Yes, but many existing silicon technologies are running up to lots of hurdles right now at current feature sizes, so the single atom problem isn't close to being a concern. Some of the newer technologies not only allow much smaller feature sizes than the current 20nm, but will also allow stacking of components, rather than having a single layer of components as we do now in chips. Not only that, but some are non-volatile, yet fast enough to replace DRAM, so they would have a greater market being able to provide both ram and storage solutions. Hopefully that greater market combined with increased densities will lend itself to greater production and economy of scale. Who really knows though, there may be limits to how much they can produce, and thus the greater market will instead cause them to be priced at a premium. I'm just gonna wait and see, and be hopeful.
Good point. Probably will drive extra sales when someone's who isn't familiar with the franchise, hears about it from a friend and goes online and buys 3 other games before they buy the right one.
Maybe they'll sell them in a pack together called: Ridiculous Names Source 2: FYI There Was No One
You can use a difference filter, which will produce a ratio of dark/light based on the amount of difference, and then a histogram to get a more quantitative view of how much of the image is different, rather than analyzing with your eyes. You could do this on both flattened composite comparison, as well as layer by layer(maybe trying all combinations of layers and picking out the X number that are closest, where X is the number of layers in the final image). I'm not sure what the capabilities of Photoshop plugins are, but this seems like it could be built to create something more quantitative. Then the instructor could sort them and eyeball the ones with the highest "closeness" scores. Any positives of potential plagiarism should be verified carefully by the instructor though.
You are saying they wish for the most polluted capital city? I love when people try to be snarky, don't even get a complete thought out, and instead produce a nonsensical blurb.
It's a homonym. Many very intelligent people will swap them and will not notice it until they proofread. Myself and several other programmers I know whom I respect as intelligent individuals, have trouble with homonyms. I sometimes swap one/won. The two words are very different spelling and meaning, so to make such a grievous error must demonstrate a significant amount of retardation on my part. I don't even understand how I'm forming these sentences!
Maybe cooler heads prevailed. From one country to another the courts were ruling this way or that way. Maybe each decided the ($legal costs + penalties in losing countries) > (potentially losing market on giving competitor access to patents). We can debate which party got the short end of the deal in terms of licensing fees or competitor access to patents, but in the end it was probably a better outcome for both than to throw money in a black hole of litigation, penalties, and sales bans. I think it will be better for the consumer to. Many of those patents are pretty trivial. There's probably a few gems in there, but most are the kind of thing any experienced engineer/programmer would have come up with on their own when faced with a similar hurdle to overcome.
Move router, switch, and modem somewhere else, then you will just have a single network cable from the switch to your computer. That will eliminate several network cables and 3 power cables.
Put the desktop under the desk or beside it in clear view. Don't try to hide it in some little niche.
Have all monitor cables going around the back of the desk. Have all headphone, mic, mouse, and keyboard cables coming out the front. Don't try to run these around the back. Maybe once a week, switching between my keyboard and joystick over and over gets them to the point they are twisted. Takes all of 30 seconds to lean over, unplug them and untwist the cables and plug them back in(even if they are plugged into the back of the computer, because I've not tried to hide my computer it's easy to reach around and unplug/plug). This is why you want these particular cables to be easily accessible and not run around the back of your desk.
I have USB extension cables and a PS/2 extension cable(cheap from monoprice) to allow me a little more freedom of movement and because I keep alot of things in my lap(keyboard/mouse).
Yeh, did you not follow-up on the conclusion of climate gate did you? You sound like the idiot I worked with that ran his mouth about it the whole time. Until they actually got through the emails and found no evidence of fraud whatsoever. Just some scientists trying to maintain exclusive access to the data that cost alot of money to get. They were criticized for not sharing the data more openly, but in the end it was their choice, and no wrong doing was found. He shut his mouth about it then and found some other BS to ramble on about. You should do the same.
I second this. The greatest managers I've ever had were people who also actually did some of the work. There's good guidelines in the PMP guide. However, one of the first things in it says something like, apply these guidelines where appropriate. Unfortunately there are alot of PMP's with only superficial knowledge of the subject matter or skills they manage, and can't even be bothered to sit down for a day one-on-one with a few coders/researchers and figure out what the heck it is that is going on. So they don't know how to apply management appropriately because they don't know what they are managing.
