This reminds me of my experiences of typing on a Nokia N800, which is too small for any human fingers, and you actually have to peck with a stylus. (Unless you use the mode where the virtual keyboard fills the entire screen.) However, I found that my touch-typing background goes a long way -- there is little hunting involved if you really know your QWERTY, so the pecking with the stylus is surprisingly natural. It is also surprisingly fast due to the small range of movements. I guess it also helps that the stylus does not block your view of the keyboard.
The real keyboard on the N900 isn't actually much better. Sure, knowing the layout helps there too, but it's still using two thumbs instead of all fingers, so it still feels like pecking. OTOH, there is a real touch response. I personally think it's dumb that phones have lost their buttons while people use them increasingly for typing instead of talking, but I don't see any perfect solution around.
As for alternative input methods, I fondly remember how one of my professors demoed Dasher from his research group around 2000, but it hasn't seen much popularity. I think one problem might be that it relies so much on statistics and prediction, thus limiting and guiding what you want to say a little too much (not that we don't have the same issue with Google and Facebook etc. these days).
The next test for guilt in "hackers" might be that they float
Real hackers only use int.
Which is funny if you use a language where "real" means float (i.e. a real number, as opposed to rational or integer). At least Fortran does this, and I think we can all agree that Fortran is one of the few languages fit for a Real hacker.
In fact, the case of "double" is interesting in that there is no ambiguity, it's always interpreted as "two times the original". However, Finnish doesn't have a direct native equivalent of "double", so we even get the confusion of someone saying "two times larger" when meaning "two times as large". Fortunately, we do have a loan of "double" ("tupla, tuplasti"), but it hasn't quite replaced the "two times" expressions.
How odd. In English, we have double, triple, treble, quadruple, quintiple, and so on. I'm not sure how far up it goes, but I can't recall hearing much past triple.
Of course we have a construct for this, for example two is "kaksi", time (of repetition) is "kerta", so double is "kaksinkertainen". But it's a bit awkward, as it is basically just saying "two times" instead of a shorter idiom.
I just want a real open source phone OS (Android doesn't count because it's practically useless without the Google adware/spyware). One that's not anti-consumer, doesn't spy on you, try to get you to buy things from its app store, doesn't treat the users like morons (hello iOS!) etc. Basically like Linux is on the desktop. I'd gladly PAY a bit extra for this, 10 or 20 bucks (they can't make that much more off me from sell my data, and I don't buy from app stores anyway, so that's a good deal on their part).
In other words, Nokia N900 for this decade. Unfortunately, the only real upgrade I'm seeing is the Neo900, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.
Since the sun is about 333 kiloearths in mass, wouldn't a megaearth be about 3 solar masses?:-)
I'm trying to picture 333000 times the collective human stupidity on Earth. But assuming that population scales with the surface area (R^2) instead of mass or volume (R^3) it wouldn't be quite as bad.
Same here in Finland, it's an endless battle. One common argument for the "illogical" way is to separate the "larger" and "2.3 times" -- it's larger than the original, and it's 2.3 times the original. Of course, if you want to say "2.3 times the original" then you don't need the extra "larger" qualifier.
My usual argument for the logical way is to ask "what about 50% more". It's obviously not half of the original. The illogicians are quick to point out that the meaning changes when you go below 100%.
For an even worse abuse of linguistic logic, we have a colloquialism (not too common, fortunately) of saying "half more" when meaning "double the original". There is of course some "logic" when considering the inverse number, but now we have three different ways to intepret the same thing >.<
In fact, the case of "double" is interesting in that there is no ambiguity, it's always interpreted as "two times the original". However, Finnish doesn't have a direct native equivalent of "double", so we even get the confusion of someone saying "two times larger" when meaning "two times as large". Fortunately, we do have a loan of "double" ("tupla, tuplasti"), but it hasn't quite replaced the "two times" expressions.
I wonder how much marketing jargon has contributed to these misunderstandings. Using terms such as "bandwidth" and "broadband" when referring to data rate will not make information theory any easier.
