The results were quite consistent: about a 10% speed increase (from 60wpm to 66 wpm), no significant difference in the error rates.
Interesting. Judging by an article I just read, you could have gotten at least that much improvement by switching to a mechanical-switch keyboard from a normal dome-type, and improved your error rate. Without the time invested in relearning how to type. (I'm not sure what that says about touch-screen keyboards... I guess that the quality of the touch-screen (how precise it is), and the quality of the software (detecting mis-hits, predictive text), is more important than layout.)
Imagine if Usain Bolt put a pair of these running shows on.
Have years of spell-check trained us all to type perfectly spelt, but completely incorrect words? Or did we always do this? I catch myself doing it all the time. I find it amazing that your brain can think up and type a completely unrelated word, but have enough sense to spell it correctly. And to read the sentence as you type it, somehow seeing the intended word. (I'm also nervously interesting in which words I inevitably screw up in this post.)
[lol, yeah I saw that in preview, but left it in.]
I've had this argument inside ISPs. I am disgusted to this day by their cowardice. They fear customers would leave for competitors.
An Australian ISP (Exetel?) used to have an informal policy that if a customer rang about something stupid, and insisted and shouted about the stupid thing, the owner himself would contact the customer, cancel the contract, refund their connection fee, and give them 30 days to take their business elsewhere. His feeling was that customer service was a major cost, so it was cheaper to dump them than pay for their argumentative stupidity.
I am still for a forced disconnect of any spamming botnet member until he has cleaned up his machine.
Years ago I argued for fines for even unknowingly sending spam. Ie, fine the owner of the infected machine. In the same way that failing to clean the windows of your car doesn't absolve you of any harm you cause when you crash, why should failing to clean the Windows of your computer? Just a few cents per spam, up to, say $1000 per individual, or $1000-per-infected-pc for businesses. The only defence would be if you could show you "took reasonable measures", such as up-to-date AV, firewall, etc. So you wouldn't be slugged for zero-day exploits you couldn't actually do anything about (except switch to Linux:)
Mind you, I also argued for similar fines for software and OS vendors, which left users vulnerable out of the box. And for ISPs/email-hosts who allowed spam to be delivered. So I'm kind of a jerk.
However, if every single url you enter loads the same "your computer is infected" page, google.com, facebook.com, slashdot.com, it's a good sign your computer really is infected.
Detects high energy neutrons produced by high-speed protons colliding with the Earth's upper atmosphere. TFA is that they have figured out the specific signal for high-energy solar flares.
Ditto. I do sometimes worry whether this will be an issue one day. At some point, will being unable to datamine you, be like not having a credit record; where, even though you're not a bad risk, they still won't/can't deal with you.
Having a company (an airline, hotel, etc) refuse you a booking, being denied a job, or even having legal problems [**], not because you've done anything wrong, but just because their screening procedures are so tied up with datamining social networking, that they literally can't process anyone who maintains separate online/offline identities. (And as there's fewer and fewer people who will fall into this category, they have no motivation to fix it, and frankly find "people like you" suspicious anyway.)
[** Not only are police using social networking sites to research suspects; but I wonder if separate online/offline identies are already considered "aliases"?]
Probably not getting much attention because you can already create a filter by right-clicking on the address, then clicking "Create filter from..." So what you want (which is a perfectly good idea), is seen as doubling up.
But since the mechanism already exists to pop-up a filter dialog, already filled in with the current address, all you want is a new trigger. That sounds like something any addon writer could do in their sleep. I had a quick look and can't see an existing extension that does what you want, so why not find an addon author who has a bunch of small single-feature addons, find their email/webpage and ask them to create an extension that does what you want.
(Just remember, they're working for free. Be respectful. You might have to try a few authors before you find someone who is still available, has time, and is interested in your idea.)
I ask only because no neurologist, or psychiatrist, or general prac that I've personally spoken to even admit it's they are a true phenomenon.
Define "true". Are you experiencing side-effects which to you feels like electric shocks? Yes. Are you actually being shocked? No. It's "all in your head", but you're not imagining it. It's real, but it's really not what it feels like. In the same way that heart-attack sufferers often report numbness or pain in their left arm, not their chest. It's real, but it has nothing to do with their arm. (Or in the case of the Afghan girls, their symptoms are "real", in that they are classic symptoms of anxiety and panic (Nausea, dizziness, breathing problems, even fainting.) But they aren't "true" in being caused by poison.)
