Do you just move the mouse with your fingers lightly on the buttons, then, and just apply slight added pressure to click? Or do you grasp its sides with something like your thumb and ring finger, and use your mouse fingers normally?
I tried this, but my mouse isn't really able to do either, it has very short walls on the button side, and its buttons are extremely sensitive.
Also, switching to things with embedded pointers (laptop nipples, trackpads, etc) must have been a pain, being forced to work on a "normal" axis.
Thats another problem I have with touch typing. I already type a bit faster than I think (and I generally am not typing code). I quickly hash out a paragraph, then sit there idly organizing the next. So basically if I magically added another 20 WPM to my skills, I would just sit there, staring out the window, a bit longer.
When I was growing up, my parents had a friend who took dictation for a living. She could type as fast as you could talk, with a damn fair bit of accuracy, and better she could record a three way conversation in real time, including headers for whose talking. My fourth grade mind was boggled.
Personally, when I have tried to write with my left hand I find it easier if I write in a mirror image to my right hand. It is more spatially correct relative to myself.
I've played around with trying to teach myself to write right-handed, but it has been, for the most part, an abysmal failure. Lefties write subtly different than right handed people to minimize dragging the hand over the writing area. In extreme cases you get the strange hunched style, where your arm completely surrounds the page so you can write from above, as opposed to straight on. The ideal solution would be to write only Arabic or Hebrew with your left hand. This somewhat confounds the mirror technique.
I try writing on two pages of paper, one with each hand, and mirroring each others output to the highest extent possible. Though the largest stumbling block is still holding the pen itself, it feels incredibly unnatural in my right hand, and its hard to get the muscles to do what I want them to do. Often they just twitch madly.
I'm sure with some work I could write like a 5th year old with my right hand (giant looping cursive), but the main problem is that there isn't much point. It isn't a skill that would be used enough to maintain. When I do need to handed note taking, I write with my left, and hunt and peck (speedily) into a text editor.
Existing in a world of, and being trained by, mostly right handed people probably play a roll. I have, though, seen studies saying that lefties are more ambidextrous because of neurological reasons as well. It has been awhile since I read any research on it, but if I recall correctly lefties motor area is distributed between hemispheres more than right handed individuals (whose motor functions are mainly on the left hemisphere). Basically, they have a sloppier neural mapping than righties, which leads to it being easier to switch hands.
This explains some of the odd hand preferences that left handed individuals have. I, for example, write, eat, and pitch in baseball with my left hand, but bowl and bat with my right. I can golf (very badly) with either hand with no real difference in play. My observation of my preference is that I mainly use my left hand for things that require fine motor function, and use my left for functions requiring more force or coarse movement. True lefies (as compared to a majority of right handed individuals) are very rare, with most lefies being mostly to somewhat ambidextrous.
As in most things with dual potential causes, it would be very hard to pick which factor is the main one, since there probably is some mix of causes (both neurological and social) which varies from individual to individual. But it is pretty much beyond depute that both play roles in hand preference.
I hate that feature, the it did lead to me learning an annoying habit I have. Apparently when I'm typing, and hit a blank, I will sit and idly tap right-shift with my pinkie until my brain can process the next sentence. At some point Windows kept popping up an accessibility panel advertising "sticky keys". Obnoxious, when did they do this? Vista? It might be the dumbest way to advertise a feature, "lets hide it behind an obscure and completely undocumented number of key-presses on a specific key! Thats the first place people wanting this feature will look! Completely intuitive!"
I was starting to think nobody on slashdot knew how to type properly.
By properly do you mean quickly and efficiently, or do you mean by arbitrary rules I learned early on in my education?
By the time my school system offered typing classes I was already typing for 10 years and was pretty set in my ways. Our typing teacher was always pissed at me for not "touch typing" in the proper style (i.e. the style the text book told him we were supposed to use), and once he got over that he was very happy that my self-taught haphazard typing was faster than pretty much everyone in the class. It worked for me, it was better to keep doing what worked than screwing around with something that worked. If it isn't broke... etc...
I have yet to see the innate superiority of touch typing, so I can't really acknowledge it as proper.
When I was young, I used to just yank it off my keyboard every time I got a new one. I had a small bin of them sitting around until a friend needed them for an art project (I went through a ton of keyboards since I learned to type on a manual typewriter, and later a very stiff IBM keyboard, I've cracked space-bars in half). Later I've just disabled them in software.
On this current keyboard, I don't think I have ever actually used caps-lock. On the rare occasion that I need to type a long string of caps, I hold down shift. I would actually find a keyboard without a caps-lock key to be a very nice thing. The last time I used my capslock key was on an old mac, where the tab key broke and I had to remap the caps-lock key to tab.
Please don't do that for me. I like using my mouse on the left side with righty buttons, it makes it easier to adapt to mouses in other places, so I can just move it across the keyboard and use it normally. There also isn't much of a difference in efficiency between using your middle finger to left click over using your index finger. To be more specific, I have never noticed any difference whatsoever.
Though honestly, in places that are not my home, I generally just use the mouse like a genuine right handed individual, with no problems. Most lefties are slightly ambidextrous (more so than most righties) so mouse placement isn't that big of a hindrance. I can pretty much use the mouse in any position with any hand. Sometimes I piss off my girlfriend by using the mouse on the left side with my right hand while drinking or writing with my left.
Messing around with my mouse, and I really can't figure how the hell you do that. Are you clicking with your palm? I can't quite get my fingers to actually hit the buttons. Not commenting on your choice, just pondering the technical aspects. I've been involved in flamewars over lefties using the mouse on the left side (as flamee), and using the actual "left-handed" settings (as flamer), so how you use your inputs (as long as it is consensual) isn't that big of a deal.
Also; using your mouse upside down isn't a big deal; use your keyboard upside down and you will earn my respect (while keeping a decent WPM).
It still is a problem, although not as common, on Window's Chrome. So I doubt X is the complete problem. The Linux (or at least Ubuntu, haven't ran out and ran it on every distro) implementation seems a bit worse than the Windows one.
Does it fix the "I can't paste into a textarea" bug?
It was still in the dev version, so I'm guessing not. I am using Chromium, and I did paste that; but it has always allowed me to paste in a fresh form, just not one that has text (sometimes), and never one that has characters before the paste (i.e. pasting after HTML tags).
