Not absolutely necessary, but it can improve your typing speed. For no extra money, I'd recommend a Dvorak keyboard layout. While most Slashdotters have probably heard of the normal Dvorak layout (which is optimized for two-handed typing), there's two other Dvorak variants, which are specifically designed for both left-handed and right-handed typing. Using the appropriate layout (for whichever hand you still have) may allow you to type faster and more comfortably.
As I said in a lengthy post above, this IS futuristic, and has nothing to do with the 80s. As you said yourself, various companies (including MS) were putting out much more detailed or extravagant logos in the 80s. It was only the cars back then that were plain and ugly and boxy, mainly due to economics I think. There's been a clear trend towards minimalism over the last 20 years; we've seen it in music, typefaces, and user interfaces recently. Music in the 70s and 80s was far more complex and detailed than what we have now. Remember in the 90s when everyone was going nuts downloading tons of fonts? Now everyone just uses Arial. This logo doesn't surprise me at all, it's a sign of the times.
The old MS logo (80-81) that looks like Metallica's old logo (the one they used in the 80s, not the minimalist one they have now), that looks "old". But it also looks good. But people these days don't like stuff like that; they like ultra-simple stuff.
I'm sorry, I completely disagree. You're right about how simple and crappy it is. But go back to the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s; a lot of things were simply better back then, and aesthetics are part of it for many things (maybe not cars in the 70s and 80s though, those sucked). There's been a clear trend towards minimalism I think, and MS's new logo reflects that. Just look at how UI designers are tripping over each other in a mad rush to de-feature everything, and make things as utterly simple as possible, even if that means removing useful functionality.
I don't think there's anything dated at all about the new logo. It's in keeping with everything else these days. There was a lot more eclecticism in prior decades; back then, everyone was worried there'd be a big nuclear war at any time, so people were frequently less conservative as they thought they might as well enjoy life as much as possible since any day might be their last. Nowadays, that threat is gone and America at least seems to be going into ultra-conservative mode. So even adorned typefaces are out; how often do you see any kind of serif-using typefaces used in print? We've all moved to Arial for some time now. Heck, I remember back in the mid-90s when Windows was new, and everyone was downloading all the fonts they could find and playing around with them. Sometimes the results were pretty horrific, but there was a lot of experimentation going on. Now, no one does that, they just use the most basic sans-serif one they can find (which is usually Arial) and leave it at that for everything they ever write. It's no surprise to me that new company logos are reflecting this trend.
What I find really interesting is that the logos have gotten progressively simpler.
But what's really disturbing is that if you look at the voting results on that page, the newest logo (which people are mocking here, rightfully) is easily the most popular. We could theorize that MS has gotten lots of their employees to go stuff the ballot box on that website, but personally, seeing how American society is these days and what people's tastes are, I think that survey is probably pretty accurate.
Did you ever read the news? Please point out all the times where the EC came up with a different result than the popular vote in history. And of all those times, please point out the number of those handful of times where the result was wildly different (i.e., a clear minority rather than a slight minority managed to elect a President).
So basically you mod down things you don't agree with. Isn't that against the Slashdot guidelines? You sound like an ass. You're supposed to mod up things that are insightful/informative, not things you disagree with.
If you fight your tickets, you'll still have to pay court costs. So even if you win, you'll probably be paying around the same amount of money; it's a Pyrrhic victory.
Did you miss the part where the President appoints the justices, and the people elect the President by simple majority? The only way the President goes against the justices is when the people have a change of opinion and elect a President that totally disagrees with the sitting justices (who were appointed before he took office).
I think I might have just pulled over and given my contact info to the people she hit, telling them I'd be happy to testify in court how she was driving recklessly with both hands full of food and a phone, in case they decide to sue her.
The courts are decided by a simple majority. It's indirect and slow, but it is by simple majority (or close): the people elect Presidents and Congresscritters (by majority, though it's slightly different with Presidents and once in a while a minority elects a President). Then Presidents select Supreme Court justices (and also Federal judges), who are approved or rejected by Congress (who also were elected by a majority in every state or congressional district). So if the people decide to elect a President and Congress that stack the courts with right-wing judges who re-interpret the 1A to teach religion somehow, what are you going to do about it? Sue?
It's funny how many people here seem to have blind faith that the Constitution is somehow sacrosanct and unchangeable and can only be interpreted in a way they agree with.
For instance if the argument is made that the First Amendment only applies to Federal Laws and States are allowed to endorse the majority religion/opinion what is to stop States from trampling every other Amendment.
