Isn't there some way cars can be made out of super dense rubber, so that they just bounce around instead of crashing?
Ooh, ooh, fun! Full-size bumper cars! Where can I get one???;o)
Seriously, though, I have often wondered why at least the vehicle bumpers aren't made from something that's elastic enough to deform to disperse impact energy, then bounce back to original shape. Something like your idea of dense rubber or (for less weight) super-dense foam coated in rubber...*shrugs*.
Guess that would just cut into the autobody profits from all those new drivers backing into dad's pickup while trying to get out of the driveway...
It's that Acer Iconia A500. Pretty sweet little unit so far! Although I am having issues finding something that will work for printing...android support from the major printer brands is not nearly as comprehensive as it is for papple products. >:( Google's cloudprint option is not acceptable because I simply refuse to route our printing requirements through a third party server, especially while sitting right beside our wireless printer...
The PrinterShare app sounds like it might be a possibility, but that would mean breaking anonymity with the big G in order to purchase an app, since they took away the Paypal payment option for the Marketplace...and I'm not convinced that I want to do that, for any reason. Their privacy track record just stinks lately, and seems to be getting steadily worse... *sigh*
Expandable storage would be sweet but it's the 32GB, 10 months old and we have 18 gigs left, so all else being equal I'm perfectly happy with it.
Sounds like it fits your needs, then. I suppose there's a limit to how much video/music one can listen to in a sitting! I just like the fact that I can load up most of our personal photos and video on an external card and have them right there for photo sharing with friends/family without tying up my internal memory...especially useful since I'm allergic to FaceBook (it gives me hives just *thinking* about posting our photos on there...)
Well, hope you and your daughter keep enjoying the toys! Don't forget to get her something a little more open down the road, though, so you can get started teaching her how to code...unless she'll just be coding Apple apps, that is!;)
Um. I like expandable storage too, but you can fit an awful lot of SD content onto a 64GB device.
True that, I suppose. I simply hate not being able to expand the storage after you buy a device. To me, it's like buying a camera with a built-in 2GB flash memory, and the only way you can get your photos off of it is to use a proprietary cable...who would accept that nowadays? Yet that's perfectly fine for a $700 toy, apparently...
Does your tablet have the official Android store? Does it have Android 3.x?
Yes, and yes. Free (well, ad-supported) Angry Birds for me!;)
This is the first tablet I've had, and while I'm still getting used to the Android OS, I've been pretty tickled by it so far. Haven't actually rooted it yet, but will probably be doing so soon, just 'cause I can. I'm still trying to figure out how to play.mts video files natively, though. Having to convert them first is a bit of a pain...I'm hoping someone develops an AVCHD codec for the Android system soon.
I bought an iPad as an alternative to a portable DVD player to help keep my daughter occupied on flights (she's an infant, and we fly a lot).... Why the *hell* would I buy what everyone here seems to be describing as the holy grail - a linux box in tablet format - for my daughter to watch Dora the explorer and play rich educational video games on?
Enjoying that 64GB limitation yet? That's assuming you sprung for the top of the line iPad, that is...
My Android tablet has 32 GB of onboard memory, plus it also has an SD card slot so I can, you know, expand the storage capacity pretty much indefinitely (media on multiple cards)...and it cost about half of the 'equivalent' iPad. And guess what? It plays video, from memory or streamed, and plays nifty games too!
Most of the people are buying status and "cool" when they're buying those iPads. Those of us that want more control and ability have already bought Android stuff, where you can actually put on software that doesn't get the blessing from The Man.
Most people buy "hey, I can browse the internet!" and "hey, I can read my email", and "hey, it has a map that shows me where I am", and "hey, it plays music and videos and the TV show I missed yesterday", and "hey, I can download and read loads of books" and "hey, I can show you all my photos" and "hey, I can play Angry Birds" and so on and so on and they don't give a damn about status and "cool" when they are buying an iPad.
Funny. I have no problem doing all of these things on my Android tablet, plus so much more... And hey, the fact that it doesn't come pre-installed with iTunes or other iBloat-ware is just icing on the cake!
