It is easier to get information from something that is two-dimensional.
The idea is to see how 3D can enhance the user interface. Not replace something that isn't broken. The 'text' part of reading should stay in 2D land, but think about the visual feedback of flipping a page, or seeing how thick the side of the book is. Also keep in mind that text is only a part of a user interface. 3D objects as icons could be usefull for example.
A benefit of 3D objects over 2D objects is that if you move them in that 3rd dimension they will visually shrink in a natural looking manner and take up less space on your screen.
May I suggest making a distinction between soft drugs and hard drugs. Soft drugs (hash/marijuana/...) is the stuff you would talk to your kids about in the same way you talk to them about alcohol. Be carefull! Don't smoke and Drive! Etc. Hard drugs (Heroin/LSD/cocaine/...) on the other hand is the stuff where you bring your kids to a clinic. I wish the governament in the US would make the same distinction. Yet a small group with a large influence insists that drugs is drugs and it becomes impossible to have a decent political discussion.
[Engineering Log: Somewhere in the future] "Well, we managed to create a holodeck with completely convincing graphics. The problem is that the AI chick we where all dying to meet has fallen for the marketing guy and claims not to be interested in nerds. Well, damn."
Do as I do, pronounce blogs as "bollocks" (or bollogs) instead of blogs. It reminds me of what most of them are. Sure most journalism is crap too, but what makes you think that random unobjective opinions will replace journalism? You think that most journalists are going to publish their findings on the web without getting paid for their work? Or do you think that most bloggers will start doing research before writing their next entry?
Cool! It would be just like a cellphone! Except it would be really expensive, not have a good form factor for this type of use. And now you can't even play games on it.;-)
The first group of posts indicate that we mostly agree that programming (or working in general) for more then 80 hours is not productive and harms your lifestyle. Hardly a groundbreaking conclusion, though there are enough people out there that might have felt that they should work this much because everyone else seems to.
So what are you going to do with this knowledge? Are you going to have a talk with your peers? How about your manager? Or bring it up at the next all-hands, right after the available high-ups tell you how fine your company is doing? How should we bring this up without fear for our jobs?
Here are some things to think about (feel free to add): - Post anonymously. If you are truly affraid of consequences, try to do something like what the EA employee spouse did. Post an anonymous letter with your complaints. Keep the letter constructive. - Talk to the right person. Before you pour your heart out, make sure you are talking to the right person. - If your boss doesn't listend to you, consider talking to his/her boss instead. If this is too much of a step, consider talking to HR first. - Talk to coleagues to measure how they are feeling. It could be usefull to break this feeling to your bosses as a group. - Be carefull not to whine. You want a discussion, this includes listening to the others sides argumentation of why you have to work this way. - No statistic should tell you how you should feel.
Lets get of our whining asses and start the discussion with the people that will allow you to get your life back on track. This here slashdot forum, though a decent source of news, is not the place where this particular issue will be solved. If you feel strongly about this topic then please do make a start at really solving it...it is your life you know.
We're not signing onto Kyoto because it exempts nations termed as "developing". Nations like China. That doesn't exactly level the playing field when we're losing manufacturing jobs to places like China like it's going out of style as it is.
So what you are saying is that the US is not willing to sign an environment based treaty because of economic reasons?
Further, the EPA, and the whole of the US government, is committed to the principles of Kyoto
You sure as hell fooled the rest of the world on that one. 7 of the G8 countries signed. Europe, as much of an economic power as the US signed. Even Russia, the source of all (your invented) evil signed a treat that will on the long run improved the world environment. Do you have any idea how alone you are in this? Doesn't that give you at least some sense of 'doubt' about the motivation your governament has fed you about this topic? If Bush askes you to jump, do you...oh nevermind.
I am originally from the Netherlands but live in California and I can tell you that the California tax on gas is nowhere near as large as it can get. The Dutch pay at least twice as much for gas at the pump and that has not stopped them from driving. The situation is far from the same but once the state of California figures that they can get about as much tax income as they need by increasing the gas tax I bet they will. Protest will be limited to the usual grumbling and yelling on and offline without any major consequences.
