Well, sorry the GP didn't use some fancy URL tweaker to make it look like a happy prancing clown that'll wink at you and tell jokes while he reads off the contents of the linked page.
That's a really fucking weird way to describe HTML.
centralizing a location for all their services into 1 easy to remember domain [...] can't very well use Google because they already use it
Hmm, yeah, maps.google.com, mail.google.com, images.google.com, video.google.com, news.google.com, translate.google.com, scholar.google.com, docs.google.com, groups.google.com... obviously they can't use Google to centralize all their services, it's really kind of overcrowded already.
And how many end users know how to edit HTML in their emails or even want to? And how many prefer to send their emails in plain text or Rich Text? Or what if I am texting it to somebody?
The browser should shorten it. You shouldn't have to. But even if the browser doesn't, I'd prefer the long version.
If they trust you enough to click a short, random URL, they should trust you enough to click a long, "intimidating" one. Just set it off with enough white space that it's distinct from the text around it, or send it in its own message.
If somebody asked me for directions to my house - I would much rather send them something I can copy and paste straight from Google's site (which is likely how this will work) into my email that is less intimidating.
Actually, this works just fine, is much shorter, and is readable enough that I don't think it's intimidating:
I don't know why Google Maps won't just give you that, though.
I'm curious - are you anti-zip files, too? I mean why zip 5 files into one when you could just attach all 5 to an email.
There are a few reasons that it might make sense to zip them. Lots (more than 5), big (and easily compressed), sensitive (and needing encryption) spring to mind. Short of those, I don't see any reason to zip them.
1) In the former, I know what I'm clicking on at a glance: Google Maps. 1.5) I can also get a general idea of where in Google Maps it points. 2) Infinitely many such long links exist; not so with the short ones. 3) The long one can be shown as maps.google.com/maps?...
Ever try to read someone a full-length URL over the phone?
Why on earth would I ever need to do that? Telling them 3 keywords to search for on Google would probably be easier if I really needed to tell them verbally and for some reason couldn't just say "I'll e-mail/text you the link".
And as long as we're on the subject of readibility, a string of random, case-sensitive alphanumeric characters doesn't score high on the readibility quotient. At least now they usually let you try asking for a readable URL, which will probably already be taken and you'll get whatever random one it gives you.
What about typing out a full length URL when you don't have the option of copy-paste?
What? I thought even the iPhone supported that by now. *ducks*
Or trying to copy/paste a multi-line URL in an IRC client while on your phone w/ a screen that's 2" wide?
I'd just do like I always do in Facebook chat: try to give the person on the other end enough time to read your last message and then don't put anything before the URL in the message you're sending.
Really though the IRC client should be intelligent enough to shorten the displayed text for the link. Anything after ? is probably redundant. If you need to see the rest of the link, hover over it. (And yes, there should be a way to "hover" on a link, even on a phone.)
My point was more that any cube in any position that can be reached by standard moves is solveable by those same standard moves. Obviously, rearranging stickers, disassembling the cube, or introducing outside forces (crazy glue, freight trains) can make the cube "unsolveable" by any possible combination of standard moves.
But that all begs the question: is a Rubik's cube still a Rubik's cube if it's been disassembled, modified, and/or re-assembled in a condition that would be impossible for a Rubik's cube to ever reach? Is a Rubik's cube just a toy with a set of specially interlocking cubes, or is it also a mathematical and geometrical set of rules? I'd say the latter. If you violate those rules, you don't have a Rubik's cube; you have something that superficially resembles a Rubik's cube, but isn't one. Therefore there's no reason to make special exclusion for tampered cubes when you make general statements such as:
Now, it makes sense that any Rubik's cube can be solved
it is actually very easy to make any rubik's cube completely and permanently unsolvable
Only if "make" involves operations that "solve" does not. For instance, a freight train can very easily "make" a Rubik's cube completely and permanently unsolveable.
Actually, it's n²/log n, but since Slashdot doesn't like Unicode it just eats that ² character and you end up with n/log n. Which, of course, is wrong.
