Actually, I think the GP does indeed live in the real world, just not the same one as you.
Ballmer gave what I thought was an interesting answer when Forbes asked whether people will actually be able to use the complex new applications. He said that most people won't, but that some people (like yourself) will be able to do things with them that increase everyone's productivity.
I can see the theory he's using, but I'm afraid where Microsoft has always failed is in addressing the majority of users who need too much of their attention for other things to learn the intricacies of Microsoft applications. I worry that Microsoft has turned office computing into a difficult video game, where some people will get very high scores but some people just want to write memos.
The serious problem with this is that a difficult application creates a lot of frustration. Microsoft seems to ignore this emotional angle, and creates applications that are very capable but which most people are honestly afraid of. This ends up reducing their productivity and eliminating their willingness to explore the rich functionality.
If we want the masses to do interesting, complex things with their documents, we need to carefully consider this emotional aspect. Not that OpenOffice does, of course, but Microsoft's new versions won't be popular if they don't make software that people actually like to use.
Our very own tiny Sun, despite its pitiful density (1.4g/cm3), manages gravitation of 28g at the photosphere. I can't be bothered to calculate the mass of an iron sphere required for the same strength of gravity, but the density of iron is 7.86g/cm3, so let's just assume that it's a LOT less. Denser materials are WAY better at making gravity.
So your ship consists of a propulsion module that is a huge ball of iron with engines, and a crew module that is much smaller. You have a tether between the two to provide an extra gee and a half or so (for more acceleration and the comfort of the occupants) but most of the pull on the crew module is gravity from the ball of iron.
It occurs to me though that a sphere is not the best shape. A proper shape would be more like a deflated ball, since that way your crew module could be closer to the center of mass (which greatly reduces the mass required).
At Earth gravity, you can make it to a tenth of c in a little more than a month. So if you can manage 30g, that's only a day, which is nothing. Besides, the giant piece of iron would help shield the crew module from collisions with random particles.
Besides, stop and think for a minute: 1g is 9.8m/s^2. c is 300,000,000 m/s. Do the math as to how long it would take to reach just 1/10th C without crushing them (relativistic effects are pretty negligable at 1/10th C, so it's just division).
Technically, you must admit that this is relevant only for certain person-acceleration methods (such as today's favorite, mechanical force). If the ship could generate some kind of field that acted equally on all components of a person's mass, then arbitrary levels of acceleration are quite survivable. Of course this is sci-fi mode, but it is at least physically possible.
It IS that simple, and almost everybody DOES do it. A 1995 investment of $500 in something as simple as an S&P 500 index fund would be worth $1300 today. A 1980 investment (only 26 years ago) of $500 would be worth like $6,500.
A company could go completely bust, but currency isn't going to suddenly become worthless, this isn't the 20s.
That's why you don't invest in a single company, but whatever. As for currency, now who's being naïve and idealistic? The US Dollar lost like 20% compared to the Euro within a two year period. Inflation in the USD has only been under control for about 25 years, so in my opinion there isn't enough history to claim that this state of affairs is completely secure. The stock market overall has a more stable long-term history.
Not that the stock market is the be-all and end-all, but to say that it's pointless unless you're wealthy is not supported by the facts.
A lecture class with 300 students is a completely pointless activity, which exists only so that the university can keep your money despite not having the resources to instruct you.
Often students seem to believe that lecture time is when the professor Speaks and the students are supposed to Remember. I'd guess this is due to poor teaching methods in public high schools, where there is a focus on rote.
Ideally the purpose of class time is for the professor to lead the students to understanding. The book has the facts and figures and whatnot, but for many students just reading the book doesn't make things click. Every group of students will need to be led to understanding a slightly different way, and class time with the professor is a chance for that to happen. It's supposed to be a session of brain activity, not mere transcription.
Investing is just gambling, it's not an income unless you're lucky or have insider connections.
Nonsense; investing isn't gambling because it's not a zero-sum game. Speculative investing may be gambling, but diverse long-term investments in solid companies that pay dividends are not. Holding on to meaningless paper dollars or essentially worthless gold? Now THAT is gambling.
Not to mention you already have to be wealthy before investing becomes a viable proposition. Non-rich people can't afford to gamble their life savings.