This is not going to make you any happier, but I for one was playing the (arguably) most anticipated game of the year at 12:09am tuesday morning.
This went as smooth as I have ever seen a major game release go. Thumbs up from where I am sitting. That the experience wasn't as good for some of the other early adaptors of the game is not pleasant, but hardly a reason to complain about. A couple of hours extra after a year+ of anticipation.....common man, relax. You got over it after standing in line for hours when going to see the Matrix2! And at least Half-Life2 lives up to it's hype.
I humbly appologize for the spelling mistake. I am glad that you have taken some of your precious time to point it out. English is an easy language and it is hardly an excuse that it isn't my first (Dutch) or second (German).
Anyone who thinks the levels in Doom 3 were "slapped together" to show off the engine should spend a little time designing levels.
I played and finished Doom 3. I just played 3 hours off half-life2 and I can tell you that when you compare the two you too might get that feeling that the levels in Doom3 where "slapped together". As far as I am concerned, the Doom3 engine and every other game engine just became obsoleet. Yes hl2 is that good.
back to the game, I don't have to show up for work for at least another 5 hours! Muhaha...
Congratulations with your good choices in life. Happy to see someone with as healthy a work philosophy as yours. In short you described all the key points that any working person needs to know. Money is not a goal, it is either a bonus on top of something that makes you happy or it is a means to accomplish something that will make you happy. The biggest lesson I got from my parents was that I should be happy. All the other things they told me where advice how I could accomplish being happy.
Though I love my job I now consider it as hard work that support my hobbies: Family, friends, travel, sports and leisure.
I don't think I could be any happier. And then every morning I wake up and I am.
I thought that the falsifiability philosophy was more modern (the Popper book is what, from 1966?). Anyway, I have long been a 'logical positivism' fan untill I started reading that this philosophy had long lost it's audience in favor of falsifiability. Hmmm. I should read more about this before discussing then I guess:-)
Anyway, thanks for the recommendation, I just ordered that book!
Thanks. I have not actually read Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery yet though I am familiar with the falsifiability theory (philosophy). I have recently become very interested in the philosophical framework of what science is. Is there a specific book you can reccommend? (I'll google for Popper in a sec).
This is just part of the screaming. If a religious person tells you "no, no, no, you are wrong! God exists IS a fact", how are you going to convince him/her? Analogy: You are having a discussion about the meaning of a word with someone who uses a different dictionary then you (with a different meaning for the word you are discussing). Hopefully you would recognize that it is pointless to discuss the word and start discussing which dictionary to use.
As for my abuse of the word 'fact', yeah sure I use the same dictionary and recognize my misuse of the word. Someone else put it like this: "creationists take their personal beliefs as axiomatic". I meant it along those lines.
Religion and science don't mix very well in my opinion. Beneath the typical flaming contests there lies a fundamental difference. I kind of look at it as the "outside-in" thinkers vs the "inside-out" thinkers. Religion is based on the Fact that God exists and that he/she is behind the way things happen. Non-religious thinkers (or those religious who keep religion out of their science) start with a meta science philosophy and build up their scientific knowledge based on observation, deduction and extrapolation. The meta science typically tells them not to predict things that can't be proven. The two philosophies are incompatible at the meta level. No matter how loud you scream, we will not settle the argument at the discussion level.
Oh we got the proverbial hint allright. Everybody around us that matters is extremely excited about the fact that we are going to have kids. The rambling of a random group of different thinkers is interesting but hardly a proverbial hint.
Why is it so hard to understand that people have the 'need' to have kids. Your parents had kids. So did mine, 3 very happy kids who love to get together and enjoy each others company. My happiest moments are when I am with my family. For this reason I would like to have a family of my own. It has nothing to do with anything silly like having a 'legacy'. That is the kind of I-want-to-live-forever thinking that you grow out of, or at least, I did.
Yes adoption would have been our next step.
