RM101 laughs picturing Zoyd stewing in his seat, seething with rage while little clicks surround him in his nice, quiet environment, making a "hellish clatter".
On a lighter note, anyone know of a good modern "battleship" style keyboard for those of us that like a huge sturdy clicking keyboard IBM steelo?
IBM is the keyboard king, no doubt about it. You can't get steel ones anymore, but the plastic ones are pretty damn solid (I could still kill you with a sharp blow -- that's the acid test.:) ). And they still have that great IBM feel. To tell you the truth, I stole^H^H^H^H^H borrowed a pile of them from my last company about 4 years ago, so I haven't ordered one lately. But I'm typing on one right now and they still rock.
You can order them directly off IBM's web site. It's amazing that no one else makes a decent keyboard.
Something else I was just thinking about is how do you do a click, hold and drag? That seems like it would be way to complicated to drag while tilting the mouse.
Actually, MS's Intellimouse is a license of an HP product.
Does HP make their own version of it? It would be interesting to compare the products.
However, from Apple's perspective I don't see why this is usefull if it costs more to produce.
I take it you haven't used one? They are incredibly smooth and good. A mech mouse just doesn't compare. It would be interesting to see a manufacturing cost comparison. It would seem like a mechanical mouse ought to be cheaper, but the optical mouse is really just an LED, a sensor, and probably a more sophisticated microprocessor. The costs may not be that far out of line.
By the way, can I head off an inevitable discussion? Whenever the subject of mice comes up, people (rightly) point out that the MS optical mouse rocks. After that, people feel the need to post that optical mice are nothing new, Sun had them ten years ago, etc, etc.
Just for the record: The old optical mice required a special pad with alternating mirror/dark squares. The mouse picked up light bouncing off the squares.
The MS mouse is much more sophisticated. It actually takes an image of the surface, and digitally compares frames to determine the mouse movement. That's why you can use it on any surface, including your leg (nice for those legs-on-the-desk surfing sessions).
The Intellimouse really is pretty cool technology.
How did a buttonless mouse ever get out of the "is this gonna fly" meeting? First of all, what does Apple have against tactile feedback? A click is good so you know when the button was really pressed.
Hey Apple: Compare the number of muscles and effort required to push your index finger. Now compare how many muscles are involved in tilting the whole mouse.
Not to mention that when I do some fine marking on a photoshop doc or something, I'm supposed to jiggle the mouse to make a click?
Then there's the training issue. Can you imagine a newbie user just sitting there looking at the mouse, wondering what the heck you're supposed to do with it? "OK, grandma, now tilt the mouse. No, tilt it the other way." Good god.
A hint to Apple: Change for the sake of change is not "innovation". Eliminating the mouse ball (e.g. MS's optical mouse) was a great thing -- because it dramatically improved it while still keeping it simple. This removes tactile feedback and makes it more complicated.
Just license MS's intellimouse and be done with it. As far as I'm concerned, that's the perfect mouse.
That one's too easy... you just change your credit card.
Try this: Someone gets a picture of your wife. They Photoshop her face onto various sex poses (lets say a quality job that you couldn't tell was fake), and accompanies them with various rape fantasy stories. All with a name and address.
I think Sealand needs to get a little more of an ethical standard rather than just "child pornography". If they're going to recognize kiddie porn, then they should recognize other forms of abuse as well.
--
Re:Er, it's called "television"
on
Movies Online?
·
· Score: 2
This also underpins the recent escalation in ticket prices ($10 per ticket is outrageous, when you can rent the video for half that, or wait for the TV release and see it for free, eventually).
Well, first of all, the highest I've seen for a ticket is $7, here in So Cal. But even at that, that's always seemed like an incredible bargain to me. 7/10 bucks to see a multimillion (if not hundred million) dollar production on a good screen with a great sound system? Been to a major sporting event lately? Concert? $50-$100 easy. Or heck, how about even your local light-opera? $15 at a minimum. Movies are an amazing bargain.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if tickets are cheaper than they used to be, adjusted for inflation. At the very least, they aren't much more expensive. Most of the money at theatres is made on the food. Talk to me about popcorn, now there's a rip-off.