There are maybe three types of managers: Actively involved in the work on the project, yet trusts coworkers enough not to hinder their own abilities. These managers can better model the consequences of their management decisions because they have a more accurate model in their mind of the work being done. They might not think of it in terms of a "model".
There is a more dangerous type, who is not an experienced worker, but only superficially skilled. They might feel empowered to perform more micromanaging where they shouldn't. Where as the above probably knows his coworkers better and trusts their abilities more and will actually do less micro managing.
Then there are those who realize that their subject matter knowledge is superficial, and those don't make the same mistakes as the previous. They know the bounds of their management abilities and can support the project appropriately.
And finally there is the completely oblivious. They usually throw around management buzz words. If they hear a techy word they recognize, they try to relate. If you say something about forking your code base to prototype a new feature, they might combine some techy buzz words with management buzz words to create a nonsensical question like "What is the project risk involved of forking the code?". Answering nonsensical questions is tough, because it usually involves invalidating the question since there can only be a nonsensical answer to a nonsensical question.
For sixty years fusion scientists have been saying "We've almost got it."
Quotes used in this way usually indicate verbatim, not paraphrasing. Thus, I'd expect you to cite a specific source, else you look like quite silly making things up to validate your own flawed opinions.
They're promising that if we keep throwing them billions, they might have something feasible in another fifty.
They have previously never gotten the kind of funding they've asked for, primarily because of noisy people like yourself. If I need a gallon of gas to go 50 miles, and you instead give me an ounce, you can't expect me to have made much progress and you say "You keep asking me for a gallon of gas so you can go 50 miles, but you haven't gone 50 miles." and I say "Yeh ass-hat, you didn't give me the gallon of gas I told you I needed. What did you expect?"
The highest power levels obtained even after half a decade's research was 65% of the input power and lasted for half a second. The power levels needed to keep the reaction self-sustaining are an order of magnitude higher, and to generate useful power is yet another order of magnitude *or two* higher than that.
This is like analyzing the first Wright Bros. heavier than air flight that was only a matter of feet off the ground, and saying we'd never have a commercial airplane because that would be orders of magnitude higher altitude needed for safe travel.
There are no known materials that can withstand the radiation and temperatures anywhere nearly long enough; even a second's operation permanently damages and contaminates huge parts of the reactor vessel.
Others have pointed out this is wrong, and the linked article also covers this in detail.
I can think of no technology which has comparable levels of continued failure.
War related research. Look at all the weapons or weaponized thingy-ma-bobs, amount of money we've put into researching them, the ridiculous paths of research, that netted absolutely nothing, or occasionally ill-side effects to people or the environment. For all the ridiculous things people tried to turn into weapons that we know about, there's plenty more that we probably have not heard about.
I'm sure that there are lots of other projects, when adjusted for inflation, would eclipse fusion research spending.
Second, most of what people perceive as failure are projects that were not meant to produce a working fusion reactor, nor did they have a fraction of the funding necessary to overcome all of the hurdles. If fusion research were treated like building the atomic bomb, or going to the moon, then we'd have much more to show over these decades. But it hasn't. Due to noisy ill-informed people like you, some of which being in a political position surrounded by more squawking seagulls yelling "mine mine mine" when it comes time to divvy up funding, productive science has taken a back seat.
I'm sure there's fragments from the sole of your hiking boats everywhere you've been, and little pieces of plastic from gear that's broken off without you even noticing;)
When you talk about volume sizes becoming out of sync, are you referring to cells becoming worn out and being de-provisioned? Many drives, especially enterprise SSDs, are overprovisioned. Meaning you might buy a 480 gb drive, but really it has 512gb of space. The overprovisioned space is used to replace dead cells. Some drives even allow you to customize the amount of overprovisioning. For a great number of use cases, it "should" take 10-20 years to reach the point where the writes have worn out the drive. The extreme edge cases would be a system that is constantly streaming recorded video from some surveillance system, and even then it should take a few years to wear out the drive.
In my own experiences, most deaths of electronics involve a moving part failure. A fan goes and then the component overheats. Hence why the failure of an HDD late in life is probably much different than how a SSD might fail, since HDDs have mechanical wear which would eventually lead to failure. Additionally, SSDs produce a tenth of the heat of an HDD, so heat related wear/failures is much less of a risk, I am guessing.
I am guessing that most SSD failures would be early in their life as it exercises different chips/cells and finds a flawed component. I wish there were reliable statistics on DOA rates for SSDs.
