ kilowatts x the number of cars on at least 90 km of expensive high tech road. You'd need at least 90 km of road unless your travel plan includes driving in circles for 1 hour:).
100 cars = more than 10 megawatts. If you are using physical contact technology there's going to be wear and tear and associated problems (how do you change lanes etc). If you are using directed wireless, 100 kilowatt or higher power beams look like a weapon. If you are using some fancy nondirected resonance tech, how do you stop people from stealing electricity? Which brings us to the other big issue, how do you pay/bill for it?
An electric train doesn't need to change lanes very much, has lower losses. And even then rail is very expensive upfront.
Living forever is only going to be good under certain conditions. Otherwise it could be never-ending torture.
I daresay most (if not all) of us aren't mentally stable enough to enjoy even a billion years alive. The first thousand years maybe, but a billion years?
And even if you can manage a billion, imagine after a few billion when the last stars have gone dark and you're still alive. What would you do for the rest of your never-ending life? You've not even reached a trillion years.
So it should actually scare you if it's true that we have immortal souls and it's not complete nonexistence when we die. Because it's only Heaven if you are made perfect. Otherwise it's going to be Hell.
p.s. one workaround is periodically erasing your memories - but then that's not really living forever is it? I suppose you could selectively edit out certain memories, but after a few trillion years you might eventually decide to wipe yourself out (and thus die).
If the text actually wasn't sent the service would have no record of it. Also the phone may not have record of the time you composed the text either (depends on phone).
Lastly just because the phone was used minutes ago doesn't mean you were driving while using the phone. You could have been parked or someone else in the car could have been using your phone. This law just seems like another of those bad laws created to pander to the mobs.
On one hand we have Slashdot reader say to hell with hand optimizing software because _THEIR_ own time are so important and let the compiler/interpreters do their job and yet the same people complain that the chip designers should do the exact opposite.
1) There are only a few CPUs. 2) There are at least hundreds of thousands of software programs. Many of which require frequent changes as user demands change. 3) The CPUs affect the performance of all those hundreds of thousands of software.
The CPU layout isn't going to change every few weeks/months. Whereas software often changes every few months.
So it makes more sense to have a relatively few very smart and talented people optimize the CPUs. Than have many programmers "optimize" their programs and too often make them harder to maintain and not much faster.
Hand optimizing certain software like the kernel, high performance drivers, performance critical software does make sense. But for most other programs it does not make sense.
I wouldn't care if the Cavendish goes extinct (along with the farms that grow it), as you said it's near tasteless - a good potato is even tastier. Perhaps it's only good as an edible stage prop - more photogenic.
Plenty of other tastier banana breeds available and strangely many seem cheaper than the Cavendish in my country. So all that monoculture etc doesn't actually make it cheaper to me - maybe it makes it more profitable to the ones selling it?
1) Use bash within a decent GUI. 2) Observe the GUI providing practically all the features of bash and more (you should get better window and multimonitor management with a GUI, ability to take screenshots, faster copy and paste of arbitrary text between the CLI screens and other windows), and thus it provides a superset of what that CLI provides.
You can launch a GUI from bash, but you can't really use it well from within bash. The GUI takes over completely. So that CLI does not provide a superset of what the GUI provides.
If you use the CLI enough, eventually you will find it is faster than using a gui for most tasks. Only if you use an aimbot;). Or you have a "draw portrait" key on your keyboard. Or you have a "make the webpage look the way the boss said he wanted" key on your keyboard. Or you have a "find that guy's audio part" CLI utility (yes experienced people can figure out if it's a different person speaking just looking at the waveforms). Or you have a magic wand that can quickly teach an average person how to manipulate lots of data without using a spreadsheet. It's usually far easier and faster to teach most people how to suboptimally manipulate data on a spreadsheet than it is to teach them to insert the data into a database and then do queries on it.
But yeah other than the numerous tasks that GUIs are better at, CLIs are faster.
Most GUIs are crappy nowadays. They are made by people who can't even make GUIs that help people manage many tasks faster than GNU screen. The day they are once again made by people who realize that it's not about wobbling windows and fancy animations but augmenting humans and trying to make humans superhuman then we will see real improvements.
