Fatigue: it costs more energy to move your whole arm and body to touch a screen than it takes to move a mouse pointer. That's what the article covers.
Not if you can rest the arm on the screen, just like you do on a drafting table.
Precision: You lose precision, even with a perfectly healthy human being, a fingerprint has a bigger surface than a pixel-perfect pointer,
A mouse just translates finger movements into pointer movements; you can do the same thing on a touch screen. There is no need to always put the mouse pointer exactly under the finger. You can put a small arrow diagonally offset from the finger, or you can even use the midpoint between multiple fingers for very precise positioning. You potentially end up with more precision than with a mouse.
There is no intrinsic problem with touch. The problem is with Windows 8's poor execution of it. But bad implementation of touch is not even the worst of Windows 8; where Windows 8 really fails completely is in its lack of indications of where users can interact with the UI and in its lousy integration between the old and the new UI.
Many people spend entire workdays at drafting desks. In principle, that's a perfectly fine way of working; of course, hardware manufacturers need to catch up.
Windows 8's problem isn't its support for touch, it's its poor UI and bad integration of the legacy cruft with the new UI. Shame, too, because Microsoft had a real opportunity to change things for the better.
"Responsible disclosure" is nice. But what about holding banks and businesses responsible for the harm they are causing when their security practices fail? What about the worry and wasted time they cause to customers? What about compensating the victims of identity theft due to sloppy security practices? Businesses seem to be able to screw up arbitrarily without a lot of consequences right now.
I would. $200 annually over 40 years at 5% is about $25000. That is in addition to home owner's insurance (which would cover or avoid many of these costs in other countries). And what is actually covered is complex to figure out. For example, if you get sued for something that required intent, your costs are generally not covered by legal insurance even if you are eventually found innocent.
Germany has this system ("loser pays"). It means that the risk when getting sued is even higher than in the US, because if you defend yourself against an accusation and fail, you have to cover the opponent's costs and court costs (up to some statutory limits) as well. The statutory fees themselves become a means of blackmailing people legally. There is a "pool" to cover this: legal insurance. Both businesses and private individuals have it, but it's expensive, and it may still not cover the costs. In different words: your ideas have been tried and they just don't work.
Quite different, actually. There is little in the Bible that outright contradicts archaeology or history, and mainstream Christianity assumes that the Bible was written and translated by humans. Although there is lots of nonsense in the Bible, Christianity at least has wiggle room to explain it away. LDS has no such wiggle room.
I don't think we're talking centuries here. I'd be surprised if we didn't start mining asteroids within 30 years.
I used to think that one needed a large infrastructure to make electronics, robots, etc., but I think that need is disappearing as well, with the ability to print electronics and additive manufacturing. An M-type asteroid is almost ideal as raw material for that.
Yes, you use robotic probes to attach engines, move M-type (metal) asteroids close to earth and then can start building to your heart's content. The Nickel-Iron alloy they are composed of is an excellent material that requires little further processing.
What makes you think nobody lives in the Gobi desert? There are lots of towns and roads there. Right smack in the middle is Sainshand, a city of 25000 with a railway station; have a look on Google Maps. An hour south is a centuries-old Buddhist monastery.
It's the same with the Sahara and deserts in the US. There is a ranch right in Death Valley in Furnace Creek (guess where that got its name). And just because you find it "ugly" doesn't mean everybody does.
Planetary surfaces are harsh and unpredictable. I think it's easier to live in space itself than in Antarctica, on the ocean, or another planet. The only problems you have are radiation and micrometeorites, and they can be easily shielded against. The only real problem is getting into space.
Just to follow up on that, rotating tethers for space launches are called skyhooks.
But why would you even want to launch a lot of stuff right now? Almost everything you need is already in space and available easily. I think we'll start mining asteroids with existing rockets and robotic probes. Once we have those raw materials, constructing elaborate lifting systems can be done from orbit using vast amounts of steel and other resources.
