The iPhone screen is just too small for practical use
We're talking about a serial connection here. Is the iphone screen really too small to handle an 80x25 console?
It's workable, but barely. There's already a bunch of SSH clients in the app store. If you want to actually interact, you need to have an app which has a translucent keyboard, and that takes some getting used to.
after all, a user/browser is simply requesting the info - the site (which is under their control) is then giving it to them. There's no copying here, except what they implicitly permit by their own actions.
The bookstores are putting them up for sale at a price which they deem to make a fair profit for them. What's wrong with him buying them and selling them elsewhere if he believes that he can make a profit too?
Because the bookstore is part of a whole picture — book browsing, eccentric finds, local businesses, basically a whole ecosystem, and their pricing takes that into account. Same thing happens with sports tickets — the Red Sox benefit from having tickets priced so that their regular fans can actually go to games, just just the super-wealthy. The scalper can come and go and doesn't care about any of that. If whatever they're leeching from collapses, no problem, they can move on to suck blood from something else.
We define our emotions in much the same way. We have an experience, recorded in memory as a story and then define that experience as "happy" or "sad" through cross reference with similar memory/story instances.
Children have to be taught how to define their emotions. There are many many picture books/tv series episodes/ etc dedicated to this very exercise. Children are shown scenarios they can relate to and given a definition for that scenario.
The emotions themselves can not be supplied of course, only the definition and context within macro social interactions.
What this software can do is create a sociopathic personality. One which understands emotion solely through observation rather than first hand experience. It will take more to establish what we consider emotions ie a psychosomatic response to stimuli. This requires senses and a reactive soma (for humans this means feeling hot flashes, tears, adrenalin, etc).
In other words, the process of defining emotions -- which has to be taught to children -- is distinct from the process of having emotions, which certainly doesn't need to be taught.
There's room for -- and need for -- both this sort of site *and* for Wikipedia or something like it.
The article wants to cast this as some sort of competition, and tie into existing anti-wikipedia bias, but there's no particular reason that this is actually a zero-sum game.
In fact, Wikipedia's strength is partly in its policy of _never_ being authoritative. You want that, you follow the citations. And this is a great example of a site that Wikipedia can refer to.
[18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
[19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
[20] He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Not copy-protection, but an "invariant section" definition as in the GFDL.
The translation is medieval, but the original and therefore clearly the practice is much older. Since there was no government-provided copyright law with which to enforce this, threatening eternal damnation is pretty much the only resort available. (Right?)
(Sidenote: of course, this was written before that book was commonly bound into a single-volume manuscript, but that doesn't stop people from assuming that they were meant to apply to the entire bible in its current form.)
As one example, Solaris is used by about 40% of Oracle’s enterprise customers, which means we have a 60% growth opportunity in our top customers alone.
That's wrong in so many ways it makes my brain hurt.
Maybe there's a secret footnote showing that 40% of the enterprise customers which are not currently running Solaris are willing to try it -- that'd work out nicely to 60% growth.
But what were you like in 1st grade? (Or earlier?)
I too went through an extremely introverted phase, but in retrospect, that was largely because my elementary-school experience was terrible and soul-crushing, so I went from being a fairly buoyant, outgoing kid to being rather awkward and alone. It took me all of late high school (and dropping out of college; wow, I'd do that differently were I to go through it again) to realize that this wasn't really me.
This is all a bunch of pretty words. Sure, we should avoid "tribalism" arguments. There's some disturbing logical flaws -- tribalism based on nationality is surely more dangerous than tribalism based on preference of sports teams -- but the main issue is that no one accusing Canonical based on that. It's all a big strawman. I'd love to love Canonical.
But forget all that. The important thing is:
What's up with the "Our company is like a successful woman and you're saying we slept our way to the top!" analogy? Where does that even come from? Space madness?
If you think I'm paranoid then you don't know history. The way the government historically gains power is to grant you rights you already have, then modify them later.
Okay, let's say I don't know history. Give me some examples, please.
