I'm probably a freak, but I'd use it just to find new bands in a certain genre. I already have all the music from the mainstream bands I want.
Of course, they don't state what the fee will be yet, and they don't know how many songs they're going to let you download. And I wouldn't be totally surprised if the RIAA is making them mail 250 lb. USB dongles that have to be attached to your computer to play the songs.
One thing I didn't see addressed was how they are going to verify artist accounts. What's going to be in place to stop me from claiming I own "Who Let The Dogs Out".
That example is obviously extreme, but think about a no-name band that's trying to get started. They log onto Napster to register their band and find that somebody else has already claimed ownership of some songs they taped at a rehearsal.
For a blind person you wouldn't want a direct translation of the video output, it contains more data than is necessary. For a blind person to interpret all the data in realtime, they would only need to be able to "see" the floor and wall, basically a top-down view, complete with bad guys. Something about the size of a hand with rods or blocks that move up and down to indicate things like walls or stairs or baddies. The device should pivot so they can rotate their hand to "look" in different directions. They wouldn't need to be able to turn their hand all the way around since everything is relative you could make a 30 degree rotation into a 180.
Customer's have enough trouble understanding "click the button with the X in the upper right corner".
I wouldn't know where to begin trying to describe what pictures to use for their password... "Ok, now choose the picture that looks like a moose being sucked into a vortex".
Outlook Express 6.0 has some checking already built-in to say "hey this might be a virus" before you open attachments with.pif extensions as well as some others (I don't remember which).
MS hides them pretty well. I'm still waiting for them to patch Solitaire for W2K. If you simulataneously click both mouse buttons at the same time on a card, several times really fast, it'll crash.
Also, in IE6.0, if you right-click, choose Print, right-click again before the Print dialog appears, IE get's stuck with the print dialog and the popup in a modal state, and can't figure out which one should have control.
By following the link on the MS Security Bulletin I received in my e-mail, and going through the update process, it took a whopping 5 minutes including the reboot.
Now all that's required is that somebody take the total number of XP users, multiply it by 5 minutes, and then multiply it by some made-up figure for what the average IT workers makes per minute, and then the zealots will have some fuel for their fire. "Look, this latest bug cost the country a billion dollars!". While in actuality it didn't cost the country anything, and only cost each corporation a percentage of their annual revenue, small enough to be measured in millionths of a percentage point.
Gee, I think I just wasted more time posting this comment than it took to install the update:P
That's the beauty of Slashdot. The sites already finished, he doesn't need to code on a daily basis (although he could fix some of the bugs).
Personally I hope there's not too many young geeks treating these guys as gods. It's not like they are gurus of any kind. They don't appear to actively learn anything new on their own (remember the Cisco router fiasco). It's not like they're creating anything new either. I think playing video games has pretty much become their full time job aside from occasionally picking a random story to post.
I'd be real interested to know what Taco's annual salary is though.
The problem with any programmer "fudging" a system from the start is probably comes from knowing that you have to fudge something, and they just aren't sure what to fudge during the design process. I'm sure a programmer that worked on several projects involving physics engines would get better over time just because they'd learn from their mistakes. But this is the same in any area of development, not just games and physics engines. The same could be said of database engines. It all comes down to effeciently managing the resources of the computer. Once they learn the key variables that can't be fudged, they can plan on what can be fudged for performance/time constraints.
I still maintain that any programmer can understand physics and program the appropriate formulas into a computer. That was my main point anyways, not they'd do it perfectly on the first try, but that both programming and physics share some common mental processing traits that would allow a master of one to easily understand the other.
It's a small reason, don't know why the/. editors didn't post it because the site it getting hammered.
Just Choose It Later.
AdCritic.com has enjoyed a sucessful life as a leader in the area of archiving television and radio advertising and related information for both consumers and the advertising industry. Our business, although strong, has been unable to weather the current economic realities beseiging the United States today. The short answer: we became so popular so fast that we couldn't stay afloat!
We thank you for your continued support of AdCritic.com, and hope that we will be back in full swing someday soon.
Interested in helping out? You could always just send us some money... or send your condolences.
Technically, the economic winds changed for the online world very quickly, and caused us to have to change our business plan to match those changes. The development lead time of those new changes, coupled with a lack of resources to develop our research facilities to their full potential, put us in a position where we simply could not continue our operations without outside funding. We still believe that our business model will work; it will just have to work for someone else, as our timing was not ideal. We'll work on that.
