I'm sure there's a pretty good reason why they spend "thousands of pounds on equipment" in hospitals rather than using TINY MUSIC PLAYERS to view medical photographs. Last time I checked, medical imaging displays were all carefully calibrated and had their settings locked so that mal-adjustment couldn't cause information to be lost or invisible just because the display is a bit to bright/dark or has poor colour reproduction. I'm pretty sure iPods aren't built to this quality.
Next thing you'll be telling me that an airline pilot can navigate his airliner using some free software running on his mobile phone rather than the tried and tested Aviation grade GPS devices.
> The screenshots he linked to show that the designers have failed to > use space in an efficient and informative way, which is sad considering > some of the design talent at Microsoft.
It's in bloody DETAIL view so what do you expect?! The precise point of the detail view is to show you all the text in a list form. This is NOT THE DEFAULT display for the control panel (obviously - as otherwise it wouldn't say "classic" would it. The default display is more like XP's default display and only has a few icons and only a fraction of the text compared with this screenshot.
I don't get why you're slating Microsoft's designers before you've even seen the default setup they designed.
Slashdot is one of the most dated and ugly looking websites that still has visitors. It still has cheesy drop-shadows under the icons and rounded corners (very 1990s).
I can't believe they've rewritten all the HTML and CSS and made it look exactly the same or even slightly worse (there are many glitches when viewed in Firefox).
Sure it's a great and very popular site, but the site *design* is in serious need of updating.
Nobody seems to have talked about pointing devices very much so here's My H.O:
The Logitech MX1000 laser mouse is by far the best mouse I've ever used. It's exactly the right shape/weight/feel for my hand (right handed!) and the precision of the mouse is unbelievable. Other optical mice can sometimes get a bit confused (especially if you move them really slowly while editing images for example) but the MX1000 never seems to do that. Additionally, the laser is far more battery efficent than an LED and I only seem to need to charge the mouse once every few weeks (evening usage only).
The ONLY problem I have with this mouse, is that the battery isn't removable. If you accidentally run it flat - you'd better have a spare mouse handy. Not sure why Logitech have done this - perhaps because it uses a nonstandard battery inside like a LiIon or something.
Also you'll want to check that it works under Linux if that's what you use, but for Windows - it's great.
Out of interest, why have you used the apostrophie character to create a double quote instead of using the double quote character? It really annoys me when people do this because if you have to use the text, you have to change them all to avoid looking like an idiot that can't find the " key. They also look really ugly.
Yes, but everything on the AtomChip site is fake. If they've faked 95% of it, what on earth makes you think that the "1gb of optical yada yada memory for $750" is real? It isn't - it doesn't exist.
No idea why I'm bothering to respond to an AC post.
> If this isnt a hoax, and the technique is real.. from their > own pricing 1GB of ram based on this ram-technique cost $750 . > -- > Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm here to learn.
> When did you last get email from a.spammer@myrealaddress.com?
That's irrelevant. With this system it wouldn't matter if they forged the e-mail address or not (obviously).
> email accounts to send spam the cost to the spammer is zero
Err, only if they can forge the micropayments put in the email! It's zero cost to post paper mail if you can steal money. I think you've missed the entire point. This is a PAYMENTS system which would require real money IN the e-mail for it to work. Unless the spammer can crack the whole paypal system, then he can't do what you're suggesting.
> Although an ANONYMOUS payment would be much preferable to the annoying registration screens from, for example, The New York Times
The registration is FREE. Wake up please. They are not trying to make money from this, but merely track the site's demographic usage. Charging 1 cent to access the site won't help them know who is using their site will it?! I can hardly see how it's particularly annoying when you only have to do it ONCE.
Why the flying FSCK would you want to do that? Slashdot is one of the most ugly and dated looking websites that still has users. Redesign the bloody thing from scratch. It's not like you wouldn't get several thousand volunteers...
> No, you should design for standards, and then sit back and relax. > Let it look suboptimal in non-compliant browsers; it'll give them > incentive to upgrade.
Yeah, because users will then think: "ooh - this site looks shit compared to all the others. It must be my browser's poor support of standards. I'll go upgrade right now."
Or are they more likely to think "this site looks shit compared to all the others. They obviously have crap web developers." [user navigates elsewhere]
Why would you need to pay someone only 1 or 2 pence/cents? I can't think of anything this cheap that you would need to buy on the internet. Except perhaps a license to play a music track once or something...
Do you think that about half a million subscribers didn't notify them that that story was a dupe? They don't actually read those e-mails you know. I'm pretty convinced there's no such thing as the "on duty editor" at slashdot (not 24hrs anyway).