As for health professionals "admitting it's real". It was my GP who suggested the term, "electric shocks", when I tried to describe that part of the withdrawal symptoms. (To me it's not a "shock", it feels more related to the inner ear. Or at least, to head movement.) He told me it's a common symptom, gave me a pretty good idea how long it would last, used it to gauge the level of withdrawal.
I wonder if the difference is the intellectual respect your GP/etc has for you? Your GP/etc sees their job as reassuring a panicky/hysterical patient that he/she is not actually being electrically shocked (it stuns me that they actually sent you to get CAT scans, MRIs, etc), while my GP sees his job as working with me to ensure I'm getting the benefits I want, without unusual/dangerous symptoms. (For example, my GP picked up on my description as being related to head-movement, and asked about balance/dizziness. If the symptoms were severe enough to actually affect my balance, then I'd probably have to slow the speed of withdrawal, give my brain longer to adjust.)
The Voyagers were launched in the 1970s, yet you'll notice the complete lack of Donna Summer or any other Top 40 music of that era. Hell, they didn't even include any Tull.
Have you lodged a complaint with the FCC? If you still have the letter they sent, include a copy of that as evidence. Add in the dates of calls, and descriptions of what was said (as best as you recall.) Depending on your state's laws, you might be able to record the next call from them insisting that you have to change. The combination of the letter, and multiple calls, makes it harder for them to claim it was merely a "mistake" by the operators due to "training issues".
Sometimes these agencies literally can't investigate unless someone lodges a formal complaint. (Other times they just don't care, but you won't know which until you try.)
the powers that be would be *delighted* to get a three hour headstart
How detectable would a launch from the moon be? I assume the individual warheads would be covered in stealthy-tech. At most, you would see a launch flare (maybe). And you could time it so that it replaces a scheduled crew-return launch.
However, from what I understand from the US military planners looking at the idea in the '50s and '60s, the idea of a missile base on the moon was never about first-strike, it was about guaranteeing second-strike. "If you hit us, it doesn't matter how effectively you destroy our country, you will also die. You cannot win, therefore don't attack." Instead they went with the three prong model, ICBMs, subs and bombers, any one capable of killing the enemy even if the other two (and the C&C structure) are destroyed.
Not nukes, kinetic weapons. Multi-ton spears of lunar iron, accelerated by a lunar rail gun to hundreds of km/s. Armour-piercing bullets to a nuke's sledgehammer.
Then campaign to globally ban nukes, voluntarily surrendering your own to embarrass the others.
But that rail-gun on the moon? Oh no, that's not a weapon, that's just to launch low-cost material into orbit for next generation space programs. (Which it is.) We're happy to sell you lunar materials, fuel, etc, to your own space-program.
"And if you think the issue is genuinely technical know-how -- then why is it SpaceX is achieving things faster than Constellation, and for amazing less money?"
They hired smart people, they gave those people a series of smaller incremental projects to work on, building up their experience and know-how, culminating in Falcon 1. And they are now scaling up to more ambitious projects, building on their experience. And while they are bringing in more people, those will learn at the feet of the old-hands while developing actual new hardware, not merely operating existing systems.
Does that remind you of anything? The Government programs in the '50s and '60s, right? Captured V2's to ICBMs to Redstones to Mercury to Gemini to Apollo. Incremental development, building up the necessary understanding and experience. Learning their trade, developing their know-how. Pointedly not how the shuttles were developed, nor anything since.
A giant space-plane, 100 tons, reusable, side-mounted. It was like nothing they'd ever done. Clearly not a mere step up from Saturn/Apollo hardware, nor from the X-plane programs. Instead of learning how to build and operate reusable space-planes as they'd learned how to build expendable rockets - starting small and building up - they jumped right into the final full-sized version. And they did it! It was rubbish, horrible design, but they actually did it. Which gives you an idea of how powerful, how generalised the know-how of those Apollo guys was. But those guys retired, the know-how was lost.
So NASA operated the shuttles for 30 years. Not "continued to develop", operated. Eventually there was no one who had worked on developing shuttle technology. None of them had the technical know-how beyond that required to operate the shuttle in its existing configuration. Just a decade later, NASA tried to build a smaller space-plane, to be launched on EELV, called HL-20. Even though it was based on the unmanned Soviet BOR-4, and even though NASA had already built a space-plane that was ten times larger, they couldn't do it. Think about that. This is not to say they were dumb, or unmotivated, or any other knee-jerk perception of insult, it's just about experience. They knew how to operate the shuttles, in that single configuration, but they no longer knew how to design or build shuttle-type vehicles in general, nor any other manned launcher.
