Umm, Apple does ship with a fully functional, multi-button mouse. It does have only one button in the default configuration, which you can change, in software, on a per-user basis. Get with the times.
Uhh, really? Ok if you say so. All the Intel MacBooks I've had to work with recently only have one button mice, not to mention one button on the touchpad. But I guess if they're shipping with multi-button mice then they're doing what I suggested anyway.
"One of the most common interface problems is that people click the wrong button in some instance, or both buttons simultaneously with random results. For novice users, a single button is a much, much, much better option."
Uhhh, yeah it would be way too hard to have a setting in the OS that would make both buttons the same for all those "novice users." I can't even live without a scroll wheel anymore. As for your points about advanced users, don't you think that "optimal" number of buttons may be two or three instead of one? Why jump into mentioning four or five buttons.
No one is saying that more buttons are always better than less buttons. What we are saying is that one is too few. The very fact that I have to use my other HAND to hold down the ctrl key is proof that one is too few.
As for developer practices, the only point you've made is that there should be a minimum standard. But why should that standard be one button? Why not make a mouse with no buttons where you have to hit a key to make a regular click? That would be an even easier standard for the developers.
Apple should ship with a fully functional mouse, and if they want they can have all the buttons do the same thing until you change the setting.
Everything seems to play my video file formats these days anyway. Why come up with a new format for a physical disc? DVD's are going to go away anyhow.
Personally, I think we traditionally use "reproduction" as evidence of life because all the life we know needs to reproduce or else it will not continue it's existance. In the case of nanites, reproduction may not be necessary for their survival.
I was thinking about saying "bacteria" instead of "virus," but a virus is simpler and I do believe it's alive. It's usage of a host to reproduce seems the same thing to me as us eating.
Would you say that a blood cell is alive? It cannot survive without a host. How about a neuron? It's not intelligent (on its own), doesn't move, or reproduce. I think every cell in the human body is a life form that has co-developed with all the other cells (when compared to things like bacteria).
I would agree that intelligence can be a form of life too, as an entity. But where do you draw that line? I don't think AI even gets close to that yet. There's more to life than just learning.
I don't think this is going to do anything to make people stop using Windows. In the end, most people just want a computer that runs the software that they want to run. They don't even really care about the operating system. Most don't even know what an operating system is. I doubt third party software (read: game) vendors are going to suddenly start releasing software for GNU/Linux any time soon, so... what good is any of this really?
Not saying that no one should be talking about it, but it would be nice to figure out a way to make some significant changes.
P.S. GPL3 seems to be a similar step in the OTHER direction to me.
Yes. I think the article isn't clear on the shape and size of the universe (as portrayed in the picture of a sphere) is in the 4th dimension. That sphere they show you is supposed to be a simple way at looking at it: we would exist only on the surface of the sphere, one dimension lower. That's why if you fly away from earth in one direction, eventually you circum navigate the sphere (or whatever other shape the universe is) and arrive at earth again.
I think you're confusing the concept of "life" with the concept of "consciousness." Those two things are not equivalent. Computers are already arguably smarter than the common cold, but they are not "alive." The cold virus is alive.
I think nanites are closer to achieving this than anyone constructing AI simply because the two goals are different. The goal of nanites is closer (or the same as) achieving what we would call life. The goal of AI is (as the name suggests) intelligence.
There are some things in between like virtual life...
Yeah they shouldn't be allowed to reject mail that's registered, or has delivery confirmation. But that's one of their "terms" you know: you're not allowed to prove that they're lying.
Do you always buy them toward the beginning of the offer, and then do the rebates soon? See, because I know SOME people ALWAYS get their rebates. I have a theory that if you come in on the tail-end of the deal, you end up getting put into the "let's not give out any more rebates, guys" group.
- percentage of rebate submissions initially rejected (guessing 40%)
60%
- percentage of rejected submissions where the consumer received notice of rejection (guessing 0%)
Depends. I never actually received a notification, but often there is a site I can check to see the status.
- percentage of initial rejections that were followed up by a resubmission from the customer, in time (guessing 10%)
In time? If it's my fault, I usually don't have time, and I let it go--it's MY fault. But being meticulous, it's only been my fault once... in that case I have a nice year of waiting to look forward to;)
- percentage of resubmissions that were not fulfilled for any reason (guessing 20%)
50%
- percentage of submitted rebates that resulted in a check (guessing 60%)
40%
Again, just my experience...