Obviously not all of the 1.3 billion USD (not actually "multi-billion" -- the Euro/Dollar conversion isn't that bad!) is going to research on "three-legged dogs". It's about robotic locomotion in general, of which that may be one component (although the project web site doesn't particularly mention it).
Also, it's a four-year project split between six universities. That's about $50 million per year for each site, which is still a big grant but doesn't seem so crazy for the field.
It looks impressive at the store. That's enough to sway the mass market. Long-term usability is the concern of a few nerds, and the manufacturers don't really care as long as stuff sells.
This same issue shows up in software user interfaces. Testing -- and reviews -- are based on quick impressions. "Scientific" usability tests try to get subjects with no biasing prior experience, and then measure task performance with a new and unfamiliar UI.
Unfortunately, interfaces which have a great immediate discoverability are not necessarily the best for long-term use. That's a lot harder to get right -- and if a long-term usability improvement would come at the cost of those at-the-store decision makers, it loses out.
as a longtime slashdot reader
on
R In a Nutshell
·
· Score: 1
Let me just say: wow, thanks for actually providing a review, rather than a blurb copied from the amazon listing.
I've got one, actually (well, x200s). It's a fine computer, but it's huge compared to something like my older Vaio or even-older Toshiba Libretto.
And if you do the math, that works out to about 140dpi. That's better than 72, but it's not in the "retina display" ballpark, as is obvious if you just look. Worse, the display is very over-contrasty and terrible at color reproduction, making it fine for text and line art but awful for other uses.
I'm really happy to see screen resolution getting attention. My Vaio U101 had a pretty decent ppi, but it's long in the tooth and that that class of system -- always a niche -- has basically been displaced from the market by netbooks. And I'm sick of netbooks with low-res screens. Hopefully this will catch on as an important feature.
(I'm double-sick of people saying: "But if there's a higher-resolution screen, everything gets tiny and hard to see. So low-res is better for small screens." Ahhhh! You're doing it wrong!)
It's barely even a chapter summary! The descriptions tell you, for example, that the chapters contain something "AWESOME", without hinting as to what that might even be. I'm half-surprised it didn't just come out and say "You'll have to buy the book to find out!"
What we've got here is a table of contents with a few sentences giving a teaser-style description of what that chapter contains. And then a conclusion literally (in the literal sense of the word literally) begging people to buy the book.
Or, to put it another way, a review of this review:
Frankly, when I saw this article has 10+ paragraphs, I thought "this thing is full of fluff and will bore me to death." But to my surprise, it could be skimmed so quickly that I didn't have time to be bored, and that's exactly what an ADHD-type guy like me understands best. So, without further ado, I'll make a brief presentation of the review that will enlighten your path to fast, easy and breathtaking... moving on to other things.
Introduction:
There's a badly formatted section that tries to give you the technical details about who wrote the book and stuff.
Chapters:
Then, one by one, as if filling out the required length in a book report for 7th grade, each chapter in the book is described, but not in a way that tells you any more than what you'd get by just reading the titles.
Conclusion:
I'm a Slashdot reader, and I've read book reviews here before, but I gotta tell you, even though most of the time they're really poor, this one is exceptionally weak, for the simple fact that it tells you less than you'd get from simply looking at the book's entry on the publisher's web site. Or on Amazon, for that matter. If you want to learn whether this book is worthwhile, please check somewhere else. I guarantee you won't throw your money away; because I know you, and you're not the kind of person to just go and do that with your money on a whim. Right?
Slashdot Mirror
The iPhone screen is just too small for practical use
We're talking about a serial connection here. Is the iphone screen really too small to handle an 80x25 console?
It's workable, but barely. There's already a bunch of SSH clients in the app store. If you want to actually interact, you need to have an app which has a translucent keyboard, and that takes some getting used to.
after all, a user/browser is simply requesting the info - the site (which is under their control) is then giving it to them. There's no copying here, except what they implicitly permit by their own actions.