If you can style a table in 5 seconds instead of clicking 180 times, that isn't because the classic menu bar is a poor design. It is because the buttons you press are not properly placed in the menu bar. You could have gotten the exact same speedup by just putting a "Most Used" entry after "Help".
Or, you know, creating your own toolbar, with your own neat, tiny little icons linking to the commands or macros you use the most, grouped how you liked to see them. Thing is, creating or editing such a custom toolbar was quick and easy and reliable pre-ribbon...have you tried to create a new ribbon tab (or whatever) in the new UI? It's a lot like trying to pet a wild badger, exceedingly painful and not really worth the effort...
That! is really annoying. What is up with people and their This! Am I really getting that old? Is it too much to ask to actually write a few more words? And is This! the reason one feels the need to post as AC?
Apparently it's 'Like' or '+1' for/. Somewhat like the bare 'mod parent up' posts, without any supporting discussion behind them...
No wonder F@H doesn't post more progress. Our hardware is going towards people sharing their naked bong photos and government spooks cataloging your naked bong photos.
I don't get it, does your bong look classier if it's all dressed up?;p
Neither are phone numbers, yet they are generally linked to certain places, or people. Should phone directories be punished for providing information to allow people to contact potentially illegal businesses or criminals?
And it isn't confusing to talk about a website as information stored on a computer, retrievable over a network using certain protocols.
It is to my parents, and I would guess to well over half of the 'population' of teh internets. Remember,/. population is not representative of the norm.
But is there a reason why we should be applying a looser standard online than we apply to in-person transactions?
I believe that if your friend tells you of his intent to engage in a crime, and you give him an address he can go to in order to commit his crime, you have just aided and abetted.
I'm not saying that is this case, but it certainly points to the fact that at least some cases of linking should probably be crimes.
By your logic, Google (and Bing and DuckDuckGo, and...) should be shut down immediately! Throw them in the hole!
Not to mention newspapers and telephone directories for running 'escort' ads...or kijiji/ebay for putting fences and buyers together...etc., etc.
Do you mean Bullet For My Valentine? My Bloody Valentine was a movie. Both are terrible.
Actually they were a alternative band first. Their album Loveless is actually quite good, I love the track where they incorporate humpback whalesong into the music...
Whoops. My bad. Looks like there was an older film version of My Bloody Valentine, made in 1981. I was thinking of the 2009 remake 3D-awfulness version...which was indeed terrible.
Do you mean Bullet For My Valentine? My Bloody Valentine was a movie. Both are terrible.
Actually they were a alternative band first. Their album Loveless is actually quite good, I love the track where they incorporate humpback whalesong into the music...
Of course, you're always welcome to go back to the command line with FINDSTR or DIR.
Or, you know, Windows could have left their perfectly valid search client in there for users who prefer no-nonsense searches, without having to piss around with labels and indexing. It's not like leaving it in would've increased their already bloated code very much, after all...
If you open the Search sidebar (click the advanced search link, if I remember correctly) and scroll down there's a rectangle that says if you need to search for something in a non-indexed folder, use the old Search assistant. There's a link to the old Search assistant. Click it.
You're welcome.
Really?!? If so, mod parent informative! I'm checking that as soon as I get to a Win7 box!
From all my searching, I have not been able to find anything that will let me use the old search client on Windows 7. That's all I really want...;) I just hope you're not thinking about Vista...
Powerful, perhaps. I suppose if I want to, I can search for businesspostalcode:90210 in my email contacts. (WTF? Why would I be doing this from Explorer? Why do I need to be able to do this from anywhere in Windows other than in the email client, or possibly an address book application??)
Easy to learn? Easier than the old search GUI? I think not. Also, it is restricted to files that have been indexed, unless you set up the 'hidden' search options under Folder Options to search non-indexed locations as well, which loses you the supposed performance benefit...in which case, what's the point?
Seconded! WTF is with 7's search 'function' ? It's seriously the worst POS ever. And this libraries and indexing grabage, hell it's actually SLOWER to search through things than XP or probably 98.
