"What, seeing the file disappear from one folder and reappear in another not enough visual feedback for you?"
If the operation is not instant then yes, it is insufficient.
"No, it was not. Hover over your selection, the information window pops up. Oh, look, length, file size, type, resolution if an image/video, etc."
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was talking about having information reported on the selection, not individual files, which is what the tooltip will show. Information about the selection is shown in the "Status Bar" at the bottom of the window, yet in Win7 this is hidden by default. There is some more information about this issue here. It would be nice if there was information about multiple folders. Currently there is no way to learn the size of a selection of multiple folders in the Windows File Explorer. The only way to do it is to make a new folder, move your folders of interest into it, and then right click on that new folder and choose "Properties".
"Their file explorer GUI is absolutely incredible, for instance."
You're taking the piss right?
The file explorer is as simple and bare-bones as it can get, and yet it still has massive problems. These may not affect all users, but the forums are "full enough" to justify a fix.
These are really basic operations. The most frustrating is the refresh bug, and second to this is the slow response to move or delete a folder: it should be instant to write the inode and tell the filesystem that the folder is in a new location.
On top of these major issues, here is a list of features that would be really nice in a file explorer, and while we may disagree, I don't think these are power-user items:
1) Allow a copy/move operation to be paused. 2) Allow a move operation to be undone with visual feedback (hitting CTRL+Z will undo a move, but it's a silent operation) 3) Stack concurrent move/copy operations based on disk IO: in other words, if I am already moving data from a USB drive and then start a second operation, queue it rather than start it immediately. 4) When a copy/move operation encounters an error DO NOT FAIL SILENTLY. Anyone who has left a large network transfer to finish, and returned to no dialog and assumed that it finished, when really it failed and only some of the data was moved/copied, knows the pain of which I speak. 5) When making a selection, show some useful information about the selection, such as how many items are selected and how large the selection is. This used to be shown in the status strip in XP, but was removed in Vista/Win7. 6) Any kind of tool for mass manipulation of names.
OK, fine, some of these are better in Win 10 than they ever were before, but I think my point stands, the Windows File Explorer is just the simplest bare-bones GUI for manipulating files. And even then, it's not as bug free as one would expect. My understanding is that they fucked it in Vista with a new asynchronous model, which probably made heaps of sense from a code structure point of view, and probably improved network browsing no end...yet they fucked it, as per the infamous "refresh bug" linked to above.
There's a bit more to the cat paradox than what you have stated.
Particles with undetermined quantum states (whether the cat is alive or dead) behave as though they exist in both states simultaneously. What you have proposed is the "hidden variable" theory, where the particles actually have a state (dead or alive) and act accordingly, but we don't know what it is until we make the observation (open the box).
The general consensus among physicists today is that the hidden variable approach is unlikely, and that the states truly are superimposed.
Of course it doesn't make any sense in the thought experiment with the cat, and deliberately so, since the cat (a large macro object) does not have any superimposed states. But the atomic quantum world behaves very differently, and as uncomfortable as it may make us, these ideas of superposition, entanglement, tunneling, and so on, are actually measurable, observable, and part of a cohesive theory, which in my book makes them "real".
I haven't seen any Vsauce videos before, and thought this one was pretty good. Accessible maths and physics explanations often struggle to hit the mark, but I think this one managed it rather well.
--- Although the eyes of most microbat species are small and poorly developed, leading to poor visual acuity, no species is blind.[58] Microbats use vision to navigate, especially for long distances when beyond the range of echolocation,[59] and species that are gleaners—that is, ones that attempt to swoop down from above to ambush insects, like crickets on the ground or moths up a tree,often have eyesight about as good as a rat's. Some species have been shown to be able to detect ultraviolet light and most cave-dwelling species have developed the ability to utilize very dim light. They also have high-quality senses of smell and hearing. Bats hunt at night, reducing competition with birds, minimizing contact with certain predators, and travel large distances (up to 800 km) in their search for food.[3]
Megabat species often have excellent eyesight as good as, if not better than, human vision. This eyesight is, unlike its microbat relations, adapted to both night and daylight vision and enables the bat to have some colour vision whereas the microbat sees in blurred shades of grey. ---
USB2.0 has more bandwidth than audio requires. I realise there are latency and timing issues as well, which the other poster nicely addressed, but when playing audio on a home PC latency (while nice to have low) is not significant: a 10, 100, or 1000ms delay on your favourite Britney Spears mp3 playback isn't going to matter.