If I go buy the CD and hack it, then I can make a copy, and take the CD back for a full refund:)
Sounds good to me.
But you wait, Wal-mart and others will start advertising that it won't work on all those devices and that once opened, cannot be returned just because it doesn't work on known hardware.
I remember reading a couple years back that some game developer hired an actual physicist to help develop their Golf game. I can't for the life of me remember what company it was though.
I'm with you on switching modes between creative stuff and technical though. Although I guess it depends on what you're doing. If all you're doing is coding, then since that's all logic, physics should fit right in there with it.
My biggest problem is switching between programming and graphic design. Oh the headaches.
The complexities blamed on the desktop metaphor are not the fault of the metaphor itself, but of its implementation in mainstream systems. The default hard disk icon is part of the desktop metaphor. And the icon is the cause of the complexity created by the desktop.
If the desktop metaphor is perfect, yet the "hard drive" icon is part of the metaphor, the how can he claim that the metaphor is perfect and it's the implementation that's wrong?
Ignoring the fact that they contradict themselves in the first paragraph, there's plenty of other glaring holes in the argument.
"The extension of the "rules of the desktop" to cover the entire capacity of the hard disk is the main reason why systems that support multiple desktops seem simpler and are easier to use and manage."
Who says it's simpler? You still need to initially setup that desktop, which involved setting up shortcuts to locations in the file system. Try doing that without delving into the hard drive while still maintaining a super simplistic environment (i.e. no command line either). Besides, maybe I have a lot of data and need 20 desktops to organize it correctly. So instead of setting the default "open" path in the application of my choice, I would have to switch desktops to open a file. What if I want several things of different types open at once?
"It is possible to build labyrinths of internal directories that eventually become too deep to navigate via the mouse. The feeling of such spiral filing systems is of endless depth, requiring great effort to retrieve a piece of information. It is difficult to create the same spiral feeling on the desktop."
So sub-folders are a bad thing I guess. Yes, it's terribly confusing to have a tree like "documents/company/forms/standard contracts". That would be too confusing to navigate. But if you had someway of setting a "view" on the desktop that would be simpler. And this "view" menu would be incredibly simplistic to use and would be able to differentiate between Forms and Letters in a DOC or PDF file? Gee, that sounds like more work when I create the document too.
"To reap the benefits of the desktop metaphor, we have to design computer systems that leave the user clearly anchored in the desktop metaphor at all times. But in the multiple desktop, you are always on a desktop and can't ever get lost inside the computer."
Ok, but you could get lost in all the desktops you'd need to setup.
The desktop was designed to give users quick access to common programs. You don't need every file you ever need to use, sitting on your desktop, or even some virtual desktop somewhere. Because if you only use it once every six months, you're going to forget what desktop it's on anyways. Intelligent directory trees and default "file-open" locations are the way to do it. The methods outlined in this article would require a lot of extra setup the user would have to do, and doesn't address new files being added by another user on a network.
I guess I was really bored this morning, I didn't intend to comment that much on an opinion piece on some other site. Which makes me wonder, why are we linking to use opinions on other sites? Maybe the author is somebody I know, but isn't this like linking to a slashdot users comments?
Some people can stay neutral despite the occasional "those fucking bastard" remarks after losing a couple hours of work to a BSOD.
Personally, I make not like the way things are with MS, but I understand why they are that way and can accept it. They're just trying to make profits like everybody else. It's just that they're so damn big, whenever they "compete" in a market, they usually end up wiping it out. Although I'm not seeing that with X-Box (yet) or that Ultimate TV thingamabob. Maybe the tides are naturally turning anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm probably a freak, but I'd use it just to find new bands in a certain genre. I already have all the music from the mainstream bands I want.
Of course, they don't state what the fee will be yet, and they don't know how many songs they're going to let you download. And I wouldn't be totally surprised if the RIAA is making them mail 250 lb. USB dongles that have to be attached to your computer to play the songs.
One thing I didn't see addressed was how they are going to verify artist accounts. What's going to be in place to stop me from claiming I own "Who Let The Dogs Out".
That example is obviously extreme, but think about a no-name band that's trying to get started. They log onto Napster to register their band and find that somebody else has already claimed ownership of some songs they taped at a rehearsal.