Oddly I mostly only notice this on Slashdot, it seems to work fine on most other sites; this might be because I mostly paste to Slashdot though.
I keep on considering going back to Firefox, but every time I run it now it feels slower and more clunky (not rendering, but the UI and software itself). Firefox 4 also seems a bit off, and I wanted to be completely off of Firefox before I have to use it.
I do wonder why they haven't done anything about it yet. It is a well known, and prevalent bug, and seems to be heavily reported and documented.
...how we define "human". Chimpanzees are 96-99% genetically identical to humans...Recent research indicates that there are non-human animals which are self-aware to some degree.
This is a question I won't even presume to try to answer. I have no clue. Its like the old obscenity cliche; "I know it when I see it". Not a useful answer, but one that has a bit of subjective weight.
The problem of non-human intelligence is a bit intractable. We measure and define intelligence by its manifestation through us. This makes it very hard to move it beyond our own species. That was the topic of my psychology capstone, and after all the huge amount of effort, wrangling, and research I'm was as ignorant as when I started. Not only is it almost impossible to generalize intelligence outside of our own (and closely related) species, but it is almost impossible to define "intelligence" itself. Its just another "I know it when I see it" subjective judgement, for the most part.
Is culture evolutionary as well?
Culture itself is, as in the urge to make it and participate in it. Culture in-itself might be, along non-genetic (memetic, as trite as that sounds these days) lines. I'm not sure if it is, it runs along the normal evolutionary rules, there seems to be a lot of arbitrary, or even destructive, elements within various cultures.
So can eating non-human animals.
It isn't as prevalent as in cannibalism though, and might be mostly the product of our own stupid modern agricultural choices (feeding animals dead animals).
Not human by our current definition. We could (once again) redefine what it means to be human.
No argument there. Many people already have. It seems the historical trend of rights is to become more inclusive, so who knows. That is probably a big fallacy, but it feels right. For what its worth.
As far as I know, I never once mentioned anything about personal opinion.
So basically this is a completely useless line of thought. I hardly think that thinking "Oh dear everything is meaningless" is useful. If personal opinions doesn't matter (which it doesn't in the abstract grand picture) it isn't very useful for the matter we are discussing.
It isn't even good for thinking rationally, since using "everything is meaningless on some scales" is pretty much useless. You can't live by that. It has its place, I suppose, in philosophy and science, but not in what we are talking about, namely, assigning importance. We are talking about what level of rights to prescribe to other things, so saying "everything is meaningless" doesn't really add to the discussion. And ultimately we HAVE TO assign level of importance to things, since we really do live down here, at the human scale.
Your use of evolution here sounds kinda sounds like a "God of the gaps". You mean "evolution" in the sense of genetic mutation and natural selection? In that case, how would you explain the vastly differing moralities of various cultures? In some cultures, canibalism is intrinsic, in others it's taboo.
Moving a bit off topic here, but I'll bite. Please don't think I take anything I state here as gospel truth, this is just a hypothesis I play with to help explain why there seems to be actual ethics in the real world (beyond prescriptive academic philosophy) while there is no apparent source of these ethics (yes, I'm an atheist). Every culture has some form of ethical or moral system, and generally these systems have more in common than not.
Being that humans are, and evolved as, group animals it makes sense for there to be pressure on group cohesion and cooperation, since the survival of individuals depends, on part, the health of group. This pressure would lead to certain innate traits, or more precisely instincts that further group cohesion. Some of these traits are uniquely human, and some continued on from previous primate iterations (notice the commonalities within social structures of divergent primate groups).
This ethical instinct would be based on something (or at least ascribed to) like empathy, or theory of mind; the ability to see ourselves in others. This would lead to something like the golden rule.
Basically: If human, then treat as oneself. The interesting bit is the "if human" part of the syllogism, since that helps explain how we have some flavor of ethics universally, but still can commit great atrocities. What we define as human, or human like varies with culture. Black people weren't human for a time, and neither were Jews or women (who still aren't in many cultures considered fully human), for example, and thus were not part of the formula.
The "treat as oneself" proposition is a bit vague and wobbly, I admit, and I'm sure there are further caveats and sub-rules that I'm missing. But it seems like a rough approximation. The caveats and sub-rules could possibly be called "rights". Rights could never be universal, in this context, sadly, but I fear they really aren't, since I have never seen a convincing argument towards universal, a priori, rights.
There are many variations by culture since the evolutionary framework only provides us with a hard and fast default, which can be somewhat overwritten by cultural conditioning and personal circumstances, it becomes more and more apt at larger aggregate levels though.
From this flows prescriptive ethics (thou shall not...), it doesn't force them, it merely guides them.
Cannibalism isn't really a problem, most cultures who practice it do so and remain within the confines of the syllogism. They don't go out and eat their friends and family willy-nilly, it generally is ritualized and an aspect of tribal warfare or mourning. Why do we find it repellent, and other cultures don't? There are many different explanations; our cultural roots (in the Judea-Christian ethos) may differ from those who do, or there may be further pressure not to engage in certain taboos (such as incest, which leads to genetic nastiness). Cannabalism can spread nasty prion diseases (kuru, historically), meaning there may be larger cultural and traditional forces against it, or even another slight evolutionary imperative.
Still, for the sake of argument, if morals are evolutionary in origin, I can claim that, just as we have (largely) evolved past slavery, the next step in our moral evolution is to transcend cruelty to and callous domination of other animal species.
If they are evolutionary, then you can't claim that, either of those statements. We didn't genetically evolve past slavery, we just culturally reclassified black people (or poor people, or whoeever) as being equally human with us, and thus entitled to the same rights and ethical choices as us. We can, tomorrow, decide that black peopl
You're using emotionally loaded language to target corporate scapegoats in order to remove your own guilty feelings. Removing the artists from the debate and replacing them with greedy corporate stereotypes makes you feel less bad about not paying content creators for their work.