So how much bandwidth?
Assuming CD quality audio (stereo) we need 1411 kbit/s. Let's add a 10% encapsulation overhead and round: 1.5 Mbit/s.
Low Speed 1.5 Mbit/s USB 1.0 Full Speed 12 Mbit/s USB 1.0 High Speed 480 Mbit/s USB 2.0 SuperSpeed 5 Gbit/s USB 3.0 SuperSpeed+ 10 Gbit/s USB 3.1
So even the old "low speed" USB has sufficient bandwidth for this audio stream. The "full speed' (most common pre-USB2 standard) could handle 8 stereo channels, USB2.0 can do 320 stereo channels, and for the USB3 specifications things just get ridiculous.
The bandwidth needed for the mouse is absolutely minuscule. A typical mouse state data-gram (movement deltas, button states) is only dozens of bytes, sampled at 100Hz, we have (very roughly) 1-2kbit/s. Because USB is a packet based protocol, the mouse data will nicely interleave with the audio data and should not be affected.
Check your cable, or bin the crappy low-quality USB equipment that you have.
From TFA: "Elegant, cool and not something I’ve seen done before."
This was a common way to convert an old incandescent mini "Mag Lite" to an LED torch. The idea was to replace the bulb (obviously) but to also replace one of the AA batteries with a driver board that would generate a high frequency signal to drive the LED as hard as possible. This was back in the day (15 years ago) when LEDS were still very new and the white ones weren't anywhere near as good as the modern CREE units.
Good list, and I agree with the spirit of your message entirely. However...
"5) does the sexual act include animals?"
Many people believe that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with having sex with animals on the basis that they are animals. There is actually a group of people that claim a difference between beastiality and zoophillia, though Wikipedia considers them to be the same.
The key take-home point is that animals cannot consent to sex, therefore sex with animals is a form of statutory rape.
However, animals don't consent to being killed and eaten and we do that to them all the time.
Giving a dog a "red rocket" is patently not abusive and the animal appears to derive pleasure from the act. In the farming community vets and farmers routinely masturbate breeding males to produce sperm. Is there something about a man penetrating an animal that makes it wrong? How about a woman encouraging a dog to lick her vagina?
"In the US, women are paid a fraction of what men are paid."
I think the poster made a comment about Sharia Law because it is so awful to women. How can anyone have a meaningful conversation about differences in wage equality, compared to being stoned to death under Sharia Law?
"...the reality is that human beings can be pretty cruel to each other, with or without religion."
Yes, but religion codifies barbaric practices and provides twisted opportunities to justify horrific behavior. I'd much rather a world free of religion though permeated with your inevitable* latent barbarism and cruel behaviour than *both* the cruel behaviour and religion.
*probably not actually, but that's a different argument, let's assume it to be true for now.
Of course your wife is only one-step away from using one of these small espresso machines. Instead of a pod there is a durable metal cup attached to the handle - it unclamps, you knock out the old grounds, rinse with water, and refill in seconds (not minutes) and then it clamps back to the machine and you get your cup of coffee with just the press of a button.
While the effort is admirable, once anyone starts faffing with refillable pods you may as well just use a real machine. Let your Keurig runs its course, but once it breaks, take a good look at a real espresso machine.
It's trashy, but Wilbur Smith's A Time to Die features them quite nicely, and in a "realistic" way for an action novel. Read that as a teenager, and yes you're right, they are hump-backed ugly insects of the skies, bristling with guns, and very cool indeed.
Very cool, thanks, sorry I missed them. I like that they can put them up or down, probably to improve fuel efficiency and/or performance once airborne.