For a blind person you wouldn't want a direct translation of the video output, it contains more data than is necessary. For a blind person to interpret all the data in realtime, they would only need to be able to "see" the floor and wall, basically a top-down view, complete with bad guys. Something about the size of a hand with rods or blocks that move up and down to indicate things like walls or stairs or baddies. The device should pivot so they can rotate their hand to "look" in different directions. They wouldn't need to be able to turn their hand all the way around since everything is relative you could make a 30 degree rotation into a 180.
Money for your ideas?
Can ideas be licensed under the GPL?
When I had to look through my parents bedroom to find out what I was getting for Christmas.
My son will be able to find out what he's getting if I forget to clear my cookies before I go to bed.
If you have a proven track record and years of experience, that's what matters. Or at least that's what matter to companies that I'd want to work for.
What different does it make. The user's still going to write/draw it on a post-it and stick it to the monitor.
Customer's have enough trouble understanding "click the button with the X in the upper right corner".
I wouldn't know where to begin trying to describe what pictures to use for their password... "Ok, now choose the picture that looks like a moose being sucked into a vortex".
I dunno, can YOU justify an extra few hundred bucks for a fancy case with a light bulb inside the case, and a window so you can see it?
Ya do know that the only visible movement inside a case is the CPU fan, right?
PLEASE tell me you people know that!!!!
It's a fucking joke dipshit!!!
Geez. Bunch of fucking idiots around here.
Outlook Express 6.0 has some checking already built-in to say "hey this might be a virus" before you open attachments with .pif extensions as well as some others (I don't remember which).
You have my vote for +5 Insightful.
:(
Too bad I'm not modding right now
On the second right-click you have to leave the popup open until the print dialog comes up. As soon as the print dialog comes up, try doing something.
MS hides them pretty well. I'm still waiting for them to patch Solitaire for W2K. If you simulataneously click both mouse buttons at the same time on a card, several times really fast, it'll crash.
Also, in IE6.0, if you right-click, choose Print, right-click again before the Print dialog appears, IE get's stuck with the print dialog and the popup in a modal state, and can't figure out which one should have control.
So can we put him back under the rock now?
By following the link on the MS Security Bulletin I received in my e-mail, and going through the update process, it took a whopping 5 minutes including the reboot.
:P
Now all that's required is that somebody take the total number of XP users, multiply it by 5 minutes, and then multiply it by some made-up figure for what the average IT workers makes per minute, and then the zealots will have some fuel for their fire. "Look, this latest bug cost the country a billion dollars!". While in actuality it didn't cost the country anything, and only cost each corporation a percentage of their annual revenue, small enough to be measured in millionths of a percentage point.
Gee, I think I just wasted more time posting this comment than it took to install the update
That's the beauty of Slashdot. The sites already finished, he doesn't need to code on a daily basis (although he could fix some of the bugs).
Personally I hope there's not too many young geeks treating these guys as gods. It's not like they are gurus of any kind. They don't appear to actively learn anything new on their own (remember the Cisco router fiasco). It's not like they're creating anything new either. I think playing video games has pretty much become their full time job aside from occasionally picking a random story to post.
I'd be real interested to know what Taco's annual salary is though.
Ok guys, enough is enough. There's plenty of comments on the Buffy show lately. I think we can all drop the act.
You know what I mean. We're not watching it for any sci-fi or horror reasons. It's obvious.
Buffy will date freaks.
And the lesbians don't hurt either
Anybody else sick of Taco raving about how easy he has it playing video games and waiting for a movie to start playing?
Somebody lookup the link to the article on addiction and e-mail it to Taco.
The problem with any programmer "fudging" a system from the start is probably comes from knowing that you have to fudge something, and they just aren't sure what to fudge during the design process. I'm sure a programmer that worked on several projects involving physics engines would get better over time just because they'd learn from their mistakes. But this is the same in any area of development, not just games and physics engines. The same could be said of database engines. It all comes down to effeciently managing the resources of the computer. Once they learn the key variables that can't be fudged, they can plan on what can be fudged for performance/time constraints.
I still maintain that any programmer can understand physics and program the appropriate formulas into a computer. That was my main point anyways, not they'd do it perfectly on the first try, but that both programming and physics share some common mental processing traits that would allow a master of one to easily understand the other.
Just curious, what was your position on the team?
It's a small reason, don't know why the /. editors didn't post it because the site it getting hammered.
Just Choose It Later.