Other failures would be related to degradation of circuits over time. I forget the term, but the metal in circuit boards degrades over time as electricity passes through it until it causes a faulty connection. This is something that effects anything that is on a circuit board, so is no more of a risk than your super old can't replace RAID card failing or the circuit board in a HDD failing. Hopefully it would fail, and not start corrupting data silently. I don't know how long it takes for that to become a risk, or if there's things manufacturers have done to mitigate this risk.
I am also curious in the failure pattern for SSDs. Even in the world of HDDs and RAID, there are a lot of proprietary tricks that make predicting failure scenarios/behaviors complicated and unpredictable. Legacy file systems tend to be overly trustful of the error reporting of the drive. Additionally, silent data corruption is becoming a bigger risk with larger drives, and this is why newer file systems are taking a bigger role in data integrity, because there are scenarios that even RAID 5 and 6 don't handle/detect.
This is known as Asshat Economics. Money slowly trickles into the hands of asshats, and once there, it just moves around between the asshats to create the illusion that they are doing something meaningful.
They are not banning Acer from anything. You have completely misunderstood. They are terminating the privilaged cooperation they give Acer. Why should Google spend extra money an resources on assisting Asus, when the intention is that they use that assistence to build better Android products, not build competing products. This just puts Acer on the same footing as any other Joe Smo. It doesn't prevent them from doing anything they do now. Essentially Google recognized that Acer was leveraging Google's assistance, not to help build android products, but to help build competing android products. There is no lockout here.
You must live a pretty sheltered live in a closet to think that this is what "evil" is. You want to talk in concrete terms about vendor lock-in, greed, proprietary vs. open, then I'll listen. You start throwing around words like "evil" in this context then you just look like a drama queen.
This speaks to the fact that every time I hear someone wanting an iPad at the workplace, it is accompanied by a big grin. They want a toy. They are not even thinking through how they would accomplish their day to day work with an iPad instead of a desktop/laptop.
I have actually come into development projects where business requirements suffered from the same kinds of ambiguities and programmers took the same approach as you and just took them as verbatim without addressing the ambiguity, and of course the resulting product didn't work. Someone has to be able to identify those ambiguities, ask the difficult questions, and sort them out. People like you chime in like you know what you are talking about when you don't have a clue, and drag projects down a dark hole of a money pit. If you didn't have any intelligent insight other than to be a snarky twit, why did you even reply at all?
My GF says you are a 40 year old who probably lives with your mom and 10,000 cats. Now I usually don't condone such assumptions, but given that you are in the business of making unfounded assumptions, like initially assuming I hadn't read something which I had read, or assuming two disjoint scenarios are additive, then it seems justice.
If you ask two different people what happens in X scenario and they give you a completely different description, that is ambiguous. You can't automatically take those two different descriptions and combine them and assume both things apply. If anything that implies that there is some misinterpretation. I could have made that assumption on my own, but I asked the question to get some insight from someone with experience with AWS. As you've admitted, you have no experience with it, and are simply making assumptions based on the two texts. So I'm done with you, because not only did you begin with being a snarky egotistical asshole, but your interpretation is no better than my own and is flawed in that you have no concrete experience that verifies your interpretation of the two disjoint texts yet you have made unverified assumptions.
"Data transfer "in" and "out" refers to transfer into and out of an AWS Region." - Based on this, one would guess that downloading data would probably be a data transfer out. However, the examples in the FAQ use the retrieval pricing, and not the data transfer pricing, and so my guess/assumption seemed wrong.
There are one handed devorak layouts. Probably not worth the trouble to learn to use it, memorize layout, or buy a overlay. There are also chording keyboards, but again not worth the time to learn. It sounds like a cool idea, but I'd rather use the qwerty layout even though it is inefficient. I'd rather my typing be good 100% of the time, rather than split my typing across two different techniques depending on whether the computer I'm on has all the things needed to use my lternate keyboard choice. I don't want to start a new job and be like "hey I need admin access so I can install these drivers, and BTW I'll be lugging his $1,000 Data Hand keyboard around with me."