To the parent and the GP, these are good points. I wonder why the notion of causality is such a holy scripture -- it's just a part of the "common sense" which we know to be wrong in so many cases. For example, Igor Novikov argues that temporal loops are OK as long as they are self-consistent. In such a loop, you cannot order two events in a before/after fashion (aka causality) but the whole can nevertheless be physically consistent.
Forget QT specifically and think of this as one step towards mastering entanglement in general. How about the possibility of generating weirdly correlated transactions across the globe that give traders an advantage?
Interesting. I usually stay away from physics discussions on/. as the pop-sci babble is just too much, but this is actually a fresh point of view. Of course, like any technology, this will soon be used by everyone so there will only be a time-limited edge for the first mover.
You can't use quantum teleportation to transmit information faster than light. QT requires a classical information channel (like fiber optic cables) on the side to actually work. The point about QT is being able to transfer a quantum mechanical state, i.e. the wavefunction with its full phase information. You cannot do that with classical means, because you'd need to measure the state, thereby collapsing it into a classical state.
Put differently, artificial limbs that are tied into a person's neural system and allows them to function, say as real legs and to walk doesn't eliminate the disability any more than a wheelchair does. Both allow a person to get from point a to point b. The artificial limbs may also provide numerous other advantages over a wheel chair, but they do not, in fact, change that the person has lost the function of their legs. That is the disability. The artificial limbs and/or wheel chair are just tools to mitigate the loss.
Interesting point. Wondering this from a technical perspective, you might ask if it is even possible to fully integrate an artificial limb into your body-consciousness, unless you grow up with it from a very young age, regardless of the technological sophistication.
However, people have shown surprising flexibility in dealing with this sort of thing. For example, people with surgically corrected nerve damage have reported that their sense of touch is literally out of place -- feeling the touch in a different position than actually touched. However, after a while their brain will have updated the routing tables to match up the positions. Presumably, such learning is based on visual feedback, such as shown in the experiment where you learn to feel a plastic hand as your own, and you even feel pain when the plastic hand is hit.
If you absolutely must claim that one aspect ratio is superior to another, then why not go with the golden ratio?
At least that way you can put two together and still have the same ratio.
Nope. You need sqrt(2) to combine two into a bigger version with the same ratio, as we do with standard paper sizes like A4. The golden ratio means cutting a line into two pieces so that long piece / total = short piece / long piece.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25...
Of course, if you combine displays this way, you are turning subpixels into non-optimal orientations, but I guess it won't be a problem at these huge resolutions.
IMHO, cooling is the first reason to keep them separate. Projectors generate a lot of heat compared to a low-end CPU, and then you'll need a lot of extra cooling to keep the CPU happy. The projector itself would be OK at a somewhat higher temperature, and the computer alone wouldn't need much cooling.
Also, there is the usual argument about bundling computers with appliances -- the computer gets obsolete much faster. So this can only fill a very limited niche.
RSA does not rely on discrete log. It rather relies on discrete root.
Dlog is the base, however, to almost any other public key algorithm out there which isn't elliptic curve. This includes Diffie Hellman, El-Gamal, DSA, Schnor and I'm sure others as well.
Discrete log is certainly being used with elliptic curves. EC isn't really an algorithm, but an alternative "number system" that is well suited for crypto (the common alternative is finite/Galois fields).
Why would you spend your zero-point-something-something Bitcoin on a coffee at Starbucks today, when two years from now that amount may buy you a car from Tesla?
The question makes sense with or without Bitcoin. If you care about your money in the long term, you don't go to Starbucks, you make your own coffee for much less money, and invest your savings. OTOH, if you're really short of cash, and you're hungry, a good meal right now is worth a lot more than a prospect of earning some more in a few years. The idea of spending vs. saving is a lot older, it's just that Bitcoin has seen some rapid growth in the past couple of years that has made it more in-your-face.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect most decent cams come from theater employees.
does not compute
This reminds me of my experiences of typing on a Nokia N800, which is too small for any human fingers, and you actually have to peck with a stylus. (Unless you use the mode where the virtual keyboard fills the entire screen.) However, I found that my touch-typing background goes a long way -- there is little hunting involved if you really know your QWERTY, so the pecking with the stylus is surprisingly natural. It is also surprisingly fast due to the small range of movements. I guess it also helps that the stylus does not block your view of the keyboard.