IVF is not typically covered in the US because the procedure is still very expensive IN THE US. There are actually a few states which mandate insurance coverage. There is no hint whatsoever that insurance companies in this country got together and decided that we should be adopting kids instead of doing IVF. Even worse, though you and me think that adopting is a great thing the insurance companies have yet to show an interest in insuring adoption.
IVF helped us get pregnant. The (most likely) reason that we hadn't gotten pregnant the old fashioned way was because my wife has endomitriosis. Now that she is pregnant there really isn't any difference between us and people that did get pregnant the old fashioned way. Doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Now ask yourself what insurance is for. You pay fees to cover risks. Any women runs the risk of having endomitriosis. Therefore I think it is not unreasonable to have insurance cover things like IVF.
But, the fee should match the risk. This is where things have gone wrong in america. Currently the cost of IVF is significantly higher in the US then it is in most other countries. Therefore the fee for insuring it would be high and insurance companies have opted for not insuring IVF to keep their fees 'attractive'.
So the real question is, why is IVF so expensive in the US?
Thanks for the kind words. Yes we are extremely glad with our kid in the making. One of the big reasons I am looking forward to it is the look in the eyes of my own parents. They had 3 kids that are now all having kids of their own and living extremely happy lives. One lives in the Netherlands, one in Germany and one (me) in the USA. My parents spend a lot of time traveling to the 3 of us and enjoy doing so. We still get together with the whole family at least twice per year. Just for all that happiness I have wanted kids of my own (IVF or adopted would have been fine).
Weird how your honest feelings could be modded "Troll".
Slashdot Mirror
It is easier to get information from something that is two-dimensional.
The idea is to see how 3D can enhance the user interface. Not replace something that isn't broken. The 'text' part of reading should stay in 2D land, but think about the visual feedback of flipping a page, or seeing how thick the side of the book is. Also keep in mind that text is only a part of a user interface. 3D objects as icons could be usefull for example.
A benefit of 3D objects over 2D objects is that if you move them in that 3rd dimension they will visually shrink in a natural looking manner and take up less space on your screen.
just a thought.
May I suggest making a distinction between soft drugs and hard drugs. Soft drugs (hash/marijuana/...) is the stuff you would talk to your kids about in the same way you talk to them about alcohol. Be carefull! Don't smoke and Drive! Etc. Hard drugs (Heroin/LSD/cocaine/...) on the other hand is the stuff where you bring your kids to a clinic. I wish the governament in the US would make the same distinction. Yet a small group with a large influence insists that drugs is drugs and it becomes impossible to have a decent political discussion.
You mean like the "Micron PC" logo I am staring at during boot?
for very large values of 2!
[Engineering Log: Somewhere in the future]
"Well, we managed to create a holodeck with completely convincing graphics. The problem is that the AI chick we where all dying to meet has fallen for the marketing guy and claims not to be interested in nerds. Well, damn."
Do as I do, pronounce blogs as "bollocks" (or bollogs) instead of blogs. It reminds me of what most of them are. Sure most journalism is crap too, but what makes you think that random unobjective opinions will replace journalism? You think that most journalists are going to publish their findings on the web without getting paid for their work? Or do you think that most bloggers will start doing research before writing their next entry?
:-)
Wikki's...now there is some promise.
No I didn't RTFA, I read slashdot!
Cool! It would be just like a cellphone! Except it would be really expensive, not have a good form factor for this type of use. And now you can't even play games on it. ;-)
The first group of posts indicate that we mostly agree that programming (or working in general) for more then 80 hours is not productive and harms your lifestyle. Hardly a groundbreaking conclusion, though there are enough people out there that might have felt that they should work this much because everyone else seems to.
So what are you going to do with this knowledge? Are you going to have a talk with your peers? How about your manager? Or bring it up at the next all-hands, right after the available high-ups tell you how fine your company is doing? How should we bring this up without fear for our jobs?
Here are some things to think about (feel free to add):
- Post anonymously. If you are truly affraid of consequences, try to do something like what the EA employee spouse did. Post an anonymous letter with your complaints. Keep the letter constructive.