How was Smith's con any different from Hubbard's? The Book of Mormon makes numerous statements about history and archaeology that are clearly and objectively false, yet Mormons claim it was received directly from God and translated with divine aid. There is no possible explanation other than that is a forgery. And that conclusion isn't even taking into account Smith's personal history.
Yes, we're talking about white LEDs and lighting applications. And who cares about "internal quantum efficiency"? That has little to do with how efficient the thing actually generates light.
The difference is that, right now, the burden of proof is on the person challenging the patent (presumption of validity), so patents are extremely hard and expensive to overturn. The burden of proof should be on the person asking for the patent when challenged in court.
In different words, it would be "just like now", but what actually happens during the lawsuit would be very different.
1) SecureBoot has no bias towards Windows or OpenSource. The only "issue" is how to manage the certs.
Yes, it does have a bias against open source because it is difficult in practice for open source software to do this kind of signing, and because it actually allows manufacturers to control what gets installed on a system.
Note that on ARM, Microsoft uses SecureBoot to exclude other operating systems.
2) SecureBoot was ratified over 4 years ago. Why did they take so long to complain?
People have been complaining about it from the start.
3) SecureBoot is just a dumb system that makes sure the executing boot code has a trusted signature.
And it happens to also give MIcrosoft a market advantage.
4) Linux seems to have bad relations with BIOS makers. Linux was having ACPI issues and eventually MS has to step in and help them by showing the work-aroundw that MS figured out because hardware manufactures not following the specs. MS learned that companies don't always follow specs.
You make it sound like the Linux developers behaved unprofessionally and a Microsoft stepped in as an adult to bmake people behave properly.
In fact, manufacturers who don't follow the specs are unprofessional, and Microsoft likes such standards deviations because they help with lock-in.
It's analogous in that there are some reasons for both to be complicated. It's not analogous in that when software developers make software unnecessarily complex to increase demand for their services, people may just go off and buy simpler software from another vendor. When lawyers make laws unnecessarily complex, you don't have a choice, you are stuck with them.
The culture encourages them to resolve matters peacefully without bothering others.
I think "encourages" is an understatement. Japan is a society that values obedience, hierarchy, and social control pretty much above all else. "Resolving matters peacefully" means quietly giving in to whatever someone above you in the hierarchy demands, instead of justice.
The US has one of the highes proportions of lawyers per capita, with about 300 lawyers per hundred thousand, compared with Japan's seven. Even Britain only has a third as many lawyers.
Yes, my country has a smaller proportion of lawyers too, than either the US or the UK (which is where you seem to be from). It sucks. It means that if you need legal representation for anything, a contract drawn, or get a copyright infringement letter in the mail, it's hard to find anybody competent willing to represent you. The only people who can afford lawyers are the wealthy and big corporations, and they use their legal staff to walk all over people.
Those lawyers need employment, preferably high paid, and will encourage litigation.
You don't seem to understand the law of supply and demand. Prices for lawyers are high because there is a high demand for them and little supply. That's no accident, unlike you, they do actually understand basic economics.
And when prices are high, it means only people with money can afford services, which also means that people with little money have no way of defending themselves.
I doubt people would much notice a doubling of smart device costs. Prices have come down so dramatically that that would just take us back to the situation of a few years ago.
They get asked to file suits, to draft legislation, to represent the interests of clients.
Well, one actual problem with lawyers is that they have written legislation to benefit their own profession (not surprising), and that they have created steep barriers to entry. That's what people really should be complaining about: licensing requirements and the high proportion of lawyers in legislatures.
Lawyers (and judges) do what they are supposed to do: they make sure that the law is implemented as written. If politicians make stupid laws, then lawyers implement stupid laws. Do you really want to live in a world where lawyers, who are unaccountable to anybody, actually decide which laws to follow and which to ignore?
Corporations pay lots of taxes, but they are mostly local taxes (e.g., on property) and state taxes (e.g., on sales). Those are incidentally also taxes that go to services corporations actually need and want from their community. They pay even more taxes indirectly through personal income tax, because they need to adjust their salaries accordingly.
