Ummm, no, Apple made a *huge* leap forward in useability with Mac OS X. It comes with bash!:) Seriously, I've always been an Apple zealot, but I could never actually stand to use one of the bloody marvels at home until Mac OS X came along with a CLI.
To be fair, I understand your point. "There is no such thing as an intuitive user interface. Not even the nipple." It's an important quote to remember. Mac OS 9 really wasn't that extraordinary of an OS, but if you know it well, it's naturally going to be much more intuitive than anything else. Likewise, I'm comfortable with bash, so I consider it the most intuitive aspect of Mac OS X.
Mac OS X isn't without failings, but I think the vast, vast majority of folks who really rip on it haven't dealt with a large number of alternatives, and are primarily annoyed at the fact that it's different, rather than worse. Personally, I've dealt with OpenWindows on Sun hardware, Indigo Magic on SGI boxen, the Linux desktops CDE, Amigas, classic Mac OS (I have both an *original* Macintosh and a Mac OS 9 box within a few feet of me), blarty, blarty, blarty, blarty, so while some things on Mac OS X annoyed me, I wasn't particularly attached to any particular "the old way" and thus I took to Mac OS X like dweebs to a booth babe.
IMHO, the dock is a bit odd. I really would like the ability to have 'drawers' in the dock for things I need to get at every once in a while, but don't want to reserve a permanent place for in the dock. Also, for the record, people have suggested that the dock blends between the various sized icons stored in a bundle file to get the magnification effect. Actually, it only uses the largest icon. I was very dissappointed at this. I was hoping that you could make an animated magnify effect by having the smaller icons be different frames in an animation. Completely, randomly off topic, but I'm still annoyed at that. It would have been schweet. Never mind.
Oh, and brushed metal finder... What the fuck? Give me back pinstripes. Fuck, man, the early OS-X lickable interface kicks ass compared to brushed metal.. Oh, sorry this turned into a rant. I swear, I'm not trying to troll, just venting. Have a nice day everybody!
quote::: Apple should've never gotten rid of its HCI group, and Tog once again shows why. For all of its advancement in underlying technologies and reliability, Mac OS X has been a huge leap backwards in useability compared to the Classic Mas OS as designed by people who cared more about useability than "lickability."::
There is already a zillion comments, and I have bad Karma, so most likely, nobody will see this, but I do have one idea you may want to look into. A friend of mine adopted a mentally retarded girl. (Fetal Alcohal Syndrome, sad story). She was having a terrible time in school, and the school insisted that the girl be put on medication, so that, even if she couldn't learn, at least she wouldn't be a bother. Contacting DCFS and having the kid taken away was what the school threatened doing. So, (and I don't know why) my friend taught her daughter sign language. She started an after school club where a bunch of girls get together, and do sign language performances of songs. It turned around several lives. Nobody is exactly sure why it works, but for some reason, mixing language, movement, rhythm, music, and such together into one performace has helped several of the kids function. My friends daughter went from "she may never be able to walk properly" to riding a bicycle. She is doing quite well in her studies. (Not quite top of her class, but for a kid with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, it's damned impressive!)
I would reccomend trying something similar with your kid. It may not work, as everybody's brain is a bit different, but I have seen sign language song to *wonders* for several kids now. I haven't seen any literature on the subject, or anything else, and as far as I know, my friend invented it as a therapy.
I know, I have bad karma, so some of you mods (if anybody even reads this) will probably assume I'm full of crap. I swear, I only have bad Karma because of a single "I welcome our XXX overlords" joke. So far, it just happens, that's the only comment of mine that has been moderated!
Many people use jargon or slang that wouldn't be in any standard wordlist. For example, if two coworkers were discussing repairs to something called a TCP/IP multiplexor, and one was annoyed at the other, you might see a message starting thusly:
Yo, dickhead, the TCP/IP muxer is fuxxored, you gonna fix it er what?
Any 'generic' wordlist not specifically filled with jargon and slang will have the following words in it : "the" "is" "you" "fix" "it" "what"
This would mean, with 7 'gibberish' words and six 'real' ones, this piece of (arguable) ham would most likely be discarded by such a scheme. Personally, I think that false positives are the biggest worry for any SPAM filter. I'm willing to manually filter 15-20 emails a day to get to my three real ones, but I *never* dig through the "Bulk Mail" folder in my Yahoo! account. It's possible that there is something useful in there, but with 50-75 messages to sort through to find the ham, I just won't bother. I've had the account for less than ten years, but I have had it for the better half of a decade, anyway (I think... Maybe less, it's hazy).::quote follows:: I thought about this after seeing my inbox spam increase to about 80 a day (the box that contains what is filtered is usually 10 per hour - my adress has been valid for just short of 10 years).