While I agree that calling them the "mafiaa" is a bit dumb, and probably doesn't help their case or lend them any credability, I think you also reached a fair bit. While I don't advocate "straight" piracy*, I also find it fair to target the RIAA and (to a lesser extent) the MPAA. The RIAA != Artists. Actually the labels screw the artists pretty well themselves, and most of your purchase goes to the labels, not the artists. I think a case could be made for some flavor of protest against the RIAA and all its signatories, since they come pretty close to being actually evil, without any motivation of harm towards actual artists under them (pirating CDs and supporting them through concerts and other merchandise). I don't think this is common, but it can be a potential motivation.
If I were to go pirate something, I would have less of an issue with pirating from the RIAA than from an indie label, or self-published band. In the former, my action has less potential harm to the actual artist (the only thing that matters) since they already are pretty much scalped and screwed, barring the couple lucky big engineered acts. In the latter case the artist has a higher stake in the success of the label, thus, if there is harm in piracy, it has a higher potential for actual harm.
* I do have nothing against piracy used for format shifting previous purchases, nor acquiring things where the creator no longer benefits from it, or if the item is pretty damn old (over 20 years, lets say), and thus no longer really fits the stated purpose of copyright. Or for trying before you buy, if you actually intent to buy the product (this is especially true of software). I am mostly against "greed" piracy, though, but I think the reaction to it is far disproportional to the actual costs it incurs, if any. Even if there is no real cost (which I have suspicions towards) I would still be against it on purely ethical grounds.
From where do humans derive their rights--scientifically-speaking? You can claim that humans have inalienable rights derived from God, but that's not a scientific proposition. Rationally-speaking, humans have the rights they have granted themselves. Humans can also grant whatever rights they choose to the other animals under their control. It's a choice, so there's nothing crazy about saying all animals ought to have the same rights.
This is the age old question now, isn't it? I don't have an answer really. I think human rights come from evolution, and we pretty much, mostly, live as if they were true (depending on what we define as human at the time, which is cultural). There is no exterior force binding them, and no real, non-social, consequences for not following them.
Animals don't get this consideration, since there was no pressure for us to evolve the same innate moral structures. Their rights are wholly socially derived. What I was stated was my take on it, it is as correct as any other barring some other, extra-human source that rights and morals flow from.
Babies get the rights because of evolution too, it is advantageous to treat our babies well.
The real problem is liberals support a philosophy that, by it's nature, puts people in power to exert control over the population. At it's heart is that the public is too stupid to govern itself and must have government control. Without that all those evil corporations would run rampant over the sheeple.
As stated I come from the civil libertarian school. It reads pretty much like the capital "L" libertarians on many fronts. I don't think people are too dumb to governthemselves, and if they are that is their choice. The government should pretty much back off from all civil affairs. The government should become involved where there is the abuse of other people, though, and when people become disinfranchised because of forces outside of their control. It shouldn't tell you how to live your life, but it shouldn't be affraid of helping people out when they fall through the cracks either.
I also didn't fall for the "Republicans favor business, Democrats favor the people" trap. Republicans DO favor corporations, looking at their track record and activities (stated ideology is nothing without actions to back it). Democrats favor corporations just as much as the Republicans, though perhaps differed classes of them. Neither of them seem to favor the American people very much of late. Republicans and Democrats are equally silly. Liberalism and Convervativism is more apt, but still very limited, and still very limiting. I would rather avoid falling into the trap of either of them, there are some things that one or the other may get "correct", and some things that both completely fail on. Capitolized ideologies are generally more harmful than good, and I'm suspicious of anyone who actually fully subscribes to one.
However, that idea leads people into office who simply want the control.
Looking at actual actions, it seems to work for the conservatives too. It seems like people elect them, often, to try to force religious and moral laws (or principles that can only be argued via a reliance on supernatural principleS) on people. The latest hulabaloo about gay marriage for example, that was largly a consverative movement. I, as a civil libertarian, can't make any sense of it; who the hell cares?
The left is just fine with paying off corporations--when the ultimate goal is control of corporations.
Seems a bit conspiracy like. If the government wanted control, they could legislate into it. Much better than handing banks a trillion or so dollars with no strings attatched, or giving them slap on the wrist regulations for acting irresonibly short sighted and trashing our economy (yes, saying "tsk-tsk" will really keep it from happening again!). I fear the truth is much simpler than a grand conspiracy; politicians, both on the left and the right, want to keep their corporate donors happy, and this keep the money flowing to them. Greed. Some politicians might actually buy the line that we need to keep mega-corporations happy because it makes the world a better place. Some politicians think their walking a grey ethical line, but they need to suck up to the corporations because that money allows them to stay in office, where they will eventually do good (after the next fund-raising cycle, of course).
Conservatives want limited federal government with more power (where needed) going to local control
I see nothing in my liberal handbook against this. I agree with you there. But the federal government still serves a purpose, and should prop up the general welfare (I think the phrase is in the Constitution) where states falter. How you define "general welfare" is another, different but related, fine argument.
Politicians have forgotten they work for us. That's a lot about what happened in the last election. The people said, "No! Stop!" The politicians just said, "We know better than you," and kept pushing their outrageous bills. They knew this was the chance to get in their wish list over the public's wishes.
What do you mean by "universal importance?" Ignoring the presence of some metaphysical super-being who gives everything meaning, pretty much nothing could be said to be important depending on the scale your looking at. Pretty much nothing really matters "universally", since the universe would tick along just fine without basically anything. Instead of important, I would claim that everything is universally insignificant.
I might find some degree of solidarity with Lassie in this, but then again both me and Lassie are about equal to a bacteria or a single atom of cesium. I'm not going to go arguing that that single atom of cesium over there (I can see you lurking in the corner, scheming) is my equal, nor am I going to argue that the 10,000,000 bacteria I probably killed today are. I doubt you would either, since I'm sure your the wanton bug and bacteria killing machine that I am. Where is the line? At what point do I have to give something the respect I give myself?
If there isn't a level, then things are just pretty meaningless. Our transience and insignificance doesn't garner respect, it more logically leads to apathy. If Lassie is as meaningless as me, then who really cares what happens to her? She will die anyways, and in tens of years no one will remember her.
I don't find this as a good ground work for generating a system of much of anything. It is an unnatural scale, we, subjectively, don't really live there. Yes, the real universe is big, uncaring, etc... But that isn't where we live subjectively, or where our brains learned to cope or recognize. It is an abstraction. Ethics come from, and apply to, a much smaller realm, this one, and in smaller single generation time scales.