Then take Ares I. A small man-rated launcher, plus a capsule. Basically, Gemini, but using flight-proven hardware. It's the sort of thing that every freshman batch of engineers at NASA should be doing in their first year as an orientation exercise. But the agency couldn't do it, even when it was the principle HSF program for the entire agency, even though they knew the shuttle was cancelled.
Yes, it's a management issue. Management at NASA makes the same assumptions that you, and Congress, and everyone else makes, that because NASA once-upon-a-time built the Saturn V, then they must somehow still know how to do that. That because NASA built the shuttle, they know how to recycle shuttle components into a new generation of heavy-lift launchers. You hear paid-for Congressmen going on about "Preserving the existing experience of the shuttle workforce". But experience can't be "preserved", it is used and developed and renewed, or it dies. At NASA, it has died, decades ago.
What really scares me, though, more than the dumb corrupt Congressmen trying to kill NASA's only chance at changing the system (commercial crew), more than the money being wasted on SLS, is that this pattern of failure is infesting the unmanned space-flight development. The unmanned programs did have some level of incremental development. But now they are following the pattern of HSF. Neither MSL, and particularly JWST, are incremental developments of their predecessors (MER/HST). Which means that when NASA gets handed two perfectly good Hubble-class telescopes, they don't know how to cheaply develop them. They are scared to start, because they
Slashdot Mirror
The results were quite consistent: about a 10% speed increase (from 60wpm to 66 wpm), no significant difference in the error rates.
Interesting. Judging by an article I just read, you could have gotten at least that much improvement by switching to a mechanical-switch keyboard from a normal dome-type, and improved your error rate. Without the time invested in relearning how to type. (I'm not sure what that says about touch-screen keyboards... I guess that the quality of the touch-screen (how precise it is), and the quality of the software (detecting mis-hits, predictive text), is more important than layout.)
http://shawnblanc.net/2012/04/clicky-keyboards/ if you're interested.
Imagine if Usain Bolt put a pair of these running shows on.
Have years of spell-check trained us all to type perfectly spelt, but completely incorrect words? Or did we always do this? I catch myself doing it all the time. I find it amazing that your brain can think up and type a completely unrelated word, but have enough sense to spell it correctly. And to read the sentence as you type it, somehow seeing the intended word. (I'm also nervously interesting in which words I inevitably screw up in this post.)
[lol, yeah I saw that in preview, but left it in.]
what's with the link to some advert-laden page-view magnet
The internet has ads?
I've had this argument inside ISPs. I am disgusted to this day by their cowardice. They fear customers would leave for competitors.
An Australian ISP (Exetel?) used to have an informal policy that if a customer rang about something stupid, and insisted and shouted about the stupid thing, the owner himself would contact the customer, cancel the contract, refund their connection fee, and give them 30 days to take their business elsewhere. His feeling was that customer service was a major cost, so it was cheaper to dump them than pay for their argumentative stupidity.
I am still for a forced disconnect of any spamming botnet member until he has cleaned up his machine.
Years ago I argued for fines for even unknowingly sending spam. Ie, fine the owner of the infected machine. In the same way that failing to clean the windows of your car doesn't absolve you of any harm you cause when you crash, why should failing to clean the Windows of your computer? Just a few cents per spam, up to, say $1000 per individual, or $1000-per-infected-pc for businesses. The only defence would be if you could show you "took reasonable measures", such as up-to-date AV, firewall, etc. So you wouldn't be slugged for zero-day exploits you couldn't actually do anything about (except switch to Linux :)
Mind you, I also argued for similar fines for software and OS vendors, which left users vulnerable out of the box. And for ISPs/email-hosts who allowed spam to be delivered. So I'm kind of a jerk.
And as an aside, they are idiots because they don't provide a link to pay from that disabled-page.
Anyone who clicked on such a link would be the idiot. See also, DNSChanger.
However, if every single url you enter loads the same "your computer is infected" page, google.com, facebook.com, slashdot.com, it's a good sign your computer really is infected.
UD Bartol Neutron Monitor program. http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/Welcome.html
Detects high energy neutrons produced by high-speed protons colliding with the Earth's upper atmosphere. TFA is that they have figured out the specific signal for high-energy solar flares.
(Last 30 days.)
Ditto. I do sometimes worry whether this will be an issue one day. At some point, will being unable to datamine you, be like not having a credit record; where, even though you're not a bad risk, they still won't/can't deal with you.
