GTalk's use of open protocols (Jabber/XMPP) is the biggest single thing that differentiates it from the other IM providers. Yahoo, MSN, AIM all have a history of locking third-party clients and protocols out of their networks.
This is probably why we're seeing this move from MSN and Yahoo -- GTalk is a disruptive technology. It's like GMail's introduction of 1GB quotas: before GMail, users settled with a few MB quota because that's all that was available. GMail's introduction forced the competitors into a reactionary state -- to Google's benefit.
I think we're seeing the same kind of effect here from GTalk's introduction. GTalk's use of open protocols signals an end to the segregated, proprietary IM networks of today -- because if your company wishes to create a new IM client or a new IM network, does it really make sense to make it a new, proprietary and closed network? Certainly not, if you can just plug into the Jabber/GTalk network and instantly get a massive (potential) user base. At the least, it lowers the barrier of entry for users to use your product.
Being Yahoo, it must be at least a little tempting to convert your Yahoo Messenger network to Jabber and merge seamlessly with the Jabber/GTalk userbase. Yahoo is forced to decide whether they want to stay proprietary, and hope they can keep users locked-in with their excellent messenger software and existing userbase -- or go open, gaining the benefit of an increased userbase and more user freedom, but with only the quality of their software and user loyalty to keep their messenger-derived revenue stream kicking.
So merging with MSN would seem to make a lot of sense. Time will tell whether it's enough to save both closed IM providers from eventual obsolescence, though.
Google doesn't do keyword replacement/popups in pages (neither its own pages, other site pages, nor Adsense clients). I don't know where you got that idea from.
I will agree that it's quite annoying but Google isn't doing it. I think the only way Google can be said to do this is with the 'autolink' button on the Google toolbar, which is only tangentially similar to what you're talking about.
I have been eagerly awaiting the first self replicating nanomachines ever since reading Engines of Creation (http://www.foresight.org/EOC/) but the tech probably has a long convoluted road ahead to acceptance and safe use. If we are seeing problems already with buckyballs - perhaps the simplest example of nanotech - the implications will be far greater for something like airborne nanobots that clean the air, or your bloodstream.
"The.NET Strategy is to create developer dependency on the.NET development platform (.NET Framework, CLR and development tools) by making development under.NET faster, easier and less error-prone than competing technologies."
If you have coded under.NET, you understand this is really what it's all about..NET is not about producing better products per se -- this is only a nice side effect of the strategy. The focus of.NET is to get developers committed to the platform, and consequently to Microsoft.
The.NET framework created by Microsoft is a software development platform focused on rapid application development, platform independence and network transparency..NET is Microsoft's strategic initiative for server and desktop development for the next decade. According to Microsoft,.NET includes many technologies that are designed to facilitate rapid development of Internet and intranet applications.
Agreed. I think in general the parent is right but in the specific case of PS3/Cell he may end up eating his words. Read "Cell Explained" and you will understand that, technologically, this is *not* merely the next iteration of PS2 technology. We're really talking about a fundamental revolution in processor/computer design, not just an iterative jump in processing speed. If Sony can deliver on Cell, expect your current PC to be replaced by a Cell or copycat product in the very near term.
That being said, remember that movie-quality graphics require not just hardware, but a lot of human effort to produce. So though PS3 hardware may be up to the challenge in theory, it could take years before the first game comes out which rivals big-screen CG.
I just thought you should know that you are calling James Clerk Maxwell weak-minded.
Well, what of it? You seem to be saying, "if you criticize any person who is held in high esteem by many people, you must be in error." I put it to you that if some person is held in high esteem by many, you should be doubly wary of any claim to that person's supposed greatness.
I don't deny that he may have been a mathematical genius. But it's apparent to me that mathematical genius and "spiritual" genius are two different things, and rarely reside in the same person.
Your confidence in your own knowledge of literal truths is quite profound! Perhaps you are overconfident.
Well, I will tell you that I don't know the literal truths of reality. But at the very least I can honestly tell you what is NOT true. One such example is any assertion that claims "proof" of God's existence.
Logically, one has to take the existence of God on faith alone, because it's impossible to know about this with certainty. We are restricted by the gateway of the senses, through which we experience everything, and can never be sure that what we observed is "real" in the way it appears to us.