But as for "serials", I think TV is what really killed them. It used to be that movies were one of the few entertainment places. But when TV came in, there was too much demand on people's entertainment attention to get them into a theatre once per week. Heck, I'm lucky to get to the theatre once every few months nowadays.
Bottom line, TV took over the low-end. If I want to watch a weekly serial, TV has them in spades, and I don't need to leave the house. That's why hollywood has gravitated toward the high-end, blockbuster picture, because that's what will drag people out of the house to see it on the big screen.
I wish Slashdot would have a different category for stories like this. Misusing the word censorship just dilutes the important meanings, such as government making certain political speech illegal.
--
Er, it's called "television"
on
Movies Online?
·
· Score: 4
Some made-for-TV movies don't suck, but they just don't bring in the same sort of money that a major movie theatre feature brings in. It's going to be awhile until you see $100 million productions made for TV. On the plus side, the miniseries is a medium that TV can offer that theatres cannot.
But beyond that, the big screen offers benefits that sitting in your house just doesn't offer. Maybe someday we'll all have 40-100 foot screens in our house, but until then I'll stick to the theatre if I want an immersive experience.
The problem is that the average joe thinks Mars is too expensive to explore. They don't want to pay for it, especially when our national debt is measured in gajillions.
I think that's a good point. If the cost was reasonable, then the public probably would get behind it.
Part of the problem, too, is that there really isn't any uncertainty about going to Mars. When it came to the moon, it really was blazing a new trail and the "audacity" aspect could take hold of the public's imagination.
Nowadays, does anyone really doubt that we could get people to Mars and back given enough money? Since there's no mystery involved, it really comes down to (as you imply) a cost-benefit analysis. The big question is whether the public would spring for even the modest budget (by Apollo standards) that it would take to go to Mars, and I just don't feel it myself.
Maybe there is some middle ground. Like make a sustainable colony part of the mission. I think the concept of "sustainable" would really sell to the public, because then it doesn't look like "an endless money pit just to bring home some rocks". The problem is that Mars (as another poster pointed out) is just not that profitable, compared to asteroid mining or micro-grav manufacturing.
My gut feeling is that Mars isn't going to happen until we are mining asteroids, which will help establish infrastructure and (as you also point out) give us cheap rocketry.
There is precicely zero commercial interest in anything outside geosynchronous orbit.
Actually, I think that's a little pessimistic. Asteroid mining obviously needs to go into the asteroid belt, but I think I know what you mean. You want real colonies on real planets that you can visit. In that respect, you have a point.
However, I think there's hope. It comes down to a question of cost. There are tons of people who would like to live on mars just for the vacation aspect, but at this point it would be prohibitively expensive to maintain a colony, set up regular space flights, etc. However, once we lower the costs of staying in space for asteroid mining or manufacturing (which ought to be very profitable), the costs of setting up a colony should drop a lot.
The biggest problem with space travel is that our technology is incredibly crude and the infrastructure non-existent. But just getting geosync space travel in place, and then asteroid space travel in place, it should make it relatively practical to have real colonies.
They'd say it would show America's pioneering spirit, and I think that would touch a nerve with voters. They'd say that it would look for life - and believe it or not, very many people find that interesting.
Did we learn nothing from Apollo?
Let's say by some miracle Mars gets sold to the public, and we end up going. Then what? Exactly the same thing that happened with Apollo -- people get bored watching astronauts walking around, picking up rocks. Questions start getting asked about how much it's costing for a bunch of rocks. Budgets dry up.
Meanwhile, private industry is still suckling off the public teat, rather than trying to find the profit in going into space, such as space mining, etc.
I want permanent settlements in space. The only way that's going to happen is for the settlements to pay for themselves, so they aren't at the mercy of the government. Believe me, I want manned space flight -- but I want sustainable manned space flight.