"Colors" means the flag. The color guard is responsible for carrying the flag (presenting and retiring it). For any more than this I'd just suggest getting on Youtube and looking up "presenting the colors" or any such.
it doesn't make a difference how fast it can go... the challenge was to see how far it could go.
In that case, a pedal car could go a lot farther and always have 100% as much diesel at the end as it did at the beginning.
In real life, it matters how fast it can go, because if it doesn't at least go significantly faster than a bicycle, I won't use it and I doubt anyone else will.
That's a bit like saying that buggy whip manufacture is 95% the same today as it was 200 years ago. I think you're glossing, just a little tiny bit, over the fact that it's practically obsolete and the only people doing it are doing it for either historical reasons or because they're Amish.
Well, the goal is obviously to not touch the cars in front of / behind you, although barely touching them is IMHO not such a henious crime as long as you don't damage their bumper.
The proper way to parallel park? Well, first of all, you should NEVER pull forward into a parallel parking spot unless maybe you simply have more room than you know what to do with. Here's the gist of it:
Pull forward until your back wheels are directly alongside the front car's rear bumper. Turn your wheel hard right and back until you're at somewhere around 45 degrees to the curb, then straighten the wheel. Continue to back until your back wheels are about 6 or 8 inches from the curb (the wheels, not the bumper - your bumper might actually extend off the road a little bit, so pay attention to anything you might hit and adjust if necessary). At this point, the front wheels of your car should be (approxomately) next to the back bumper of the front car, at which point you can turn the wheel hard left and continue to back in (your back wheels won't get much closer to the curb during this) until your vehicle is parallel to the curb. Last, pull slightly forward to center your vehicle in the parking spot.
To get out, back up until you're almost touching the car behind you, turn the wheel hard left and pull forward out of the parking spot in the same way you entered it.
If you've practiced and you're familiar with your vehicle's handling, you can wedge yourself into really small parking places without hitting the cars in front of / behind (but as I said, you might barely touch one because it's hard to tell exactly how far they are from your bumper, particularly behind you - just go very slow).
No shit. I want to know what sort of gas mileage it would get if it was carrying a normal-sized adult human.
Plus it makes NO mention of how fast the thing goes. For all I know, a bicycle might go just as fast, and use significantly less gasoline... i.e. none.
Did your numbers come from some reference material or something?
They came from math. The rounds are 5.56 mm and 9 mm in diameter. Open Google and type "pi * (5.56 mm / 2)^2 in (mm^2)" and "pi * (9 mm / 2)^2 in (mm^2)".
Slashdot Mirror
No... suing people to keep his trademark going in perpetuity. *shudder*
-Russell S. Harris
They're the Ents, obviously. Slow-moving and a little bit stuck-in-their-ways, but finally pissed off enough to uproot and go on the offensive.
Well, sorry the GP didn't use some fancy URL tweaker to make it look like a happy prancing clown that'll wink at you and tell jokes while he reads off the contents of the linked page.
That's a really fucking weird way to describe HTML.
centralizing a location for all their services into 1 easy to remember domain [...] can't very well use Google because they already use it
Hmm, yeah, maps.google.com, mail.google.com, images.google.com, video.google.com, news.google.com, translate.google.com, scholar.google.com, docs.google.com, groups.google.com... obviously they can't use Google to centralize all their services, it's really kind of overcrowded already.
Register a domain and link to it, then; if you're organized enough to need a group calendar you probably ought to have a website.
Heck, I'm pretty sure that Google Apps would do a calendar for your domain.
Just about anything electronic. HTML-formatted e-mail, or at least a PDF.
Outgoing link trackers don't necessarily shorten the links, and URL shorteners don't necessarily provide handy tracking tools.
They're similar, but still mostly-unrelated, things.
And how many end users know how to edit HTML in their emails or even want to? And how many prefer to send their emails in plain text or Rich Text? Or what if I am texting it to somebody?