To my mind, the Christian "faith" is in fact wishful thinking. The reasons and motivation for believing in God are not logical, but emotional.
I would direct your attention to Goldbach's conjecture. Could you prove it for me?
No, but I also am not claiming that mathematical ability has anything at all to do with a true understanding of reality. Far from it! If I am to accept the actions of the many God-fearing math geniuses through history as representative of math types generally, then I would say a strong interest in math turns one away from investigating the important truths of reality.
It's a human judgement call. In this case, our human understanding rises head and shoulders above the cold, hard facts approach.
I don't have any problem with this, as long as we remember that we are acting on assumption. Every good scientist knows that all empirical "laws" are in fact working hypotheses that could be refuted at any moment.
The belief in God, by contrast, is one that insists it is right, even in the utter absence of real proof. It does not confess itself to be a working hypothesis! This is easily evidenced by the millions who base their lives around this notion of God.
If they were to be even a little honest, and correctly assert that their belief in God was pure conjecture, I would not take issue with it on these grounds! I might then question their decision to base their life around something as flimsy as this cosmic "guess", but at least they would have admitted that it is indeed -- a guess.
Do you honestly go through life acting only on information that has been proven? I think not.
I don't, but I do endeavor to where I can. The fact is, many things in everyday life cannot be proven -- we have to act on assumptions. If I'm crossing the street, I have to act on the assumption that cars will stop at the red light if I am to cross. It's a gamble, and I act based on what seems to be my best chances of succeeding.
The belief in Christianity's God, by contrast, is completely unnecessary. We do not have to believe in God to live and do our work here! And I would further assert that it is valuable to believe only in that which is literally true.
That's what Christianity is really all about, isn't it?
If enough apparently intelligent, well-meaning people believe in it, then it must be true!.. right?
It appears to me that intelligent people are as often duped as another person of lesser intelligence when it comes to God. What proof could one possibly have for God's existence? None -- and this I'm sure you will agree with me, but you probably don't consider this fact "relevant".
What is the belief in God, if not the cowardly submission that we are too weak-minded to believe in and act upon literal truths only. Far be it from you to insist on such a truth... it would just put a damper on your emotional rapture of "the majesty of creation"!
The truth is, we don't know how the world as-it-is got created -- and there's no way to ever really know. So I put God, aliens, and mystical tides of cosmic mojo in the same category of hypotheses with no ground of proof.
The determining factor is not how SMART you are -- but how HONEST!
Take a look at Splinter Cell XBOX. Object focus is implemented very well here: whatever your targeting reticle is on is what your character is looking at, and depth of field is realistically implemented so that objects behind it are a bit blurry. When you move the targeting reticle from object to object this becomes really obvious and cool.
For today's breed of 3d games, the answer is not in analyzing the player's eye to determine the object of focus, but rather the character's "eye" (usually will be the center of the screen or targeting reticle). This creates a believable enough sense of focus to make it a useful feature.
Wind Waker also seems to have this, but it actually seems to be more an artifact of cel-shaded objects being rendered in the distance; there is no consideration given to *what* should be in focus at a given time.
Probably the only realistic solution will rely on a group of humans to release the information for you. Give uniquely encoded copies of the information to a few dozen individuals, not telling them what or why you are doing this. Make it so that several of the people are required to actually decode a complete usable document.
Then drop a few million bucks in a Swiss bank account, and get several independent lawyers to hold keys to it (several of which are needed for access). Encode the final necessary key in the document itself.
Guarantee any individuals which wait until the ordained time to decode the document a fragment of these funds, and any who try to betray this zero dollars.
Also guarantee some of this money to each of the lawyers who follows your instructions, or none to those who betray it. Lawyers can be reasonably trusted on one thing -- their greediness. (At least if you find the right set of laywers.) So they will serve as an excellent means of check-and-balance against one another, as each will be looking out only for their own interest, and will accordingly act to prevent the others from taking unfair advantage. At the very least they can be relied upon to keep the document encoded until the due date -- then they may try to make off with the funds themselves if they find the means, but that should really be a minor point relative to the big news.
Even if this earth shattering news is purely hypothetical, this could make for an interesting sci fi novel. Perhaps it's already been written.