Nothing, nothing at all. But you don't need to go that far to allow teaching Creationism in schools; you can come up with some weaselly interpretation that allows it. Lawyers are great at this kind of things; their whole profession is about twisting language and logic to make up good-sounding arguments (which may or may not have any logic at all) to convince people of their position. They could do this perhaps by referring to it as "Creation Science" like the Creationists do, and then inferring that "Creation Science" is perfectly acceptable in a science class, and that local school boards are allowed to decide which scientists (or "scientists") they decide to listen to when deciding what is and what isn't valid science. You just need 5/9 SCOTUS justices to agree with it, like they did with Citizens United and that other decision allowing municipalities to seize private property by eminent domain and then hand it over at below-market prices to politically-connected corporations, and then it's the Law of the Land until the citizens decide it's crap and elect a different Executive and Legislative branch, and enough justices retire for the court to be stacked with justices of a different persuasion who are also willing to overturn a previous ruling, which will probably take a long time.
I have T-mobile, and my understanding with throttling is that you get X GB (X = 4 I think) of data over 4GB per month, and if you go over that, then they basically lock you out of 4G and drop you to their 2G network.
One thing I don't know is if any data you use at 2G (i.e., you're in a location where the 4G reception is bad or nonexistent) before this cap counts towards this cap or not.
Now watch my prior statement get modded down into oblivion. I have no way to prove this, but I'd be willing to bet that all the people who mod me down are Obama fans. Romney fans are idiots too, but it seems to be the Obama fans that get really upset about any criticism of their hero. A very irrational bunch there.
This shows why using cell phone billing records is totally bogus. Every judge knows that a police officer's word is irrefutable and his judgment accurate beyond compare. If a cop testifies that you were driving too fast, based on nothing more than his visual observation, that's proof positive that you were guilty of speeding.
That's because most cough medicine contains alcohol. The breathalyzers and blood tests don't differentiate artificial cherry flavor vs. the flavorful byproducts of fermented grapes or hops.
I think it depends on the particular controls and how they're all designed.
GPS helps you drive less; it guides you directly to your destination, so you don't drive around in circles looking for it, you don't have to constantly pull over and look at a map, or worse with some people, it keeps them from having a paper map unfolded over their steering wheel where they're trying to look at the unwieldy paper map and drive at the same time (not a common sight these days, but it used to be >10 years ago). The main problem with GPS is people who try to program them while they're driving, and cellphone GPSes which aren't affixed to the dash and aren't that easy to use. I use my cellphone's GPS, and it's much handier than paper maps of course, but it has problems; it has to sit on my leg as I drive, every time I take a corner I have to use one hand to keep it from sliding onto the floor and then getting confused as to which direction we're going, and if I need to change anything as I drive, well obviously that's no different than texting and driving. It doesn't help that the built-in GPS units that come with cars are generally condemned as horrible and obsolete (they never update them, they just expect you to buy a new car every year or two), so they're no better. Some of the built-in ones I've tried on high-end brands like $90k Audis have had absolutely abominable UIs.
Built-in screens aren't supposed to play movies (unless they're in the back seat, out of the driver's view). I'm pretty sure there's a law about that.
The built-in MP3 players in theory shouldn't be any more distracting than any other car radio/CD player. The main problem is the sheer volume of music that can be stored in one, so selecting something may be more distracting than just picking one of a handful of CDs out of your storage bin like in the olden days. But the one big problem I see with some cars is that they're trying to replace all the dashboard functions (stereo, HVAC, etc.) with a single touchscreen with a shitty UI. So instead of using a knob to adjust the fan speed like before, you're expected to navigate menus on a touchscreen to do this. Even if you didn't need to navigate menus, there's no tactile feedback here, so you have to fully concentrate on the touchscreen. It should be pretty obvious how horrible this idea is, but apparently it's not so obvious to Ford, Lincoln, and BMW, who are all pushing systems like this hard. Ford in particular went from a very high position on some "initial quality" surveys to very close to the bottom in a short span of time, all because they started pushing their "MyFordTouch" (by Microsoft) system. I guess a bunch of customers got suckered into it at the dealership, and then after living with it for a few months realized how horrible it is. Also, Ford tries hard to push this system by making it non-optional in the higher trim levels; I was looking at a few models a while ago, and the only way to avoid the MFT system was to get the lower models, but then you lose out on all the nice extras like the upgraded suspension, sunroof, etc.
Wow, what an incredibly dumb comment. Look at the article title: "Hover Bike". Go look up the definition of "hover", as in "hovercraft". They don't need to fly above ground effect, that's the whole point of a hovercraft, is to stay close to the ground but hover enough that you can fly over rough (roadless) terrain and water.
Slashdot Mirror
Not absolutely necessary, but it can improve your typing speed. For no extra money, I'd recommend a Dvorak keyboard layout. While most Slashdotters have probably heard of the normal Dvorak layout (which is optimized for two-handed typing), there's two other Dvorak variants, which are specifically designed for both left-handed and right-handed typing. Using the appropriate layout (for whichever hand you still have) may allow you to type faster and more comfortably.
