... or keep multiple spots open with random cards...
When an ebook makes this as easy as a real book, please let me know. I find
it *vastly* easier to flip through real pages to get to "that one spot" I
remember, or by sticking bookmarks all over and flipping back and forth with
reference material. I have put a little thought into what a usuable ebook
interface would be like, and webrowsers for example don't even come close. I'm
very curious to see what people come up with; I think it's a difficult problem.
Hopefully though, we won't be stuck with webrowsers and acroread forever.
(Obviously, there are many things ebooks can do that real books cannot, such as
full text search, but where ebooks lack they really lack.)
The channels description made me think of Dataflow languages. I'm not very educated in this area; would you agree that they are very similar, or am I way off here? Thanks.
Yeah, the lack of arrow keys is often a pain (my model lacks them other than through the "Fn" modifier). I don't use numpads that often, but when I miss it I *really* miss it. I will make that trade for the smaller size, but I do wish Happy Hacking had a model with a numpad. Other than that, how many more keys can you add and still be able to touch type? Fingers only reach so far. I'd rather have an extra modifier or two under the spacebar for the thumbs.
Oh come now. I'm not a big fan of emacs myself, but if it's like cramming everything you own in one room then a "normal" computer with multiple applications is like cramming everything you own into one room but then putting doors all over. At least emacs is an attempt to give everything a common interface, which would be a fantastic thing if the common interface was less of a pain.
Perhaps. Happy Hacking has a model with buckling springs, but it's
quite expensive ($300 I think). The other models are good quality
membrane. I have a Happy Hacking Lite (or Lite II? mine's the
discontinued one without arrow keys, in black of course) which was about
$60 and I absolutely love it (it's so nice and tiny too, very cute, very
classy, very unlike anything I've seen in stores). I'm currently typing
on a mushy Dell keyboard which I hate as much as any CompUSA keyboard
I've ever tried (I always walk down the keyboard isle just to see...
nothing but mush. Makes me feel arthritic.). But the Happy Hacking has
been fantastic for me. I've used those IBM tank keyboards a couple
times, never extensively. The key feel is nice, possibly a bit nicer
than my Happy Hacking though I haven't had a chance to compare side by
side, but I don't like the noise so much.
I wish there was a larger market for keyboards with the control key
in a sane location and generally decent keyboards. *sigh* I want to buy
a Happy Hacking for my parents, but I don't think the could get by with
out arrows, numpad, etc.
Same here. But I suck at video games. So I'll complain about the UI instead: Let me start over with the spacebar damn it! Or at least make the "back" and "start" buttons line up so I don't have to move the flippin mouse. And add some more "you suck" messages.
I respectfully disagree. I think the key benefit is that it becomes
much easier to create and maintain oddball filesystems completely
independently of kernel development (possibly more cross platform as
well).
I've used sshfs through LUFS, and it absolutely rocks (well, it was a
bit sluggish.. server's fault, but the fact that I could use my remote
machine's files with *any* program was fantastic). Is there a kernel
module for an ssh fs?
Even I, with hardly any coding experience, might try to make a
"filesystem" that could, for example, talk to a web based wiki. I would
*never* attempt this in kernel space because I am afraid of the
kernel, and I feel something like my example doesn't belong anywhere
near kernel space.
As long as both google and msn keep improving their services, we win, so god speed to both companies.
As long as no one puts the other out of business. (which seems unlikely at this point, but still...)
Re:For crying out loud...
on
Brute Force
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I thought you could continue the sentance like "Matt spells better
than I spell.", which clearly only works with "I", but I may be
wrong.
That also reminds me of one of my favorite childhood stores
"Fortunately Unfortunately" or something like that...
Fortunately, Matt can spell better than me.
Unfortunately, it's "I".
Fortunately, few people care.
Unfortunately, one who does is my boss.
Fortunately, my boss doesn't read slashdot.
Unfortunately, his IT spies do.
Fortunately, they don't know my account name.
Unfortunately, they can sniff my http connections...
Debian has "popularity contest" which is not a testing tool but it
reports to Debian which programs and packages you use (presumably using
file atime, thought I haven't looked at it... and I often mount my disks
with noatime). This data is intended to be used to determine which
packages belong on "disk 1" and which should be bumped to other
disks.
I think you're letting technical details slip into your interface arguments... Rule #1: the user is #1. The resources are there for the user's benifit... take advantage.