I deindexed half the 'libraries' and moved most of my important things to their own directory/s straight off root dir and performance is vastly improved. However where the hell is the OPTIONS for search now? Is the userbase seriously that stupid? Or does MS just arrogantly assume this to be the case. Windows 7 is an improvement in a lot of areas. Explorer itself certainly is not.
Yes, I agree. Explorer (and Media Player, for that matter) have both generally degraded in usability with the switch. And the Control Panel. Oh, wait, don't forget the 'Network settings' interface, that's been dumbed down considerably, too...not to mention 'Homegroup' vs. 'Workgroup' fun and games, especially on a mixed-system network...
Overall, 'upgrading' to Windows 7 gave me what advantages again? Somebody please remind me...oh, right, I can rate my photos right in Explorer. Well, then it was all worthwhile! >:(
Yea as a programmer, a good search tool is indispensable; the best free and open source one I found so far is WinGrep: http://www.wingrep.com/
Hmmm...maybe it used to be, but now it looks like it's shareware...which isn't necessarily a deal-breaker, if it does what I need.
Also, it seems to default to searching contents as well as filenames for everything...? In fact, I can't see the option to tell it not to search file contents (ooh, there it is, 'Search files in list', however then it won't search in zip files)? The quick context preview is nice, although you can't see the previews until the whole search is done, and the ability to run another search restricted to the results of the first could be handy...hmmm. It also seems to be quite thorough, if also quite slow (I had no idea how many photos I had with the word 'test' in their metadata). And I see it automagically adds itself to the context menu for Windows Explorer...not sure if I consider that a 'good thing' or not.
Oh, wow. I haven't seen an app crash that hard on XP in a long time. Apparently it *really* doesn't like it when you cancel a search in progress...nothing but endless 'Out of resource' message boxes...
Overall, thanks for the tip, but I think I'll look elsewhere, unless it performs *much* better under Windows 7. *sigh*
I just popped open my pictures directory on Win7 Premium. Hit the search box and typed "folderpath:2011-08* name:*.jpg" to get a list of all the jpegs that I've taken so far this August. It completed this search in under a second...
You heard me. I'm on you lawn and making you learn something new ya old dinosaur./posts anon:D
;p
Just for shits and giggles, try doing that with files you've just copied over...or that are in a location you haven't included in your index. I'm curious, does it still work?
Unfortunately, us old dinosaurs are terrible at remembering all those keywords...*sigh* yet another 'cheat sheet' to keep on hand...or scrap it all together and go with a third party solution that actually works, consistently...
If you're in a directory and type something in the search box it'll only search the contents of files which have already been indexed. Otherwise it's just the file names.
Okay, quick question for you: how do I make it search inside files for non-indexed locations (okay, okay, another poster pointed out the 'search' parameters under Folder Options)? And if I do, does it then add that location to the index?
Even if it's a directory that's been indexed, it will only search the contents of files it knows how to parse (word/pdf, etc) and not every random binary file.
Yes, that's how it worked in Windows XP, too, only they didn't need to build a global index to do it...and it did find every actual file in that directory matching the search criteria, regardless of age...
If you want to be certain you're searching ONLY the file name, just do "name:foo".
Now, if you're doing "global" searches and not telling it to reduce the searchset - and then you're angry because it's returning e-mails... then you're doing it wrong.
And this is an increase in efficiency how, exactly? So every little search, I have to type an additional 5 to 9characters ("file:" or "filename:", actually, not just "name:") to tell the system *not* to search inside the bloody files? And I have to remember a list of keywords (which even you didn't remember properly)? And I can't set these options as persistent unless I change global search settings? Yes, this is *ever* so much better!
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't there some way cars can be made out of super dense rubber, so that they just bounce around instead of crashing?
Ooh, ooh, fun! Full-size bumper cars! Where can I get one??? ;o)
Seriously, though, I have often wondered why at least the vehicle bumpers aren't made from something that's elastic enough to deform to disperse impact energy, then bounce back to original shape. Something like your idea of dense rubber or (for less weight) super-dense foam coated in rubber...*shrugs*.