As I said in a lengthy post above, this IS futuristic, and has nothing to do with the 80s. As you said yourself, various companies (including MS) were putting out much more detailed or extravagant logos in the 80s. It was only the cars back then that were plain and ugly and boxy, mainly due to economics I think. There's been a clear trend towards minimalism over the last 20 years; we've seen it in music, typefaces, and user interfaces recently. Music in the 70s and 80s was far more complex and detailed than what we have now. Remember in the 90s when everyone was going nuts downloading tons of fonts? Now everyone just uses Arial. This logo doesn't surprise me at all, it's a sign of the times.
The old MS logo (80-81) that looks like Metallica's old logo (the one they used in the 80s, not the minimalist one they have now), that looks "old". But it also looks good. But people these days don't like stuff like that; they like ultra-simple stuff.
Anything north of 20 minutes of some graphic designer's lunch break, and they massively overspent.
I'm sorry, I completely disagree. You're right about how simple and crappy it is. But go back to the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s; a lot of things were simply better back then, and aesthetics are part of it for many things (maybe not cars in the 70s and 80s though, those sucked). There's been a clear trend towards minimalism I think, and MS's new logo reflects that. Just look at how UI designers are tripping over each other in a mad rush to de-feature everything, and make things as utterly simple as possible, even if that means removing useful functionality.
I don't think there's anything dated at all about the new logo. It's in keeping with everything else these days. There was a lot more eclecticism in prior decades; back then, everyone was worried there'd be a big nuclear war at any time, so people were frequently less conservative as they thought they might as well enjoy life as much as possible since any day might be their last. Nowadays, that threat is gone and America at least seems to be going into ultra-conservative mode. So even adorned typefaces are out; how often do you see any kind of serif-using typefaces used in print? We've all moved to Arial for some time now. Heck, I remember back in the mid-90s when Windows was new, and everyone was downloading all the fonts they could find and playing around with them. Sometimes the results were pretty horrific, but there was a lot of experimentation going on. Now, no one does that, they just use the most basic sans-serif one they can find (which is usually Arial) and leave it at that for everything they ever write. It's no surprise to me that new company logos are reflecting this trend.
What I find really interesting is that the logos have gotten progressively simpler.
But what's really disturbing is that if you look at the voting results on that page, the newest logo (which people are mocking here, rightfully) is easily the most popular. We could theorize that MS has gotten lots of their employees to go stuff the ballot box on that website, but personally, seeing how American society is these days and what people's tastes are, I think that survey is probably pretty accurate.
Either that or they could get rid of Ballmer!
Hey, shut up! Don't give them any ideas! I'm personally enjoying watching this trainwreck unfold.
False: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college [wikipedia.org] (did you ever take Civics?)
Did you ever read the news? Please point out all the times where the EC came up with a different result than the popular vote in history. And of all those times, please point out the number of those handful of times where the result was wildly different (i.e., a clear minority rather than a slight minority managed to elect a President).
So basically you mod down things you don't agree with. Isn't that against the Slashdot guidelines? You sound like an ass. You're supposed to mod up things that are insightful/informative, not things you disagree with.
If you fight your tickets, you'll still have to pay court costs. So even if you win, you'll probably be paying around the same amount of money; it's a Pyrrhic victory.
Did you miss the part where the President appoints the justices, and the people elect the President by simple majority? The only way the President goes against the justices is when the people have a change of opinion and elect a President that totally disagrees with the sitting justices (who were appointed before he took office).
As another US resident, I agree completely. It's getting worse.
I think I might have just pulled over and given my contact info to the people she hit, telling them I'd be happy to testify in court how she was driving recklessly with both hands full of food and a phone, in case they decide to sue her.
The courts are decided by a simple majority. It's indirect and slow, but it is by simple majority (or close): the people elect Presidents and Congresscritters (by majority, though it's slightly different with Presidents and once in a while a minority elects a President). Then Presidents select Supreme Court justices (and also Federal judges), who are approved or rejected by Congress (who also were elected by a majority in every state or congressional district). So if the people decide to elect a President and Congress that stack the courts with right-wing judges who re-interpret the 1A to teach religion somehow, what are you going to do about it? Sue?
It's funny how many people here seem to have blind faith that the Constitution is somehow sacrosanct and unchangeable and can only be interpreted in a way they agree with.
For instance if the argument is made that the First Amendment only applies to Federal Laws and States are allowed to endorse the majority religion/opinion what is to stop States from trampling every other Amendment.