I just downloaded the 10.0 beta version. To test it, I unpacked the winzip 10 beta installer itself (wz100beta.exe). Inside the resulting folder, I found several exe files. There is one 725K file called GDS.exe, which appears to be the installer (or part of it) for Google Desktop Search. Two others named GTB9x.EXE and GTBXP.EXE seem to be the installers for Google Toolbar. Why on earth is Winzip bundling the installers for Google Desktop Search and Google Toolbar with Winzip?!! The readme and license agreement do not mention the word "Google" at all and neither does the winzip website as far as I can tell. I'm also betting that the GDS license agreement prohibits it from being redistributed in this fashion.
What on earth is going on here? Do you think they've just made a silly mistake or am I missing something really obvious?
According to Google News, this story is only on two papers in the entire world - even though the story is three days old. It does make me wonder if the story is particularly credible. If they had proof and the scientists were contactable, a story this large would have been in a lot of major newspapers within a few hours of it's release - or at least a credible scientific journal or two.
> Only those who refuse to leave the world of Windows can't grasp it.
I use both operating systems. Nowhere in Windows is there anything as stupid as having to drag a CD to a trash can to eject it. I do not want to throw the CD in the trash - I just wish to eject it!
It doesn't take a great deal of intelligence to figure out where an eject button should go. Take some non-techys, put them in front of a Mac and a PC and ask them to insert and then eject a disk. See who does it the quickest. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out who will be quicker...
> And yet I bet you use the eject button on your DVD player's remote control
I have two DVD players, a CD player and a video. None of them have eject buttons on the remote. So you're wrong. Why the hell would you need an eject button on the remote? You still have to go over to get the disc?
I never need to eject the keyboard, so I don't see why it needs an eject button.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure there's a pretty good reason why they spend "thousands of pounds on equipment" in hospitals rather than using TINY MUSIC PLAYERS to view medical photographs. Last time I checked, medical imaging displays were all carefully calibrated and had their settings locked so that mal-adjustment couldn't cause information to be lost or invisible just because the display is a bit to bright/dark or has poor colour reproduction. I'm pretty sure iPods aren't built to this quality.
Next thing you'll be telling me that an airline pilot can navigate his airliner using some free software running on his mobile phone rather than the tried and tested Aviation grade GPS devices.
Was his name Dr Nick Riviera?
> The screenshots he linked to show that the designers have failed to
> use space in an efficient and informative way, which is sad considering
> some of the design talent at Microsoft.
It's in bloody DETAIL view so what do you expect?! The precise point of the detail view is to show you all the text in a list form. This is NOT THE DEFAULT display for the control panel (obviously - as otherwise it wouldn't say "classic" would it. The default display is more like XP's default display and only has a few icons and only a fraction of the text compared with this screenshot.
I don't get why you're slating Microsoft's designers before you've even seen the default setup they designed.
It's like the modern view in XP, with a couple of more icons. Obviously you've never used XP.
> Slashdot looks sweet this morning.
You have GOT to be kidding me?
Slashdot is one of the most dated and ugly looking websites that still has visitors. It still has cheesy drop-shadows under the icons and rounded corners (very 1990s).
I can't believe they've rewritten all the HTML and CSS and made it look exactly the same or even slightly worse (there are many glitches when viewed in Firefox).
Sure it's a great and very popular site, but the site *design* is in serious need of updating.
Nobody seems to have talked about pointing devices very much so here's My H.O:
The Logitech MX1000 laser mouse is by far the best mouse I've ever used. It's exactly the right shape/weight/feel for my hand (right handed!) and the precision of the mouse is unbelievable. Other optical mice can sometimes get a bit confused (especially if you move them really slowly while editing images for example) but the MX1000 never seems to do that. Additionally, the laser is far more battery efficent than an LED and I only seem to need to charge the mouse once every few weeks (evening usage only).
The ONLY problem I have with this mouse, is that the battery isn't removable. If you accidentally run it flat - you'd better have a spare mouse handy. Not sure why Logitech have done this - perhaps because it uses a nonstandard battery inside like a LiIon or something.
Also you'll want to check that it works under Linux if that's what you use, but for Windows - it's great.
It's a TLD. You can't buy mydomain.uk so .co.uk is the top level.
``They should be enforced''
Out of interest, why have you used the apostrophie character to create a double quote instead of using the double quote character? It really annoys me when people do this because if you have to use the text, you have to change them all to avoid looking like an idiot that can't find the " key. They also look really ugly.
What's wrong the real double quote character (")?
The firefox memory leak has nothing to do with any extension. It happens even in a vanilla install. No idea where you got that lie from.
Yes, but everything on the AtomChip site is fake. If they've faked 95% of it, what on earth makes you think that the "1gb of optical yada yada memory for $750" is real? It isn't - it doesn't exist.