Why not check the subject or first few lines of plain (not html) text and see if 80% of it is in/usr/share/dict/words? I thought about trying this out, but have been too busy to get off my ass and do it.::endquote::
I for one, welcome our aquatic martian overlords! Seriously, with all that has gone wrong in Mars exploration, it is great to see some genuine success. My hat is off to all who have worked on Space missions (The ones that got there, as well as the ones that left) because we are one step closer to getting a tiny fraction of a clue about the worlds around us!
>>I think you might be confused: Moore's Law applies to the speed of computers, not their size.
I think a lot of people might be confused http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mo oreslaw.ht m
I reccomend reading Moore's original paper (the PDF is linked to from the above URL). On page 2, you will find "Moore's Law" which is to say, you will find the following statement:
"The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year..."
He suggests that the trend is likely to continue for about ten years (Which at the time meant, 'into the seventies.'
Now, all of this means that Moore's law has absolutely fucking nothing whatsoever to do with speed. It was just an observation about the density of integrated circuits over the course of 1960 to 1965 or so, and a muse about how it would most likely be most cost effective to build ever increasingly dense circuits for the next few years.
SMT isn't about bandwidth. It's mostly about latency. While far from ideal, memory bandwidth on modern processors is pretty impressive. But, when a program needs to load data from memory that isn't in cache, the CPU may have to stall for *hundreds* of clock cycles, trying to get that memory into cache. While a normal CPU would be stalled, and SMT CPU can just set the waiting thread aside for a few hundred cycles, and work on another thread which already has data in cache. Thus, each thread sees effective latency to memory as only slightly worse than a run to cache.
OTOH, if you have two bandwidth limited threads, they won't be helped at all. Each will chug through data as fast as the memory system feeds it.
(beginquote) >>IBM will have SMT in the Power5. Their approach looks even better than Intel's, but part of that is the Power architecture and part of that is IBM learning from what Intel did. SMT is really the best way to get past the limiting reagents of modern processors : bandwidth.
(endquote)
Re:Slow leak, still way above Denver pressure
on
ISS May Have A Leak
·
· Score: 1
Well, I live in Denver, and I think I've heard that we are roughly at.7-.8 atm, while your estimate suggests that we are closer to.5. Either way, remember that while Denver's official altitude is indeed 5,280 ft, Denver sit *next to* the mountains. 14,000 foot mountains are nearby, and they will slow you down a bit if you try and do anything athletic at that altitude without giving yourself time to adapt, but they certainly won't kill you. The guys on ISS, assuming a pretty constant rate of leak, have got plenty of time before it becomes a major concern.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, no, Apple made a *huge* leap forward in useability with Mac OS X. It comes with bash! :) Seriously, I've always been an Apple zealot, but I could never actually stand to use one of the bloody marvels at home until Mac OS X came along with a CLI.
:: Apple should've never gotten rid of its HCI group, and Tog once again shows why. For all of its advancement in underlying technologies and reliability, Mac OS X has been a huge leap backwards in useability compared to the Classic Mas OS as designed by people who cared more about useability than "lickability." ::
To be fair, I understand your point. "There is no such thing as an intuitive user interface. Not even the nipple." It's an important quote to remember. Mac OS 9 really wasn't that extraordinary of an OS, but if you know it well, it's naturally going to be much more intuitive than anything else. Likewise, I'm comfortable with bash, so I consider it the most intuitive aspect of Mac OS X.
Mac OS X isn't without failings, but I think the vast, vast majority of folks who really rip on it haven't dealt with a large number of alternatives, and are primarily annoyed at the fact that it's different, rather than worse. Personally, I've dealt with OpenWindows on Sun hardware, Indigo Magic on SGI boxen, the Linux desktops CDE, Amigas, classic Mac OS (I have both an *original* Macintosh and a Mac OS 9 box within a few feet of me), blarty, blarty, blarty, blarty, so while some things on Mac OS X annoyed me, I wasn't particularly attached to any particular "the old way" and thus I took to Mac OS X like dweebs to a booth babe.
IMHO, the dock is a bit odd. I really would like the ability to have 'drawers' in the dock for things I need to get at every once in a while, but don't want to reserve a permanent place for in the dock. Also, for the record, people have suggested that the dock blends between the various sized icons stored in a bundle file to get the magnification effect. Actually, it only uses the largest icon. I was very dissappointed at this. I was hoping that you could make an animated magnify effect by having the smaller icons be different frames in an animation. Completely, randomly off topic, but I'm still annoyed at that. It would have been schweet. Never mind.