This is why I don't do rebates anymore unless it's with a company that I've discovered is honest about it. I have no problem with the terms of rebates (I always read them first), or with companies trying to count on customers neglecting to submit them in time, but when more people are forthcoming than they estimated, I think they should just take the hit.
I remember reading somewhere that it isn't legal for them to give something like 3 days to submit the rebate. I think the minimum is something like 7 or 10 days. Yeah, I know I've been burned by that too, which is why I always check the terms now.
Here's another thing to think about for those of you who pay bills by check:
How many times was your payment ever "lost in the mail" or do they say they didn't get it? Now compare that to how many times you've heard "we haven't received that rebate." Yeah I guess the post office just has something against delivering my rebate mail, but none of my other mail. Even if they say "we lost it," at best they just don't care about their customers when it comes to losing a few bucks.
Same thing goes with your "unable to find the rebate" example. I suspect some companies do it on purpose, but even if they don't, how careless are they with the OTHER parts of their site? You know the parts where they make money?
Sometimes it's blantantly obvious that they have no intention of sending you the rebate. I used to do rebates all the time, and I was about 50/50 on whether or not I'd have trouble with various companies. It doesn't bother me when there's a mistake, and the company sends the rebate after you provide your records, but a lot of them purposefully ignore you, ask you to submit papers and THEN ignore you, or ask you to submit your papers and then don't provide you with the correct amount on the rebate. And keep in mind this is after 8 or more months go by in most cases.
I even saw one rebate that claimed that "unresolved rebates" were invalid after 8 months. So they can just deny receiving it, stretch it out, make you wait, and then say it's invalid.
Some companies are good (hint: Staples is the BEST), but some of them are out to scam you (hint: eCost.com is one of the WORST). And I think some of them, whether through their own dept or a third party rebate-handler, pretty much just accept the first X number of rebates, and then make it extremely difficult for anything over X that they get. I mean after all, what are you going to do? Sue them over $20?
What is going on in society? I don't remember people complaining that people could fast forward on their VCR's. Why all of a sudden is it acceptable for companies to make these outrageous claims and demands? Just because the technology is "new" or confusing to the average person?
When will people learn that if someone can decode it in order to view it, they're just ONE step away from making a RECORD of whatever they saw? I mean it reminds me of those people who try to use javascript so you don't download pictures from their website.
Hey, if I can see it on my screen, that means I've already got it. I can figure out a way to make a copy.
And does all of this help with the pirates who just want to make exact copies of the discs anyway?
There most certainly are laws that restrict documentation to be exported to other countries: particularly if the technology was partially or wholly paid for by the US government. (Though I don't know this to be the case for this situation.)
I don't see how this is going to pressure anyone: the people that matter the most are the investors. And the thing that matters the most to the investors is the amount of money they can pull in.
First of all, I always loved those books when I was growing up, and I still have a few. But I have to say, I preferred the "Which Way" books over "Choose Your Own Adventure," and I have one "Forgotten Forest" book ("The Master of Mazes" by Carol Gaskin) which blows them all away.
I wonder what would have happened if "Choose Your Own Adventure" would have created patents on that type of book, and the others never would have had a chance. I guess the world is a different place today.
I'm not arguing with the sentiment of your post because I think the consumer is looked at as more of a peasant or serf anymore, but I WILL give them that each downloaded copy = lost sale. I mean basically someone is getting the benefit of the software without having to pay for it.
What's interesting is that this is the natural political/economical result of this: you have things like companies that often have the most resources paying for software, whereas the average person gets it for free. I'm not sure how that idea would be classified, but it's interesting how this happened naturally.
Like others have mentioned, you basically need two things:
1) A good foundation
2) A passion to do it
(Actually maybe #2 could get you by if it is strong enough.) Like other people have said, programming is NOT about syntax! Syntax changes, and will continue to change as new languages come out. The basics don't change.
And the passion to do it means you're interested enough in doing something on your own, for yourself, outside of class. I remember there were people who always got A's, but didn't really know that little extra to be a really good programmer because they only did what they had to do for school: never really cared about it otherwise. Everyone gets good at what they like to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, Apple does ship with a fully functional, multi-button mouse. It does have only one button in the default configuration, which you can change, in software, on a per-user basis. Get with the times.
Uhh, really? Ok if you say so. All the Intel MacBooks I've had to work with recently only have one button mice, not to mention one button on the touchpad. But I guess if they're shipping with multi-button mice then they're doing what I suggested anyway.