Guess that would just cut into the autobody profits from all those new drivers backing into dad's pickup while trying to get out of the driveway...
Wow, haven't seen a WHOOSH that big in a while now... Bravo!
Which tablet is it?
Sorry, AFK for a while there.
It's that Acer Iconia A500. Pretty sweet little unit so far! Although I am having issues finding something that will work for printing...android support from the major printer brands is not nearly as comprehensive as it is for papple products. >:( Google's cloudprint option is not acceptable because I simply refuse to route our printing requirements through a third party server, especially while sitting right beside our wireless printer...
The PrinterShare app sounds like it might be a possibility, but that would mean breaking anonymity with the big G in order to purchase an app, since they took away the Paypal payment option for the Marketplace...and I'm not convinced that I want to do that, for any reason. Their privacy track record just stinks lately, and seems to be getting steadily worse... *sigh*
Expandable storage would be sweet but it's the 32GB, 10 months old and we have 18 gigs left, so all else being equal I'm perfectly happy with it.
Sounds like it fits your needs, then. I suppose there's a limit to how much video/music one can listen to in a sitting! I just like the fact that I can load up most of our personal photos and video on an external card and have them right there for photo sharing with friends/family without tying up my internal memory...especially useful since I'm allergic to FaceBook (it gives me hives just *thinking* about posting our photos on there...)
Well, hope you and your daughter keep enjoying the toys! Don't forget to get her something a little more open down the road, though, so you can get started teaching her how to code...unless she'll just be coding Apple apps, that is! ;)
Um. I like expandable storage too, but you can fit an awful lot of SD content onto a 64GB device.
True that, I suppose. I simply hate not being able to expand the storage after you buy a device. To me, it's like buying a camera with a built-in 2GB flash memory, and the only way you can get your photos off of it is to use a proprietary cable...who would accept that nowadays? Yet that's perfectly fine for a $700 toy, apparently...
Does your tablet have the official Android store? Does it have Android 3.x?
Yes, and yes. Free (well, ad-supported) Angry Birds for me! ;)
This is the first tablet I've had, and while I'm still getting used to the Android OS, I've been pretty tickled by it so far. Haven't actually rooted it yet, but will probably be doing so soon, just 'cause I can. I'm still trying to figure out how to play .mts video files natively, though. Having to convert them first is a bit of a pain...I'm hoping someone develops an AVCHD codec for the Android system soon.
I bought an iPad as an alternative to a portable DVD player to help keep my daughter occupied on flights (she's an infant, and we fly a lot). ... Why the *hell* would I buy what everyone here seems to be describing as the holy grail - a linux box in tablet format - for my daughter to watch Dora the explorer and play rich educational video games on?
Enjoying that 64GB limitation yet? That's assuming you sprung for the top of the line iPad, that is...
My Android tablet has 32 GB of onboard memory, plus it also has an SD card slot so I can, you know, expand the storage capacity pretty much indefinitely (media on multiple cards)...and it cost about half of the 'equivalent' iPad. And guess what? It plays video, from memory or streamed, and plays nifty games too!
Sorry man, you got hosed.
Most of the people are buying status and "cool" when they're buying those iPads. Those of us that want more control and ability have already bought Android stuff, where you can actually put on software that doesn't get the blessing from The Man.
Most people buy "hey, I can browse the internet!" and "hey, I can read my email", and "hey, it has a map that shows me where I am", and "hey, it plays music and videos and the TV show I missed yesterday", and "hey, I can download and read loads of books" and "hey, I can show you all my photos" and "hey, I can play Angry Birds" and so on and so on and they don't give a damn about status and "cool" when they are buying an iPad.
Funny. I have no problem doing all of these things on my Android tablet, plus so much more...
And hey, the fact that it doesn't come pre-installed with iTunes or other iBloat-ware is just icing on the cake!
If you can style a table in 5 seconds instead of clicking 180 times, that isn't because the classic menu bar is a poor design. It is because the buttons you press are not properly placed in the menu bar. You could have gotten the exact same speedup by just putting a "Most Used" entry after "Help".