Good point. They need to read up a little bit on http return code 402.
> The EFF's HTTPS Everywhere Firefox plugin will SSL-encrypt, among other things, your connection to Facebook.
Even without the plugin you can set your bookmark to https://www.facebook.com/
This will at least encrypt the login page and then go plain-text.
And then your session-cookie can be hijacked.
The bookstores are putting them up for sale at a price which they deem to make a fair profit for them. What's wrong with him buying them and selling them elsewhere if he believes that he can make a profit too?
Because the bookstore is part of a whole picture — book browsing, eccentric finds, local businesses, basically a whole ecosystem, and their pricing takes that into account. Same thing happens with sports tickets — the Red Sox benefit from having tickets priced so that their regular fans can actually go to games, just just the super-wealthy. The scalper can come and go and doesn't care about any of that. If whatever they're leeching from collapses, no problem, they can move on to suck blood from something else.
Or "30 percent logged into a site requiring a password over public WiFi" -- which is perfectly fine if the site has the right SSL cert.
We define our emotions in much the same way. We have an experience, recorded in memory as a story and then define that experience as "happy" or "sad" through cross reference with similar memory/story instances.
Children have to be taught how to define their emotions. There are many many picture books/tv series episodes/ etc dedicated to this very exercise. Children are shown scenarios they can relate to and given a definition for that scenario.
The emotions themselves can not be supplied of course, only the definition and context within macro social interactions.
What this software can do is create a sociopathic personality. One which understands emotion solely through observation rather than first hand experience. It will take more to establish what we consider emotions ie a psychosomatic response to stimuli. This requires senses and a reactive soma (for humans this means feeling hot flashes, tears, adrenalin, etc).
In other words, the process of defining emotions -- which has to be taught to children -- is distinct from the process of having emotions, which certainly doesn't need to be taught.
What this lets them do is track what happens after tweets are re-published onto Facebook.
There's room for -- and need for -- both this sort of site *and* for Wikipedia or something like it.
The article wants to cast this as some sort of competition, and tie into existing anti-wikipedia bias, but there's no particular reason that this is actually a zero-sum game.
In fact, Wikipedia's strength is partly in its policy of _never_ being authoritative. You want that, you follow the citations. And this is a great example of a site that Wikipedia can refer to.
The Book of Revelation ends like this:
Not copy-protection, but an "invariant section" definition as in the GFDL. The translation is medieval, but the original and therefore clearly the practice is much older. Since there was no government-provided copyright law with which to enforce this, threatening eternal damnation is pretty much the only resort available. (Right?)
(Sidenote: of course, this was written before that book was commonly bound into a single-volume manuscript, but that doesn't stop people from assuming that they were meant to apply to the entire bible in its current form.)
Oh, I'm sure that's what they meant. But the bad math barely skims the things which are wrong with the thinking here.
From the memo:
That's wrong in so many ways it makes my brain hurt.
Maybe there's a secret footnote showing that 40% of the enterprise customers which are not currently running Solaris are willing to try it -- that'd work out nicely to 60% growth.
But somehow I doubt it.
But what were you like in 1st grade? (Or earlier?)
I too went through an extremely introverted phase, but in retrospect, that was largely because my elementary-school experience was terrible and soul-crushing, so I went from being a fairly buoyant, outgoing kid to being rather awkward and alone. It took me all of late high school (and dropping out of college; wow, I'd do that differently were I to go through it again) to realize that this wasn't really me.
This is all a bunch of pretty words. Sure, we should avoid "tribalism" arguments. There's some disturbing logical flaws -- tribalism based on nationality is surely more dangerous than tribalism based on preference of sports teams -- but the main issue is that no one accusing Canonical based on that. It's all a big strawman. I'd love to love Canonical.
But forget all that. The important thing is:
What's up with the "Our company is like a successful woman and you're saying we slept our way to the top!" analogy? Where does that even come from? Space madness?
If you think I'm paranoid then you don't know history. The way the government historically gains power is to grant you rights you already have, then modify them later.