No idea why I'm bothering to respond to an AC post.
The contact details are here:
b itor_details.asp?exhibid=7059
:)
http://www.cesweb.org/attendees/directory/rd_exhi
Everyone ring in *now* and ask about this product and post your results below
> If this isnt a hoax, and the technique is real.. from their
> own pricing 1GB of ram based on this ram-technique cost $750 .
> --
> Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm here to learn.
You're wrong.
> When did you last get email from a.spammer@myrealaddress.com?
That's irrelevant. With this system it wouldn't matter if they forged the e-mail address or not (obviously).
> email accounts to send spam the cost to the spammer is zero
Err, only if they can forge the micropayments put in the email! It's zero cost to post paper mail if you can steal money. I think you've missed the entire point. This is a PAYMENTS system which would require real money IN the e-mail for it to work. Unless the spammer can crack the whole paypal system, then he can't do what you're suggesting.
> Although an ANONYMOUS payment would be much preferable to the annoying registration screens from, for example, The New York Times
The registration is FREE. Wake up please. They are not trying to make money from this, but merely track the site's demographic usage. Charging 1 cent to access the site won't help them know who is using their site will it?! I can hardly see how it's particularly annoying when you only have to do it ONCE.
> as we migrate the current skin to CSS
Why the flying FSCK would you want to do that? Slashdot is one of the most ugly and dated looking websites that still has users. Redesign the bloody thing from scratch. It's not like you wouldn't get several thousand volunteers...
> No, you should design for standards, and then sit back and relax.
> Let it look suboptimal in non-compliant browsers; it'll give them
> incentive to upgrade.
Yeah, because users will then think: "ooh - this site looks shit compared to all the others. It must be my browser's poor support of standards. I'll go upgrade right now."
Or are they more likely to think "this site looks shit compared to all the others. They obviously have crap web developers." [user navigates elsewhere]
I wonder which is more likely? (Clue: the latter)
Don't take a job as a web developer (please).
Why would you need to pay someone only 1 or 2 pence/cents? I can't think of anything this cheap that you would need to buy on the internet. Except perhaps a license to play a music track once or something...
Do you think that about half a million subscribers didn't notify them that that story was a dupe? They don't actually read those e-mails you know. I'm pretty convinced there's no such thing as the "on duty editor" at slashdot (not 24hrs anyway).
I *did* run the installer and it did not ask me if I wanted to install it.
Exactly where does slashdot claim to be a Linux based website?
News for Linux based nerds? Stuff that matters to Linux users?
Use Winzip - it's had this feature for as long as I can remember...
Not sure how that post got modded insightful. You'd think he would have tried it before posting.
Surely that's a pain-in-the-ass aspect of zlib - not Winzip? I don't see how it's Winzip's fault that it supports something that zlib does not.
I just downloaded the 10.0 beta version. To test it, I unpacked the winzip 10 beta installer itself (wz100beta.exe). Inside the resulting folder, I found several exe files. There is one 725K file called GDS.exe, which appears to be the installer (or part of it) for Google Desktop Search. Two others named GTB9x.EXE and GTBXP.EXE seem to be the installers for Google Toolbar. Why on earth is Winzip bundling the installers for Google Desktop Search and Google Toolbar with Winzip?!! The readme and license agreement do not mention the word "Google" at all and neither does the winzip website as far as I can tell. I'm also betting that the GDS license agreement prohibits it from being redistributed in this fashion.
What on earth is going on here? Do you think they've just made a silly mistake or am I missing something really obvious?
According to Google News, this story is only on two papers in the entire world - even though the story is three days old. It does make me wonder if the story is particularly credible. If they had proof and the scientists were contactable, a story this large would have been in a lot of major newspapers within a few hours of it's release - or at least a credible scientific journal or two.
Something smells fishy to me.
> Only those who refuse to leave the world of Windows can't grasp it.
I use both operating systems. Nowhere in Windows is there anything as stupid as having to drag a CD to a trash can to eject it. I do not want to throw the CD in the trash - I just wish to eject it!
It doesn't take a great deal of intelligence to figure out where an eject button should go. Take some non-techys, put them in front of a Mac and a PC and ask them to insert and then eject a disk. See who does it the quickest. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out who will be quicker...
> That's just crap. What's intuitive is what you know.
Of course it's not! The ENTIRE POINT of something being intuitive is that you can then use it without needing to to be taught how it works!
> And yet I bet you use the eject button on your DVD player's remote control
I have two DVD players, a CD player and a video. None of them have eject buttons on the remote. So you're wrong. Why the hell would you need an eject button on the remote? You still have to go over to get the disc?
I never need to eject the keyboard, so I don't see why it needs an eject button.