- Talk to the right person. Before you pour your heart out, make sure you are talking to the right person.
- If your boss doesn't listend to you, consider talking to his/her boss instead. If this is too much of a step, consider talking to HR first.
- Talk to coleagues to measure how they are feeling. It could be usefull to break this feeling to your bosses as a group.
- Be carefull not to whine. You want a discussion, this includes listening to the others sides argumentation of why you have to work this way.
- No statistic should tell you how you should feel.
Lets get of our whining asses and start the discussion with the people that will allow you to get your life back on track. This here slashdot forum, though a decent source of news, is not the place where this particular issue will be solved. If you feel strongly about this topic then please do make a start at really solving it...it is your life you know.
We're not signing onto Kyoto because it exempts nations termed as "developing". Nations like China. That doesn't exactly level the playing field when we're losing manufacturing jobs to places like China like it's going out of style as it is.
So what you are saying is that the US is not willing to sign an environment based treaty because of economic reasons?
Further, the EPA, and the whole of the US government, is committed to the principles of Kyoto
You sure as hell fooled the rest of the world on that one. 7 of the G8 countries signed. Europe, as much of an economic power as the US signed. Even Russia, the source of all (your invented) evil signed a treat that will on the long run improved the world environment. Do you have any idea how alone you are in this? Doesn't that give you at least some sense of 'doubt' about the motivation your governament has fed you about this topic? If Bush askes you to jump, do you...oh nevermind.
Boy, thank God no one ever got shot in the US since they passed that law.
I could have added an 'ironic' tag somewhere, but sadly this is how things happend. We add laws. Whether they work is a different story.
I am originally from the Netherlands but live in California and I can tell you that the California tax on gas is nowhere near as large as it can get. The Dutch pay at least twice as much for gas at the pump and that has not stopped them from driving. The situation is far from the same but once the state of California figures that they can get about as much tax income as they need by increasing the gas tax I bet they will. Protest will be limited to the usual grumbling and yelling on and offline without any major consequences.
You don't outlaw tape. You make it illegal to tape up the flash. Problem solved!
What, you think I am kidding? Guns are legal in america and the problem of people shooting one another was 'solved' by making this practise illegal.
This is not going to make you any happier, but I for one was playing the (arguably) most anticipated game of the year at 12:09am tuesday morning.
This went as smooth as I have ever seen a major game release go. Thumbs up from where I am sitting. That the experience wasn't as good for some of the other early adaptors of the game is not pleasant, but hardly a reason to complain about. A couple of hours extra after a year+ of anticipation.....common man, relax. You got over it after standing in line for hours when going to see the Matrix2! And at least Half-Life2 lives up to it's hype.
Dear Sir,
I humbly appologize for the spelling mistake. I am glad that you have taken some of your precious time to point it out. English is an easy language and it is hardly an excuse that it isn't my first (Dutch) or second (German).
btw "obsolete" is an adjective, not a noun.
Sincerely,
Traa
Anyone who thinks the levels in Doom 3 were "slapped together" to show off the engine should spend a little time designing levels.
I played and finished Doom 3. I just played 3 hours off half-life2 and I can tell you that when you compare the two you too might get that feeling that the levels in Doom3 where "slapped together". As far as I am concerned, the Doom3 engine and every other game engine just became obsoleet. Yes hl2 is that good.
back to the game, I don't have to show up for work for at least another 5 hours! Muhaha...
Congratulations with your good choices in life. Happy to see someone with as healthy a work philosophy as yours. In short you described all the key points that any working person needs to know. Money is not a goal, it is either a bonus on top of something that makes you happy or it is a means to accomplish something that will make you happy. The biggest lesson I got from my parents was that I should be happy. All the other things they told me where advice how I could accomplish being happy.
Though I love my job I now consider it as hard work that support my hobbies: Family, friends, travel, sports and leisure.
I don't think I could be any happier. And then every morning I wake up and I am.