Or, you know, creating your own toolbar, with your own neat, tiny little icons linking to the commands or macros you use the most, grouped how you liked to see them. Thing is, creating or editing such a custom toolbar was quick and easy and reliable pre-ribbon...have you tried to create a new ribbon tab (or whatever) in the new UI? It's a lot like trying to pet a wild badger, exceedingly painful and not really worth the effort...
That! is really annoying. What is up with people and their This! Am I really getting that old? Is it too much to ask to actually write a few more words? And is This! the reason one feels the need to post as AC?
Apparently it's 'Like' or '+1' for /.
Somewhat like the bare 'mod parent up' posts, without any supporting discussion behind them...
...as if millions of magnetic heads suddenly cried out in terror...
...and were suddenly erased.
No wonder F@H doesn't post more progress. Our hardware is going towards people sharing their naked bong photos and government spooks cataloging your naked bong photos.
I don't get it, does your bong look classier if it's all dressed up? ;p
Websites are not places.
Neither are phone numbers, yet they are generally linked to certain places, or people. Should phone directories be punished for providing information to allow people to contact potentially illegal businesses or criminals?
And it isn't confusing to talk about a website as information stored on a computer, retrievable over a network using certain protocols.
It is to my parents, and I would guess to well over half of the 'population' of teh internets. Remember, /. population is not representative of the norm.
But is there a reason why we should be applying a looser standard online than we apply to in-person transactions?
I believe that if your friend tells you of his intent to engage in a crime, and you give him an address he can go to in order to commit his crime, you have just aided and abetted.
I'm not saying that is this case, but it certainly points to the fact that at least some cases of linking should probably be crimes.
By your logic, Google (and Bing and DuckDuckGo, and...) should be shut down immediately! Throw them in the hole!
Not to mention newspapers and telephone directories for running 'escort' ads...or kijiji/ebay for putting fences and buyers together...etc., etc.
Loosing the losers to loose lots of loses on the loosers themselves, for sooth.
I do not think that word means what you think it means...nice try, tho!
loses -> 3rd person singular present of lose (Verb)
losses -> plural of loss (Noun)
Do you mean Bullet For My Valentine? My Bloody Valentine was a movie. Both are terrible.
Actually they were a alternative band first. Their album Loveless is actually quite good, I love the track where they incorporate humpback whalesong into the music...
Whoops. My bad. Looks like there was an older film version of My Bloody Valentine, made in 1981. I was thinking of the 2009 remake 3D-awfulness version...which was indeed terrible.
Do you mean Bullet For My Valentine? My Bloody Valentine was a movie. Both are terrible.
Actually they were a alternative band first. Their album Loveless is actually quite good, I love the track where they incorporate humpback whalesong into the music...
Of course, you're always welcome to go back to the command line with FINDSTR or DIR.
Or, you know, Windows could have left their perfectly valid search client in there for users who prefer no-nonsense searches, without having to piss around with labels and indexing. It's not like leaving it in would've increased their already bloated code very much, after all...
If you open the Search sidebar (click the advanced search link, if I remember correctly) and scroll down there's a rectangle that says if you need to search for something in a non-indexed folder, use the old Search assistant. There's a link to the old Search assistant. Click it.
You're welcome.
Really?!? If so, mod parent informative! I'm checking that as soon as I get to a Win7 box!
From all my searching, I have not been able to find anything that will let me use the old search client on Windows 7. That's all I really want... ;) I just hope you're not thinking about Vista...
agent ransack
Thanks, I'll try out the latest version. ;)
You should try reading the manual. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/desktopsearch/technicalresources/advquery.mspx It is called Advanced Query Syntax and it is very powerful and easy to learn. Use it like this: ext:.cmd folder:bin filename:*z*
Powerful, perhaps. I suppose if I want to, I can search for businesspostalcode:90210 in my email contacts. (WTF? Why would I be doing this from Explorer? Why do I need to be able to do this from anywhere in Windows other than in the email client, or possibly an address book application??)
Easy to learn? Easier than the old search GUI? I think not. Also, it is restricted to files that have been indexed, unless you set up the 'hidden' search options under Folder Options to search non-indexed locations as well, which loses you the supposed performance benefit...in which case, what's the point?