AdCritic.com has enjoyed a sucessful life as a leader in the area of archiving television and radio advertising and related information for both consumers and the advertising industry. Our business, although strong, has been unable to weather the current economic realities beseiging the United States today. The short answer: we became so popular so fast that we couldn't stay afloat!
We thank you for your continued support of AdCritic.com, and hope that we will be back in full swing someday soon.
Interested in helping out? You could always just send us some money... or send your condolences.
Technically, the economic winds changed for the online world very quickly, and caused us to have to change our business plan to match those changes. The development lead time of those new changes, coupled with a lack of resources to develop our research facilities to their full potential, put us in a position where we simply could not continue our operations without outside funding. We still believe that our business model will work; it will just have to work for someone else, as our timing was not ideal. We'll work on that.
If I go buy the CD and hack it, then I can make a copy, and take the CD back for a full refund :)
Sounds good to me.
But you wait, Wal-mart and others will start advertising that it won't work on all those devices and that once opened, cannot be returned just because it doesn't work on known hardware.
I remember reading a couple years back that some game developer hired an actual physicist to help develop their Golf game. I can't for the life of me remember what company it was though.
I'm with you on switching modes between creative stuff and technical though. Although I guess it depends on what you're doing. If all you're doing is coding, then since that's all logic, physics should fit right in there with it.
My biggest problem is switching between programming and graphic design. Oh the headaches.
The complexities blamed on the desktop metaphor are not the fault of the metaphor itself, but of its implementation in mainstream systems. The default hard disk icon is part of the desktop metaphor. And the icon is the cause of the complexity created by the desktop.
If the desktop metaphor is perfect, yet the "hard drive" icon is part of the metaphor, the how can he claim that the metaphor is perfect and it's the implementation that's wrong?
Ignoring the fact that they contradict themselves in the first paragraph, there's plenty of other glaring holes in the argument.
"The extension of the "rules of the desktop" to cover the entire capacity of the hard disk is the main reason why systems that support multiple desktops seem simpler and are easier to use and manage."
Who says it's simpler? You still need to initially setup that desktop, which involved setting up shortcuts to locations in the file system. Try doing that without delving into the hard drive while still maintaining a super simplistic environment (i.e. no command line either). Besides, maybe I have a lot of data and need 20 desktops to organize it correctly. So instead of setting the default "open" path in the application of my choice, I would have to switch desktops to open a file. What if I want several things of different types open at once?
"It is possible to build labyrinths of internal directories that eventually become too deep to navigate via the mouse. The feeling of such spiral filing systems is of endless depth, requiring great effort to retrieve a piece of information. It is difficult to create the same spiral feeling on the desktop."
So sub-folders are a bad thing I guess. Yes, it's terribly confusing to have a tree like "documents/company/forms/standard contracts". That would be too confusing to navigate. But if you had someway of setting a "view" on the desktop that would be simpler. And this "view" menu would be incredibly simplistic to use and would be able to differentiate between Forms and Letters in a DOC or PDF file? Gee, that sounds like more work when I create the document too.
"To reap the benefits of the desktop metaphor, we have to design computer systems that leave the user clearly anchored in the desktop metaphor at all times. But in the multiple desktop, you are always on a desktop and can't ever get lost inside the computer."
Ok, but you could get lost in all the desktops you'd need to setup.
The desktop was designed to give users quick access to common programs. You don't need every file you ever need to use, sitting on your desktop, or even some virtual desktop somewhere. Because if you only use it once every six months, you're going to forget what desktop it's on anyways. Intelligent directory trees and default "file-open" locations are the way to do it. The methods outlined in this article would require a lot of extra setup the user would have to do, and doesn't address new files being added by another user on a network.
I guess I was really bored this morning, I didn't intend to comment that much on an opinion piece on some other site. Which makes me wonder, why are we linking to use opinions on other sites? Maybe the author is somebody I know, but isn't this like linking to a slashdot users comments?
Some people can stay neutral despite the occasional "those fucking bastard" remarks after losing a couple hours of work to a BSOD.
Personally, I make not like the way things are with MS, but I understand why they are that way and can accept it. They're just trying to make profits like everybody else. It's just that they're so damn big, whenever they "compete" in a market, they usually end up wiping it out. Although I'm not seeing that with X-Box (yet) or that Ultimate TV thingamabob. Maybe the tides are naturally turning anyways.