The real keyboard on the N900 isn't actually much better. Sure, knowing the layout helps there too, but it's still using two thumbs instead of all fingers, so it still feels like pecking. OTOH, there is a real touch response. I personally think it's dumb that phones have lost their buttons while people use them increasingly for typing instead of talking, but I don't see any perfect solution around.
As for alternative input methods, I fondly remember how one of my professors demoed Dasher from his research group around 2000, but it hasn't seen much popularity. I think one problem might be that it relies so much on statistics and prediction, thus limiting and guiding what you want to say a little too much (not that we don't have the same issue with Google and Facebook etc. these days).
Besides, the determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
life sentences for people who say cyber when they mean "IT related".
The next test for guilt in "hackers" might be that they float
Real hackers only use int.
Which is funny if you use a language where "real" means float (i.e. a real number, as opposed to rational or integer). At least Fortran does this, and I think we can all agree that Fortran is one of the few languages fit for a Real hacker.
In fact, the case of "double" is interesting in that there is no ambiguity, it's always interpreted as "two times the original". However, Finnish doesn't have a direct native equivalent of "double", so we even get the confusion of someone saying "two times larger" when meaning "two times as large". Fortunately, we do have a loan of "double" ("tupla, tuplasti"), but it hasn't quite replaced the "two times" expressions.
How odd. In English, we have double, triple, treble, quadruple, quintiple, and so on. I'm not sure how far up it goes, but I can't recall hearing much past triple.
Of course we have a construct for this, for example two is "kaksi", time (of repetition) is "kerta", so double is "kaksinkertainen". But it's a bit awkward, as it is basically just saying "two times" instead of a shorter idiom.
I just want a real open source phone OS (Android doesn't count because it's practically useless without the Google adware/spyware). One that's not anti-consumer, doesn't spy on you, try to get you to buy things from its app store, doesn't treat the users like morons (hello iOS!) etc. Basically like Linux is on the desktop. I'd gladly PAY a bit extra for this, 10 or 20 bucks (they can't make that much more off me from sell my data, and I don't buy from app stores anyway, so that's a good deal on their part).
In other words, Nokia N900 for this decade. Unfortunately, the only real upgrade I'm seeing is the Neo900, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.
Since the sun is about 333 kiloearths in mass, wouldn't a megaearth be about 3 solar masses? :-)
I'm trying to picture 333000 times the collective human stupidity on Earth. But assuming that population scales with the surface area (R^2) instead of mass or volume (R^3) it wouldn't be quite as bad.
Same here in Finland, it's an endless battle. One common argument for the "illogical" way is to separate the "larger" and "2.3 times" -- it's larger than the original, and it's 2.3 times the original. Of course, if you want to say "2.3 times the original" then you don't need the extra "larger" qualifier.
My usual argument for the logical way is to ask "what about 50% more". It's obviously not half of the original. The illogicians are quick to point out that the meaning changes when you go below 100%.
For an even worse abuse of linguistic logic, we have a colloquialism (not too common, fortunately) of saying "half more" when meaning "double the original". There is of course some "logic" when considering the inverse number, but now we have three different ways to intepret the same thing >.<
In fact, the case of "double" is interesting in that there is no ambiguity, it's always interpreted as "two times the original". However, Finnish doesn't have a direct native equivalent of "double", so we even get the confusion of someone saying "two times larger" when meaning "two times as large". Fortunately, we do have a loan of "double" ("tupla, tuplasti"), but it hasn't quite replaced the "two times" expressions.
Even better, Natalie Portman. With hot grits.
I wonder how much marketing jargon has contributed to these misunderstandings. Using terms such as "bandwidth" and "broadband" when referring to data rate will not make information theory any easier.
Unsurpassed.
But will it survive a swordfight against a Model M?