Love the lines on the Sukhoi fighters, even though it's older, the Sukhoi Su-27 is my favorite from that line. Though my current overall favorite operating fighter is the Dassault Rafale. **Love** that shit.
I can imagine that intake grills on a fighter plane would be some kind of effort to reduce the radar cross section? However, the Hind gunship has cowls over the engine intakes, which I believe were developed for the dusty and sandy conditions of Afghanistan. So I'm sure other planes and helicopters have used them over the years.
In your video I can't spot any intake grills, but the quality is poor and I didn't watch all of it. If you're talking about these grills then they aren't for protection, they're for controlling the bypass and/or intake flow rate.
Here's a nice explanation of jet engine airflow and bypass control, based on the extreme example of the SR-71 J58 engine.
Most amazing 1st world toilets I ever used, were down at the beach in Los Angeles (sorry, I can't recall which one, all I remember was that there was a long pier) and the men's stalls were cut down half way. Yup, everyone shitting was all out in the open, it was amazing, and made me feel like I was in a small village in south-east Asia. Unbelievable!
I read a report a while ago that claimed the insides of hot-air hand dryers were a breeding ground for general bacteria in the bathroom environment. The insides are nearly impossible to clean (I assume the heat exchanger is a kind of radiator with finely-spaced fins) and they are warm, collect fluff and dust, and so are perfect for bacteria.
To solve that problem the hand dryer would have to have some kind of internal self-clean cycle, either based on a UV light, or running the heating element with no fan going to kill things off.
Here's a nice commentary from Dr Karl (Aussies would know him from Triple-J and other appearances) from way back in 2011 stating the exact same observations as TFA.
They changed the design, obviously because the old design was crap.
This video documents the original design, which as the GP states, is impossible to use without touching.
The *best* hand dryer in my opinion are these: Xcelerator. They probably suffer from the same problems reported in TFA as the Dyson, due to high speed air flow, but man they dry hands really nice and fast and there's nothing to touch.
I have no doubt that a low-level flyover at supersonic speeds would be absolutely nuts, and potentially dangerous for people and animals on the ground.
But at cruising altitude??
From the Wikipedia page: "Concorde had a maximum cruise altitude of 18,300 metres (60,039 ft)" which is almost twice as high as most subsonic airliners. A Boeing 777 cruises at 11,000 m (35,000 ft).
Anyway, all I was trying to say is that it would be really nice to see some reliable ground measurements of the noise from a Concorde flying at Mach 2 at cruising altitude.
While Boeing was developing its own supersonic airliner, they were faced with the tough task of competing against Concorde, which was already established and flying. Instead of competing, the entrenched US aviation industry smeared the supersonic airline industry and encourage an FAA sanction prohibiting Concords (or any supersonic airliner) from flying supersonic over land.
It's funny that they are now looking into this again, and all their old fear-mongering is biting them on the ass.
An example of how there is a lot of confusion regarding take off noise (which was indeed very loud) and the sustained sonic-boom during supersonic flight. The author of that page also states that he's been unable to acquire data detailing the noise at ground level caused by the sonic boom from a Concorde. My own search has also been futile...
Slashdot Mirror
"What, seeing the file disappear from one folder and reappear in another not enough visual feedback for you?"
If the operation is not instant then yes, it is insufficient.
"No, it was not. Hover over your selection, the information window pops up. Oh, look, length, file size, type, resolution if an image/video, etc."
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was talking about having information reported on the selection, not individual files, which is what the tooltip will show. Information about the selection is shown in the "Status Bar" at the bottom of the window, yet in Win7 this is hidden by default. There is some more information about this issue here. It would be nice if there was information about multiple folders. Currently there is no way to learn the size of a selection of multiple folders in the Windows File Explorer. The only way to do it is to make a new folder, move your folders of interest into it, and then right click on that new folder and choose "Properties".
"Their file explorer GUI is absolutely incredible, for instance."
You're taking the piss right?