The days of NASA as being at the forefront of technology are over. They are just another bureaucracy trying to find some way to increase their budget and survive. I have nothing against pure research, which is why I think NASA is better suited to unmanned probes (in conjunction perhaps with universities), or military purposes.
Heck, you really only have to look at oceangoing ships or submarines to see somewhat equivalent conditions. At sea for months, cramped conditions, endless days of the same scenery. Nothing we haven't done before. People adapt.
I wouldn't let NASA off the hook that easily. It's NASA's job to test the whole shebang as a unit. Obviously, NASA didn't test it nearly well enough if something as major as that slipped through the cracks.
If you got a software back from a subcontractor and shipped it without testing it, would the customer blame you or the subcontractor?
The attitude seems to be pragmatic -- if we want to go to Mars, we need to start building the infrastructure, make the public aware of the possibilities, demo Mars vehicles, etc.
Note: This post is in the context of manned space exploration, versus unmanned probes, the latter of which I support.
I've seen this attitude elsewhere, kind of like "if only the public really understood the idea of going to mars, there would be a lot of support for it". Well, I've got news for people: The public knows as much as they need to know, and they don't care. The public's attitude can be summed up by "Go to another rock? Been there. Done that."
There simply is no reason, from Joe Public's point of view, to go to Mars. Yes, there is a lot to discover scientifically, but that usually doesn't interest the average joe. The moon was interesting because that was new, and we had the russians to beat.
And please don't give me the old tired line about all the tech benefits that came out of the space program. Yes, benefits came out of it, but nothing that wouldn't have come out of industry anyway (only cheaper).
It's been said before, and it bears saying again. It is time for private industry to privatize space. Only when it pays for itself will humans have a permanent presence in space. Trying to rely on the fickle budgets of governments is just folly.
Wake me up when someone has a plan to start mining space, terraforming an asteroid, or launching a factory for low-grav manufacturing. Until then, all this is just a carnival sideshow.
I remember an article a while back (I can't remember where I saw it) about a company who wanted to put together a cellular-type model using very-high-flying, solar-powered robot airplines that would fly around in set patterns, providing communication. I think it was meant for worldwide phones, but I see no reason that a model like this wouldn't work for Internet access.
This would also eliminate a lot of the problems of access in outlying areas, like national parks, where we wouldn't want to have comm towers.
Anyone have any more information about who was thinking about this?
Have you ever heard of the Bible? God's mind is revealed to us through it's words. Couldn't be simpler really, could it?
Well, yes, it could be simpler. Even if you grant that the bible is the word of God, it's hardly a crystal-clear document. Particularly when you are reading a translation.
And I also believe that it does say that God is to be worshipped, not mocked and reviled, as these "geneticists" are doing through their work.
Please provide a direct quote from the Bible that indicates that self-analysis of man is "mocking and reviling" God. Actually, let's go whole-hog. Provide a quote that actually forbids man from creating new life (aka "playing God"). Never mind that we've already done this by domestication (dogs and cats were created by man), and by cross-breeding (Boysenberries).
The fact is that you can make this argument about any gathering of knowledge, and in fact, many do. Do you also endorse that any medical treatment is an affront to God? Where do you draw the line of which knowledge is OK, and which knowledge isn't?
--
Re:A long slippery slope down to Hell
on
Frankenstein Time
·
· Score: 2
So you presume to know the mind of God? How arrogant. It may be that it's part of God's plan for man to decode himself, in order to understand more about God.
If there is a God, he designed us with intelligence and curiosity. Since there are no roadsigns that say what we should or should not do with it ("Thou shalt not decode thy genome"), therefore I conclude that everything is fair game.
--
So who does have this perfect wisdom?
on
Frankenstein Time
·
· Score: 2
and hardly any Americans grasp what it might do, how it might work, or what kind of changes might be brought about by its use and misuse.
A constant theme throughout your essay is how ill-equipped Americans are to handling this new technology. Well, exactly which country are you endorsing as having this "grasp" on the issues?
Slashdot Mirror
At least he doesn't use "alot". I can take anything but that.