Perhaps not, but they're also not factually less important than humans
I'm not sure what you mean by "factually" in that statement.
I am an animal lover, I have always had pets, and I find people who commit meaningless violence against animals to be abhorrent beyond words; but I can't really see animals being our equals on any level. From the most basic level, they are not us, and we naturally hold ourselves above everything else, this springs from the basic flaw in their being; not being us (I'm not saying this is strictly logical, but it is a real mental state). This is somewhat necessary, since we pretty much owe a good deal of our existence to slaughtering, and eating, animals. I would go so far as to say that this is the natural state of affairs for humans (and other omni and carnivores), you can't stay alive by eating the flesh of other while worrying to much about their ethical and humanistic (bad word, but others escape me) standing.
A bit of egotism (or species-centrism) is a healthy thing, and probably a necessary thing.
Animals, also, are no where near as complex as us. We have giant, obscenely complex, brains, and a hugely complex social organization. Most animals completely pale in comparison to our rational abilities, much less to our works. Its very hard to argue than any species can even come close to us in cognitive ability.
I'm not sure how you would define importance, in this case, so... But we probably can use a subjective measure. "My cat would think he is more important, and I think I am, so we are equals". This fails completely because my cat is completely incapable of actually having that thought.
I'm not advocating violence against animals, etc... But I can accept the thought that they are pretty much our inferiors. I don't need to artificially elevate them to be able to grant them some modicum of rights.
You should read Douglas Hofstadter's (of "Godel, Escher, Bach" fame) "I am a Strange Loop"... He goes into things like this, and pretty much links level of cognitive complexity to "ensoulment" (not meant in the religious sense), which correlates to the level of reguard we should give non-human things
So... some people are dicks, so no one should have a pet?
Thats the logic I grabbed from your post.
We have 3 cats, and we have never abused them (outside of feeding them late from time to time). My mom, when I was a kid, volunteered for a no-kill shelter, and took in may abandoned pets that couldn't fit in the shelter system, we obviously never abused a single one. The organization she was part of placed abandoned animals, and did semiannual checkups on them for the first 2-3 years. My dad ones a rescued fighting dog, and has never abused it (despite almost shooting it once, since it is a bit damaged from its life).
My Mom and Dad used to go pick up strays, spay or neuter them, and drop them back off where they found them.
But no, we shouldn't have pets, because Micheal Vick is an asshole? Or a small minority of people are assholes?
PETA is shameful. They hurt the animal rights movement more than they help it. I pretty much decided that the world would be better off without PETA when they did their whole "feedlots = Auschwitz" campaign. That might have been one of the most distasteful ad campaigns in the history of the world, and pretty much opened up anyone who says "animal rights" up for ridicule. Also anyone who claims animals have equal rights with humans is just a nut job, it is almost impossible to take that statement seriously, must less rationally justify it. Animals are not little people.
And "let wild animals be wild" is nonsensical. Cats and dogs are as much wild animals as cows and domesticated turkeys and modern corn. There has been many many thousands of years of man-made evolutionary pressure on them. Pets are manufactured products, pretty much. Yes, they can go feral, and live semi-successfully in the wild, but often not viably since they basically have no natural environmental anymore. Also having a large load of feral domestic animals can lead to some nasty consequences on the local fauna.
I probably would have voted for McCain, except is hard swing into the extreme right, and Palin.
Obama was about the only viable choice at that point. Though I still have sweat dreams of the impossible Kuchinich/Paul ticket.
I really am sick of the race card. I haven't even thought of Obama as black for a long time, just like I don't ever really think of myself as white (which I suppose I am). WHO FUCKING CARES? Yes, there is a couple of unwashed rednecks who think black people are inferior, and a couple of insane black people who think white people are the devil... good for them! Do the rest of us really give two shits about stuff like this anymore?
Oh wait... I live in Arizona, I'll shut up now. Though that doesn't preclude me looking down my nose at ANYONE who brings up racism in any case where it is not a clear cut "someone burnt a cross on my lawn" sense. (I'm racist since I'm against illegal immigration... blah blah... and the sad thing is that many of the people against it are racist nutbags, but I feel they have the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons... but then again I'm a branded anti-semite since I think Israel can often be wrong and immoral).
Obama was a better candidate than McCain, more people liked him. Deal with it.
The problem with Obama is his far reaching, left ideas that are bringing the country to the economic brink.
Huh?
What far left ideas? Forcing private citizens to give their money to giant corporations? Checking my leftist handbook, I don't see that one. Gently slapping the wrists of giant corporations that completely screwed our economy? Once again, it isn't in my lefty handbook. Bailouts? Yes, those would be if they actually helped people, and not more giant corporations. Continuing a couple unjustifiable wars that only benefit politicians and giant corporations? Nope, that isn't in my handbook either. Not pursuing justice against the previous batch of corrupt nincompoops for potential war crimes, and not reversing the policies that allowed them? Nope, not in the book either. Not reversing the erosion of civil liberties, and actively trying to erode them further? Nope, still not in the book.
Actually I can't see a single then that he has done that can be considered far to the left, or even much past a tiny bit left of center. I'm pretty far to the left, so my vision is skewed. If you were far right, then I can see Obama being a leftist, in comparison to... er... Bush or Palin. But then again Palin makes Reagan look like a bleeding hard liberal (and also like the smartest human who has ever existed).
Also, the economy was already pretty much screwed when Bush jumped in, and the governments budget was also pretty much completely dead. (these two feed on each other, see). Obama has been a bit spendy, obviously, but some of it can be argued to be justified (i.e. the economy would have been worse if he didn't). Spending on its own isn't a bad thing.
Let me append your definition of "liberal" (I would quote you, but Slashdot hates Chrome); Yes, a liberal eschew government oppression (everyone does, or at least doesn't want it to oppress them specifically). Liberals (using myself as an example, guaranteed to never be universally applicable) don't want the government to do more. They want it to do more to help elevate people and to minimize oppression and its various sources; help people stand on their own two feet. They want it to do less war stuff, less violating of civil liberties, less corporate hand outs and general bending over to giant corporations. Less exploitation. Less subsidies. Less taking care of the top 1%. Etc...