But if you're going to get technical, what's better: a window manager that properly handles tabs (none exist to my knowledge), or each and every app implementing tabs on its own? You save resources here only to lose them there.
That sounds really interesting. I hope you continue with that.
However, I see a small problem. I recall hearing someone talk about
observations of Mac users switching to PCs. The Mac users, familiar
with the menu bar at the top of the screen, would slam the mouse to the
top of an MS Windows window, only to overshoot the menu bar. This
suggests that familiarity plays a huge role here. If you are asking
users to click random buttons popping up, they will attempt to always
hit the button directly because this is the only way to do it in the
most common case, thus never taking advantage of the screen edge. To
expect the user to think and make a decision "oh, it's at the edge *slam
the mouse*", or "oh, it's in the middle *carefully move the mouse*" may
be a bit much.
An additional test may work better: arrange buttons around the edge
of the screen; light up the button the user should click on. Perform
this test twice, once with the buttons right up to the edge, and once
with the buttons slightly away from the edge. As the test progresses, I
would expect the users might notice that in the first case they needn't
be so precise with their mousing. Then you could truly say whether or
not the first case is no faster than the second.
The commandline is broken. So many people hate it. Why? Lack of
visual feedback? The need to memorize many commands and their
options?
The GUI is broken. Popup windows constantly getting in the way;
windows obscuring where I'm looking. Why is "ls *.bmp | xargs convert
$i $i.jpg" so difficult in a GUI?
A complete rethinking of computer interfaces is needed. I think a
lot of HCI research is of little use because it's starting from such
flawed premises. You can only keep patching holes for so long.
Projects like the late Jef Raskin's Archy are interesting and what I
consider cutting edge HCI.
Of course, we're so entrenched at this point that any out of the box
HCI research is also of little use... For shame.
I do not love my job. It's nice, occasionally interesting, but it's not my passion. I don't think that's such a terrible thing either. However, I work 8 hours a day five days a week. I come home hoping to work on some of my many hobbies (exercise, art, programming), and I either don't have the energy or I end up staying up late making work the next day a drag. Even if I had a "dream job" doing one of my hobbies, I'd still have other interests I'd want to pursue.
I'd like to believe society in general would be healthier with a shorter work week because that could give people time to socialize, work on hobbies, volunteer, participate in politics, etc. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, and time not working would just be wasted, but I feel like work is a vampire sucking all of my energy. I can't imagine what it would be like if I had kids.
Speaking of "Ultranano", I think we need some sort of official ranking of these types of modifiers. Based on my experience in a retail store stocking hair gel, I've come up with the following heirarchy (as applied to hair gel hold strength):
Ultimate Extreme
Mega Mega
Ultra
Mega
Super
Please make additions or corrections to this list. I think this should become an ISO standard or something.
Ok, seriously, who thought up the name "ultrananocrystalline" ?
This article is a bit confusing. First, of course, diamond is carbon. Solid carbon exists in two forms: diamond and graphite. The carbon bonds in the diamond structure are tetragonal (I think, been a while since chemistry), each carbon being bonded to four others. In the graphite structure, each carbon is bonded to three other co-planar carbons (trigonal planar?). I believe pi bonds form above and below the plane, adding some stability.
With the graphite form, all you can get is planes, tubes, or balls. Graphite is slippery because the intraplanar bonds are strong but the interplanar bonds are weak. The intraplanar grahpite bonds are stronger than the diamond bonds in fact, which is why nanotubes are so strong. With the diamond form, you can only get solid crystalline structures.
The headline is wrong (no surpirse). These are not "diamond nanotubes", but some sort of composite of (presumably) "ultranano" diamond particles and carbon nanotubes. The article doesn't go into much detail, and I don't care to delve any deeper at this point.
Why? Seriously, why? The government is created by its citizens (well, in theory). The patent office is hired by the citizens to review patents. Can we not hire anyone we please? Is the average professional in a particular field somehow unfit to comment on a patent application? The patent office is not exactly doing a bang up job. I think spreading the work around to those actually in the field, rather that expecting an insulated patent reviewer to know all, can be very helpful.
