How is trying to replicate the natural interface that we use every day a dumb idea?
Items in the real world take up a physical space. Which makes a TON of items (i.e. computer files) take a TON of space. Imagine if you could visualize your entire 160 GB hard drive as real world documents and books. That would take ages to keep organized and be horrible to look up! Instead we're using icons we can click on and navigate to in maybe 1-10 seconds. Computers use much more efficient and flexible metaphors than actual real world items. A 2D desktop is in my opinion often *more* advanced than a 3D desktop. We remove a redundant dimension to reach the information faster.
As long as you can navigate faster and easier with it (after some adjustment period of course), I'm all for it!
However, 3D desktops usually fall because of usability problems. Not really surprising, as most people (I know there are peculiar non-standard devices that deviate) are still using a 2D device (mouse) to visualize information on a 2D surface (monitor) to navigate in a 3D environment. Guess where the obstacle / incompatiblity with the I/O devices usually lies...:-P
1. It's the most common OS in the market. 2. You get what you pay for! And you pay a lot. 3. Dodging exploits is exciting. 4. SCO doesn't have anything against it. 5. The guy designing it became the richest man in the world, so it must be good. 6. It hasn't got a silly penguin logo, but a much more exciting four-color Windows flag. 7. Paper clips are your friends. You have no such friends in Linux. 8. It has a puppy to help you search files. Linux has no such puppies, so you don't search as well.
Array names don't get a suffix, since they're not really pointers.
If you're programming C, I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. Array variables points to the first element in the array. Trying to make them something else, well that would be misleading to me.
I personally like the hungarian notation, but I think it's taken a bit to the extreme. I prefix variables but try to keep it to the minimum. I've found that usually it's enough with p (pointers), i (integers), f (float or double), and s (strings). Since I usually use the same kind of string, I find it pretty useless to be as detailed in whether it's zero terminated or not when it always is in the entire application, etc...
Neither do you say "just cola" when you tell someone to get something to drink. I think this is just an irrelevant minor advantage Google has, and we will once again see proof that Internet is the most fluctuating medium in the world by the next generation shift in search engine technology. We have basically only had one yet when Google entered the scene.
Google has been pushed into the common vocabulary, like Hoover has for vacuum cleaners and Coke has for soft drinks. It has mind share, and a lot of it.
Google will always reign supreme, definitely.
Yes, most people will carry on using Google... The question is for how long. An eternity is a damn long time, and I think we'll see a very competing search engine in at least a decade or so. I think it's likely this one will be MSN because of Microsoft's dominance in the business.
I'm already seeing the downfall of Google in some areas, where many searches I do just return commercial sites which are trying to fool Google. Google tries to fight this by tweaking their ranking algorithm -- usually unsucessfully so far. I think they need to do some major revisions to their ranking system to reclaim their throne in next generation search engines. I highly doubt Google is the Ultimate Search Engine there'll ever be. What do I now... Maybe we have barely seen anything yet.
This is a fantastic idea for a realistic idea of how great the distances are from planet to planet, and from earth to the sun, but that is about the only thing I can see this being used for. I see this as an over-rated tourist attraction more than anything.
Of course it is. That's probably the intention too. It remains to be seen if it's overrated, but of course it wasn't made for scientific purposes.:-P
No. It isn't. If we as a society can not protect and do what is right for the weakest amongst us, then are we truely a civilized society?
I agree.
However, the question in this case is: Is this what's right to do for the weakest among us? Where should we draw the line? How much suffering should we be allowed to force (yes, since these babies can't be asked) newborn children to have?
The problem as *I* see it is that these parents can doom this child for a very trobled future. I wonder how much the parents have reflected not over *their* feelings, but over the *childs* feelings. By doing what they are, they're saying: YES, you should have 8 organs replaced with all the implications this can cause, and YES, you should grow up on anti-rejection medicines, and YES you should have a high risk of dying in a near future. These decisions were all made by the parents before this child was even born, as the observations was made while she was in her womb.
that may be the case but for some people there is no substitute for lossless, full cd-quality recordings. until they offer that, on-line music with or without drm isn't of much interest to me. ---- i'd even be happy with a service that lets you buy a good-quality encoded copy on-line, and then sends the full-quality version on cd via mail or whatever. ---- i want the immediacy of an on-line transaction (download OGG), plus the comfort of knowing i will always have a full-quality version available
... we don't censor programs even if they're aimed quite a lot for children and people swear in them. And the fucking kids still don't swear much more/less than in other places. I think it has a fucking lot to do with how they're raised by the parents. But sure, if the babysitter AND parent is the fucking TV, I can imagine how things might end. But as long as they have a normal fucking childhood, I think censoring programs are a fucking waste of time.