--
RM101 laughs picturing Zoyd stewing in his seat, seething with rage while little clicks surround him in his nice, quiet environment, making a "hellish clatter".
Time to cut down on the coffee, dude.
--
Then there was the iNose... you steer your mouse while holding your nose in the air. Very popular among Macophiles. :)
--
On a lighter note, anyone know of a good modern "battleship" style keyboard for those of us that like a huge sturdy clicking keyboard IBM steelo?
IBM is the keyboard king, no doubt about it. You can't get steel ones anymore, but the plastic ones are pretty damn solid (I could still kill you with a sharp blow -- that's the acid test. :) ). And they still have that great IBM feel. To tell you the truth, I stole^H^H^H^H^H borrowed a pile of them from my last company about 4 years ago, so I haven't ordered one lately. But I'm typing on one right now and they still rock.
You can order them directly off IBM's web site. It's amazing that no one else makes a decent keyboard.
--
Something else I was just thinking about is how do you do a click, hold and drag? That seems like it would be way to complicated to drag while tilting the mouse.
--
Actually, MS's Intellimouse is a license of an HP product.
Does HP make their own version of it? It would be interesting to compare the products.
However, from Apple's perspective I don't see why this is usefull if it costs more to produce.
I take it you haven't used one? They are incredibly smooth and good. A mech mouse just doesn't compare. It would be interesting to see a manufacturing cost comparison. It would seem like a mechanical mouse ought to be cheaper, but the optical mouse is really just an LED, a sensor, and probably a more sophisticated microprocessor. The costs may not be that far out of line.
--
By the way, can I head off an inevitable discussion? Whenever the subject of mice comes up, people (rightly) point out that the MS optical mouse rocks. After that, people feel the need to post that optical mice are nothing new, Sun had them ten years ago, etc, etc.
Just for the record: The old optical mice required a special pad with alternating mirror/dark squares. The mouse picked up light bouncing off the squares.
The MS mouse is much more sophisticated. It actually takes an image of the surface, and digitally compares frames to determine the mouse movement. That's why you can use it on any surface, including your leg (nice for those legs-on-the-desk surfing sessions).
The Intellimouse really is pretty cool technology.
--
How did a buttonless mouse ever get out of the "is this gonna fly" meeting? First of all, what does Apple have against tactile feedback? A click is good so you know when the button was really pressed.
Hey Apple: Compare the number of muscles and effort required to push your index finger. Now compare how many muscles are involved in tilting the whole mouse.
Not to mention that when I do some fine marking on a photoshop doc or something, I'm supposed to jiggle the mouse to make a click?
Then there's the training issue. Can you imagine a newbie user just sitting there looking at the mouse, wondering what the heck you're supposed to do with it? "OK, grandma, now tilt the mouse. No, tilt it the other way." Good god.
A hint to Apple: Change for the sake of change is not "innovation". Eliminating the mouse ball (e.g. MS's optical mouse) was a great thing -- because it dramatically improved it while still keeping it simple. This removes tactile feedback and makes it more complicated.
Just license MS's intellimouse and be done with it. As far as I'm concerned, that's the perfect mouse.
--
That one's too easy... you just change your credit card.
Try this: Someone gets a picture of your wife. They Photoshop her face onto various sex poses (lets say a quality job that you couldn't tell was fake), and accompanies them with various rape fantasy stories. All with a name and address.
I think Sealand needs to get a little more of an ethical standard rather than just "child pornography". If they're going to recognize kiddie porn, then they should recognize other forms of abuse as well.
--
This also underpins the recent escalation in ticket prices ($10 per ticket is outrageous, when you can rent the video for half that, or wait for the TV release and see it for free, eventually).
Well, first of all, the highest I've seen for a ticket is $7, here in So Cal. But even at that, that's always seemed like an incredible bargain to me. 7/10 bucks to see a multimillion (if not hundred million) dollar production on a good screen with a great sound system? Been to a major sporting event lately? Concert? $50-$100 easy. Or heck, how about even your local light-opera? $15 at a minimum. Movies are an amazing bargain.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if tickets are cheaper than they used to be, adjusted for inflation. At the very least, they aren't much more expensive. Most of the money at theatres is made on the food. Talk to me about popcorn, now there's a rip-off.