Slashdot Mirror
When an ebook makes this as easy as a real book, please let me know. I find it *vastly* easier to flip through real pages to get to "that one spot" I remember, or by sticking bookmarks all over and flipping back and forth with reference material. I have put a little thought into what a usuable ebook interface would be like, and webrowsers for example don't even come close. I'm very curious to see what people come up with; I think it's a difficult problem. Hopefully though, we won't be stuck with webrowsers and acroread forever. (Obviously, there are many things ebooks can do that real books cannot, such as full text search, but where ebooks lack they really lack.)
The channels description made me think of Dataflow languages. I'm not very educated in this area; would you agree that they are very similar, or am I way off here? Thanks.
Yeah, the lack of arrow keys is often a pain (my model lacks them other than through the "Fn" modifier). I don't use numpads that often, but when I miss it I *really* miss it. I will make that trade for the smaller size, but I do wish Happy Hacking had a model with a numpad. Other than that, how many more keys can you add and still be able to touch type? Fingers only reach so far. I'd rather have an extra modifier or two under the spacebar for the thumbs.
Oh come now. I'm not a big fan of emacs myself, but if it's like cramming everything you own in one room then a "normal" computer with multiple applications is like cramming everything you own into one room but then putting doors all over. At least emacs is an attempt to give everything a common interface, which would be a fantastic thing if the common interface was less of a pain.
Perhaps. Happy Hacking has a model with buckling springs, but it's quite expensive ($300 I think). The other models are good quality membrane. I have a Happy Hacking Lite (or Lite II? mine's the discontinued one without arrow keys, in black of course) which was about $60 and I absolutely love it (it's so nice and tiny too, very cute, very classy, very unlike anything I've seen in stores). I'm currently typing on a mushy Dell keyboard which I hate as much as any CompUSA keyboard I've ever tried (I always walk down the keyboard isle just to see... nothing but mush. Makes me feel arthritic.). But the Happy Hacking has been fantastic for me. I've used those IBM tank keyboards a couple times, never extensively. The key feel is nice, possibly a bit nicer than my Happy Hacking though I haven't had a chance to compare side by side, but I don't like the noise so much.
I wish there was a larger market for keyboards with the control key in a sane location and generally decent keyboards. *sigh* I want to buy a Happy Hacking for my parents, but I don't think the could get by with out arrows, numpad, etc.
Same here. But I suck at video games. So I'll complain about the UI instead: Let me start over with the spacebar damn it! Or at least make the "back" and "start" buttons line up so I don't have to move the flippin mouse. And add some more "you suck" messages.
But, but, ... in Cryptonomicon they wired the doorway as an
electromagnet which destroyed the evidence even as the authorities were
confiscating it. :(
I respectfully disagree. I think the key benefit is that it becomes much easier to create and maintain oddball filesystems completely independently of kernel development (possibly more cross platform as well).
I've used sshfs through LUFS, and it absolutely rocks (well, it was a bit sluggish.. server's fault, but the fact that I could use my remote machine's files with *any* program was fantastic). Is there a kernel module for an ssh fs?
Even I, with hardly any coding experience, might try to make a "filesystem" that could, for example, talk to a web based wiki. I would *never* attempt this in kernel space because I am afraid of the kernel, and I feel something like my example doesn't belong anywhere near kernel space.
Yes you do. You totally do!
I was thinking it was a response to the "worst post" post. Why it got modded "redundant" is beyond me though.
As long as both google and msn keep improving their services, we win, so god speed to both companies.
As long as no one puts the other out of business. (which seems unlikely at this point, but still...)
I thought you could continue the sentance like "Matt spells better than I spell.", which clearly only works with "I", but I may be wrong.
That also reminds me of one of my favorite childhood stores "Fortunately Unfortunately" or something like that...
Fortunately, Matt can spell better than me.
Unfortunately, it's "I".
Fortunately, few people care.
Unfortunately, one who does is my boss.
Fortunately, my boss doesn't read slashdot.
Unfortunately, his IT spies do.
Fortunately, they don't know my account name.
Unfortunately, they can sniff my http connections...
Ok, that's enough.
Doesn't the disabilities act apply to FEMA? And doesn't that require a certain level of website?
This is S3. I thought competitors *already* know how to make products better than theirs?
Debian has "popularity contest" which is not a testing tool but it reports to Debian which programs and packages you use (presumably using file atime, thought I haven't looked at it... and I often mount my disks with noatime). This data is intended to be used to determine which packages belong on "disk 1" and which should be bumped to other disks.