Sorry -- I meant to tell how this relates to this WoW news. Well, I personally like non-pay to play games, and these guys should stand for similar polish as Blizzard is known for. It has several things in common with Diablo II as well, so it could finally become the D2 killer I've been waiting for. Scheduled for release Q3 this year.
Developed by ex-Blizzard employees, and in the same spirit as Battle.net in terms of a free multiplayer service. New extra features can be bought (this is how the MMOG is financed), but they won't be necessary to play with those who have them.
It has pretty graphics too.:-) The gallery is all unretouched graphics with interesting lightning effects making some people think they were post-processed.
Yes, this is usually how it's done. It would be unmanagable with a million beta testers.
Blizzard themselves admitted this problem though and said it was because they had anticipated more players to go single player first. (remember it was released when analog modems were still most common) Instead, an overwhelming amount of players went online.
They won't have this problem this time around, since they know everyone will play online from the start and should be able to dimension the server capacity easier.
Are you sure about that? I thought it was signs of some *software* breaking down. Keep in mind that the vast majority of regular users who doesn't have much insight in security are coincidentally also using one of the least secure operating systems with Internet access.
Maybe the inter... ahem, software would heal with new development philosophies?
I don't like a mobile TLD because companies have to register it so others won't take it and confuse their customers. It's also much cheaper for the company foo.com to make mob.foo.com instead of registering foo.mob. With the nice side effect that no cybersquatter can grab mob.foo.com.
Well, maybe what they should do is a model number that have no relationship to its performance. Just pick arbitrary cool numbers like "Intel P100A" with "P" for "Processor", and "100A" for the first processor in a "100-series", etc.
Same goes for AMD btw. I think it would be good if there was NO CLUE given in the processor mode name of their performance (other than that "this 200 series is much better than the former 100 series!"). That would force the customers to actually look which is better and not be fooled by the designers. But it's probably bad from the company's marketing perspective...
Slashdot Mirror
I find all the IE replacements I have tried try to do too much, or have interfaces that are too cluttered
You know... This Hotmail / Yahoo exploit appeared because IE could do too much. Ironic huh?
If you think he was saying taking lives is as bad as bundling software, you're entirely missing the point...
How is trying to replicate the natural interface that we use every day a dumb idea?
Items in the real world take up a physical space. Which makes a TON of items (i.e. computer files) take a TON of space. Imagine if you could visualize your entire 160 GB hard drive as real world documents and books. That would take ages to keep organized and be horrible to look up! Instead we're using icons we can click on and navigate to in maybe 1-10 seconds. Computers use much more efficient and flexible metaphors than actual real world items. A 2D desktop is in my opinion often *more* advanced than a 3D desktop. We remove a redundant dimension to reach the information faster.
I believe the ultimate goal of Linux desktops should be to make the computer as easy to use as a Mac.
:-)
Why not easier?
As long as you can navigate faster and easier with it (after some adjustment period of course), I'm all for it!
:-P
However, 3D desktops usually fall because of usability problems. Not really surprising, as most people (I know there are peculiar non-standard devices that deviate) are still using a 2D device (mouse) to visualize information on a 2D surface (monitor) to navigate in a 3D environment. Guess where the obstacle / incompatiblity with the I/O devices usually lies...
1. It's the most common OS in the market.
2. You get what you pay for! And you pay a lot.
3. Dodging exploits is exciting.
4. SCO doesn't have anything against it.
5. The guy designing it became the richest man in the world, so it must be good.
6. It hasn't got a silly penguin logo, but a much more exciting four-color Windows flag.
7. Paper clips are your friends. You have no such friends in Linux.
8. It has a puppy to help you search files. Linux has no such puppies, so you don't search as well.
Array names don't get a suffix, since they're not really pointers.
If you're programming C, I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. Array variables points to the first element in the array. Trying to make them something else, well that would be misleading to me.
I personally like the hungarian notation, but I think it's taken a bit to the extreme. I prefix variables but try to keep it to the minimum. I've found that usually it's enough with p (pointers), i (integers), f (float or double), and s (strings). Since I usually use the same kind of string, I find it pretty useless to be as detailed in whether it's zero terminated or not when it always is in the entire application, etc...
Will people still continue to use Google because it's entrenched in their brains?
Not me
Will people say Google and mean another search engine?
No
But then again, maybe I belong to a minority.
Neither do you say "just cola" when you tell someone to get something to drink. I think this is just an irrelevant minor advantage Google has, and we will once again see proof that Internet is the most fluctuating medium in the world by the next generation shift in search engine technology. We have basically only had one yet when Google entered the scene.
Google has been pushed into the common vocabulary, like Hoover has for vacuum cleaners and Coke has for soft drinks. It has mind share, and a lot of it.
Google will always reign supreme, definitely.
Yes, most people will carry on using Google... The question is for how long. An eternity is a damn long time, and I think we'll see a very competing search engine in at least a decade or so. I think it's likely this one will be MSN because of Microsoft's dominance in the business.