GUIs can easily provide a superset of what CLIs provide. And I'm pretty sure they can be much better than they are today. For example, when you are working on a document/file (or just finished with it) and you want to refer to it in another application (to copy it or manipulate it etc), why is it so hard to do so? You often have to look for it again using another file browser dialog!
My response to the question is simple too: WORKSFORME
Sometimes it seems to me the Desktop Linux developers are actually trying to sabotage Desktop Linux and not make it better. Whenever Microsoft screws up, they try to make Desktop Linux even worse!
So I've given up on Desktop Linux. Server Linux on the other hand is generally better than Windows. Windows is terrible for servers. For example, going through the event logs to find out stuff is such a pain and an often fruitless endeavour. Stuff on unix/Linux somehow tends to create more useful logs.
Maybe I'll switch when Windows 7 is unsupported and Microsoft makes future Windows versions even worse than Windows 8.
Microsoft is disappointing too. With their billions of dollars and thousands of smart people, they give us disappointments like Vista, Windows 7 and Metro?
You're not thinking properly. When you disagree with the government you stop voting for them.
Now consider the following: A) People that disagree with a large corporation will do a good job not paying for any of its numerous products and services on a day to day basis. vs B) People that disagree with their leaders will do a good job not voting for them every few years.
Which is harder? If you think people aren't doing a good job in B, why do you think they'd be better at A? If they're doing a good job in B, then there's no problem right?;).
The experimental and somewhat haphazard domestication of homo sapiens by homo sapiens continues.
As observed in other species, domesticated breeds become significantly different from wild ones over generations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox The researchers even bred very vicious foxes.
We wouldn't have got to where we are if we just stuck to being "chimps" or "gorillas" long ago. Sticking to what our genes are is overrated. Extending the survival of this species likely depends on figuring a way to have sustainable colonies off this planet. But that is but just one possible goal out of many.
I think many of those people (smarter than me) have decided rather logically and rationally that their life will be better if they focused on solving their own problems rather than the world's "important problems".
There are still smart people who would like to solve more "important problems" but genius alone won't get you anywhere. The Manhattan project needed more than just smart people.
So where are the Manhattan projects of today? I believe the people in power are no longer interested in "moving society forward". And the voters who give them the power don't care about "forward". Hence the USA spends a lot per capita on education (and other stuff) but gets poor results. Those in power know that better educated voters will make life harder for them. It's better to give or pretend to give the voters what they ask for. Rather than move them "forward" (often against their will).
Installing truecrypt doesn't mean beyond a reasonable doubt that you've used it. Reasonable doubt is not the point here. We've been talking about plausible deniability. If everything is built in to the OS and the OS is popular, you have plausible deniability when you claim you don't know what they're talking about. Whereas if you have truecrypt installed, you'd have to say things like "I don't know what's that, someone else must have installed it" or "I installed it, but I didn't use it". Which could be true but a lot less _plausible_. Especially if they find a file/partition that could be a candidate for a container. <quote> In regards to a plausible deniabiliy I may or may not be using a hidden volume, the fun part is to prove I am, cause anybody using it will tell you they don't.</quote> In many countries/scenarios the "fun part" will not be a very fun part for you. Whereas with real plausible deniability they would be wondering whether you used encryption in the first place and the doubt may be enough for them not to bother with the "fun part". For example if it was built in, do they do the fun stuff with all members of your org? It might not be politically viable. Whereas if truecrypt was on just 5 people's computers they are more likely to get special attention. You may be lucky to live in a country which will never resort to that, but not all countries are like that. <quote>Anything that is publicly known (OS w a hidden container) implies a forensics expert already knows it.</quote> Not sure what you mean. It doesn't matter if the experts know about it. If windows came standard with an encrypted container file and all the tools to easily use it safely (whether or not you use it), a lot of people may use it, but most people probably won't. And that's real plausible deniability.