Why is USGS being given this requirement? For things like global warming, NASA and NOAA are much more dangerous than the USGS.
"One of the most common interface problems is that people click the wrong button in some instance, or both buttons simultaneously with random results. For novice users, a single button is a much, much, much better option."
Uhhh, yeah it would be way too hard to have a setting in the OS that would make both buttons the same for all those "novice users." I can't even live without a scroll wheel anymore. As for your points about advanced users, don't you think that "optimal" number of buttons may be two or three instead of one? Why jump into mentioning four or five buttons.
No one is saying that more buttons are always better than less buttons. What we are saying is that one is too few. The very fact that I have to use my other HAND to hold down the ctrl key is proof that one is too few.
As for developer practices, the only point you've made is that there should be a minimum standard. But why should that standard be one button? Why not make a mouse with no buttons where you have to hit a key to make a regular click? That would be an even easier standard for the developers.
Apple should ship with a fully functional mouse, and if they want they can have all the buttons do the same thing until you change the setting.
But it was a good argument.
Everything seems to play my video file formats these days anyway. Why come up with a new format for a physical disc? DVD's are going to go away anyhow.
Personally, I think we traditionally use "reproduction" as evidence of life because all the life we know needs to reproduce or else it will not continue it's existance. In the case of nanites, reproduction may not be necessary for their survival.
I was thinking about saying "bacteria" instead of "virus," but a virus is simpler and I do believe it's alive. It's usage of a host to reproduce seems the same thing to me as us eating.
Would you say that a blood cell is alive? It cannot survive without a host. How about a neuron? It's not intelligent (on its own), doesn't move, or reproduce. I think every cell in the human body is a life form that has co-developed with all the other cells (when compared to things like bacteria).
I would agree that intelligence can be a form of life too, as an entity. But where do you draw that line? I don't think AI even gets close to that yet. There's more to life than just learning.
I don't think this is going to do anything to make people stop using Windows. In the end, most people just want a computer that runs the software that they want to run. They don't even really care about the operating system. Most don't even know what an operating system is. I doubt third party software (read: game) vendors are going to suddenly start releasing software for GNU/Linux any time soon, so ... what good is any of this really?
Not saying that no one should be talking about it, but it would be nice to figure out a way to make some significant changes.
P.S. GPL3 seems to be a similar step in the OTHER direction to me.
Yes. I think the article isn't clear on the shape and size of the universe (as portrayed in the picture of a sphere) is in the 4th dimension. That sphere they show you is supposed to be a simple way at looking at it: we would exist only on the surface of the sphere, one dimension lower. That's why if you fly away from earth in one direction, eventually you circum navigate the sphere (or whatever other shape the universe is) and arrive at earth again.
I think you're confusing the concept of "life" with the concept of "consciousness." Those two things are not equivalent. Computers are already arguably smarter than the common cold, but they are not "alive." The cold virus is alive.
I think nanites are closer to achieving this than anyone constructing AI simply because the two goals are different. The goal of nanites is closer (or the same as) achieving what we would call life. The goal of AI is (as the name suggests) intelligence.
There are some things in between like virtual life...
http://gna.org/projects/dna/
I'd have to agree. The last letter in EULA is "Agreement" making "License" an unusual adjective.
Yeah they shouldn't be allowed to reject mail that's registered, or has delivery confirmation. But that's one of their "terms" you know: you're not allowed to prove that they're lying.
Do you always buy them toward the beginning of the offer, and then do the rebates soon? See, because I know SOME people ALWAYS get their rebates. I have a theory that if you come in on the tail-end of the deal, you end up getting put into the "let's not give out any more rebates, guys" group.
From my experience:
;)
- percentage of rebate submissions initially rejected (guessing 40%)
60%
- percentage of rejected submissions where the consumer received notice of rejection (guessing 0%)
Depends. I never actually received a notification, but often there is a site I can check to see the status.
- percentage of initial rejections that were followed up by a resubmission from the customer, in time (guessing 10%)
In time? If it's my fault, I usually don't have time, and I let it go--it's MY fault. But being meticulous, it's only been my fault once... in that case I have a nice year of waiting to look forward to
- percentage of resubmissions that were not fulfilled for any reason (guessing 20%)
50%
- percentage of submitted rebates that resulted in a check (guessing 60%)
40%
Again, just my experience...
This is why I don't do rebates anymore unless it's with a company that I've discovered is honest about it. I have no problem with the terms of rebates (I always read them first), or with companies trying to count on customers neglecting to submit them in time, but when more people are forthcoming than they estimated, I think they should just take the hit.
