I predict a level of success similar to that achieved by previous attempts to replace the qwerty scheme, even ones that were arguably better. At best, it will gain a small, rabid following, that will eventually end up putting off additional converts. Of course, it's far more likely it will simply slide into obscurity.
Are those letter positions optimal? The scheme feels nice, but I'm not sure if the letter positions are as good as they could be.
as the video says,
they're optimised for their frequency in the english language and so that common words, like 'you', can be done with a figure of eight, or some easily memorised swirl...
But precedent suggests that this will serve merely to increase the demand for light. The consequence may not be just more light for the same amount of energy, but an actual increase in energy consumption, rather than the decrease hoped for by those promoting new forms of lighting.
check the answer from the paper's author in this week Economist.
they clearly state that the journalist misunderstood the conclusions...
Slashdot Mirror
I predict a level of success similar to that achieved by previous attempts to replace the qwerty scheme, even ones that were arguably better. At best, it will gain a small, rabid following, that will eventually end up putting off additional converts. Of course, it's far more likely it will simply slide into obscurity.
did you mean 'swipe' into obscurity? :-)
Are those letter positions optimal? The scheme feels nice, but I'm not sure if the letter positions are as good as they could be.
as the video says, they're optimised for their frequency in the english language and so that common words, like 'you', can be done with a figure of eight, or some easily memorised swirl...
either that, or go extinct...
Sorry, I was in a rush...
Making lighting more efficient could increase energy use, not decrease it
But precedent suggests that this will serve merely to increase the demand for light. The consequence may not be just more light for the same amount of energy, but an actual increase in energy consumption, rather than the decrease hoped for by those promoting new forms of lighting.
check the answer from the paper's author in this week Economist. they clearly state that the journalist misunderstood the conclusions...