Lastly the legality of stuff is different in different countries and laws change. So it might still be a good idea to keep certain stuff encrypted. You may also prefer to be judged only by what you do in public to others than what you do in private by yourself.
p.s. Slashdot made their posting stuff even worse so not gonna try fixing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, what would be nice is if Microsoft allowed us to easily open/reopen a file we are/was working with in a different application. Why should we need to find it again with a file browser? The GUI/OS should know where it is so that we can open/reopen it with another app.
The Recent Items thing could work for that but you still have to right click while holding down shift and copy as path if you want to open it with a different app (unless you already have the app in your "sendto" - which was a great UI feature by the true geniuses who made Windows 9x ).
In the old days augmenting humans was a higher priority than today. Nowadays dumbing things down appears to be a high priority.
I make some recordings because often I don't spot the errors I make while playing. Then when watching the video I realize I should have done something else instead.
p.s. I doubt it's a driver level thing. It's likely to be one of those utilities that are bundled with the card.
I don't see anywhere in the summary (who reads the articles anyway? ;) ) that implies it would be driver level. So I'd just assume they aren't that crazy.
I use MSI's Afterburner to record video from games and it works well enough for me (price seems right too): http://event.msi.com/vga/afterburner/download.htm
The output file ends up quite big and I need to use virtualdub or vlc to compress it. But that's because my PC isn't powerful enough to do on-the-fly H264 video compression of the capture at 60fps.
What's this guy using?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83nSodg-HTU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx24B6RwekQ
If you find "flipping" easier than extra screens then this could help: http://sourceforge.net/projects/linkkey/
It's a Windows utility I wrote that allows you to quickly assign alt+[number] to the 9 most recently used set of windows. Then you can use those keyboard shortcuts from then on for those windows till you reassign them. It's a bit like screen or the linux/BSD console but for GUI windows.
I find it handy for times where I need to edit stuff in more than two windows, while referring to another document. No need to move hand to mouse and back.
Long ago I did propose something like this to KDE etc first but they weren't interested. And I wasn't that interested in "Desktop Linux".
Windows 7 has that winkey+number thing which is similar but not so useful if you have many windows of the same app (e.g. spreadsheets, word processor docs).
I wonder how many Google "ads" the NSA and friends buy... ;)
I've long wondered if you can set up a quantum computer to process "all possible paths" and then "collapses" on the most probable right answer.
After all you can have light beams (and other quantum state friendly stuff) that are superpositions of all possible states and perform functions on them.
Something like 74% of the wealth held by something like 5% of the population
More like top 10%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Distribution_of_Wealth,_2007.jpg
See also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
Nah, why not fog the warehouse with "fog":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tobb0igeGQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAPw_xbTJzk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4fd88DhN5I
Seems more likely to reduce your losses than some DNA fog which the cops will never bother with (unless perhaps someone is killed).
having electrical systems under the highways would be well worth the money
The Tesla Model S with a 85kWh battery has a claimed range of 500km travelling at 90kph (55mph). That means it uses about 15 kilowatts to travel at 90kph.
Thus to charge the 85kWh battery within 1 hour while driving at 90kph, you'd have to supply 85 kilowatts (to charge the car) + 15 kilowatts (just to keep the car moving) for one hour. After including transmission and battery charging losses it'll be well over 100 kilowatts.
Assuming the cars aren't tailgating each other and forming a road train, you'd have to supply 100+ kilowatts x the number of cars on at least 90 km of expensive high tech road. You'd need at least 90 km of road unless your travel plan includes driving in circles for 1 hour :).
100 cars = more than 10 megawatts. If you are using physical contact technology there's going to be wear and tear and associated problems (how do you change lanes etc). If you are using directed wireless, 100 kilowatt or higher power beams look like a weapon. If you are using some fancy nondirected resonance tech, how do you stop people from stealing electricity? Which brings us to the other big issue, how do you pay/bill for it?
An electric train doesn't need to change lanes very much, has lower losses. And even then rail is very expensive upfront.
It's actually going back to the bad old days.
That depends on how you interpret the word "forever".
To me "forever" will be way past the right of the graph below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe#Graphical_timeline
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Theories_about_the_end_of_the_universe
It's a feature even if you aren't an asshole.