What corporations are avoiding is federal taxation. They can do that because there is really very little they get for high federal taxes.
And there is little governments can do about it. We've entered an age where corporations (and increasingly individuals) look at nations like shoppers look at products: cost, service, and performance. Politicians better get used to it, because there is not a whole lot they can do about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if you can rest the arm on the screen, just like you do on a drafting table.
A mouse just translates finger movements into pointer movements; you can do the same thing on a touch screen. There is no need to always put the mouse pointer exactly under the finger. You can put a small arrow diagonally offset from the finger, or you can even use the midpoint between multiple fingers for very precise positioning. You potentially end up with more precision than with a mouse.
There is no intrinsic problem with touch. The problem is with Windows 8's poor execution of it. But bad implementation of touch is not even the worst of Windows 8; where Windows 8 really fails completely is in its lack of indications of where users can interact with the UI and in its lousy integration between the old and the new UI.
Many people spend entire workdays at drafting desks. In principle, that's a perfectly fine way of working; of course, hardware manufacturers need to catch up.
Windows 8's problem isn't its support for touch, it's its poor UI and bad integration of the legacy cruft with the new UI. Shame, too, because Microsoft had a real opportunity to change things for the better.
"Responsible disclosure" is nice. But what about holding banks and businesses responsible for the harm they are causing when their security practices fail? What about the worry and wasted time they cause to customers? What about compensating the victims of identity theft due to sloppy security practices? Businesses seem to be able to screw up arbitrarily without a lot of consequences right now.
I would. $200 annually over 40 years at 5% is about $25000. That is in addition to home owner's insurance (which would cover or avoid many of these costs in other countries). And what is actually covered is complex to figure out. For example, if you get sued for something that required intent, your costs are generally not covered by legal insurance even if you are eventually found innocent.
Germany has this system ("loser pays"). It means that the risk when getting sued is even higher than in the US, because if you defend yourself against an accusation and fail, you have to cover the opponent's costs and court costs (up to some statutory limits) as well. The statutory fees themselves become a means of blackmailing people legally. There is a "pool" to cover this: legal insurance. Both businesses and private individuals have it, but it's expensive, and it may still not cover the costs. In different words: your ideas have been tried and they just don't work.
Quite different, actually. There is little in the Bible that outright contradicts archaeology or history, and mainstream Christianity assumes that the Bible was written and translated by humans. Although there is lots of nonsense in the Bible, Christianity at least has wiggle room to explain it away. LDS has no such wiggle room.
I don't think we're talking centuries here. I'd be surprised if we didn't start mining asteroids within 30 years.
I used to think that one needed a large infrastructure to make electronics, robots, etc., but I think that need is disappearing as well, with the ability to print electronics and additive manufacturing. An M-type asteroid is almost ideal as raw material for that.
Oxygen is easy to generate if you have sun and water, and there's plenty of that.
And space isn't "cold" (that's a common misconception). Overheating is more of a problem (but a manageable one).
Yes, you use robotic probes to attach engines, move M-type (metal) asteroids close to earth and then can start building to your heart's content. The Nickel-Iron alloy they are composed of is an excellent material that requires little further processing.
What makes you think nobody lives in the Gobi desert? There are lots of towns and roads there. Right smack in the middle is Sainshand, a city of 25000 with a railway station; have a look on Google Maps. An hour south is a centuries-old Buddhist monastery.
It's the same with the Sahara and deserts in the US. There is a ranch right in Death Valley in Furnace Creek (guess where that got its name). And just because you find it "ugly" doesn't mean everybody does.
Planetary surfaces are harsh and unpredictable. I think it's easier to live in space itself than in Antarctica, on the ocean, or another planet. The only problems you have are radiation and micrometeorites, and they can be easily shielded against. The only real problem is getting into space.
Just to follow up on that, rotating tethers for space launches are called skyhooks.