I'm not a good example, since I'm more of a civil libertarian than a straight liberal.
As a wise man once said, "What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." And so, until you provide evidence, you are dismissed. Buh bye.
We also haven't seen the Move or Kinect influence the Wii's market-share yet, either.
I'm guessing it will be marginal, even if they do technically out-Wii the Wii. Why? There are tons more Wiis sitting in people's living rooms already, and the Wii already has years of branding and familiarity within that market. MS and Sony will have an uphill battle to steal Nintendo's mindshare (which =market).
Who knows though, you, Mr. AC, might be correct. But the cost of upgrading the anemic hardware in the Wii will be less than upgrading the robust hardware of the 360 or PS3.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you just move the mouse with your fingers lightly on the buttons, then, and just apply slight added pressure to click? Or do you grasp its sides with something like your thumb and ring finger, and use your mouse fingers normally?
I tried this, but my mouse isn't really able to do either, it has very short walls on the button side, and its buttons are extremely sensitive.
Also, switching to things with embedded pointers (laptop nipples, trackpads, etc) must have been a pain, being forced to work on a "normal" axis.
Thats another problem I have with touch typing. I already type a bit faster than I think (and I generally am not typing code). I quickly hash out a paragraph, then sit there idly organizing the next. So basically if I magically added another 20 WPM to my skills, I would just sit there, staring out the window, a bit longer.
When I was growing up, my parents had a friend who took dictation for a living. She could type as fast as you could talk, with a damn fair bit of accuracy, and better she could record a three way conversation in real time, including headers for whose talking. My fourth grade mind was boggled.
Personally, when I have tried to write with my left hand I find it easier if I write in a mirror image to my right hand. It is more spatially correct relative to myself.
I've played around with trying to teach myself to write right-handed, but it has been, for the most part, an abysmal failure. Lefties write subtly different than right handed people to minimize dragging the hand over the writing area. In extreme cases you get the strange hunched style, where your arm completely surrounds the page so you can write from above, as opposed to straight on. The ideal solution would be to write only Arabic or Hebrew with your left hand. This somewhat confounds the mirror technique.
I try writing on two pages of paper, one with each hand, and mirroring each others output to the highest extent possible. Though the largest stumbling block is still holding the pen itself, it feels incredibly unnatural in my right hand, and its hard to get the muscles to do what I want them to do. Often they just twitch madly.
I'm sure with some work I could write like a 5th year old with my right hand (giant looping cursive), but the main problem is that there isn't much point. It isn't a skill that would be used enough to maintain. When I do need to handed note taking, I write with my left, and hunt and peck (speedily) into a text editor.
Existing in a world of, and being trained by, mostly right handed people probably play a roll. I have, though, seen studies saying that lefties are more ambidextrous because of neurological reasons as well. It has been awhile since I read any research on it, but if I recall correctly lefties motor area is distributed between hemispheres more than right handed individuals (whose motor functions are mainly on the left hemisphere). Basically, they have a sloppier neural mapping than righties, which leads to it being easier to switch hands.
This explains some of the odd hand preferences that left handed individuals have. I, for example, write, eat, and pitch in baseball with my left hand, but bowl and bat with my right. I can golf (very badly) with either hand with no real difference in play. My observation of my preference is that I mainly use my left hand for things that require fine motor function, and use my left for functions requiring more force or coarse movement. True lefies (as compared to a majority of right handed individuals) are very rare, with most lefies being mostly to somewhat ambidextrous.
As in most things with dual potential causes, it would be very hard to pick which factor is the main one, since there probably is some mix of causes (both neurological and social) which varies from individual to individual. But it is pretty much beyond depute that both play roles in hand preference.
I hate that feature, the it did lead to me learning an annoying habit I have. Apparently when I'm typing, and hit a blank, I will sit and idly tap right-shift with my pinkie until my brain can process the next sentence. At some point Windows kept popping up an accessibility panel advertising "sticky keys". Obnoxious, when did they do this? Vista? It might be the dumbest way to advertise a feature, "lets hide it behind an obscure and completely undocumented number of key-presses on a specific key! Thats the first place people wanting this feature will look! Completely intuitive!"
I was starting to think nobody on slashdot knew how to type properly.
By properly do you mean quickly and efficiently, or do you mean by arbitrary rules I learned early on in my education?
By the time my school system offered typing classes I was already typing for 10 years and was pretty set in my ways. Our typing teacher was always pissed at me for not "touch typing" in the proper style (i.e. the style the text book told him we were supposed to use), and once he got over that he was very happy that my self-taught haphazard typing was faster than pretty much everyone in the class. It worked for me, it was better to keep doing what worked than screwing around with something that worked. If it isn't broke... etc...
I have yet to see the innate superiority of touch typing, so I can't really acknowledge it as proper.
When I was young, I used to just yank it off my keyboard every time I got a new one. I had a small bin of them sitting around until a friend needed them for an art project (I went through a ton of keyboards since I learned to type on a manual typewriter, and later a very stiff IBM keyboard, I've cracked space-bars in half). Later I've just disabled them in software.
On this current keyboard, I don't think I have ever actually used caps-lock. On the rare occasion that I need to type a long string of caps, I hold down shift. I would actually find a keyboard without a caps-lock key to be a very nice thing. The last time I used my capslock key was on an old mac, where the tab key broke and I had to remap the caps-lock key to tab.
Please don't do that for me. I like using my mouse on the left side with righty buttons, it makes it easier to adapt to mouses in other places, so I can just move it across the keyboard and use it normally. There also isn't much of a difference in efficiency between using your middle finger to left click over using your index finger. To be more specific, I have never noticed any difference whatsoever.
Though honestly, in places that are not my home, I generally just use the mouse like a genuine right handed individual, with no problems. Most lefties are slightly ambidextrous (more so than most righties) so mouse placement isn't that big of a hindrance. I can pretty much use the mouse in any position with any hand. Sometimes I piss off my girlfriend by using the mouse on the left side with my right hand while drinking or writing with my left.