There's so much already posted here.. so I will just post my top 6 deadly drum&bass and top 6 heavenly ambient tracks that I've encountered thus far. (Your forgiveness is appreciated for misapprehended genres)
If anyone has suggestions for more items along the lines of these two narrow categories, PLEASE reply and tell me! I love this shit and am always on the lookout for more of comparable quality. It can be a real chore to dig up good new stuffs in the wide wide world of electronica.
Without further ado --
Top 6 Deadly Drum & Bass Tracks:
- Exile: Bad Diet - Exile: Fatal Exception - Dr. Mario: Beg4Life (via mp3.com) - Aphrodite: Ready or Not (remix of Fugees track) - Todd Terry: Blackout - Makai: Beneath the Mask
Top 6 Heavenly Ambient Tracks:
- Plastiq Phantom: 492 cups to china (plastiqphantom.com) - Aphex Twin: Stone in Focus - Ben Neill: After the Gold Rush - Brian Eno: An Ending (Ascent) - Brian Eno: Dunwich Beach, Autumn 1960 - Terre Thaemliz: Hovering Glows
Mix these tracks alternately on a CD for a cool experience.
Again, if anyone has suggestions along these lines, do notify me immediately! My tastes tend to run to these two extremes -- crushing hard d&b vs. utterly peaceful ambience. Your response will be most appreciated, I assure you.
Virtually the sole reason I've moved from the wonderful Opera browser to Mozilla: the 'Managers'. All these are found in the Tools dropdown menu.
Form Manager: store all your personal information in Mozilla (name, address, cc#, etc.) -- all password protected if you so desire (also very configurable) -- then when you have to fill a form in, click Edit->Fill In Form. Ahhh.. finally:)
Password Manager: like the form manager, but remembers your login/password(s) on a per-site basis, and auto-fills them in for you when you return next. Also protected by a (master) password if you see fit.
Cookie Manager and Image Manager: browse and edit your cookie list, and restrict which images are shown in your browser as you see fit.
Download Manager: not quite as cool as Opera's transfer window, but keeps all of your downloads in one convenient window -- enough with the zillion individual download popups, I say!!
Mozilla is almost everything I want in a browser. The only thing I'm still wanting is the "remember where I was browsing" feature of Opera. While Moz does tabs, it doesn't remember which were open for you and reopen them upon your next session (and it also has a known issue with the preference which makes new windows open new tabs instead). Here's to hoping such features get implemented in the near future!:)
Pluses:
- Ambidextrous; buttons well located on each side.
- Intellimouse software allows all 5 buttons to be assigned on a per-program basis, including tying to a keystroke.
- More properly sized than the Explorer.
Another thing I'd add is that a friend of mine has gone through 4 Explorers since their initial introduction -- because the USB connector on the mouse wears out! All USB mousers, take heed: plugging into the back of your Intellitype Pro keyboard is not a good idea.
Other thoughts:
Go optical -- there's no good reason to buy a roller ball.
Also, I've seen Logitech drivers on Win2000 be a bit flaky -- the scroll effect from spinning the wheel is a bit laggy, especially when scrolling pages of information. The MS mice react immediately, as they should. This problem appears to go away if you use the default Windows mouse drivers (but then you don't get the Logitech button configurability [which defaults to 'Back']).
Finally, if you game, avoid the wireless mice. While they may look beautiful in the showroom, their responsiveness is a bit laggy because of the wireless interface. You'd never notice it on the desktop, but if you play FPSs or do fine image work, you'll want to kill it after a while.
I still use this program. Actually there are a few different Pointix apps with "glick" functionality.
Scroll++ has glicks plus does wheel mouse simulation by holding down the right mouse button and dragging the mouse to scroll.
Pop-Mouse Lite does the circular gestures, plus it has left-right-left or up-down-up type gestures, each of which can be assigned to a number of different functions. The Pro version had more customizability, but the Lite version was freeware.
You can still find both of these programs out on the net on numerous "shareware archive" sites. I use Scroll++ religiously both at home and work -- the circular glicks are to web navigation what mousewheels were to scrollbars;)
Perhaps, at least to get a useful statistical picture of things, you could poll a wide range of students (wide range in terms of their academic excellence) as to their degree of gameplaying.