Okay, let's say I don't know history. Give me some examples, please.
Looks like the €1B goes to 16,000 separate participants -- the Locomorph project is just one of those. Soooo, an average of about $80,000 each. :-/
Here's the actual project site: http://locomorph.eu/
Obviously not all of the 1.3 billion USD (not actually "multi-billion" -- the Euro/Dollar conversion isn't that bad!) is going to research on "three-legged dogs". It's about robotic locomotion in general, of which that may be one component (although the project web site doesn't particularly mention it).
Also, it's a four-year project split between six universities. That's about $50 million per year for each site, which is still a big grant but doesn't seem so crazy for the field.
It looks impressive at the store. That's enough to sway the mass market. Long-term usability is the concern of a few nerds, and the manufacturers don't really care as long as stuff sells.
This same issue shows up in software user interfaces. Testing -- and reviews -- are based on quick impressions. "Scientific" usability tests try to get subjects with no biasing prior experience, and then measure task performance with a new and unfamiliar UI.
Unfortunately, interfaces which have a great immediate discoverability are not necessarily the best for long-term use. That's a lot harder to get right -- and if a long-term usability improvement would come at the cost of those at-the-store decision makers, it loses out.
Let me just say: wow, thanks for actually providing a review, rather than a blurb copied from the amazon listing.
Seriously. Thanks.
I've got one, actually (well, x200s). It's a fine computer, but it's huge compared to something like my older Vaio or even-older Toshiba Libretto.
And if you do the math, that works out to about 140dpi. That's better than 72, but it's not in the "retina display" ballpark, as is obvious if you just look. Worse, the display is very over-contrasty and terrible at color reproduction, making it fine for text and line art but awful for other uses.
I'm really happy to see screen resolution getting attention. My Vaio U101 had a pretty decent ppi, but it's long in the tooth and that that class of system -- always a niche -- has basically been displaced from the market by netbooks. And I'm sick of netbooks with low-res screens. Hopefully this will catch on as an important feature.
(I'm double-sick of people saying: "But if there's a higher-resolution screen, everything gets tiny and hard to see. So low-res is better for small screens." Ahhhh! You're doing it wrong!)
Interesting for 3D modeling. Looks terrible for architectural work.
I also like how the one comment on that blog post is a link spammer, and the author doesn't even notice and instead posts a pleasant reply.
It's barely even a chapter summary! The descriptions tell you, for example, that the chapters contain something "AWESOME", without hinting as to what that might even be. I'm half-surprised it didn't just come out and say "You'll have to buy the book to find out!"
What we've got here is a table of contents with a few sentences giving a teaser-style description of what that chapter contains. And then a conclusion literally (in the literal sense of the word literally) begging people to buy the book.
Or, to put it another way, a review of this review:
Frankly, when I saw this article has 10+ paragraphs, I thought "this thing is full of fluff and will bore me to death." But to my surprise, it could be skimmed so quickly that I didn't have time to be bored, and that's exactly what an ADHD-type guy like me understands best. So, without further ado, I'll make a brief presentation of the review that will enlighten your path to fast, easy and breathtaking... moving on to other things.
Introduction:
There's a badly formatted section that tries to give you the technical details about who wrote the book and stuff.
Chapters:
Then, one by one, as if filling out the required length in a book report for 7th grade, each chapter in the book is described, but not in a way that tells you any more than what you'd get by just reading the titles.
Conclusion:
I'm a Slashdot reader, and I've read book reviews here before, but I gotta tell you, even though most of the time they're really poor, this one is exceptionally weak, for the simple fact that it tells you less than you'd get from simply looking at the book's entry on the publisher's web site. Or on Amazon, for that matter. If you want to learn whether this book is worthwhile, please check somewhere else. I guarantee you won't throw your money away; because I know you, and you're not the kind of person to just go and do that with your money on a whim. Right?
It's a review, not a news item. Your complaint seems off-base.