Messing around with my mouse, and I really can't figure how the hell you do that. Are you clicking with your palm? I can't quite get my fingers to actually hit the buttons. Not commenting on your choice, just pondering the technical aspects. I've been involved in flamewars over lefties using the mouse on the left side (as flamee), and using the actual "left-handed" settings (as flamer), so how you use your inputs (as long as it is consensual) isn't that big of a deal.
Also; using your mouse upside down isn't a big deal; use your keyboard upside down and you will earn my respect (while keeping a decent WPM).
It still is a problem, although not as common, on Window's Chrome. So I doubt X is the complete problem. The Linux (or at least Ubuntu, haven't ran out and ran it on every distro) implementation seems a bit worse than the Windows one.
Does it fix the "I can't paste into a textarea" bug?
It was still in the dev version, so I'm guessing not. I am using Chromium, and I did paste that; but it has always allowed me to paste in a fresh form, just not one that has text (sometimes), and never one that has characters before the paste (i.e. pasting after HTML tags).
Oddly I mostly only notice this on Slashdot, it seems to work fine on most other sites; this might be because I mostly paste to Slashdot though.
I keep on considering going back to Firefox, but every time I run it now it feels slower and more clunky (not rendering, but the UI and software itself). Firefox 4 also seems a bit off, and I wanted to be completely off of Firefox before I have to use it.
I do wonder why they haven't done anything about it yet. It is a well known, and prevalent bug, and seems to be heavily reported and documented.
...how we define "human". Chimpanzees are 96-99% genetically identical to humans ...Recent research indicates that there are non-human animals which are self-aware to some degree.
This is a question I won't even presume to try to answer. I have no clue. Its like the old obscenity cliche; "I know it when I see it". Not a useful answer, but one that has a bit of subjective weight.
The problem of non-human intelligence is a bit intractable. We measure and define intelligence by its manifestation through us. This makes it very hard to move it beyond our own species. That was the topic of my psychology capstone, and after all the huge amount of effort, wrangling, and research I'm was as ignorant as when I started. Not only is it almost impossible to generalize intelligence outside of our own (and closely related) species, but it is almost impossible to define "intelligence" itself. Its just another "I know it when I see it" subjective judgement, for the most part.
Is culture evolutionary as well?
Culture itself is, as in the urge to make it and participate in it. Culture in-itself might be, along non-genetic (memetic, as trite as that sounds these days) lines. I'm not sure if it is, it runs along the normal evolutionary rules, there seems to be a lot of arbitrary, or even destructive, elements within various cultures.
So can eating non-human animals.
It isn't as prevalent as in cannibalism though, and might be mostly the product of our own stupid modern agricultural choices (feeding animals dead animals).
Not human by our current definition. We could (once again) redefine what it means to be human.
No argument there. Many people already have. It seems the historical trend of rights is to become more inclusive, so who knows. That is probably a big fallacy, but it feels right. For what its worth.
I have way more questions than answers.
Not a bad state of affairs, that!
That's nice, but all I'm saying is that this perceived importance isn't fact. That's all.
Which is nice, but a bit useless. Thats my point, it might be ultimately true, but it is completely useless.
Yes, you can. It's fairly easy to just accept that your opinion isn't absolute fact.
This is pretty much obvious, but there are probably much more... interesting... reminders that you are pretty much completely fallible.
As far as I know, I never once mentioned anything about personal opinion.
So basically this is a completely useless line of thought. I hardly think that thinking "Oh dear everything is meaningless" is useful. If personal opinions doesn't matter (which it doesn't in the abstract grand picture) it isn't very useful for the matter we are discussing.
It isn't even good for thinking rationally, since using "everything is meaningless on some scales" is pretty much useless. You can't live by that. It has its place, I suppose, in philosophy and science, but not in what we are talking about, namely, assigning importance. We are talking about what level of rights to prescribe to other things, so saying "everything is meaningless" doesn't really add to the discussion. And ultimately we HAVE TO assign level of importance to things, since we really do live down here, at the human scale.
Your use of evolution here sounds kinda sounds like a "God of the gaps". You mean "evolution" in the sense of genetic mutation and natural selection? In that case, how would you explain the vastly differing moralities of various cultures? In some cultures, canibalism is intrinsic, in others it's taboo.
Moving a bit off topic here, but I'll bite. Please don't think I take anything I state here as gospel truth, this is just a hypothesis I play with to help explain why there seems to be actual ethics in the real world (beyond prescriptive academic philosophy) while there is no apparent source of these ethics (yes, I'm an atheist). Every culture has some form of ethical or moral system, and generally these systems have more in common than not.
Being that humans are, and evolved as, group animals it makes sense for there to be pressure on group cohesion and cooperation, since the survival of individuals depends, on part, the health of group. This pressure would lead to certain innate traits, or more precisely instincts that further group cohesion. Some of these traits are uniquely human, and some continued on from previous primate iterations (notice the commonalities within social structures of divergent primate groups).
This ethical instinct would be based on something (or at least ascribed to) like empathy, or theory of mind; the ability to see ourselves in others. This would lead to something like the golden rule.
Basically: If human, then treat as oneself. The interesting bit is the "if human" part of the syllogism, since that helps explain how we have some flavor of ethics universally, but still can commit great atrocities. What we define as human, or human like varies with culture. Black people weren't human for a time, and neither were Jews or women (who still aren't in many cultures considered fully human), for example, and thus were not part of the formula.
The "treat as oneself" proposition is a bit vague and wobbly, I admit, and I'm sure there are further caveats and sub-rules that I'm missing. But it seems like a rough approximation. The caveats and sub-rules could possibly be called "rights". Rights could never be universal, in this context, sadly, but I fear they really aren't, since I have never seen a convincing argument towards universal, a priori, rights.
There are many variations by culture since the evolutionary framework only provides us with a hard and fast default, which can be somewhat overwritten by cultural conditioning and personal circumstances, it becomes more and more apt at larger aggregate levels though.
From this flows prescriptive ethics (thou shall not...), it doesn't force them, it merely guides them.
Cannibalism isn't really a problem, most cultures who practice it do so and remain within the confines of the syllogism. They don't go out and eat their friends and family willy-nilly, it generally is ritualized and an aspect of tribal warfare or mourning. Why do we find it repellent, and other cultures don't? There are many different explanations; our cultural roots (in the Judea-Christian ethos) may differ from those who do, or there may be further pressure not to engage in certain taboos (such as incest, which leads to genetic nastiness). Cannabalism can spread nasty prion diseases (kuru, historically), meaning there may be larger cultural and traditional forces against it, or even another slight evolutionary imperative.