Perhaps you could make some useful correlations in this way, such as high-GPA students having a tendency to play a lot of Counter Strike.
Come now. You really think if we got phones in our heads we would have to take every call that came in?
To this end, maybe it would even promote a sliver of honesty among those people who tend to tell people that they don't want to talk to, "I wasn't home," or "I wasn't by my phone," when they are in fact "by" their phone.
I think cell phone heads are just the natural progression of the man-machine integration that has been evolving for millions of years. I agree with another poster -- the pace of society has become ludicrous -- but it is probably reasonable to expect that as technology enables us to spend more and more of our time in leisure pursuits, coonveniences such as having a direct neural connection to the Internet will become not only commonplace, but selfishly demanded by successive generations of technologically apt humans, who are not hindered by stupid old ideas of "the good old days".
However, the idea of charge-per-minute calls from my head doesn't appeal greatly..:)
Yes, the distinction between free and non-free is important. No, it does not matter if Debian, which is "free", includes "non-free" within the distro. Is Debian itself producing non-free software? No.
Remember, "Debian" is just a label, and IMHO should not be conceived of as nothing more than a convenient way to categorize things.
I would urge the maintainers to clearly document the non-free aspects of the distro, but to remove those aspects is impractical, because people want that software.
The alternative will be forcing people to jump through one more hoop in order to get their system in the state they want it in. This is not desired!
Ideals are a Good Thing, but only insomuch as they suit our practical interests. Remove non-free software as superior or at least comparable free alternatives become available for mass consumption.
This debate is as silly as bickering over whether there should be vi extensions for emacs. What is practical is what is best, even (I'd say especially) in the realm of ethics. Don't let your sense of righteousness blind you to what is practically right.
Slashdot Mirror
GTalk's use of open protocols (Jabber/XMPP) is the biggest single thing that differentiates it from the other IM providers. Yahoo, MSN, AIM all have a history of locking third-party clients and protocols out of their networks.
This is probably why we're seeing this move from MSN and Yahoo -- GTalk is a disruptive technology. It's like GMail's introduction of 1GB quotas: before GMail, users settled with a few MB quota because that's all that was available. GMail's introduction forced the competitors into a reactionary state -- to Google's benefit.
I think we're seeing the same kind of effect here from GTalk's introduction. GTalk's use of open protocols signals an end to the segregated, proprietary IM networks of today -- because if your company wishes to create a new IM client or a new IM network, does it really make sense to make it a new, proprietary and closed network? Certainly not, if you can just plug into the Jabber/GTalk network and instantly get a massive (potential) user base. At the least, it lowers the barrier of entry for users to use your product.
Being Yahoo, it must be at least a little tempting to convert your Yahoo Messenger network to Jabber and merge seamlessly with the Jabber/GTalk userbase. Yahoo is forced to decide whether they want to stay proprietary, and hope they can keep users locked-in with their excellent messenger software and existing userbase -- or go open, gaining the benefit of an increased userbase and more user freedom, but with only the quality of their software and user loyalty to keep their messenger-derived revenue stream kicking.
So merging with MSN would seem to make a lot of sense. Time will tell whether it's enough to save both closed IM providers from eventual obsolescence, though.
Write it either $800 million, or 800 million dollars. Pick one and go with it. Commit to your grammar!
Google doesn't do keyword replacement/popups in pages (neither its own pages, other site pages, nor Adsense clients). I don't know where you got that idea from.
I will agree that it's quite annoying but Google isn't doing it. I think the only way Google can be said to do this is with the 'autolink' button on the Google toolbar, which is only tangentially similar to what you're talking about.
It's agrinauts.
We're already seeing signs of problems to come: buckyballs appear to cause Alzheimer's-like damage when they get into the brains of fish.
o technology/dn4825
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/nan
I have been eagerly awaiting the first self replicating nanomachines ever since reading Engines of Creation (http://www.foresight.org/EOC/) but the tech probably has a long convoluted road ahead to acceptance and safe use. If we are seeing problems already with buckyballs - perhaps the simplest example of nanotech - the implications will be far greater for something like airborne nanobots that clean the air, or your bloodstream.