Seconded! WTF is with 7's search 'function' ?
It's seriously the worst POS ever. And this libraries and indexing grabage, hell it's actually SLOWER to search through things than XP or probably 98.
I deindexed half the 'libraries' and moved most of my important things to their own directory/s straight off root dir and performance is vastly improved. However where the hell is the OPTIONS for search now? Is the userbase seriously that stupid? Or does MS just arrogantly assume this to be the case. Windows 7 is an improvement in a lot of areas. Explorer itself certainly is not.
Yes, I agree. Explorer (and Media Player, for that matter) have both generally degraded in usability with the switch. And the Control Panel. Oh, wait, don't forget the 'Network settings' interface, that's been dumbed down considerably, too...not to mention 'Homegroup' vs. 'Workgroup' fun and games, especially on a mixed-system network...
Overall, 'upgrading' to Windows 7 gave me what advantages again? Somebody please remind me...oh, right, I can rate my photos right in Explorer. Well, then it was all worthwhile! >:(
But... it's so Apple-like... how could you possibly complain!
The only apples allowed in my house are the edible kind...;)
Yea as a programmer, a good search tool is indispensable; the best free and open source one I found so far is WinGrep:
http://www.wingrep.com/
Hmmm...maybe it used to be, but now it looks like it's shareware...which isn't necessarily a deal-breaker, if it does what I need.
Also, it seems to default to searching contents as well as filenames for everything...? In fact, I can't see the option to tell it not to search file contents (ooh, there it is, 'Search files in list', however then it won't search in zip files)? The quick context preview is nice, although you can't see the previews until the whole search is done, and the ability to run another search restricted to the results of the first could be handy...hmmm. It also seems to be quite thorough, if also quite slow (I had no idea how many photos I had with the word 'test' in their metadata). And I see it automagically adds itself to the context menu for Windows Explorer...not sure if I consider that a 'good thing' or not.
Oh, wow. I haven't seen an app crash that hard on XP in a long time. Apparently it *really* doesn't like it when you cancel a search in progress...nothing but endless 'Out of resource' message boxes...
Overall, thanks for the tip, but I think I'll look elsewhere, unless it performs *much* better under Windows 7. *sigh*
I just popped open my pictures directory on Win7 Premium. Hit the search box and typed "folderpath:2011-08* name:*.jpg" to get a list of all the jpegs that I've taken so far this August. It completed this search in under a second...
You heard me. I'm on you lawn and making you learn something new ya old dinosaur. /posts anon :D
;p
Just for shits and giggles, try doing that with files you've just copied over...or that are in a location you haven't included in your index. I'm curious, does it still work?
Unfortunately, us old dinosaurs are terrible at remembering all those keywords...*sigh* yet another 'cheat sheet' to keep on hand...or scrap it all together and go with a third party solution that actually works, consistently...
That's not how it works.
If you're in a directory and type something in the search box it'll only search the contents of files which have already been indexed.
Otherwise it's just the file names.
Okay, quick question for you: how do I make it search inside files for non-indexed locations (okay, okay, another poster pointed out the 'search' parameters under Folder Options)? And if I do, does it then add that location to the index?
Even if it's a directory that's been indexed, it will only search the contents of files it knows how to parse (word/pdf, etc) and not every random binary file.
Yes, that's how it worked in Windows XP, too, only they didn't need to build a global index to do it...and it did find every actual file in that directory matching the search criteria, regardless of age...
If you want to be certain you're searching ONLY the file name, just do "name:foo".
Now, if you're doing "global" searches and not telling it to reduce the searchset - and then you're angry because it's returning e-mails... then you're doing it wrong.
And this is an increase in efficiency how, exactly? So every little search, I have to type an additional 5 to 9characters ("file:" or "filename:", actually, not just "name:") to tell the system *not* to search inside the bloody files? And I have to remember a list of keywords (which even you didn't remember properly)? And I can't set these options as persistent unless I change global search settings? Yes, this is *ever* so much better!