Still, for the sake of argument, if morals are evolutionary in origin, I can claim that, just as we have (largely) evolved past slavery, the next step in our moral evolution is to transcend cruelty to and callous domination of other animal species.
If they are evolutionary, then you can't claim that, either of those statements. We didn't genetically evolve past slavery, we just culturally reclassified black people (or poor people, or whoeever) as being equally human with us, and thus entitled to the same rights and ethical choices as us. We can, tomorrow, decide that black peopl
You're using emotionally loaded language to target corporate scapegoats in order to remove your own guilty feelings. Removing the artists from the debate and replacing them with greedy corporate stereotypes makes you feel less bad about not paying content creators for their work.
While I agree that calling them the "mafiaa" is a bit dumb, and probably doesn't help their case or lend them any credability, I think you also reached a fair bit. While I don't advocate "straight" piracy*, I also find it fair to target the RIAA and (to a lesser extent) the MPAA. The RIAA != Artists. Actually the labels screw the artists pretty well themselves, and most of your purchase goes to the labels, not the artists. I think a case could be made for some flavor of protest against the RIAA and all its signatories, since they come pretty close to being actually evil, without any motivation of harm towards actual artists under them (pirating CDs and supporting them through concerts and other merchandise). I don't think this is common, but it can be a potential motivation.
If I were to go pirate something, I would have less of an issue with pirating from the RIAA than from an indie label, or self-published band. In the former, my action has less potential harm to the actual artist (the only thing that matters) since they already are pretty much scalped and screwed, barring the couple lucky big engineered acts. In the latter case the artist has a higher stake in the success of the label, thus, if there is harm in piracy, it has a higher potential for actual harm.
* I do have nothing against piracy used for format shifting previous purchases, nor acquiring things where the creator no longer benefits from it, or if the item is pretty damn old (over 20 years, lets say), and thus no longer really fits the stated purpose of copyright. Or for trying before you buy, if you actually intent to buy the product (this is especially true of software). I am mostly against "greed" piracy, though, but I think the reaction to it is far disproportional to the actual costs it incurs, if any. Even if there is no real cost (which I have suspicions towards) I would still be against it on purely ethical grounds.
From where do humans derive their rights--scientifically-speaking? You can claim that humans have inalienable rights derived from God, but that's not a scientific proposition. Rationally-speaking, humans have the rights they have granted themselves. Humans can also grant whatever rights they choose to the other animals under their control. It's a choice, so there's nothing crazy about saying all animals ought to have the same rights.
This is the age old question now, isn't it? I don't have an answer really. I think human rights come from evolution, and we pretty much, mostly, live as if they were true (depending on what we define as human at the time, which is cultural). There is no exterior force binding them, and no real, non-social, consequences for not following them.
Animals don't get this consideration, since there was no pressure for us to evolve the same innate moral structures. Their rights are wholly socially derived. What I was stated was my take on it, it is as correct as any other barring some other, extra-human source that rights and morals flow from.
Babies get the rights because of evolution too, it is advantageous to treat our babies well.
The real problem is liberals support a philosophy that, by it's nature, puts people in power to exert control over the population. At it's heart is that the public is too stupid to govern itself and must have government control. Without that all those evil corporations would run rampant over the sheeple.
As stated I come from the civil libertarian school. It reads pretty much like the capital "L" libertarians on many fronts. I don't think people are too dumb to governthemselves, and if they are that is their choice. The government should pretty much back off from all civil affairs. The government should become involved where there is the abuse of other people, though, and when people become disinfranchised because of forces outside of their control. It shouldn't tell you how to live your life, but it shouldn't be affraid of helping people out when they fall through the cracks either.
I also didn't fall for the "Republicans favor business, Democrats favor the people" trap. Republicans DO favor corporations, looking at their track record and activities (stated ideology is nothing without actions to back it). Democrats favor corporations just as much as the Republicans, though perhaps differed classes of them. Neither of them seem to favor the American people very much of late. Republicans and Democrats are equally silly. Liberalism and Convervativism is more apt, but still very limited, and still very limiting. I would rather avoid falling into the trap of either of them, there are some things that one or the other may get "correct", and some things that both completely fail on. Capitolized ideologies are generally more harmful than good, and I'm suspicious of anyone who actually fully subscribes to one.
However, that idea leads people into office who simply want the control.
Looking at actual actions, it seems to work for the conservatives too. It seems like people elect them, often, to try to force religious and moral laws (or principles that can only be argued via a reliance on supernatural principleS) on people. The latest hulabaloo about gay marriage for example, that was largly a consverative movement. I, as a civil libertarian, can't make any sense of it; who the hell cares?
The left is just fine with paying off corporations--when the ultimate goal is control of corporations.
Seems a bit conspiracy like. If the government wanted control, they could legislate into it. Much better than handing banks a trillion or so dollars with no strings attatched, or giving them slap on the wrist regulations for acting irresonibly short sighted and trashing our economy (yes, saying "tsk-tsk" will really keep it from happening again!). I fear the truth is much simpler than a grand conspiracy; politicians, both on the left and the right, want to keep their corporate donors happy, and this keep the money flowing to them. Greed. Some politicians might actually buy the line that we need to keep mega-corporations happy because it makes the world a better place. Some politicians think their walking a grey ethical line, but they need to suck up to the corporations because that money allows them to stay in office, where they will eventually do good (after the next fund-raising cycle, of course).
Conservatives want limited federal government with more power (where needed) going to local control
I see nothing in my liberal handbook against this. I agree with you there. But the federal government still serves a purpose, and should prop up the general welfare (I think the phrase is in the Constitution) where states falter. How you define "general welfare" is another, different but related, fine argument.
Politicians have forgotten they work for us. That's a lot about what happened in the last election. The people said, "No! Stop!" The politicians just said, "We know better than you," and kept pushing their outrageous bills. They knew this was the chance to get in their wish list over the public's wishes.