"The .NET Strategy is to create developer dependency on the .NET development platform (.NET Framework, CLR and development tools) by making development under .NET faster, easier and less error-prone than competing technologies."
If you have coded under .NET, you understand this is really what it's all about. .NET is not about producing better products per se -- this is only a nice side effect of the strategy. The focus of .NET is to get developers committed to the platform, and consequently to Microsoft.
Here's a longer description from Wikipedia's article on .NET:
Agreed. I think in general the parent is right but in the specific case of PS3/Cell he may end up eating his words. Read "Cell Explained" and you will understand that, technologically, this is *not* merely the next iteration of PS2 technology. We're really talking about a fundamental revolution in processor/computer design, not just an iterative jump in processing speed. If Sony can deliver on Cell, expect your current PC to be replaced by a Cell or copycat product in the very near term.
That being said, remember that movie-quality graphics require not just hardware, but a lot of human effort to produce. So though PS3 hardware may be up to the challenge in theory, it could take years before the first game comes out which rivals big-screen CG.
Just because they state that this is old news, does not make it newsworthy.
I'd bet against that assertion.
Anyone game?
I just thought you should know that you are calling James Clerk Maxwell weak-minded.
Well, what of it? You seem to be saying, "if you criticize any person who is held in high esteem by many people, you must be in error." I put it to you that if some person is held in high esteem by many, you should be doubly wary of any claim to that person's supposed greatness.
I don't deny that he may have been a mathematical genius. But it's apparent to me that mathematical genius and "spiritual" genius are two different things, and rarely reside in the same person.
Your confidence in your own knowledge of literal truths is quite profound! Perhaps you are overconfident.
Well, I will tell you that I don't know the literal truths of reality. But at the very least I can honestly tell you what is NOT true. One such example is any assertion that claims "proof" of God's existence.
Logically, one has to take the existence of God on faith alone, because it's impossible to know about this with certainty. We are restricted by the gateway of the senses, through which we experience everything, and can never be sure that what we observed is "real" in the way it appears to us.
To my mind, the Christian "faith" is in fact wishful thinking. The reasons and motivation for believing in God are not logical, but emotional.
I would direct your attention to Goldbach's conjecture. Could you prove it for me?
No, but I also am not claiming that mathematical ability has anything at all to do with a true understanding of reality. Far from it! If I am to accept the actions of the many God-fearing math geniuses through history as representative of math types generally, then I would say a strong interest in math turns one away from investigating the important truths of reality.
It's a human judgement call. In this case, our human understanding rises head and shoulders above the cold, hard facts approach.
I don't have any problem with this, as long as we remember that we are acting on assumption. Every good scientist knows that all empirical "laws" are in fact working hypotheses that could be refuted at any moment.
The belief in God, by contrast, is one that insists it is right, even in the utter absence of real proof. It does not confess itself to be a working hypothesis! This is easily evidenced by the millions who base their lives around this notion of God.
If they were to be even a little honest, and correctly assert that their belief in God was pure conjecture, I would not take issue with it on these grounds! I might then question their decision to base their life around something as flimsy as this cosmic "guess", but at least they would have admitted that it is indeed -- a guess.
Do you honestly go through life acting only on information that has been proven? I think not.
I don't, but I do endeavor to where I can. The fact is, many things in everyday life cannot be proven -- we have to act on assumptions. If I'm crossing the street, I have to act on the assumption that cars will stop at the red light if I am to cross. It's a gamble, and I act based on what seems to be my best chances of succeeding.
The belief in Christianity's God, by contrast, is completely unnecessary. We do not have to believe in God to live and do our work here! And I would further assert that it is valuable to believe only in that which is literally true.
That's what Christianity is really all about, isn't it?
.. right?
... it would just put a damper on your emotional rapture of "the majesty of creation"!
If enough apparently intelligent, well-meaning people believe in it, then it must be true!
It appears to me that intelligent people are as often duped as another person of lesser intelligence when it comes to God. What proof could one possibly have for God's existence? None -- and this I'm sure you will agree with me, but you probably don't consider this fact "relevant".
What is the belief in God, if not the cowardly submission that we are too weak-minded to believe in and act upon literal truths only. Far be it from you to insist on such a truth
The truth is, we don't know how the world as-it-is got created -- and there's no way to ever really know. So I put God, aliens, and mystical tides of cosmic mojo in the same category of hypotheses with no ground of proof.