To the parent and the GP, these are good points. I wonder why the notion of causality is such a holy scripture -- it's just a part of the "common sense" which we know to be wrong in so many cases. For example, Igor Novikov argues that temporal loops are OK as long as they are self-consistent. In such a loop, you cannot order two events in a before/after fashion (aka causality) but the whole can nevertheless be physically consistent.
Forget QT specifically and think of this as one step towards mastering entanglement in general. How about the possibility of generating weirdly correlated transactions across the globe that give traders an advantage?
Interesting. I usually stay away from physics discussions on /. as the pop-sci babble is just too much, but this is actually a fresh point of view. Of course, like any technology, this will soon be used by everyone so there will only be a time-limited edge for the first mover.
You can't use quantum teleportation to transmit information faster than light. QT requires a classical information channel (like fiber optic cables) on the side to actually work. The point about QT is being able to transfer a quantum mechanical state, i.e. the wavefunction with its full phase information. You cannot do that with classical means, because you'd need to measure the state, thereby collapsing it into a classical state.
Well, maybe.
Who knew, when they were building thepiratebay, they were simply making the library of the future?
My thoughts exactly.
Enormous Genitals
Put differently, artificial limbs that are tied into a person's neural system and allows them to function, say as real legs and to walk doesn't eliminate the disability any more than a wheelchair does. Both allow a person to get from point a to point b. The artificial limbs may also provide numerous other advantages over a wheel chair, but they do not, in fact, change that the person has lost the function of their legs. That is the disability. The artificial limbs and/or wheel chair are just tools to mitigate the loss.
Interesting point. Wondering this from a technical perspective, you might ask if it is even possible to fully integrate an artificial limb into your body-consciousness, unless you grow up with it from a very young age, regardless of the technological sophistication.
However, people have shown surprising flexibility in dealing with this sort of thing. For example, people with surgically corrected nerve damage have reported that their sense of touch is literally out of place -- feeling the touch in a different position than actually touched. However, after a while their brain will have updated the routing tables to match up the positions. Presumably, such learning is based on visual feedback, such as shown in the experiment where you learn to feel a plastic hand as your own, and you even feel pain when the plastic hand is hit.
Why not a round number, such as 2048?
I can't believe nobody posted the obligatory XKCD yet. http://xkcd.com/732/
If you absolutely must claim that one aspect ratio is superior to another, then why not go with the golden ratio? At least that way you can put two together and still have the same ratio.
Nope. You need sqrt(2) to combine two into a bigger version with the same ratio, as we do with standard paper sizes like A4. The golden ratio means cutting a line into two pieces so that long piece / total = short piece / long piece. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25...
Of course, if you combine displays this way, you are turning subpixels into non-optimal orientations, but I guess it won't be a problem at these huge resolutions.
IMHO, cooling is the first reason to keep them separate. Projectors generate a lot of heat compared to a low-end CPU, and then you'll need a lot of extra cooling to keep the CPU happy. The projector itself would be OK at a somewhat higher temperature, and the computer alone wouldn't need much cooling.
Also, there is the usual argument about bundling computers with appliances -- the computer gets obsolete much faster. So this can only fill a very limited niche.
RSA does not rely on discrete log. It rather relies on discrete root.
Dlog is the base, however, to almost any other public key algorithm out there which isn't elliptic curve. This includes Diffie Hellman, El-Gamal, DSA, Schnor and I'm sure others as well.
Discrete log is certainly being used with elliptic curves. EC isn't really an algorithm, but an alternative "number system" that is well suited for crypto (the common alternative is finite/Galois fields).
Why would you spend your zero-point-something-something Bitcoin on a coffee at Starbucks today, when two years from now that amount may buy you a car from Tesla?
The question makes sense with or without Bitcoin. If you care about your money in the long term, you don't go to Starbucks, you make your own coffee for much less money, and invest your savings. OTOH, if you're really short of cash, and you're hungry, a good meal right now is worth a lot more than a prospect of earning some more in a few years. The idea of spending vs. saving is a lot older, it's just that Bitcoin has seen some rapid growth in the past couple of years that has made it more in-your-face.