Living forever is only going to be good under certain conditions. Otherwise it could be never-ending torture.
I daresay most (if not all) of us aren't mentally stable enough to enjoy even a billion years alive. The first thousand years maybe, but a billion years?
And even if you can manage a billion, imagine after a few billion when the last stars have gone dark and you're still alive. What would you do for the rest of your never-ending life? You've not even reached a trillion years.
So it should actually scare you if it's true that we have immortal souls and it's not complete nonexistence when we die. Because it's only Heaven if you are made perfect. Otherwise it's going to be Hell.
p.s. one workaround is periodically erasing your memories - but then that's not really living forever is it? I suppose you could selectively edit out certain memories, but after a few trillion years you might eventually decide to wipe yourself out (and thus die).
If the text actually wasn't sent the service would have no record of it. Also the phone may not have record of the time you composed the text either (depends on phone).
Lastly just because the phone was used minutes ago doesn't mean you were driving while using the phone. You could have been parked or someone else in the car could have been using your phone. This law just seems like another of those bad laws created to pander to the mobs.
On one hand we have Slashdot reader say to hell with hand optimizing software because _THEIR_ own time are so important and let the compiler/interpreters do their job and yet the same people complain that the chip designers should do the exact opposite.
1) There are only a few CPUs.
2) There are at least hundreds of thousands of software programs. Many of which require frequent changes as user demands change.
3) The CPUs affect the performance of all those hundreds of thousands of software.
The CPU layout isn't going to change every few weeks/months. Whereas software often changes every few months.
So it makes more sense to have a relatively few very smart and talented people optimize the CPUs. Than have many programmers "optimize" their programs and too often make them harder to maintain and not much faster.
Hand optimizing certain software like the kernel, high performance drivers, performance critical software does make sense. But for most other programs it does not make sense.
I wouldn't care if the Cavendish goes extinct (along with the farms that grow it), as you said it's near tasteless - a good potato is even tastier. Perhaps it's only good as an edible stage prop - more photogenic.
Plenty of other tastier banana breeds available and strangely many seem cheaper than the Cavendish in my country. So all that monoculture etc doesn't actually make it cheaper to me - maybe it makes it more profitable to the ones selling it?
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Finger_banana
For more see: http://www.agroforestry.net/tti/Banana-plantain-overview.pdf
Speaking of posturing, I'm not sure if replacing these bunch with robots would have quite the same impact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMbH_6tryiw#t=2m07s
1) Use bash within a decent GUI.
2) Observe the GUI providing practically all the features of bash and more (you should get better window and multimonitor management with a GUI, ability to take screenshots, faster copy and paste of arbitrary text between the CLI screens and other windows), and thus it provides a superset of what that CLI provides.
You can launch a GUI from bash, but you can't really use it well from within bash. The GUI takes over completely. So that CLI does not provide a superset of what the GUI provides.
If you use the CLI enough, eventually you will find it is faster than using a gui for most tasks. ;).
Only if you use an aimbot
Or you have a "draw portrait" key on your keyboard.
Or you have a "make the webpage look the way the boss said he wanted" key on your keyboard.
Or you have a "find that guy's audio part" CLI utility (yes experienced people can figure out if it's a different person speaking just looking at the waveforms).
Or you have a magic wand that can quickly teach an average person how to manipulate lots of data without using a spreadsheet. It's usually far easier and faster to teach most people how to suboptimally manipulate data on a spreadsheet than it is to teach them to insert the data into a database and then do queries on it.
But yeah other than the numerous tasks that GUIs are better at, CLIs are faster.
Most GUIs are crappy nowadays. They are made by people who can't even make GUIs that help people manage many tasks faster than GNU screen. The day they are once again made by people who realize that it's not about wobbling windows and fancy animations but augmenting humans and trying to make humans superhuman then we will see real improvements.
GUIs can easily provide a superset of what CLIs provide. And I'm pretty sure they can be much better than they are today. For example, when you are working on a document/file (or just finished with it) and you want to refer to it in another application (to copy it or manipulate it etc), why is it so hard to do so? You often have to look for it again using another file browser dialog!