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but many existing silicon technologies are running up to lots of hurdles right now at current feature sizes, so the single atom problem isn't close to being a concern. Some of the newer technologies not only allow much smaller feature sizes than the current 20nm, but will also allow stacking of components, rather than having a single layer of components as we do now in chips. Not only that, but some are non-volatile, yet fast enough to replace DRAM, so they would have a greater market being able to provide both ram and storage solutions. Hopefully that greater market combined with increased densities will lend itself to greater production and economy of scale. Who really knows though, there may be limits to how much they can produce, and thus the greater market will instead cause them to be priced at a premium. I'm just gonna wait and see, and be hopeful.
How is the statement "That is what they wish for." at all insightful? LOL vocabulary fail
Good point. Probably will drive extra sales when someone's who isn't familiar with the franchise, hears about it from a friend and goes online and buys 3 other games before they buy the right one.
Maybe they'll sell them in a pack together called:
Ridiculous Names Source 2: FYI There Was No One
You can use a difference filter, which will produce a ratio of dark/light based on the amount of difference, and then a histogram to get a more quantitative view of how much of the image is different, rather than analyzing with your eyes. You could do this on both flattened composite comparison, as well as layer by layer(maybe trying all combinations of layers and picking out the X number that are closest, where X is the number of layers in the final image). I'm not sure what the capabilities of Photoshop plugins are, but this seems like it could be built to create something more quantitative. Then the instructor could sort them and eyeball the ones with the highest "closeness" scores. Any positives of potential plagiarism should be verified carefully by the instructor though.
I want to see THAT civil war. Wasn't Rush calling for revolution anyways? Some of them are in a way vampires.
You are saying they wish for the most polluted capital city? I love when people try to be snarky, don't even get a complete thought out, and instead produce a nonsensical blurb.
I wonder if they'll call other games silly things like Counter-Strike: Source 2 and TF: Source 2
It's a homonym. Many very intelligent people will swap them and will not notice it until they proofread. Myself and several other programmers I know whom I respect as intelligent individuals, have trouble with homonyms. I sometimes swap one/won. The two words are very different spelling and meaning, so to make such a grievous error must demonstrate a significant amount of retardation on my part. I don't even understand how I'm forming these sentences!
Maybe cooler heads prevailed. From one country to another the courts were ruling this way or that way. Maybe each decided the ($legal costs + penalties in losing countries) > (potentially losing market on giving competitor access to patents). We can debate which party got the short end of the deal in terms of licensing fees or competitor access to patents, but in the end it was probably a better outcome for both than to throw money in a black hole of litigation, penalties, and sales bans. I think it will be better for the consumer to. Many of those patents are pretty trivial. There's probably a few gems in there, but most are the kind of thing any experienced engineer/programmer would have come up with on their own when faced with a similar hurdle to overcome.
Move router, switch, and modem somewhere else, then you will just have a single network cable from the switch to your computer. That will eliminate several network cables and 3 power cables.
Put the desktop under the desk or beside it in clear view. Don't try to hide it in some little niche.
Have all monitor cables going around the back of the desk. Have all headphone, mic, mouse, and keyboard cables coming out the front. Don't try to run these around the back. Maybe once a week, switching between my keyboard and joystick over and over gets them to the point they are twisted. Takes all of 30 seconds to lean over, unplug them and untwist the cables and plug them back in(even if they are plugged into the back of the computer, because I've not tried to hide my computer it's easy to reach around and unplug/plug). This is why you want these particular cables to be easily accessible and not run around the back of your desk.
I have USB extension cables and a PS/2 extension cable(cheap from monoprice) to allow me a little more freedom of movement and because I keep alot of things in my lap(keyboard/mouse).
Yeh, did you not follow-up on the conclusion of climate gate did you? You sound like the idiot I worked with that ran his mouth about it the whole time. Until they actually got through the emails and found no evidence of fraud whatsoever. Just some scientists trying to maintain exclusive access to the data that cost alot of money to get. They were criticized for not sharing the data more openly, but in the end it was their choice, and no wrong doing was found. He shut his mouth about it then and found some other BS to ramble on about. You should do the same.
Ok so I ended up with a fourth in between there and forgot to edit :/ I did say "maybe three" :)
I second this. The greatest managers I've ever had were people who also actually did some of the work. There's good guidelines in the PMP guide. However, one of the first things in it says something like, apply these guidelines where appropriate. Unfortunately there are alot of PMP's with only superficial knowledge of the subject matter or skills they manage, and can't even be bothered to sit down for a day one-on-one with a few coders/researchers and figure out what the heck it is that is going on. So they don't know how to apply management appropriately because they don't know what they are managing.