Again nonsense; investing costs very little, and you have to put your life saving somewhere. Investment of your entire savings in bonds or cash is quite risky as it provides no protection from inflation.
Yeah because having $100 worth of shares in a $10 billion company really gives you a lot of say..
Actually, even owning one share usually means that you can attend stockholder meetings and propose resolutions. Sure, you may get voted down if you're the only share in a billion that feels that particular way, but that's just life.
Seriously, there is no completely safe way to store value for later. All forms are vulnerable to market forces, change, war, politics, mismanagement, and myriad other risks. If you want to defend cash or bonds as the wisest possible investment, you can make that argument in a number of ways, but history does not agree with you.
Hey, the storied search engine has a plain starting screen too. Where this is cool is when you get into the detail page for individual stocks. Check out the price graph, which is much richer than what Yahoo has -- you can hover for the closing price on specific days, click and drag to move around in the history, and zoom however you like.
Go easy on him; it's a common rhetorical tactic to preface an important criticism with an irrelevant compliment. This shows everyone that you are not a zealot.
It's even better if the compliment has no possible association with facts; speculation on a world without Microsoft might be fun, but it's certainly impossible to prove anything.
Well yeah, though that's not the deal in this case. In a broader sense, one does need to pay attention to how companies respond to government requests.
Anyway, I think you make a mistake when you say that nobody is arguing postcards should be illegal. When I see things like "I TOLD YOU SO!" I feel like my choice to use GMail is under criticism. If you accept the postcard analogy, I think this is like someone telling me that I shouldn't use postcards because then I'll come under scrutiny if I choose to use envelopes.
That's the part that doesn't sit so well with me -- the notion that my choice to not use encryption and high-privacy services will bring down suspicion upon those who make a different choice. I don't think that's a very strong argument.
There's plenty wrong with an "ordinary" DVD drive tray. It's inherently more complicated and fragile than a simple mechanical door, so you have to keep it away from children.
When I say "bizarre", I'm referring to the combination of the drive tray and the power button, which you must admit is just strange:
- Power switch on the back turns the unit off, but not on. Doesn't retract the drive tray, unless you flip it to "on" while the tray is out. - Power switch on the front, when pressed, pulls in the drive tray and resets the console. - Power switch on the front turns the unit on, but not off, unless you hold it down, which is as far from obvious as you can get. Also pulls in the tray before turning the unit off, which isn't all that obvious either.
Compare GameCube: - lid button opens the lid. Pushing down on the lid closes the lid. - power button turns the unit off if it's on, and on if it's off. - reset button resets the unit.
Obviously the PS2 is attempting to emulate the behavior of a typical ATX PC at the time, but why? Also, referring to the new PS2 and the current prices isn't so relevant, as the consoles are about to be replaced; the differences between them were more important years ago.
That doesn't even make sense. It's a long-established principle of criminal law everywhere in the world that the prosecution can have access to any relevant information if there is sufficient reason to believe that it might be evidence of criminal activity. The Constitution explicitly allows this.
The case at issue is not a secret wiretap, and going up in arms over this only shows the immaturity of many privacy advocates.
- The controllers (very easy to use and understand, big green main button) - simpler hardware design (mechanical eject lever vs. the bizarre arrangement on the PS2) - four contoller ports, standard - price - first-party game catalog focused on family fun
The problem with this argument is that privacy advocates use it to argue that any service which doesn't follow their rules should not exist at all. Already the market has a wide variety of services, each which strikes a different balance between security, privacy, and convenience. I think it's almost as big of a mistake to argue that postcards should be illegal as to argue that envelopes should be.
In the case under discussion, the emails are being searched under due process and the review of a judge. That's what the framers of the Constitution intended, in my opinion.
Why should I care if they have backups of recipes from my mom? If I was planning the next revolution, I hope I'd use a different kind of communications system, not plan-text emails from a commercial Web provider. Why is it a victory for the "Establishment" if I don't care who reads some of my emails?
Dude, right on this page we have a bunch of people saying that Gates is right, and we have people saying that he's right of the wrong reasons, and we have people saying he's wrong. And we have you saying that there is no diversity of opinion and predicting that everyone will bash Gates. Feeling silly?