Oh, and brushed metal finder... What the fuck? Give me back pinstripes. Fuck, man, the early OS-X lickable interface kicks ass compared to brushed metal.. Oh, sorry this turned into a rant. I swear, I'm not trying to troll, just venting. Have a nice day everybody!
quote:
There is already a zillion comments, and I have bad Karma, so most likely, nobody will see this, but I do have one idea you may want to look into. A friend of mine adopted a mentally retarded girl. (Fetal Alcohal Syndrome, sad story). She was having a terrible time in school, and the school insisted that the girl be put on medication, so that, even if she couldn't learn, at least she wouldn't be a bother. Contacting DCFS and having the kid taken away was what the school threatened doing. So, (and I don't know why) my friend taught her daughter sign language. She started an after school club where a bunch of girls get together, and do sign language performances of songs. It turned around several lives. Nobody is exactly sure why it works, but for some reason, mixing language, movement, rhythm, music, and such together into one performace has helped several of the kids function. My friends daughter went from "she may never be able to walk properly" to riding a bicycle. She is doing quite well in her studies. (Not quite top of her class, but for a kid with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, it's damned impressive!)
I would reccomend trying something similar with your kid. It may not work, as everybody's brain is a bit different, but I have seen sign language song to *wonders* for several kids now. I haven't seen any literature on the subject, or anything else, and as far as I know, my friend invented it as a therapy.
I know, I have bad karma, so some of you mods (if anybody even reads this) will probably assume I'm full of crap. I swear, I only have bad Karma because of a single "I welcome our XXX overlords" joke. So far, it just happens, that's the only comment of mine that has been moderated!
Many people use jargon or slang that wouldn't be in any standard wordlist. For example, if two coworkers were discussing repairs to something called a TCP/IP multiplexor, and one was annoyed at the other, you might see a message starting thusly:
::quote follows::
/usr/share/dict/words? I thought about trying this out, but have been too busy to get off my ass and do it. ::endquote::
Yo, dickhead, the TCP/IP muxer is fuxxored, you gonna fix it er what?
Any 'generic' wordlist not specifically filled with jargon and slang will have the following words in it : "the" "is" "you" "fix" "it" "what"
This would mean, with 7 'gibberish' words and six 'real' ones, this piece of (arguable) ham would most likely be discarded by such a scheme. Personally, I think that false positives are the biggest worry for any SPAM filter. I'm willing to manually filter 15-20 emails a day to get to my three real ones, but I *never* dig through the "Bulk Mail" folder in my Yahoo! account. It's possible that there is something useful in there, but with 50-75 messages to sort through to find the ham, I just won't bother. I've had the account for less than ten years, but I have had it for the better half of a decade, anyway (I think... Maybe less, it's hazy).
I thought about this after seeing my inbox spam increase to about 80 a day (the box that contains what is filtered is usually 10 per hour - my adress has been valid for just short of 10 years).
Why not check the subject or first few lines of plain (not html) text and see if 80% of it is in
I for one, welcome our aquatic martian overlords! Seriously, with all that has gone wrong in Mars exploration, it is great to see some genuine success. My hat is off to all who have worked on Space missions (The ones that got there, as well as the ones that left) because we are one step closer to getting a tiny fraction of a clue about the worlds around us!
W00t.
"the ebgames preorder says it will ship on 7/14/2004"
Sweet! The Seventh of Twelvember is my birthday!
>>I think you might be confused: Moore's Law applies to the speed of computers, not their size.
o oreslaw.ht m
I think a lot of people might be confused
http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/m
I reccomend reading Moore's original paper (the PDF is linked to from the above URL). On page 2, you will find "Moore's Law" which is to say, you will find the following statement:
"The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year..."
He suggests that the trend is likely to continue for about ten years (Which at the time meant, 'into the seventies.'
Now, all of this means that Moore's law has absolutely fucking nothing whatsoever to do with speed. It was just an observation about the density of integrated circuits over the course of 1960 to 1965 or so, and a muse about how it would most likely be most cost effective to build ever increasingly dense circuits for the next few years.
SMT isn't about bandwidth. It's mostly about latency. While far from ideal, memory bandwidth on modern processors is pretty impressive. But, when a program needs to load data from memory that isn't in cache, the CPU may have to stall for *hundreds* of clock cycles, trying to get that memory into cache. While a normal CPU would be stalled, and SMT CPU can just set the waiting thread aside for a few hundred cycles, and work on another thread which already has data in cache. Thus, each thread sees effective latency to memory as only slightly worse than a run to cache.
OTOH, if you have two bandwidth limited threads, they won't be helped at all. Each will chug through data as fast as the memory system feeds it.
(beginquote)
>>IBM will have SMT in the Power5. Their approach looks even better than Intel's, but part of that is the Power architecture and part of that is IBM learning from what Intel did. SMT is really the best way to get past the limiting reagents of modern processors : bandwidth.
(endquote)
Well, I live in Denver, and I think I've heard that we are roughly at .7-.8 atm, while your estimate suggests that we are closer to .5. Either way, remember that while Denver's official altitude is indeed 5,280 ft, Denver sit *next to* the mountains. 14,000 foot mountains are nearby, and they will slow you down a bit if you try and do anything athletic at that altitude without giving yourself time to adapt, but they certainly won't kill you. The guys on ISS, assuming a pretty constant rate of leak, have got plenty of time before it becomes a major concern.