The file explorer is as simple and bare-bones as it can get, and yet it still has massive problems. These may not affect all users, but the forums are "full enough" to justify a fix.
File explorer refresh bug.
File explorer "finding items" bug.
File explorer slow to create or delete a folder.
These are really basic operations. The most frustrating is the refresh bug, and second to this is the slow response to move or delete a folder: it should be instant to write the inode and tell the filesystem that the folder is in a new location.
On top of these major issues, here is a list of features that would be really nice in a file explorer, and while we may disagree, I don't think these are power-user items:
1) Allow a copy/move operation to be paused.
2) Allow a move operation to be undone with visual feedback (hitting CTRL+Z will undo a move, but it's a silent operation)
3) Stack concurrent move/copy operations based on disk IO: in other words, if I am already moving data from a USB drive and then start a second operation, queue it rather than start it immediately.
4) When a copy/move operation encounters an error DO NOT FAIL SILENTLY. Anyone who has left a large network transfer to finish, and returned to no dialog and assumed that it finished, when really it failed and only some of the data was moved/copied, knows the pain of which I speak.
5) When making a selection, show some useful information about the selection, such as how many items are selected and how large the selection is. This used to be shown in the status strip in XP, but was removed in Vista/Win7.
6) Any kind of tool for mass manipulation of names.
OK, fine, some of these are better in Win 10 than they ever were before, but I think my point stands, the Windows File Explorer is just the simplest bare-bones GUI for manipulating files. And even then, it's not as bug free as one would expect. My understanding is that they fucked it in Vista with a new asynchronous model, which probably made heaps of sense from a code structure point of view, and probably improved network browsing no end...yet they fucked it, as per the infamous "refresh bug" linked to above.
There's a bit more to the cat paradox than what you have stated.
Particles with undetermined quantum states (whether the cat is alive or dead) behave as though they exist in both states simultaneously. What you have proposed is the "hidden variable" theory, where the particles actually have a state (dead or alive) and act accordingly, but we don't know what it is until we make the observation (open the box).
The general consensus among physicists today is that the hidden variable approach is unlikely, and that the states truly are superimposed.
Of course it doesn't make any sense in the thought experiment with the cat, and deliberately so, since the cat (a large macro object) does not have any superimposed states. But the atomic quantum world behaves very differently, and as uncomfortable as it may make us, these ideas of superposition, entanglement, tunneling, and so on, are actually measurable, observable, and part of a cohesive theory, which in my book makes them "real".
More reading here and here if you're really keen.
Great links, thank you!
I haven't seen any Vsauce videos before, and thought this one was pretty good. Accessible maths and physics explanations often struggle to hit the mark, but I think this one managed it rather well.
There are lots of different species of bat and so it's not that surprising for them to all see by differing amounts. However, no bat is truly blind.
From the Wikipedia page:
---
Although the eyes of most microbat species are small and poorly developed, leading to poor visual acuity, no species is blind.[58] Microbats use vision to navigate, especially for long distances when beyond the range of echolocation,[59] and species that are gleaners—that is, ones that attempt to swoop down from above to ambush insects, like crickets on the ground or moths up a tree,often have eyesight about as good as a rat's. Some species have been shown to be able to detect ultraviolet light and most cave-dwelling species have developed the ability to utilize very dim light. They also have high-quality senses of smell and hearing. Bats hunt at night, reducing competition with birds, minimizing contact with certain predators, and travel large distances (up to 800 km) in their search for food.[3]
Megabat species often have excellent eyesight as good as, if not better than, human vision. This eyesight is, unlike its microbat relations, adapted to both night and daylight vision and enables the bat to have some colour vision whereas the microbat sees in blurred shades of grey.
---
USB2.0 has more bandwidth than audio requires. I realise there are latency and timing issues as well, which the other poster nicely addressed, but when playing audio on a home PC latency (while nice to have low) is not significant: a 10, 100, or 1000ms delay on your favourite Britney Spears mp3 playback isn't going to matter.
So how much bandwidth?