But as for "serials", I think TV is what really killed them. It used to be that movies were one of the few entertainment places. But when TV came in, there was too much demand on people's entertainment attention to get them into a theatre once per week. Heck, I'm lucky to get to the theatre once every few months nowadays.
Bottom line, TV took over the low-end. If I want to watch a weekly serial, TV has them in spades, and I don't need to leave the house. That's why hollywood has gravitated toward the high-end, blockbuster picture, because that's what will drag people out of the house to see it on the big screen.
--
Since I posted, they changed it to "privacy". The original category was "censorship".
Thanks Slashdot!
--
I wish Slashdot would have a different category for stories like this. Misusing the word censorship just dilutes the important meanings, such as government making certain political speech illegal.
--
Some made-for-TV movies don't suck, but they just don't bring in the same sort of money that a major movie theatre feature brings in. It's going to be awhile until you see $100 million productions made for TV. On the plus side, the miniseries is a medium that TV can offer that theatres cannot.
But beyond that, the big screen offers benefits that sitting in your house just doesn't offer. Maybe someday we'll all have 40-100 foot screens in our house, but until then I'll stick to the theatre if I want an immersive experience.
--
I don't know how to do define linking, but I know it when I see it. :)
--
The problem is that the average joe thinks Mars is too expensive to explore. They don't want to pay for it, especially when our national debt is measured in gajillions.
I think that's a good point. If the cost was reasonable, then the public probably would get behind it.
Part of the problem, too, is that there really isn't any uncertainty about going to Mars. When it came to the moon, it really was blazing a new trail and the "audacity" aspect could take hold of the public's imagination.
Nowadays, does anyone really doubt that we could get people to Mars and back given enough money? Since there's no mystery involved, it really comes down to (as you imply) a cost-benefit analysis. The big question is whether the public would spring for even the modest budget (by Apollo standards) that it would take to go to Mars, and I just don't feel it myself.
Maybe there is some middle ground. Like make a sustainable colony part of the mission. I think the concept of "sustainable" would really sell to the public, because then it doesn't look like "an endless money pit just to bring home some rocks". The problem is that Mars (as another poster pointed out) is just not that profitable, compared to asteroid mining or micro-grav manufacturing.
My gut feeling is that Mars isn't going to happen until we are mining asteroids, which will help establish infrastructure and (as you also point out) give us cheap rocketry.
--
There is precicely zero commercial interest in anything outside geosynchronous orbit.
Actually, I think that's a little pessimistic. Asteroid mining obviously needs to go into the asteroid belt, but I think I know what you mean. You want real colonies on real planets that you can visit. In that respect, you have a point.
However, I think there's hope. It comes down to a question of cost. There are tons of people who would like to live on mars just for the vacation aspect, but at this point it would be prohibitively expensive to maintain a colony, set up regular space flights, etc. However, once we lower the costs of staying in space for asteroid mining or manufacturing (which ought to be very profitable), the costs of setting up a colony should drop a lot.
The biggest problem with space travel is that our technology is incredibly crude and the infrastructure non-existent. But just getting geosync space travel in place, and then asteroid space travel in place, it should make it relatively practical to have real colonies.
--
They'd say it would show America's pioneering spirit, and I think that would touch a nerve with voters. They'd say that it would look for life - and believe it or not, very many people find that interesting.
Did we learn nothing from Apollo?
Let's say by some miracle Mars gets sold to the public, and we end up going. Then what? Exactly the same thing that happened with Apollo -- people get bored watching astronauts walking around, picking up rocks. Questions start getting asked about how much it's costing for a bunch of rocks. Budgets dry up.
Meanwhile, private industry is still suckling off the public teat, rather than trying to find the profit in going into space, such as space mining, etc.
I want permanent settlements in space. The only way that's going to happen is for the settlements to pay for themselves, so they aren't at the mercy of the government. Believe me, I want manned space flight -- but I want sustainable manned space flight.