The browser should shorten it. You shouldn't have to. But even if the browser doesn't, I'd prefer the long version.
If they trust you enough to click a short, random URL, they should trust you enough to click a long, "intimidating" one. Just set it off with enough white space that it's distinct from the text around it, or send it in its own message.
If somebody asked me for directions to my house - I would much rather send them something I can copy and paste straight from Google's site (which is likely how this will work) into my email that is less intimidating.
Actually, this works just fine, is much shorter, and is readable enough that I don't think it's intimidating:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=from:42+St+-+Port+Authority+Bus+Terminal+@40.757308,-73.989735+to:350+5th+Avenue,+10118+(Empire+State+Building)
I don't know why Google Maps won't just give you that, though.
I'm curious - are you anti-zip files, too? I mean why zip 5 files into one when you could just attach all 5 to an email.
There are a few reasons that it might make sense to zip them. Lots (more than 5), big (and easily compressed), sensitive (and needing encryption) spring to mind. Short of those, I don't see any reason to zip them.
You work for experts-exchange? Yeah, it's too bad, really; ExpertSexChange.com doesn't even work any more.
I guess you could tell them to Google "ExpertSexChange", that works...
A letter? Like one of the kind that you mail? With real stamps?
Okay, I'll begrudgingly admit that if I had to inscribe a long URL in hieroglyphics on a clay tablet, a URL shortener might be helpful.
Why is this not a valid solution?
It's valid, it's just less than ideal. Much less than ideal.
Yes.
http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=42+St+-+Port+Authority+Bus+Terminal+%4040.757308,-73.989735&daddr=350+5th+Avenue,+New+York,+NY+10118+(Empire+State+Building)&hl=en&ll=40.75267,-73.987169&spn=0.009899,0.016158&sll=40.752459,-73.987169&sspn=0.009899,0.016158&geocode=FTzobQIdmQGX-w%3BFUvGbQIdERKX-yFzdY-mZOGFkSlpdBGzqVnCiTEsrLWKpFygrA&mra=ls&dirflg=w&z=16
is much better than
http://tinyurl.com/3e38b5d
1) In the former, I know what I'm clicking on at a glance: Google Maps.
1.5) I can also get a general idea of where in Google Maps it points.
2) Infinitely many such long links exist; not so with the short ones.
3) The long one can be shown as maps.google.com/maps?...
Ever try to read someone a full-length URL over the phone?
Why on earth would I ever need to do that? Telling them 3 keywords to search for on Google would probably be easier if I really needed to tell them verbally and for some reason couldn't just say "I'll e-mail/text you the link".
And as long as we're on the subject of readibility, a string of random, case-sensitive alphanumeric characters doesn't score high on the readibility quotient. At least now they usually let you try asking for a readable URL, which will probably already be taken and you'll get whatever random one it gives you.
What about typing out a full length URL when you don't have the option of copy-paste?
What? I thought even the iPhone supported that by now. *ducks*
Or trying to copy/paste a multi-line URL in an IRC client while on your phone w/ a screen that's 2" wide?
I'd just do like I always do in Facebook chat: try to give the person on the other end enough time to read your last message and then don't put anything before the URL in the message you're sending.
Really though the IRC client should be intelligent enough to shorten the displayed text for the link. Anything after ? is probably redundant. If you need to see the rest of the link, hover over it. (And yes, there should be a way to "hover" on a link, even on a phone.)
The solution to long, hard-to-read URLs is not short, hard-to-read URLs.
In fact, as long as clicking them works, it really doesn't matter how long they are.
Most of the time, the beginning of the URL is the important part anyway. And if it's purposely obfuscated, maybe I just don't want to go there.
Thanks largely to Twitter, a solution to a problem that doesn't exist (even text messages can be larger than 140 characters now on any modern phone).
My point was more that any cube in any position that can be reached by standard moves is solveable by those same standard moves. Obviously, rearranging stickers, disassembling the cube, or introducing outside forces (crazy glue, freight trains) can make the cube "unsolveable" by any possible combination of standard moves.