Having a company (an airline, hotel, etc) refuse you a booking, being denied a job, or even having legal problems [**], not because you've done anything wrong, but just because their screening procedures are so tied up with datamining social networking, that they literally can't process anyone who maintains separate online/offline identities. (And as there's fewer and fewer people who will fall into this category, they have no motivation to fix it, and frankly find "people like you" suspicious anyway.)
[** Not only are police using social networking sites to research suspects; but I wonder if separate online/offline identies are already considered "aliases"?]
Probably not getting much attention because you can already create a filter by right-clicking on the address, then clicking "Create filter from..." So what you want (which is a perfectly good idea), is seen as doubling up.
But since the mechanism already exists to pop-up a filter dialog, already filled in with the current address, all you want is a new trigger. That sounds like something any addon writer could do in their sleep. I had a quick look and can't see an existing extension that does what you want, so why not find an addon author who has a bunch of small single-feature addons, find their email/webpage and ask them to create an extension that does what you want.
(Just remember, they're working for free. Be respectful. You might have to try a few authors before you find someone who is still available, has time, and is interested in your idea.)
to force everybody to learn their new customization interface.
"New"? It's the one thing that hasn't ever changed. (Well, not since FF 3.0 when I started using it.)
Sam and Janet Evening!
I ask only because no neurologist, or psychiatrist, or general prac that I've personally spoken to even admit it's they are a true phenomenon.
Define "true". Are you experiencing side-effects which to you feels like electric shocks? Yes. Are you actually being shocked? No. It's "all in your head", but you're not imagining it. It's real, but it's really not what it feels like. In the same way that heart-attack sufferers often report numbness or pain in their left arm, not their chest. It's real, but it has nothing to do with their arm. (Or in the case of the Afghan girls, their symptoms are "real", in that they are classic symptoms of anxiety and panic (Nausea, dizziness, breathing problems, even fainting.) But they aren't "true" in being caused by poison.)
As for health professionals "admitting it's real". It was my GP who suggested the term, "electric shocks", when I tried to describe that part of the withdrawal symptoms. (To me it's not a "shock", it feels more related to the inner ear. Or at least, to head movement.) He told me it's a common symptom, gave me a pretty good idea how long it would last, used it to gauge the level of withdrawal.
I wonder if the difference is the intellectual respect your GP/etc has for you? Your GP/etc sees their job as reassuring a panicky/hysterical patient that he/she is not actually being electrically shocked (it stuns me that they actually sent you to get CAT scans, MRIs, etc), while my GP sees his job as working with me to ensure I'm getting the benefits I want, without unusual/dangerous symptoms. (For example, my GP picked up on my description as being related to head-movement, and asked about balance/dizziness. If the symptoms were severe enough to actually affect my balance, then I'd probably have to slow the speed of withdrawal, give my brain longer to adjust.)
allowing the smoke to disperse so you can see sparkles.
Fuck sparkles. The sky was on fire!
That
was
awesome!
The Voyagers were launched in the 1970s, yet you'll notice the complete lack of Donna Summer or any other Top 40 music of that era. Hell, they didn't even include any Tull.
It would be a more interesting story if these were grammatically correct:
"It will be the first made made object "
Although the Mafia has made hundreds of inanimate objects, Voyager was the first to be made made.
"The disc was comprised by a man "
While Sagan killed several men, he ended up using only one.
" that are all copy-written."
Disappointingly, planet after planet was found to be without cashed up tourists, and the whole campaign has been a bust.
if you misspell either of them, you've demonstrated that you simply Do Not Understand what you are talking about.
And that you need a good copy-writer.
Have you lodged a complaint with the FCC? If you still have the letter they sent, include a copy of that as evidence. Add in the dates of calls, and descriptions of what was said (as best as you recall.) Depending on your state's laws, you might be able to record the next call from them insisting that you have to change. The combination of the letter, and multiple calls, makes it harder for them to claim it was merely a "mistake" by the operators due to "training issues".
Sometimes these agencies literally can't investigate unless someone lodges a formal complaint. (Other times they just don't care, but you won't know which until you try.)
Do they really not realise that if you release something high-profile on the web, it's out for good?
Did the people responsible for that video not realise how the internet works? I'm gonna guess no.
the powers that be would be *delighted* to get a three hour headstart
How detectable would a launch from the moon be? I assume the individual warheads would be covered in stealthy-tech. At most, you would see a launch flare (maybe). And you could time it so that it replaces a scheduled crew-return launch.