Re:The 3 reasons for the iPod's rule
on
iPod Video Dissection
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
As an experiment, I timed myself picking out an arbitrary specific song on my iPod from the "Songs" list. It turned out to be song 458 out of 775 and I reached it within 12 seconds (from the top-level menu, so I'd say I spent about 10 seconds looking for it in the list). Scrolling from the top of that list of 775 to the bottom takes about three seconds. I don't scroll this way very often, as I prefer to play by album or playlist, so I would probably be better at it with practice.
By comparison, typing "something" on my cell phone's predictive text input takes about three seconds (and I use that particular feature all the time).
I'm not saying that you're right or not, I'm just wondering if we can bring facts into the question of whether the iPod provides a quick way to get to songs. I feel that most people don't look for a song this way so often, and that it would be a mistake to design around it. Personally, what I appreciate about the iPod's interface is how easily I can express "give me a mix of band X and band Y" and similar things. That takes me more like 30 seconds, but I'm glad for the expressive power.
Fresh out of the box, an iPod does not have any flash-drive features. You have to turn those on in the iTunes software for your device.
Ah, now I understand your confusion, though not your vitriol. This statement is untrue, though I see where you might have come to believe it.
When iTunes IS installed (but only when it IS), by default it automatically updates and then ejects the iPod when it is connected. To use the iPod as a flash drive, you must configure iTunes to NOT eject the drive by clicking the box that says you want to use the iPod as a flash drive.
This doesn't in any way reconfigure the iPod or change the way it is accessed. Even when iTunes updates the iPod, it's accessing the device as a USB Mass Storage one (or in the case of Firewire, as a regular Firewire disk). There is no voodoo.
As for the proprietary database, I doubt you can suggest any OTHER reason why it's used. The format is simple and was reverse-engineered long before the iPod was even very popular, so it's not as if it's much of a roadblock to people either loading music to the iPod or retrieving music from it.
Your proposed solution would work, obviously, but it doesn't address all of the issues. Consider, for instance, play counts and user ratings, both of which change while on the device and in between syncs. When you connect to your computer, iTunes wants this information, but how would it accomplish that without examining every file on the drive? So you need a database in any case. The cache you speak of adds complexity to the system and doesn't gain anything, in my opinion. Everyone I've seen with a large music collection uses software to manage it anyway, so it's not like the integration between the music device and the management software is unnatural.
I'm sorry that I said "most manufacturers"; I don't have a count, so I can't support the statement. Creative is an example of a manufacturer that takes the same approach. Many manufacturers (including Sony and Creative) have also made non-Mass Storage devices in the past, which makes them much harder to work with than the iPod. Consider PlaysForSure devices, which implement the "Media Transfer Protocol", not Mass Storage.
I think that this sort of statement is a mistake that technical people are prone to. Most of the market seems to understand that visual quality is a matter that depends on the art in question.
Few people would want to watch, say, "Lawrence of Arabia" on VHS. "2001: A Space Odyssey" reportedly suffers in the transition from the original 65mm film to 35mm. But who cares about the resolution of "The Daily Show"? To me, that's like complaining that an audiobook isn't presented in lossless stereo sound.
Most TV shows are not exactly exercises in brilliant cinematography. That's why they are being sold at 320x200.
The Nano, like all other iPods, absolutely works as a mass storage device, with or without drivers. That has always been the case; I'm not sure what the reasons are for your confusion.
You cannot manage the music tracks as if they were files, however. This is a choice made by most manufacturers because the file/folder paradigm does not fit well into a music player interface, where people want to select songs by artist one day and by album the next. The database format is supported by numerous programs besides iTunes, though.
iTunes does not have a "suggestion" feature. You can create playlists based on "most played" or "highest rated" if you choose.
I find the categorization in DNS to be about as useful as the "Subject" header on emails I send to my mom.
It's just not possible on today's Internet to meaningfully separate domains into a handful of arbitrary categories. Useful organization will require a new system; for most people, that system is Google.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think the GP does indeed live in the real world, just not the same one as you.
Ballmer gave what I thought was an interesting answer when Forbes asked whether people will actually be able to use the complex new applications. He said that most people won't, but that some people (like yourself) will be able to do things with them that increase everyone's productivity.