Nothing, nothing at all. But you don't need to go that far to allow teaching Creationism in schools; you can come up with some weaselly interpretation that allows it. Lawyers are great at this kind of things; their whole profession is about twisting language and logic to make up good-sounding arguments (which may or may not have any logic at all) to convince people of their position. They could do this perhaps by referring to it as "Creation Science" like the Creationists do, and then inferring that "Creation Science" is perfectly acceptable in a science class, and that local school boards are allowed to decide which scientists (or "scientists") they decide to listen to when deciding what is and what isn't valid science. You just need 5/9 SCOTUS justices to agree with it, like they did with Citizens United and that other decision allowing municipalities to seize private property by eminent domain and then hand it over at below-market prices to politically-connected corporations, and then it's the Law of the Land until the citizens decide it's crap and elect a different Executive and Legislative branch, and enough justices retire for the court to be stacked with justices of a different persuasion who are also willing to overturn a previous ruling, which will probably take a long time.
I have T-mobile, and my understanding with throttling is that you get X GB (X = 4 I think) of data over 4GB per month, and if you go over that, then they basically lock you out of 4G and drop you to their 2G network.
One thing I don't know is if any data you use at 2G (i.e., you're in a location where the 4G reception is bad or nonexistent) before this cap counts towards this cap or not.
What does eating on the phone have to do anything? And how would you do that anyway, especially while driving?
I think you might be missing the conclusion from your statement: people in the US are generally lacking the mental capacity to drive a car safely.
I take it you've never heard of a Bluetooth headset?
Now watch my prior statement get modded down into oblivion. I have no way to prove this, but I'd be willing to bet that all the people who mod me down are Obama fans. Romney fans are idiots too, but it seems to be the Obama fans that get really upset about any criticism of their hero. A very irrational bunch there.
A bumper sticker advocating either Romney or Obama is an indicator that the driver of that car is a complete moron.
This shows why using cell phone billing records is totally bogus. Every judge knows that a police officer's word is irrefutable and his judgment accurate beyond compare. If a cop testifies that you were driving too fast, based on nothing more than his visual observation, that's proof positive that you were guilty of speeding.
That's because most cough medicine contains alcohol. The breathalyzers and blood tests don't differentiate artificial cherry flavor vs. the flavorful byproducts of fermented grapes or hops.
I think it depends on the particular controls and how they're all designed.
GPS helps you drive less; it guides you directly to your destination, so you don't drive around in circles looking for it, you don't have to constantly pull over and look at a map, or worse with some people, it keeps them from having a paper map unfolded over their steering wheel where they're trying to look at the unwieldy paper map and drive at the same time (not a common sight these days, but it used to be >10 years ago). The main problem with GPS is people who try to program them while they're driving, and cellphone GPSes which aren't affixed to the dash and aren't that easy to use. I use my cellphone's GPS, and it's much handier than paper maps of course, but it has problems; it has to sit on my leg as I drive, every time I take a corner I have to use one hand to keep it from sliding onto the floor and then getting confused as to which direction we're going, and if I need to change anything as I drive, well obviously that's no different than texting and driving. It doesn't help that the built-in GPS units that come with cars are generally condemned as horrible and obsolete (they never update them, they just expect you to buy a new car every year or two), so they're no better. Some of the built-in ones I've tried on high-end brands like $90k Audis have had absolutely abominable UIs.
Built-in screens aren't supposed to play movies (unless they're in the back seat, out of the driver's view). I'm pretty sure there's a law about that.
The built-in MP3 players in theory shouldn't be any more distracting than any other car radio/CD player. The main problem is the sheer volume of music that can be stored in one, so selecting something may be more distracting than just picking one of a handful of CDs out of your storage bin like in the olden days. But the one big problem I see with some cars is that they're trying to replace all the dashboard functions (stereo, HVAC, etc.) with a single touchscreen with a shitty UI. So instead of using a knob to adjust the fan speed like before, you're expected to navigate menus on a touchscreen to do this. Even if you didn't need to navigate menus, there's no tactile feedback here, so you have to fully concentrate on the touchscreen. It should be pretty obvious how horrible this idea is, but apparently it's not so obvious to Ford, Lincoln, and BMW, who are all pushing systems like this hard. Ford in particular went from a very high position on some "initial quality" surveys to very close to the bottom in a short span of time, all because they started pushing their "MyFordTouch" (by Microsoft) system. I guess a bunch of customers got suckered into it at the dealership, and then after living with it for a few months realized how horrible it is. Also, Ford tries hard to push this system by making it non-optional in the higher trim levels; I was looking at a few models a while ago, and the only way to avoid the MFT system was to get the lower models, but then you lose out on all the nice extras like the upgraded suspension, sunroof, etc.
And as those justices get replaced with more right-wing justices, what's going to stop them from changing things?
Wow, what an incredibly dumb comment. Look at the article title: "Hover Bike". Go look up the definition of "hover", as in "hovercraft". They don't need to fly above ground effect, that's the whole point of a hovercraft, is to stay close to the ground but hover enough that you can fly over rough (roadless) terrain and water.
Where do you get the bare displays like that?