I think you're letting technical details slip into your interface arguments... Rule #1: the user is #1. The resources are there for the user's benifit... take advantage.
But if you're going to get technical, what's better: a window manager that properly handles tabs (none exist to my knowledge), or each and every app implementing tabs on its own? You save resources here only to lose them there.
That sounds really interesting. I hope you continue with that. However, I see a small problem. I recall hearing someone talk about observations of Mac users switching to PCs. The Mac users, familiar with the menu bar at the top of the screen, would slam the mouse to the top of an MS Windows window, only to overshoot the menu bar. This suggests that familiarity plays a huge role here. If you are asking users to click random buttons popping up, they will attempt to always hit the button directly because this is the only way to do it in the most common case, thus never taking advantage of the screen edge. To expect the user to think and make a decision "oh, it's at the edge *slam the mouse*", or "oh, it's in the middle *carefully move the mouse*" may be a bit much.
An additional test may work better: arrange buttons around the edge of the screen; light up the button the user should click on. Perform this test twice, once with the buttons right up to the edge, and once with the buttons slightly away from the edge. As the test progresses, I would expect the users might notice that in the first case they needn't be so precise with their mousing. Then you could truly say whether or not the first case is no faster than the second.
... and of course I botch the commandline. That would have been clever had I done it on purpose.
The commandline is broken. So many people hate it. Why? Lack of visual feedback? The need to memorize many commands and their options?
The GUI is broken. Popup windows constantly getting in the way; windows obscuring where I'm looking. Why is "ls *.bmp | xargs convert $i $i.jpg" so difficult in a GUI?
A complete rethinking of computer interfaces is needed. I think a lot of HCI research is of little use because it's starting from such flawed premises. You can only keep patching holes for so long. Projects like the late Jef Raskin's Archy are interesting and what I consider cutting edge HCI.
Of course, we're so entrenched at this point that any out of the box HCI research is also of little use... For shame.
You're right. A glance around my house reveals that *all* my machines are heavier than air. 50 years ago who'd of thought we be at this point today.
I do not love my job. It's nice, occasionally interesting, but it's not my passion. I don't think that's such a terrible thing either. However, I work 8 hours a day five days a week. I come home hoping to work on some of my many hobbies (exercise, art, programming), and I either don't have the energy or I end up staying up late making work the next day a drag. Even if I had a "dream job" doing one of my hobbies, I'd still have other interests I'd want to pursue.
I'd like to believe society in general would be healthier with a shorter work week because that could give people time to socialize, work on hobbies, volunteer, participate in politics, etc. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, and time not working would just be wasted, but I feel like work is a vampire sucking all of my energy. I can't imagine what it would be like if I had kids.
I thought new printers came with half-filled "trial" cartridges?
(Off topic reply to myself...)
Speaking of "Ultranano", I think we need some sort of official ranking of these types of modifiers. Based on my experience in a retail store stocking hair gel, I've come up with the following heirarchy (as applied to hair gel hold strength):
Please make additions or corrections to this list. I think this should become an ISO standard or something.
Ok, seriously, who thought up the name "ultrananocrystalline" ?
This article is a bit confusing. First, of course, diamond is carbon. Solid carbon exists in two forms: diamond and graphite. The carbon bonds in the diamond structure are tetragonal (I think, been a while since chemistry), each carbon being bonded to four others. In the graphite structure, each carbon is bonded to three other co-planar carbons (trigonal planar?). I believe pi bonds form above and below the plane, adding some stability.
With the graphite form, all you can get is planes, tubes, or balls. Graphite is slippery because the intraplanar bonds are strong but the interplanar bonds are weak. The intraplanar grahpite bonds are stronger than the diamond bonds in fact, which is why nanotubes are so strong. With the diamond form, you can only get solid crystalline structures.
The headline is wrong (no surpirse). These are not "diamond nanotubes", but some sort of composite of (presumably) "ultranano" diamond particles and carbon nanotubes. The article doesn't go into much detail, and I don't care to delve any deeper at this point.
Why? Seriously, why? The government is created by its citizens (well, in theory). The patent office is hired by the citizens to review patents. Can we not hire anyone we please? Is the average professional in a particular field somehow unfit to comment on a patent application? The patent office is not exactly doing a bang up job. I think spreading the work around to those actually in the field, rather that expecting an insulated patent reviewer to know all, can be very helpful.