I can see the theory he's using, but I'm afraid where Microsoft has always failed is in addressing the majority of users who need too much of their attention for other things to learn the intricacies of Microsoft applications. I worry that Microsoft has turned office computing into a difficult video game, where some people will get very high scores but some people just want to write memos.
The serious problem with this is that a difficult application creates a lot of frustration. Microsoft seems to ignore this emotional angle, and creates applications that are very capable but which most people are honestly afraid of. This ends up reducing their productivity and eliminating their willingness to explore the rich functionality.
If we want the masses to do interesting, complex things with their documents, we need to carefully consider this emotional aspect. Not that OpenOffice does, of course, but Microsoft's new versions won't be popular if they don't make software that people actually like to use.
Oh, it isn't THAT hard.
Our very own tiny Sun, despite its pitiful density (1.4g/cm3), manages gravitation of 28g at the photosphere. I can't be bothered to calculate the mass of an iron sphere required for the same strength of gravity, but the density of iron is 7.86g/cm3, so let's just assume that it's a LOT less. Denser materials are WAY better at making gravity.
So your ship consists of a propulsion module that is a huge ball of iron with engines, and a crew module that is much smaller. You have a tether between the two to provide an extra gee and a half or so (for more acceleration and the comfort of the occupants) but most of the pull on the crew module is gravity from the ball of iron.
It occurs to me though that a sphere is not the best shape. A proper shape would be more like a deflated ball, since that way your crew module could be closer to the center of mass (which greatly reduces the mass required).
At Earth gravity, you can make it to a tenth of c in a little more than a month. So if you can manage 30g, that's only a day, which is nothing. Besides, the giant piece of iron would help shield the crew module from collisions with random particles.
Besides, stop and think for a minute: 1g is 9.8m/s^2. c is 300,000,000 m/s. Do the math as to how long it would take to reach just 1/10th C without crushing them (relativistic effects are pretty negligable at 1/10th C, so it's just division).
Technically, you must admit that this is relevant only for certain person-acceleration methods (such as today's favorite, mechanical force). If the ship could generate some kind of field that acted equally on all components of a person's mass, then arbitrary levels of acceleration are quite survivable. Of course this is sci-fi mode, but it is at least physically possible.
It IS that simple, and almost everybody DOES do it. A 1995 investment of $500 in something as simple as an S&P 500 index fund would be worth $1300 today. A 1980 investment (only 26 years ago) of $500 would be worth like $6,500.
A company could go completely bust, but currency isn't going to suddenly become worthless, this isn't the 20s.
That's why you don't invest in a single company, but whatever. As for currency, now who's being naïve and idealistic? The US Dollar lost like 20% compared to the Euro within a two year period. Inflation in the USD has only been under control for about 25 years, so in my opinion there isn't enough history to claim that this state of affairs is completely secure. The stock market overall has a more stable long-term history.
Not that the stock market is the be-all and end-all, but to say that it's pointless unless you're wealthy is not supported by the facts.
A lecture class with 300 students is a completely pointless activity, which exists only so that the university can keep your money despite not having the resources to instruct you.
Often students seem to believe that lecture time is when the professor Speaks and the students are supposed to Remember. I'd guess this is due to poor teaching methods in public high schools, where there is a focus on rote.
Ideally the purpose of class time is for the professor to lead the students to understanding. The book has the facts and figures and whatnot, but for many students just reading the book doesn't make things click. Every group of students will need to be led to understanding a slightly different way, and class time with the professor is a chance for that to happen. It's supposed to be a session of brain activity, not mere transcription.
FYI - the new Mac Mini has 4 USB ports, which is two more than the original.
Investing is just gambling, it's not an income unless you're lucky or have insider connections.
Nonsense; investing isn't gambling because it's not a zero-sum game. Speculative investing may be gambling, but diverse long-term investments in solid companies that pay dividends are not. Holding on to meaningless paper dollars or essentially worthless gold? Now THAT is gambling.
Not to mention you already have to be wealthy before investing becomes a viable proposition. Non-rich people can't afford to gamble their life savings.