But that all begs the question: is a Rubik's cube still a Rubik's cube if it's been disassembled, modified, and/or re-assembled in a condition that would be impossible for a Rubik's cube to ever reach? Is a Rubik's cube just a toy with a set of specially interlocking cubes, or is it also a mathematical and geometrical set of rules? I'd say the latter. If you violate those rules, you don't have a Rubik's cube; you have something that superficially resembles a Rubik's cube, but isn't one. Therefore there's no reason to make special exclusion for tampered cubes when you make general statements such as:
Now, it makes sense that any Rubik's cube can be solved
-because it goes without saying.
it is actually very easy to make any rubik's cube completely and permanently unsolvable
Only if "make" involves operations that "solve" does not. For instance, a freight train can very easily "make" a Rubik's cube completely and permanently unsolveable.
Actually, it's n²/log n, but since Slashdot doesn't like Unicode it just eats that ² character and you end up with n/log n. Which, of course, is wrong.
"Colors" means the flag. The color guard is responsible for carrying the flag (presenting and retiring it). For any more than this I'd just suggest getting on Youtube and looking up "presenting the colors" or any such.
it doesn't make a difference how fast it can go... the challenge was to see how far it could go.
In that case, a pedal car could go a lot farther and always have 100% as much diesel at the end as it did at the beginning.
In real life, it matters how fast it can go, because if it doesn't at least go significantly faster than a bicycle, I won't use it and I doubt anyone else will.
That's a bit like saying that buggy whip manufacture is 95% the same today as it was 200 years ago. I think you're glossing, just a little tiny bit, over the fact that it's practically obsolete and the only people doing it are doing it for either historical reasons or because they're Amish.
Well, the goal is obviously to not touch the cars in front of / behind you, although barely touching them is IMHO not such a henious crime as long as you don't damage their bumper.
The proper way to parallel park? Well, first of all, you should NEVER pull forward into a parallel parking spot unless maybe you simply have more room than you know what to do with. Here's the gist of it:
Pull forward until your back wheels are directly alongside the front car's rear bumper. Turn your wheel hard right and back until you're at somewhere around 45 degrees to the curb, then straighten the wheel. Continue to back until your back wheels are about 6 or 8 inches from the curb (the wheels, not the bumper - your bumper might actually extend off the road a little bit, so pay attention to anything you might hit and adjust if necessary). At this point, the front wheels of your car should be (approxomately) next to the back bumper of the front car, at which point you can turn the wheel hard left and continue to back in (your back wheels won't get much closer to the curb during this) until your vehicle is parallel to the curb. Last, pull slightly forward to center your vehicle in the parking spot.
To get out, back up until you're almost touching the car behind you, turn the wheel hard left and pull forward out of the parking spot in the same way you entered it.
If you've practiced and you're familiar with your vehicle's handling, you can wedge yourself into really small parking places without hitting the cars in front of / behind (but as I said, you might barely touch one because it's hard to tell exactly how far they are from your bumper, particularly behind you - just go very slow).
Are we talking normal size the world over, or "normal-sized" by American standards?
Well, it was in Cambridge and that's in the UK; I think it'd be a fair compromise if it was average-sized by UK standards.
Granted, according to Forbes the percentage of "overweight" (BMI > 25) adults in the UK is ~10% lower than in the US, but it's still very high.
Pretty obviously this was about the weight.
No shit. I want to know what sort of gas mileage it would get if it was carrying a normal-sized adult human.
Plus it makes NO mention of how fast the thing goes. For all I know, a bicycle might go just as fast, and use significantly less gasoline... i.e. none.
Did your numbers come from some reference material or something?
They came from math. The rounds are 5.56 mm and 9 mm in diameter. Open Google and type "pi * (5.56 mm / 2)^2 in (mm^2)" and "pi * (9 mm / 2)^2 in (mm^2)".
(24.28 mm^2 and 63.62 mm^2, respectively.)