The days of NASA as being at the forefront of technology are over. They are just another bureaucracy trying to find some way to increase their budget and survive. I have nothing against pure research, which is why I think NASA is better suited to unmanned probes (in conjunction perhaps with universities), or military purposes.
--
Heck, you really only have to look at oceangoing ships or submarines to see somewhat equivalent conditions. At sea for months, cramped conditions, endless days of the same scenery. Nothing we haven't done before. People adapt.
--
Alex sucks. He was too chicken to go on celebrity Who Wants To Be a Millionaire.
--
I wouldn't let NASA off the hook that easily. It's NASA's job to test the whole shebang as a unit. Obviously, NASA didn't test it nearly well enough if something as major as that slipped through the cracks.
If you got a software back from a subcontractor and shipped it without testing it, would the customer blame you or the subcontractor?
--
The attitude seems to be pragmatic -- if we want to go to Mars, we need to start building the infrastructure, make the public aware of the possibilities, demo Mars vehicles, etc.
Note: This post is in the context of manned space exploration, versus unmanned probes, the latter of which I support.
I've seen this attitude elsewhere, kind of like "if only the public really understood the idea of going to mars, there would be a lot of support for it". Well, I've got news for people: The public knows as much as they need to know, and they don't care. The public's attitude can be summed up by "Go to another rock? Been there. Done that."
There simply is no reason, from Joe Public's point of view, to go to Mars. Yes, there is a lot to discover scientifically, but that usually doesn't interest the average joe. The moon was interesting because that was new, and we had the russians to beat.
And please don't give me the old tired line about all the tech benefits that came out of the space program. Yes, benefits came out of it, but nothing that wouldn't have come out of industry anyway (only cheaper).
It's been said before, and it bears saying again. It is time for private industry to privatize space. Only when it pays for itself will humans have a permanent presence in space. Trying to rely on the fickle budgets of governments is just folly.
Wake me up when someone has a plan to start mining space, terraforming an asteroid, or launching a factory for low-grav manufacturing. Until then, all this is just a carnival sideshow.
--
I remember an article a while back (I can't remember where I saw it) about a company who wanted to put together a cellular-type model using very-high-flying, solar-powered robot airplines that would fly around in set patterns, providing communication. I think it was meant for worldwide phones, but I see no reason that a model like this wouldn't work for Internet access.
This would also eliminate a lot of the problems of access in outlying areas, like national parks, where we wouldn't want to have comm towers.
Anyone have any more information about who was thinking about this?
--
Have you ever heard of the Bible? God's mind is revealed to us through it's words. Couldn't be simpler really, could it?
Well, yes, it could be simpler. Even if you grant that the bible is the word of God, it's hardly a crystal-clear document. Particularly when you are reading a translation.
And I also believe that it does say that God is to be worshipped, not mocked and reviled, as these "geneticists" are doing through their work.
Please provide a direct quote from the Bible that indicates that self-analysis of man is "mocking and reviling" God. Actually, let's go whole-hog. Provide a quote that actually forbids man from creating new life (aka "playing God"). Never mind that we've already done this by domestication (dogs and cats were created by man), and by cross-breeding (Boysenberries).
The fact is that you can make this argument about any gathering of knowledge, and in fact, many do. Do you also endorse that any medical treatment is an affront to God? Where do you draw the line of which knowledge is OK, and which knowledge isn't?
--
So you presume to know the mind of God? How arrogant. It may be that it's part of God's plan for man to decode himself, in order to understand more about God.
If there is a God, he designed us with intelligence and curiosity. Since there are no roadsigns that say what we should or should not do with it ("Thou shalt not decode thy genome"), therefore I conclude that everything is fair game.
--
and hardly any Americans grasp what it might do, how it might work, or what kind of changes might be brought about by its use and misuse.
A constant theme throughout your essay is how ill-equipped Americans are to handling this new technology. Well, exactly which country are you endorsing as having this "grasp" on the issues?
--