I remember reading somewhere that it isn't legal for them to give something like 3 days to submit the rebate. I think the minimum is something like 7 or 10 days. Yeah, I know I've been burned by that too, which is why I always check the terms now.
Here's another thing to think about for those of you who pay bills by check:
How many times was your payment ever "lost in the mail" or do they say they didn't get it? Now compare that to how many times you've heard "we haven't received that rebate." Yeah I guess the post office just has something against delivering my rebate mail, but none of my other mail. Even if they say "we lost it," at best they just don't care about their customers when it comes to losing a few bucks.
Same thing goes with your "unable to find the rebate" example. I suspect some companies do it on purpose, but even if they don't, how careless are they with the OTHER parts of their site? You know the parts where they make money?
Sometimes it's blantantly obvious that they have no intention of sending you the rebate. I used to do rebates all the time, and I was about 50/50 on whether or not I'd have trouble with various companies. It doesn't bother me when there's a mistake, and the company sends the rebate after you provide your records, but a lot of them purposefully ignore you, ask you to submit papers and THEN ignore you, or ask you to submit your papers and then don't provide you with the correct amount on the rebate. And keep in mind this is after 8 or more months go by in most cases.
I even saw one rebate that claimed that "unresolved rebates" were invalid after 8 months. So they can just deny receiving it, stretch it out, make you wait, and then say it's invalid.
Some companies are good (hint: Staples is the BEST), but some of them are out to scam you (hint: eCost.com is one of the WORST). And I think some of them, whether through their own dept or a third party rebate-handler, pretty much just accept the first X number of rebates, and then make it extremely difficult for anything over X that they get. I mean after all, what are you going to do? Sue them over $20?
What is going on in society? I don't remember people complaining that people could fast forward on their VCR's. Why all of a sudden is it acceptable for companies to make these outrageous claims and demands? Just because the technology is "new" or confusing to the average person?
Or am I wrong about the VCR thing?
When will people learn that if someone can decode it in order to view it, they're just ONE step away from making a RECORD of whatever they saw? I mean it reminds me of those people who try to use javascript so you don't download pictures from their website.
Hey, if I can see it on my screen, that means I've already got it. I can figure out a way to make a copy.
And does all of this help with the pirates who just want to make exact copies of the discs anyway?
There most certainly are laws that restrict documentation to be exported to other countries: particularly if the technology was partially or wholly paid for by the US government. (Though I don't know this to be the case for this situation.)
So you administer both Linux and Windows servers and have to restart the Linux servers more often?
I don't see how this is going to pressure anyone: the people that matter the most are the investors. And the thing that matters the most to the investors is the amount of money they can pull in.
"Look at Web-based e-mail. We've had it for 10 years, but Outlook still reigns supreme."
Well OK, start giving Excel away for free to stay on top. (Or maybe you should create an Excel Express.)
First of all, I always loved those books when I was growing up, and I still have a few. But I have to say, I preferred the "Which Way" books over "Choose Your Own Adventure," and I have one "Forgotten Forest" book ("The Master of Mazes" by Carol Gaskin) which blows them all away.
I wonder what would have happened if "Choose Your Own Adventure" would have created patents on that type of book, and the others never would have had a chance. I guess the world is a different place today.
I'm not arguing with the sentiment of your post because I think the consumer is looked at as more of a peasant or serf anymore, but I WILL give them that each downloaded copy = lost sale. I mean basically someone is getting the benefit of the software without having to pay for it.
What's interesting is that this is the natural political/economical result of this: you have things like companies that often have the most resources paying for software, whereas the average person gets it for free. I'm not sure how that idea would be classified, but it's interesting how this happened naturally.
Like others have mentioned, you basically need two things:
1) A good foundation
2) A passion to do it
(Actually maybe #2 could get you by if it is strong enough.) Like other people have said, programming is NOT about syntax! Syntax changes, and will continue to change as new languages come out. The basics don't change.
And the passion to do it means you're interested enough in doing something on your own, for yourself, outside of class. I remember there were people who always got A's, but didn't really know that little extra to be a really good programmer because they only did what they had to do for school: never really cared about it otherwise. Everyone gets good at what they like to do.
I think the obvious answer is to raise the price for the people who buy the software to cover the losses.
Exactly. If you essentially have only one authentication to get into ALL your machines, then anything compromised includes your entire network.
It's interesting that this site is sponsored by Microsoft:
http://www.informit.com/