I'm already seeing the downfall of Google in some areas, where many searches I do just return commercial sites which are trying to fool Google. Google tries to fight this by tweaking their ranking algorithm -- usually unsucessfully so far. I think they need to do some major revisions to their ranking system to reclaim their throne in next generation search engines. I highly doubt Google is the Ultimate Search Engine there'll ever be. What do I now... Maybe we have barely seen anything yet.
This is a fantastic idea for a realistic idea of how great the distances are from planet to planet, and from earth to the sun, but that is about the only thing I can see this being used for. I see this as an over-rated tourist attraction more than anything.
:-P
Of course it is. That's probably the intention too. It remains to be seen if it's overrated, but of course it wasn't made for scientific purposes.
Yeah, it's funny like hell that the system allows for this behavior to go on and on and on.
No. It isn't. If we as a society can not protect and do what is right for the weakest amongst us, then are we truely a civilized society?
I agree.
However, the question in this case is: Is this what's right to do for the weakest among us? Where should we draw the line? How much suffering should we be allowed to force (yes, since these babies can't be asked) newborn children to have?
The problem as *I* see it is that these parents can doom this child for a very trobled future. I wonder how much the parents have reflected not over *their* feelings, but over the *childs* feelings. By doing what they are, they're saying: YES, you should have 8 organs replaced with all the implications this can cause, and YES, you should grow up on anti-rejection medicines, and YES you should have a high risk of dying in a near future. These decisions were all made by the parents before this child was even born, as the observations was made while she was in her womb.
Now, that can be pretty heartless to me.
the creatures will always look fake for the mere fact that at some level we know the coloring's off from the real world.
That sounds impossible to me since TV doesn't output this 512-bit color, yet "real world" TV shows look perfectly real to me.
I also haven't heard about this 512-bit color anywhere -- care to point to a link detailing this?
that may be the case but for some people there is no substitute for lossless, full cd-quality recordings. until they offer that, on-line music with or without drm isn't of much interest to me.
----
i'd even be happy with a service that lets you buy a good-quality encoded copy on-line, and then sends the full-quality version on cd via mail or whatever.
----
i want the immediacy of an on-line transaction (download OGG), plus the comfort of knowing i will always have a full-quality version available
The solution for you already exist...
... we don't censor programs even if they're aimed quite a lot for children and people swear in them. And the fucking kids still don't swear much more/less than in other places. I think it has a fucking lot to do with how they're raised by the parents. But sure, if the babysitter AND parent is the fucking TV, I can imagine how things might end. But as long as they have a normal fucking childhood, I think censoring programs are a fucking waste of time.
Sorry -- I meant to tell how this relates to this WoW news. Well, I personally like non-pay to play games, and these guys should stand for similar polish as Blizzard is known for. It has several things in common with Diablo II as well, so it could finally become the D2 killer I've been waiting for. Scheduled for release Q3 this year.
Anyone noticed Guild Wars?
:-) The gallery is all unretouched graphics with interesting lightning effects making some people think they were post-processed.
Developed by ex-Blizzard employees, and in the same spirit as Battle.net in terms of a free multiplayer service. New extra features can be bought (this is how the MMOG is financed), but they won't be necessary to play with those who have them.
It has pretty graphics too.
Yes, this is usually how it's done. It would be unmanagable with a million beta testers.
Blizzard themselves admitted this problem though and said it was because they had anticipated more players to go single player first. (remember it was released when analog modems were still most common) Instead, an overwhelming amount of players went online.
They won't have this problem this time around, since they know everyone will play online from the start and should be able to dimension the server capacity easier.
Are you sure about that? I thought it was signs of some *software* breaking down. Keep in mind that the vast majority of regular users who doesn't have much insight in security are coincidentally also using one of the least secure operating systems with Internet access.
Maybe the inter... ahem, software would heal with new development philosophies?
I don't like a mobile TLD because companies have to register it so others won't take it and confuse their customers. It's also much cheaper for the company foo.com to make mob.foo.com instead of registering foo.mob. With the nice side effect that no cybersquatter can grab mob.foo.com.
I think these are more useful...
- * @ 216.250.130.37
- * @ 131.107.8.43
Seems like webmasters use the VBscript to do browser detection, and forget about a minor little non-MS browser called Safari.
Eh, isn't the VBScript code just run on the IIS server?
Well, maybe what they should do is a model number that have no relationship to its performance. Just pick arbitrary cool numbers like "Intel P100A" with "P" for "Processor", and "100A" for the first processor in a "100-series", etc.
Same goes for AMD btw. I think it would be good if there was NO CLUE given in the processor mode name of their performance (other than that "this 200 series is much better than the former 100 series!"). That would force the customers to actually look which is better and not be fooled by the designers. But it's probably bad from the company's marketing perspective...