Again nonsense; investing costs very little, and you have to put your life saving somewhere. Investment of your entire savings in bonds or cash is quite risky as it provides no protection from inflation.
Yeah because having $100 worth of shares in a $10 billion company really gives you a lot of say..
Actually, even owning one share usually means that you can attend stockholder meetings and propose resolutions. Sure, you may get voted down if you're the only share in a billion that feels that particular way, but that's just life.
Seriously, there is no completely safe way to store value for later. All forms are vulnerable to market forces, change, war, politics, mismanagement, and myriad other risks. If you want to defend cash or bonds as the wisest possible investment, you can make that argument in a number of ways, but history does not agree with you.
everyone with a clue knew that about Redhat around version six...
Correction: version 5, which shipped with a very broken beta libc.
Hey, the storied search engine has a plain starting screen too. Where this is cool is when you get into the detail page for individual stocks. Check out the price graph, which is much richer than what Yahoo has -- you can hover for the closing price on specific days, click and drag to move around in the history, and zoom however you like.
Go easy on him; it's a common rhetorical tactic to preface an important criticism with an irrelevant compliment. This shows everyone that you are not a zealot.
It's even better if the compliment has no possible association with facts; speculation on a world without Microsoft might be fun, but it's certainly impossible to prove anything.
Well yeah, though that's not the deal in this case. In a broader sense, one does need to pay attention to how companies respond to government requests.
Anyway, I think you make a mistake when you say that nobody is arguing postcards should be illegal. When I see things like "I TOLD YOU SO!" I feel like my choice to use GMail is under criticism. If you accept the postcard analogy, I think this is like someone telling me that I shouldn't use postcards because then I'll come under scrutiny if I choose to use envelopes.
That's the part that doesn't sit so well with me -- the notion that my choice to not use encryption and high-privacy services will bring down suspicion upon those who make a different choice. I don't think that's a very strong argument.
There's plenty wrong with an "ordinary" DVD drive tray. It's inherently more complicated and fragile than a simple mechanical door, so you have to keep it away from children.
When I say "bizarre", I'm referring to the combination of the drive tray and the power button, which you must admit is just strange:
- Power switch on the back turns the unit off, but not on. Doesn't retract the drive tray, unless you flip it to "on" while the tray is out.
- Power switch on the front, when pressed, pulls in the drive tray and resets the console.
- Power switch on the front turns the unit on, but not off, unless you hold it down, which is as far from obvious as you can get. Also pulls in the tray before turning the unit off, which isn't all that obvious either.
Compare GameCube:
- lid button opens the lid. Pushing down on the lid closes the lid.
- power button turns the unit off if it's on, and on if it's off.
- reset button resets the unit.
Obviously the PS2 is attempting to emulate the behavior of a typical ATX PC at the time, but why? Also, referring to the new PS2 and the current prices isn't so relevant, as the consoles are about to be replaced; the differences between them were more important years ago.
That doesn't even make sense. It's a long-established principle of criminal law everywhere in the world that the prosecution can have access to any relevant information if there is sufficient reason to believe that it might be evidence of criminal activity. The Constitution explicitly allows this.
The case at issue is not a secret wiretap, and going up in arms over this only shows the immaturity of many privacy advocates.
With the GameCube vs PS2, it's:
- The controllers (very easy to use and understand, big green main button)
- simpler hardware design (mechanical eject lever vs. the bizarre arrangement on the PS2)
- four contoller ports, standard
- price
- first-party game catalog focused on family fun
Uhm, duh, before there can be a Star Wars release, George Lucas has to rewrite the script again.
The problem with this argument is that privacy advocates use it to argue that any service which doesn't follow their rules should not exist at all. Already the market has a wide variety of services, each which strikes a different balance between security, privacy, and convenience. I think it's almost as big of a mistake to argue that postcards should be illegal as to argue that envelopes should be.
In the case under discussion, the emails are being searched under due process and the review of a judge. That's what the framers of the Constitution intended, in my opinion.
Why should I care if they have backups of recipes from my mom? If I was planning the next revolution, I hope I'd use a different kind of communications system, not plan-text emails from a commercial Web provider. Why is it a victory for the "Establishment" if I don't care who reads some of my emails?