But why would you even want to launch a lot of stuff right now? Almost everything you need is already in space and available easily. I think we'll start mining asteroids with existing rockets and robotic probes. Once we have those raw materials, constructing elaborate lifting systems can be done from orbit using vast amounts of steel and other resources.
How was Smith's con any different from Hubbard's? The Book of Mormon makes numerous statements about history and archaeology that are clearly and objectively false, yet Mormons claim it was received directly from God and translated with divine aid. There is no possible explanation other than that is a forgery. And that conclusion isn't even taking into account Smith's personal history.
Yes, we're talking about white LEDs and lighting applications. And who cares about "internal quantum efficiency"? That has little to do with how efficient the thing actually generates light.
The difference is that, right now, the burden of proof is on the person challenging the patent (presumption of validity), so patents are extremely hard and expensive to overturn. The burden of proof should be on the person asking for the patent when challenged in court.
In different words, it would be "just like now", but what actually happens during the lawsuit would be very different.
Yes, it does have a bias against open source because it is difficult in practice for open source software to do this kind of signing, and because it actually allows manufacturers to control what gets installed on a system.
Note that on ARM, Microsoft uses SecureBoot to exclude other operating systems.
People have been complaining about it from the start.
And it happens to also give MIcrosoft a market advantage.
You make it sound like the Linux developers behaved unprofessionally and a Microsoft stepped in as an adult to bmake people behave properly.
In fact, manufacturers who don't follow the specs are unprofessional, and Microsoft likes such standards deviations because they help with lock-in.
I prefer petaflops. Lots of them.
Wikipedia has a list of luminous efficacies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy
200 lm/W seems pretty good; the theoretical limit is around 300 lm/W for LEDs, and that's about 44% overall efficiency.
It's analogous in that there are some reasons for both to be complicated. It's not analogous in that when software developers make software unnecessarily complex to increase demand for their services, people may just go off and buy simpler software from another vendor. When lawyers make laws unnecessarily complex, you don't have a choice, you are stuck with them.
I think "encourages" is an understatement. Japan is a society that values obedience, hierarchy, and social control pretty much above all else. "Resolving matters peacefully" means quietly giving in to whatever someone above you in the hierarchy demands, instead of justice.
Yes, my country has a smaller proportion of lawyers too, than either the US or the UK (which is where you seem to be from). It sucks. It means that if you need legal representation for anything, a contract drawn, or get a copyright infringement letter in the mail, it's hard to find anybody competent willing to represent you. The only people who can afford lawyers are the wealthy and big corporations, and they use their legal staff to walk all over people.
You don't seem to understand the law of supply and demand. Prices for lawyers are high because there is a high demand for them and little supply. That's no accident, unlike you, they do actually understand basic economics.
And when prices are high, it means only people with money can afford services, which also means that people with little money have no way of defending themselves.
I doubt people would much notice a doubling of smart device costs. Prices have come down so dramatically that that would just take us back to the situation of a few years ago.
Well, one actual problem with lawyers is that they have written legislation to benefit their own profession (not surprising), and that they have created steep barriers to entry. That's what people really should be complaining about: licensing requirements and the high proportion of lawyers in legislatures.
Lawyers (and judges) do what they are supposed to do: they make sure that the law is implemented as written. If politicians make stupid laws, then lawyers implement stupid laws. Do you really want to live in a world where lawyers, who are unaccountable to anybody, actually decide which laws to follow and which to ignore?
Corporations pay lots of taxes, but they are mostly local taxes (e.g., on property) and state taxes (e.g., on sales). Those are incidentally also taxes that go to services corporations actually need and want from their community. They pay even more taxes indirectly through personal income tax, because they need to adjust their salaries accordingly.
What corporations are avoiding is federal taxation. They can do that because there is really very little they get for high federal taxes.
And there is little governments can do about it. We've entered an age where corporations (and increasingly individuals) look at nations like shoppers look at products: cost, service, and performance. Politicians better get used to it, because there is not a whole lot they can do about it.