The determining factor is not how SMART you are -- but how HONEST!
http://www.theabsolute.net
Take a look at Splinter Cell XBOX. Object focus is implemented very well here: whatever your targeting reticle is on is what your character is looking at, and depth of field is realistically implemented so that objects behind it are a bit blurry. When you move the targeting reticle from object to object this becomes really obvious and cool.
For today's breed of 3d games, the answer is not in analyzing the player's eye to determine the object of focus, but rather the character's "eye" (usually will be the center of the screen or targeting reticle). This creates a believable enough sense of focus to make it a useful feature.
Wind Waker also seems to have this, but it actually seems to be more an artifact of cel-shaded objects being rendered in the distance; there is no consideration given to *what* should be in focus at a given time.
The fact that somebody rated the parent post here as "Troll" only seems to reinforce the validity of the poster's observation.
GOO GOO GOO GOO ACK
From whose perspective shall we consider such a game "handled with respect to the people involved"?
"In Vietnam, they call it the American War."
~ Regret to Inform
Probably the only realistic solution will rely on a group of humans to release the information for you. Give uniquely encoded copies of the information to a few dozen individuals, not telling them what or why you are doing this. Make it so that several of the people are required to actually decode a complete usable document.
Then drop a few million bucks in a Swiss bank account, and get several independent lawyers to hold keys to it (several of which are needed for access). Encode the final necessary key in the document itself.
Guarantee any individuals which wait until the ordained time to decode the document a fragment of these funds, and any who try to betray this zero dollars.
Also guarantee some of this money to each of the lawyers who follows your instructions, or none to those who betray it. Lawyers can be reasonably trusted on one thing -- their greediness. (At least if you find the right set of laywers.) So they will serve as an excellent means of check-and-balance against one another, as each will be looking out only for their own interest, and will accordingly act to prevent the others from taking unfair advantage. At the very least they can be relied upon to keep the document encoded until the due date -- then they may try to make off with the funds themselves if they find the means, but that should really be a minor point relative to the big news.
Even if this earth shattering news is purely hypothetical, this could make for an interesting sci fi novel. Perhaps it's already been written.
joel
There's so much already posted here .. so I will just post my top 6 deadly drum&bass and top 6 heavenly ambient tracks that I've encountered thus far. (Your forgiveness is appreciated for misapprehended genres)
If anyone has suggestions for more items along the lines of these two narrow categories, PLEASE reply and tell me! I love this shit and am always on the lookout for more of comparable quality. It can be a real chore to dig up good new stuffs in the wide wide world of electronica.
Without further ado --
Top 6 Deadly Drum & Bass Tracks:
- Exile: Bad Diet
- Exile: Fatal Exception
- Dr. Mario: Beg4Life (via mp3.com)
- Aphrodite: Ready or Not (remix of Fugees track)
- Todd Terry: Blackout
- Makai: Beneath the Mask
Top 6 Heavenly Ambient Tracks:
- Plastiq Phantom: 492 cups to china (plastiqphantom.com)
- Aphex Twin: Stone in Focus
- Ben Neill: After the Gold Rush
- Brian Eno: An Ending (Ascent)
- Brian Eno: Dunwich Beach, Autumn 1960
- Terre Thaemliz: Hovering Glows
Mix these tracks alternately on a CD for a cool experience.
Again, if anyone has suggestions along these lines, do notify me immediately! My tastes tend to run to these two extremes -- crushing hard d&b vs. utterly peaceful ambience. Your response will be most appreciated, I assure you.
joel
Some bit of twisted irony, that Palladium's Group Product Manager's name is Juarez ..
...
Juarez? Say it out loud
Virtually the sole reason I've moved from the wonderful Opera browser to Mozilla: the 'Managers'. All these are found in the Tools dropdown menu.
:)
:)
Form Manager: store all your personal information in Mozilla (name, address, cc#, etc.) -- all password protected if you so desire (also very configurable) -- then when you have to fill a form in, click Edit->Fill In Form. Ahhh.. finally
Password Manager: like the form manager, but remembers your login/password(s) on a per-site basis, and auto-fills them in for you when you return next. Also protected by a (master) password if you see fit.