Dude, right on this page we have a bunch of people saying that Gates is right, and we have people saying that he's right of the wrong reasons, and we have people saying he's wrong. And we have you saying that there is no diversity of opinion and predicting that everyone will bash Gates. Feeling silly?
As an experiment, I timed myself picking out an arbitrary specific song on my iPod from the "Songs" list. It turned out to be song 458 out of 775 and I reached it within 12 seconds (from the top-level menu, so I'd say I spent about 10 seconds looking for it in the list). Scrolling from the top of that list of 775 to the bottom takes about three seconds. I don't scroll this way very often, as I prefer to play by album or playlist, so I would probably be better at it with practice.
By comparison, typing "something" on my cell phone's predictive text input takes about three seconds (and I use that particular feature all the time).
I'm not saying that you're right or not, I'm just wondering if we can bring facts into the question of whether the iPod provides a quick way to get to songs. I feel that most people don't look for a song this way so often, and that it would be a mistake to design around it. Personally, what I appreciate about the iPod's interface is how easily I can express "give me a mix of band X and band Y" and similar things. That takes me more like 30 seconds, but I'm glad for the expressive power.
Fresh out of the box, an iPod does not have any flash-drive features. You have to turn those on in the iTunes software for your device.
Ah, now I understand your confusion, though not your vitriol. This statement is untrue, though I see where you might have come to believe it.
When iTunes IS installed (but only when it IS), by default it automatically updates and then ejects the iPod when it is connected. To use the iPod as a flash drive, you must configure iTunes to NOT eject the drive by clicking the box that says you want to use the iPod as a flash drive.
This doesn't in any way reconfigure the iPod or change the way it is accessed. Even when iTunes updates the iPod, it's accessing the device as a USB Mass Storage one (or in the case of Firewire, as a regular Firewire disk). There is no voodoo.
As for the proprietary database, I doubt you can suggest any OTHER reason why it's used. The format is simple and was reverse-engineered long before the iPod was even very popular, so it's not as if it's much of a roadblock to people either loading music to the iPod or retrieving music from it.
Your proposed solution would work, obviously, but it doesn't address all of the issues. Consider, for instance, play counts and user ratings, both of which change while on the device and in between syncs. When you connect to your computer, iTunes wants this information, but how would it accomplish that without examining every file on the drive? So you need a database in any case. The cache you speak of adds complexity to the system and doesn't gain anything, in my opinion. Everyone I've seen with a large music collection uses software to manage it anyway, so it's not like the integration between the music device and the management software is unnatural.
I'm sorry that I said "most manufacturers"; I don't have a count, so I can't support the statement. Creative is an example of a manufacturer that takes the same approach. Many manufacturers (including Sony and Creative) have also made non-Mass Storage devices in the past, which makes them much harder to work with than the iPod. Consider PlaysForSure devices, which implement the "Media Transfer Protocol", not Mass Storage.
I think that this sort of statement is a mistake that technical people are prone to. Most of the market seems to understand that visual quality is a matter that depends on the art in question.
Few people would want to watch, say, "Lawrence of Arabia" on VHS. "2001: A Space Odyssey" reportedly suffers in the transition from the original 65mm film to 35mm. But who cares about the resolution of "The Daily Show"? To me, that's like complaining that an audiobook isn't presented in lossless stereo sound.
Most TV shows are not exactly exercises in brilliant cinematography. That's why they are being sold at 320x200.
The Nano, like all other iPods, absolutely works as a mass storage device, with or without drivers. That has always been the case; I'm not sure what the reasons are for your confusion.
You cannot manage the music tracks as if they were files, however. This is a choice made by most manufacturers because the file/folder paradigm does not fit well into a music player interface, where people want to select songs by artist one day and by album the next. The database format is supported by numerous programs besides iTunes, though.
iTunes does not have a "suggestion" feature. You can create playlists based on "most played" or "highest rated" if you choose.
No, that's because the system is being run by committee, and thus the changes implemented are by nature of the process completely pointless.
I find the categorization in DNS to be about as useful as the "Subject" header on emails I send to my mom.
It's just not possible on today's Internet to meaningfully separate domains into a handful of arbitrary categories. Useful organization will require a new system; for most people, that system is Google.