There are maybe three types of managers:
Actively involved in the work on the project, yet trusts coworkers enough not to hinder their own abilities. These managers can better model the consequences of their management decisions because they have a more accurate model in their mind of the work being done. They might not think of it in terms of a "model".
There is a more dangerous type, who is not an experienced worker, but only superficially skilled. They might feel empowered to perform more micromanaging where they shouldn't. Where as the above probably knows his coworkers better and trusts their abilities more and will actually do less micro managing.
Then there are those who realize that their subject matter knowledge is superficial, and those don't make the same mistakes as the previous. They know the bounds of their management abilities and can support the project appropriately.
And finally there is the completely oblivious. They usually throw around management buzz words. If they hear a techy word they recognize, they try to relate. If you say something about forking your code base to prototype a new feature, they might combine some techy buzz words with management buzz words to create a nonsensical question like "What is the project risk involved of forking the code?". Answering nonsensical questions is tough, because it usually involves invalidating the question since there can only be a nonsensical answer to a nonsensical question.
What are your sources for all of these claims?
Most of what you've said is explained away here:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/04/11/0435231/mit-fusion-researchers-answer-your-questions
For sixty years fusion scientists have been saying "We've almost got it."
Quotes used in this way usually indicate verbatim, not paraphrasing. Thus, I'd expect you to cite a specific source, else you look like quite silly making things up to validate your own flawed opinions.
They're promising that if we keep throwing them billions, they might have something feasible in another fifty.
They have previously never gotten the kind of funding they've asked for, primarily because of noisy people like yourself. If I need a gallon of gas to go 50 miles, and you instead give me an ounce, you can't expect me to have made much progress and you say "You keep asking me for a gallon of gas so you can go 50 miles, but you haven't gone 50 miles." and I say "Yeh ass-hat, you didn't give me the gallon of gas I told you I needed. What did you expect?"
The highest power levels obtained even after half a decade's research was 65% of the input power and lasted for half a second. The power levels needed to keep the reaction self-sustaining are an order of magnitude higher, and to generate useful power is yet another order of magnitude *or two* higher than that.
This is like analyzing the first Wright Bros. heavier than air flight that was only a matter of feet off the ground, and saying we'd never have a commercial airplane because that would be orders of magnitude higher altitude needed for safe travel.
There are no known materials that can withstand the radiation and temperatures anywhere nearly long enough; even a second's operation permanently damages and contaminates huge parts of the reactor vessel.
Others have pointed out this is wrong, and the linked article also covers this in detail.
I can think of no technology which has comparable levels of continued failure.
War related research. Look at all the weapons or weaponized thingy-ma-bobs, amount of money we've put into researching them, the ridiculous paths of research, that netted absolutely nothing, or occasionally ill-side effects to people or the environment. For all the ridiculous things people tried to turn into weapons that we know about, there's plenty more that we probably have not heard about.
I'm sure that there are lots of other projects, when adjusted for inflation, would eclipse fusion research spending.
Second, most of what people perceive as failure are projects that were not meant to produce a working fusion reactor, nor did they have a fraction of the funding necessary to overcome all of the hurdles. If fusion research were treated like building the atomic bomb, or going to the moon, then we'd have much more to show over these decades. But it hasn't. Due to noisy ill-informed people like you, some of which being in a political position surrounded by more squawking seagulls yelling "mine mine mine" when it comes time to divvy up funding, productive science has taken a back seat.
I'm sure there's fragments from the sole of your hiking boats everywhere you've been, and little pieces of plastic from gear that's broken off without you even noticing ;)
When you talk about volume sizes becoming out of sync, are you referring to cells becoming worn out and being de-provisioned? Many drives, especially enterprise SSDs, are overprovisioned. Meaning you might buy a 480 gb drive, but really it has 512gb of space. The overprovisioned space is used to replace dead cells. Some drives even allow you to customize the amount of overprovisioning. For a great number of use cases, it "should" take 10-20 years to reach the point where the writes have worn out the drive. The extreme edge cases would be a system that is constantly streaming recorded video from some surveillance system, and even then it should take a few years to wear out the drive.
In my own experiences, most deaths of electronics involve a moving part failure. A fan goes and then the component overheats. Hence why the failure of an HDD late in life is probably much different than how a SSD might fail, since HDDs have mechanical wear which would eventually lead to failure. Additionally, SSDs produce a tenth of the heat of an HDD, so heat related wear/failures is much less of a risk, I am guessing.