Assuming CD quality audio (stereo) we need 1411 kbit/s. Let's add a 10% encapsulation overhead and round: 1.5 Mbit/s.
USB bandwidth specifications are:
Low Speed 1.5 Mbit/s USB 1.0
Full Speed 12 Mbit/s USB 1.0
High Speed 480 Mbit/s USB 2.0
SuperSpeed 5 Gbit/s USB 3.0
SuperSpeed+ 10 Gbit/s USB 3.1
So even the old "low speed" USB has sufficient bandwidth for this audio stream. The "full speed' (most common pre-USB2 standard) could handle 8 stereo channels, USB2.0 can do 320 stereo channels, and for the USB3 specifications things just get ridiculous.
The bandwidth needed for the mouse is absolutely minuscule. A typical mouse state data-gram (movement deltas, button states) is only dozens of bytes, sampled at 100Hz, we have (very roughly) 1-2kbit/s. Because USB is a packet based protocol, the mouse data will nicely interleave with the audio data and should not be affected.
Check your cable, or bin the crappy low-quality USB equipment that you have.
"wonder what intel did to break audio."
Microphone hook-up to the "Intel Management Engine" for side-band eavesdropping by security interests.
Every test performed on GR has shown it to be correct.
Including the description of velocity addition at velocities close to c.
Basically particles with mass are unable to reach c.
I don't mind the "what if" questions, but they do need to be grounded on some established knowledge to some extent.
"If Photons have mass (i.e. not relativistic mass, actual mass) the world becomes a damn site simpler"
No it doesn't.
General relativity would be fundamentally changed.
From TFA: "Elegant, cool and not something I’ve seen done before."
This was a common way to convert an old incandescent mini "Mag Lite" to an LED torch. The idea was to replace the bulb (obviously) but to also replace one of the AA batteries with a driver board that would generate a high frequency signal to drive the LED as hard as possible. This was back in the day (15 years ago) when LEDS were still very new and the white ones weren't anywhere near as good as the modern CREE units.
Good list, and I agree with the spirit of your message entirely. However...
"5) does the sexual act include animals?"
Many people believe that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with having sex with animals on the basis that they are animals. There is actually a group of people that claim a difference between beastiality and zoophillia, though Wikipedia considers them to be the same.
The key take-home point is that animals cannot consent to sex, therefore sex with animals is a form of statutory rape.
However, animals don't consent to being killed and eaten and we do that to them all the time.
Giving a dog a "red rocket" is patently not abusive and the animal appears to derive pleasure from the act. In the farming community vets and farmers routinely masturbate breeding males to produce sperm. Is there something about a man penetrating an animal that makes it wrong? How about a woman encouraging a dog to lick her vagina?
It's a murky area for sure.
"In the US, women are paid a fraction of what men are paid."
I think the poster made a comment about Sharia Law because it is so awful to women. How can anyone have a meaningful conversation about differences in wage equality, compared to being stoned to death under Sharia Law?
"...the reality is that human beings can be pretty cruel to each other, with or without religion."
Yes, but religion codifies barbaric practices and provides twisted opportunities to justify horrific behavior. I'd much rather a world free of religion though permeated with your inevitable* latent barbarism and cruel behaviour than *both* the cruel behaviour and religion.
*probably not actually, but that's a different argument, let's assume it to be true for now.
I'm guessing it depends on how the flights were paid for.
Or whether you trip certain flags, and receive further questioning, and in the process credit cards are discussed.
It's basically unknowable what the rules are there is no way to seek any justification for why one individual is treated differently to another.
We've come a long way: 100 years ago people didn't even have what we would call passports!
Of course your wife is only one-step away from using one of these small espresso machines. Instead of a pod there is a durable metal cup attached to the handle - it unclamps, you knock out the old grounds, rinse with water, and refill in seconds (not minutes) and then it clamps back to the machine and you get your cup of coffee with just the press of a button.
While the effort is admirable, once anyone starts faffing with refillable pods you may as well just use a real machine. Let your Keurig runs its course, but once it breaks, take a good look at a real espresso machine.