I thought that the falsifiability philosophy was more modern (the Popper book is what, from 1966?). Anyway, I have long been a 'logical positivism' fan untill I started reading that this philosophy had long lost it's audience in favor of falsifiability. Hmmm. I should read more about this before discussing then I guess :-)
Anyway, thanks for the recommendation, I just ordered that book!
Thanks. I have not actually read Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery yet though I am familiar with the falsifiability theory (philosophy). I have recently become very interested in the philosophical framework of what science is. Is there a specific book you can reccommend? (I'll google for Popper in a sec).
"God exists" is a belief, not a fact.
This is just part of the screaming. If a religious person tells you "no, no, no, you are wrong! God exists IS a fact", how are you going to convince him/her?
Analogy: You are having a discussion about the meaning of a word with someone who uses a different dictionary then you (with a different meaning for the word you are discussing). Hopefully you would recognize that it is pointless to discuss the word and start discussing which dictionary to use.
As for my abuse of the word 'fact', yeah sure I use the same dictionary and recognize my misuse of the word. Someone else put it like this: "creationists take their personal beliefs as axiomatic". I meant it along those lines.
Religion and science don't mix very well in my opinion. Beneath the typical flaming contests there lies a fundamental difference. I kind of look at it as the "outside-in" thinkers vs the "inside-out" thinkers. Religion is based on the Fact that God exists and that he/she is behind the way things happen. Non-religious thinkers (or those religious who keep religion out of their science) start with a meta science philosophy and build up their scientific knowledge based on observation, deduction and extrapolation. The meta science typically tells them not to predict things that can't be proven. The two philosophies are incompatible at the meta level. No matter how loud you scream, we will not settle the argument at the discussion level.
DISCLAIMER: this is just my $0.02
Balmer wants a $100 computer.
;-)
You would think he would be able to afford something better then that...Microsoft having problems?
Oh we got the proverbial hint allright. Everybody around us that matters is extremely excited about the fact that we are going to have kids. The rambling of a random group of different thinkers is interesting but hardly a proverbial hint.
Why is it so hard to understand that people have the 'need' to have kids. Your parents had kids. So did mine, 3 very happy kids who love to get together and enjoy each others company. My happiest moments are when I am with my family. For this reason I would like to have a family of my own. It has nothing to do with anything silly like having a 'legacy'. That is the kind of I-want-to-live-forever thinking that you grow out of, or at least, I did.
Yes adoption would have been our next step.
IVF is not typically covered in the US because the procedure is still very expensive IN THE US. There are actually a few states which mandate insurance coverage. There is no hint whatsoever that insurance companies in this country got together and decided that we should be adopting kids instead of doing IVF. Even worse, though you and me think that adopting is a great thing the insurance companies have yet to show an interest in insuring adoption.
IVF helped us get pregnant. The (most likely) reason that we hadn't gotten pregnant the old fashioned way was because my wife has endomitriosis. Now that she is pregnant there really isn't any difference between us and people that did get pregnant the old fashioned way. Doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Now ask yourself what insurance is for. You pay fees to cover risks. Any women runs the risk of having endomitriosis. Therefore I think it is not unreasonable to have insurance cover things like IVF.
But, the fee should match the risk. This is where things have gone wrong in america. Currently the cost of IVF is significantly higher in the US then it is in most other countries. Therefore the fee for insuring it would be high and insurance companies have opted for not insuring IVF to keep their fees 'attractive'.
So the real question is, why is IVF so expensive in the US?
well...as far as I am concerned your comment was 'funny', not 'flamebait'.
Thanks for the kind words. Yes we are extremely glad with our kid in the making. One of the big reasons I am looking forward to it is the look in the eyes of my own parents. They had 3 kids that are now all having kids of their own and living extremely happy lives. One lives in the Netherlands, one in Germany and one (me) in the USA. My parents spend a lot of time traveling to the 3 of us and enjoy doing so. We still get together with the whole family at least twice per year. Just for all that happiness I have wanted kids of my own (IVF or adopted would have been fine).
Weird how your honest feelings could be modded "Troll".