My response to the question is simple too: WORKSFORME
Sometimes it seems to me the Desktop Linux developers are actually trying to sabotage Desktop Linux and not make it better. Whenever Microsoft screws up, they try to make Desktop Linux even worse!
So I've given up on Desktop Linux. Server Linux on the other hand is generally better than Windows. Windows is terrible for servers. For example, going through the event logs to find out stuff is such a pain and an often fruitless endeavour. Stuff on unix/Linux somehow tends to create more useful logs.
Maybe I'll switch when Windows 7 is unsupported and Microsoft makes future Windows versions even worse than Windows 8.
I've made a few suggestions to Ubuntu:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/29001/
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/156693
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/148440
Microsoft is disappointing too. With their billions of dollars and thousands of smart people, they give us disappointments like Vista, Windows 7 and Metro?
If you take it to the extreme you get a security system:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOgKti335tQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAPw_xbTJzk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVf3s6PtFkw
You're not thinking properly. When you disagree with the government you stop voting for them.
Now consider the following:
A) People that disagree with a large corporation will do a good job not paying for any of its numerous products and services on a day to day basis.
vs
B) People that disagree with their leaders will do a good job not voting for them every few years.
Which is harder? If you think people aren't doing a good job in B, why do you think they'd be better at A? If they're doing a good job in B, then there's no problem right? ;).
The experimental and somewhat haphazard domestication of homo sapiens by homo sapiens continues.
As observed in other species, domesticated breeds become significantly different from wild ones over generations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
The researchers even bred very vicious foxes.
We wouldn't have got to where we are if we just stuck to being "chimps" or "gorillas" long ago. Sticking to what our genes are is overrated. Extending the survival of this species likely depends on figuring a way to have sustainable colonies off this planet. But that is but just one possible goal out of many.
I think many of those people (smarter than me) have decided rather logically and rationally that their life will be better if they focused on solving their own problems rather than the world's "important problems".
There are still smart people who would like to solve more "important problems" but genius alone won't get you anywhere. The Manhattan project needed more than just smart people.
So where are the Manhattan projects of today? I believe the people in power are no longer interested in "moving society forward". And the voters who give them the power don't care about "forward". Hence the USA spends a lot per capita on education (and other stuff) but gets poor results. Those in power know that better educated voters will make life harder for them. It's better to give or pretend to give the voters what they ask for. Rather than move them "forward" (often against their will).
Installing truecrypt doesn't mean beyond a reasonable doubt that you've used it.
Reasonable doubt is not the point here. We've been talking about plausible deniability. If everything is built in to the OS and the OS is popular, you have plausible deniability when you claim you don't know what they're talking about.
Whereas if you have truecrypt installed, you'd have to say things like "I don't know what's that, someone else must have installed it" or "I installed it, but I didn't use it". Which could be true but a lot less _plausible_. Especially if they find a file/partition that could be a candidate for a container.
<quote> In regards to a plausible deniabiliy I may or may not be using a hidden volume, the fun part is to prove I am, cause anybody using it will tell you they don't.</quote>
In many countries/scenarios the "fun part" will not be a very fun part for you. Whereas with real plausible deniability they would be wondering whether you used encryption in the first place and the doubt may be enough for them not to bother with the "fun part". For example if it was built in, do they do the fun stuff with all members of your org? It might not be politically viable. Whereas if truecrypt was on just 5 people's computers they are more likely to get special attention. You may be lucky to live in a country which will never resort to that, but not all countries are like that.
<quote>Anything that is publicly known (OS w a hidden container) implies a forensics expert already knows it.</quote>
Not sure what you mean. It doesn't matter if the experts know about it. If windows came standard with an encrypted container file and all the tools to easily use it safely (whether or not you use it), a lot of people may use it, but most people probably won't. And that's real plausible deniability.
Lastly the legality of stuff is different in different countries and laws change. So it might still be a good idea to keep certain stuff encrypted. You may also prefer to be judged only by what you do in public to others than what you do in private by yourself.
p.s. Slashdot made their posting stuff even worse so not gonna try fixing it.