I am guessing that most SSD failures would be early in their life as it exercises different chips/cells and finds a flawed component. I wish there were reliable statistics on DOA rates for SSDs.
Other failures would be related to degradation of circuits over time. I forget the term, but the metal in circuit boards degrades over time as electricity passes through it until it causes a faulty connection. This is something that effects anything that is on a circuit board, so is no more of a risk than your super old can't replace RAID card failing or the circuit board in a HDD failing. Hopefully it would fail, and not start corrupting data silently. I don't know how long it takes for that to become a risk, or if there's things manufacturers have done to mitigate this risk.
I am also curious in the failure pattern for SSDs. Even in the world of HDDs and RAID, there are a lot of proprietary tricks that make predicting failure scenarios/behaviors complicated and unpredictable. Legacy file systems tend to be overly trustful of the error reporting of the drive. Additionally, silent data corruption is becoming a bigger risk with larger drives, and this is why newer file systems are taking a bigger role in data integrity, because there are scenarios that even RAID 5 and 6 don't handle/detect.
This is known as Asshat Economics. Money slowly trickles into the hands of asshats, and once there, it just moves around between the asshats to create the illusion that they are doing something meaningful.
They are not banning Acer from anything. You have completely misunderstood. They are terminating the privilaged cooperation they give Acer. Why should Google spend extra money an resources on assisting Asus, when the intention is that they use that assistence to build better Android products, not build competing products. This just puts Acer on the same footing as any other Joe Smo. It doesn't prevent them from doing anything they do now. Essentially Google recognized that Acer was leveraging Google's assistance, not to help build android products, but to help build competing android products. There is no lockout here.
You must live a pretty sheltered live in a closet to think that this is what "evil" is. You want to talk in concrete terms about vendor lock-in, greed, proprietary vs. open, then I'll listen. You start throwing around words like "evil" in this context then you just look like a drama queen.
This speaks to the fact that every time I hear someone wanting an iPad at the workplace, it is accompanied by a big grin. They want a toy. They are not even thinking through how they would accomplish their day to day work with an iPad instead of a desktop/laptop.
I have actually come into development projects where business requirements suffered from the same kinds of ambiguities and programmers took the same approach as you and just took them as verbatim without addressing the ambiguity, and of course the resulting product didn't work. Someone has to be able to identify those ambiguities, ask the difficult questions, and sort them out. People like you chime in like you know what you are talking about when you don't have a clue, and drag projects down a dark hole of a money pit. If you didn't have any intelligent insight other than to be a snarky twit, why did you even reply at all?
My GF says you are a 40 year old who probably lives with your mom and 10,000 cats. Now I usually don't condone such assumptions, but given that you are in the business of making unfounded assumptions, like initially assuming I hadn't read something which I had read, or assuming two disjoint scenarios are additive, then it seems justice.
If you ask two different people what happens in X scenario and they give you a completely different description, that is ambiguous. You can't automatically take those two different descriptions and combine them and assume both things apply. If anything that implies that there is some misinterpretation. I could have made that assumption on my own, but I asked the question to get some insight from someone with experience with AWS. As you've admitted, you have no experience with it, and are simply making assumptions based on the two texts. So I'm done with you, because not only did you begin with being a snarky egotistical asshole, but your interpretation is no better than my own and is flawed in that you have no concrete experience that verifies your interpretation of the two disjoint texts yet you have made unverified assumptions.
There is ambiguity and I pointed it out. You are selectively ignoring certain points I've made to facilitate your trolling.
"Data transfer "in" and "out" refers to transfer into and out of an AWS Region." - Based on this, one would guess that downloading data would probably be a data transfer out. However, the examples in the FAQ use the retrieval pricing, and not the data transfer pricing, and so my guess/assumption seemed wrong.
There are one handed devorak layouts. Probably not worth the trouble to learn to use it, memorize layout, or buy a overlay. There are also chording keyboards, but again not worth the time to learn. It sounds like a cool idea, but I'd rather use the qwerty layout even though it is inefficient. I'd rather my typing be good 100% of the time, rather than split my typing across two different techniques depending on whether the computer I'm on has all the things needed to use my lternate keyboard choice. I don't want to start a new job and be like "hey I need admin access so I can install these drivers, and BTW I'll be lugging his $1,000 Data Hand keyboard around with me."