However, from what I understand from the US military planners looking at the idea in the '50s and '60s, the idea of a missile base on the moon was never about first-strike, it was about guaranteeing second-strike. "If you hit us, it doesn't matter how effectively you destroy our country, you will also die. You cannot win, therefore don't attack." Instead they went with the three prong model, ICBMs, subs and bombers, any one capable of killing the enemy even if the other two (and the C&C structure) are destroyed.
Not nukes, kinetic weapons. Multi-ton spears of lunar iron, accelerated by a lunar rail gun to hundreds of km/s. Armour-piercing bullets to a nuke's sledgehammer.
Then campaign to globally ban nukes, voluntarily surrendering your own to embarrass the others.
But that rail-gun on the moon? Oh no, that's not a weapon, that's just to launch low-cost material into orbit for next generation space programs. (Which it is.) We're happy to sell you lunar materials, fuel, etc, to your own space-program.
"And if you think the issue is genuinely technical know-how -- then why is it SpaceX is achieving things faster than Constellation, and for amazing less money?"
They hired smart people, they gave those people a series of smaller incremental projects to work on, building up their experience and know-how, culminating in Falcon 1. And they are now scaling up to more ambitious projects, building on their experience. And while they are bringing in more people, those will learn at the feet of the old-hands while developing actual new hardware, not merely operating existing systems.
Does that remind you of anything? The Government programs in the '50s and '60s, right? Captured V2's to ICBMs to Redstones to Mercury to Gemini to Apollo. Incremental development, building up the necessary understanding and experience. Learning their trade, developing their know-how. Pointedly not how the shuttles were developed, nor anything since.
A giant space-plane, 100 tons, reusable, side-mounted. It was like nothing they'd ever done. Clearly not a mere step up from Saturn/Apollo hardware, nor from the X-plane programs. Instead of learning how to build and operate reusable space-planes as they'd learned how to build expendable rockets - starting small and building up - they jumped right into the final full-sized version. And they did it! It was rubbish, horrible design, but they actually did it. Which gives you an idea of how powerful, how generalised the know-how of those Apollo guys was. But those guys retired, the know-how was lost.
So NASA operated the shuttles for 30 years. Not "continued to develop", operated. Eventually there was no one who had worked on developing shuttle technology. None of them had the technical know-how beyond that required to operate the shuttle in its existing configuration. Just a decade later, NASA tried to build a smaller space-plane, to be launched on EELV, called HL-20. Even though it was based on the unmanned Soviet BOR-4, and even though NASA had already built a space-plane that was ten times larger, they couldn't do it. Think about that. This is not to say they were dumb, or unmotivated, or any other knee-jerk perception of insult, it's just about experience. They knew how to operate the shuttles, in that single configuration, but they no longer knew how to design or build shuttle-type vehicles in general, nor any other manned launcher.
Then take Ares I. A small man-rated launcher, plus a capsule. Basically, Gemini, but using flight-proven hardware. It's the sort of thing that every freshman batch of engineers at NASA should be doing in their first year as an orientation exercise. But the agency couldn't do it, even when it was the principle HSF program for the entire agency, even though they knew the shuttle was cancelled.
Yes, it's a management issue. Management at NASA makes the same assumptions that you, and Congress, and everyone else makes, that because NASA once-upon-a-time built the Saturn V, then they must somehow still know how to do that. That because NASA built the shuttle, they know how to recycle shuttle components into a new generation of heavy-lift launchers. You hear paid-for Congressmen going on about "Preserving the existing experience of the shuttle workforce". But experience can't be "preserved", it is used and developed and renewed, or it dies. At NASA, it has died, decades ago.
What really scares me, though, more than the dumb corrupt Congressmen trying to kill NASA's only chance at changing the system (commercial crew), more than the money being wasted on SLS, is that this pattern of failure is infesting the unmanned space-flight development. The unmanned programs did have some level of incremental development. But now they are following the pattern of HSF. Neither MSL, and particularly JWST, are incremental developments of their predecessors (MER/HST). Which means that when NASA gets handed two perfectly good Hubble-class telescopes, they don't know how to cheaply develop them. They are scared to start, because they
FTFS: "scammers are looking for the most gullible people, and their crazy emails can help weed out people who are savvy enough to know better."
If you've heard of the Nigerian scams, you are not the victim they are looking for.
Not sure if you stupid, or trolling.
How much for a rocket ship?