Cookie Manager and Image Manager: browse and edit your cookie list, and restrict which images are shown in your browser as you see fit.
Download Manager: not quite as cool as Opera's transfer window, but keeps all of your downloads in one convenient window -- enough with the zillion individual download popups, I say!!
Mozilla is almost everything I want in a browser. The only thing I'm still wanting is the "remember where I was browsing" feature of Opera. While Moz does tabs, it doesn't remember which were open for you and reopen them upon your next session (and it also has a known issue with the preference which makes new windows open new tabs instead). Here's to hoping such features get implemented in the near future!
Pluses:
- Ambidextrous; buttons well located on each side.
- Intellimouse software allows all 5 buttons to be assigned on a per-program basis, including tying to a keystroke.
- More properly sized than the Explorer.
Another thing I'd add is that a friend of mine has gone through 4 Explorers since their initial introduction -- because the USB connector on the mouse wears out! All USB mousers, take heed: plugging into the back of your Intellitype Pro keyboard is not a good idea.
Other thoughts:
Go optical -- there's no good reason to buy a roller ball.
Also, I've seen Logitech drivers on Win2000 be a bit flaky -- the scroll effect from spinning the wheel is a bit laggy, especially when scrolling pages of information. The MS mice react immediately, as they should. This problem appears to go away if you use the default Windows mouse drivers (but then you don't get the Logitech button configurability [which defaults to 'Back']).
Finally, if you game, avoid the wireless mice. While they may look beautiful in the showroom, their responsiveness is a bit laggy because of the wireless interface. You'd never notice it on the desktop, but if you play FPSs or do fine image work, you'll want to kill it after a while.
I still use this program. Actually there are a few different Pointix apps with "glick" functionality.
;)
Scroll++ has glicks plus does wheel mouse simulation by holding down the right mouse button and dragging the mouse to scroll.
Pop-Mouse Lite does the circular gestures, plus it has left-right-left or up-down-up type gestures, each of which can be assigned to a number of different functions. The Pro version had more customizability, but the Lite version was freeware.
You can still find both of these programs out on the net on numerous "shareware archive" sites. I use Scroll++ religiously both at home and work -- the circular glicks are to web navigation what mousewheels were to scrollbars
:)
Perhaps, at least to get a useful statistical picture of things, you could poll a wide range of students (wide range in terms of their academic excellence) as to their degree of gameplaying.
Perhaps you could make some useful correlations in this way, such as high-GPA students having a tendency to play a lot of Counter Strike.
Come now. You really think if we got phones in our heads we would have to take every call that came in?
To this end, maybe it would even promote a sliver of honesty among those people who tend to tell people that they don't want to talk to, "I wasn't home," or "I wasn't by my phone," when they are in fact "by" their phone.
I think cell phone heads are just the natural progression of the man-machine integration that has been evolving for millions of years. I agree with another poster -- the pace of society has become ludicrous -- but it is probably reasonable to expect that as technology enables us to spend more and more of our time in leisure pursuits, coonveniences such as having a direct neural connection to the Internet will become not only commonplace, but selfishly demanded by successive generations of technologically apt humans, who are not hindered by stupid old ideas of "the good old days".
However, the idea of charge-per-minute calls from my head doesn't appeal greatly..:)
joel
Come on, this is pure pedantic pointlessness.
Yes, the distinction between free and non-free is important. No, it does not matter if Debian, which is "free", includes "non-free" within the distro. Is Debian itself producing non-free software? No.
Remember, "Debian" is just a label, and IMHO should not be conceived of as nothing more than a convenient way to categorize things.
I would urge the maintainers to clearly document the non-free aspects of the distro, but to remove those aspects is impractical, because people want that software.
The alternative will be forcing people to jump through one more hoop in order to get their system in the state they want it in. This is not desired!
Ideals are a Good Thing, but only insomuch as they suit our practical interests. Remove non-free software as superior or at least comparable free alternatives become available for mass consumption.
This debate is as silly as bickering over whether there should be vi extensions for emacs. What is practical is what is best, even (I'd say especially) in the realm of ethics. Don't let your sense of righteousness blind you to what is practically right.
joel