It's trashy, but Wilbur Smith's A Time to Die features them quite nicely, and in a "realistic" way for an action novel. Read that as a teenager, and yes you're right, they are hump-backed ugly insects of the skies, bristling with guns, and very cool indeed.
Very cool, thanks, sorry I missed them. I like that they can put them up or down, probably to improve fuel efficiency and/or performance once airborne.
Love the lines on the Sukhoi fighters, even though it's older, the Sukhoi Su-27 is my favorite from that line. Though my current overall favorite operating fighter is the Dassault Rafale. **Love** that shit.
I can imagine that intake grills on a fighter plane would be some kind of effort to reduce the radar cross section? However, the Hind gunship has cowls over the engine intakes, which I believe were developed for the dusty and sandy conditions of Afghanistan. So I'm sure other planes and helicopters have used them over the years.
In your video I can't spot any intake grills, but the quality is poor and I didn't watch all of it. If you're talking about these grills then they aren't for protection, they're for controlling the bypass and/or intake flow rate.
Here's a nice explanation of jet engine airflow and bypass control, based on the extreme example of the SR-71 J58 engine.
Most amazing 1st world toilets I ever used, were down at the beach in Los Angeles (sorry, I can't recall which one, all I remember was that there was a long pier) and the men's stalls were cut down half way. Yup, everyone shitting was all out in the open, it was amazing, and made me feel like I was in a small village in south-east Asia. Unbelievable!
I read a report a while ago that claimed the insides of hot-air hand dryers were a breeding ground for general bacteria in the bathroom environment. The insides are nearly impossible to clean (I assume the heat exchanger is a kind of radiator with finely-spaced fins) and they are warm, collect fluff and dust, and so are perfect for bacteria.
To solve that problem the hand dryer would have to have some kind of internal self-clean cycle, either based on a UV light, or running the heating element with no fan going to kill things off.
Here's a nice commentary from Dr Karl (Aussies would know him from Triple-J and other appearances) from way back in 2011 stating the exact same observations as TFA.
They changed the design, obviously because the old design was crap.
This video documents the original design, which as the GP states, is impossible to use without touching.
The *best* hand dryer in my opinion are these: Xcelerator. They probably suffer from the same problems reported in TFA as the Dyson, due to high speed air flow, but man they dry hands really nice and fast and there's nothing to touch.
I have no doubt that a low-level flyover at supersonic speeds would be absolutely nuts, and potentially dangerous for people and animals on the ground.
But at cruising altitude??
From the Wikipedia page: "Concorde had a maximum cruise altitude of 18,300 metres (60,039 ft)" which is almost twice as high as most subsonic airliners. A Boeing 777 cruises at 11,000 m (35,000 ft).
Anyway, all I was trying to say is that it would be really nice to see some reliable ground measurements of the noise from a Concorde flying at Mach 2 at cruising altitude.
"The scale is heavily weighted towards letting guilty people go free, over convicting an innocent person."
Are you sure about that?
I've never understood the GoPro fetish. As you say, it's a camera attached to storage in a shockproof/waterproof box with a high price tag.
Does no one else make anything similar for much less?
Are they really as good as the hype claims?
There's a bit more to the story than that.
While Boeing was developing its own supersonic airliner, they were faced with the tough task of competing against Concorde, which was already established and flying. Instead of competing, the entrenched US aviation industry smeared the supersonic airline industry and encourage an FAA sanction prohibiting Concords (or any supersonic airliner) from flying supersonic over land.
It's funny that they are now looking into this again, and all their old fear-mongering is biting them on the ass.
FAA information.
Concorde.
An example of how there is a lot of confusion regarding take off noise (which was indeed very loud) and the sustained sonic-boom during supersonic flight. The author of that page also states that he's been unable to acquire data detailing the noise at ground level caused by the sonic boom from a Concorde. My own search has also been futile...
I second this.
I've been telephone free for two years now and haven't missed it for a moment.
It's the new "I don't own a TV" :)