I agree with
What do you mean by "universal importance?" Ignoring the presence of some metaphysical super-being who gives everything meaning, pretty much nothing could be said to be important depending on the scale your looking at. Pretty much nothing really matters "universally", since the universe would tick along just fine without basically anything. Instead of important, I would claim that everything is universally insignificant.
I might find some degree of solidarity with Lassie in this, but then again both me and Lassie are about equal to a bacteria or a single atom of cesium. I'm not going to go arguing that that single atom of cesium over there (I can see you lurking in the corner, scheming) is my equal, nor am I going to argue that the 10,000,000 bacteria I probably killed today are. I doubt you would either, since I'm sure your the wanton bug and bacteria killing machine that I am. Where is the line? At what point do I have to give something the respect I give myself?
If there isn't a level, then things are just pretty meaningless. Our transience and insignificance doesn't garner respect, it more logically leads to apathy. If Lassie is as meaningless as me, then who really cares what happens to her? She will die anyways, and in tens of years no one will remember her.
I don't find this as a good ground work for generating a system of much of anything. It is an unnatural scale, we, subjectively, don't really live there. Yes, the real universe is big, uncaring, etc... But that isn't where we live subjectively, or where our brains learned to cope or recognize. It is an abstraction. Ethics come from, and apply to, a much smaller realm, this one, and in smaller single generation time scales.
Perhaps not, but they're also not factually less important than humans
I'm not sure what you mean by "factually" in that statement.
I am an animal lover, I have always had pets, and I find people who commit meaningless violence against animals to be abhorrent beyond words; but I can't really see animals being our equals on any level. From the most basic level, they are not us, and we naturally hold ourselves above everything else, this springs from the basic flaw in their being; not being us (I'm not saying this is strictly logical, but it is a real mental state). This is somewhat necessary, since we pretty much owe a good deal of our existence to slaughtering, and eating, animals. I would go so far as to say that this is the natural state of affairs for humans (and other omni and carnivores), you can't stay alive by eating the flesh of other while worrying to much about their ethical and humanistic (bad word, but others escape me) standing.
A bit of egotism (or species-centrism) is a healthy thing, and probably a necessary thing.
Animals, also, are no where near as complex as us. We have giant, obscenely complex, brains, and a hugely complex social organization. Most animals completely pale in comparison to our rational abilities, much less to our works. Its very hard to argue than any species can even come close to us in cognitive ability.
I'm not sure how you would define importance, in this case, so... But we probably can use a subjective measure. "My cat would think he is more important, and I think I am, so we are equals". This fails completely because my cat is completely incapable of actually having that thought.
I'm not advocating violence against animals, etc... But I can accept the thought that they are pretty much our inferiors. I don't need to artificially elevate them to be able to grant them some modicum of rights.
You should read Douglas Hofstadter's (of "Godel, Escher, Bach" fame) "I am a Strange Loop"... He goes into things like this, and pretty much links level of cognitive complexity to "ensoulment" (not meant in the religious sense), which correlates to the level of reguard we should give non-human things
So... some people are dicks, so no one should have a pet?
Thats the logic I grabbed from your post.
We have 3 cats, and we have never abused them (outside of feeding them late from time to time). My mom, when I was a kid, volunteered for a no-kill shelter, and took in may abandoned pets that couldn't fit in the shelter system, we obviously never abused a single one. The organization she was part of placed abandoned animals, and did semiannual checkups on them for the first 2-3 years. My dad ones a rescued fighting dog, and has never abused it (despite almost shooting it once, since it is a bit damaged from its life).
My Mom and Dad used to go pick up strays, spay or neuter them, and drop them back off where they found them.
But no, we shouldn't have pets, because Micheal Vick is an asshole? Or a small minority of people are assholes?
PETA is shameful. They hurt the animal rights movement more than they help it. I pretty much decided that the world would be better off without PETA when they did their whole "feedlots = Auschwitz" campaign. That might have been one of the most distasteful ad campaigns in the history of the world, and pretty much opened up anyone who says "animal rights" up for ridicule. Also anyone who claims animals have equal rights with humans is just a nut job, it is almost impossible to take that statement seriously, must less rationally justify it. Animals are not little people.
And "let wild animals be wild" is nonsensical. Cats and dogs are as much wild animals as cows and domesticated turkeys and modern corn. There has been many many thousands of years of man-made evolutionary pressure on them. Pets are manufactured products, pretty much. Yes, they can go feral, and live semi-successfully in the wild, but often not viably since they basically have no natural environmental anymore. Also having a large load of feral domestic animals can lead to some nasty consequences on the local fauna.
I probably would have voted for McCain, except is hard swing into the extreme right, and Palin.
Obama was about the only viable choice at that point. Though I still have sweat dreams of the impossible Kuchinich/Paul ticket.
I really am sick of the race card. I haven't even thought of Obama as black for a long time, just like I don't ever really think of myself as white (which I suppose I am). WHO FUCKING CARES? Yes, there is a couple of unwashed rednecks who think black people are inferior, and a couple of insane black people who think white people are the devil... good for them! Do the rest of us really give two shits about stuff like this anymore?
Oh wait... I live in Arizona, I'll shut up now. Though that doesn't preclude me looking down my nose at ANYONE who brings up racism in any case where it is not a clear cut "someone burnt a cross on my lawn" sense. (I'm racist since I'm against illegal immigration... blah blah... and the sad thing is that many of the people against it are racist nutbags, but I feel they have the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons... but then again I'm a branded anti-semite since I think Israel can often be wrong and immoral).
Obama was a better candidate than McCain, more people liked him. Deal with it.
The problem with Obama is his far reaching, left ideas that are bringing the country to the economic brink.
Huh?
What far left ideas? Forcing private citizens to give their money to giant corporations? Checking my leftist handbook, I don't see that one. Gently slapping the wrists of giant corporations that completely screwed our economy? Once again, it isn't in my lefty handbook. Bailouts? Yes, those would be if they actually helped people, and not more giant corporations. Continuing a couple unjustifiable wars that only benefit politicians and giant corporations? Nope, that isn't in my handbook either. Not pursuing justice against the previous batch of corrupt nincompoops for potential war crimes, and not reversing the policies that allowed them? Nope, not in the book either. Not reversing the erosion of civil liberties, and actively trying to erode them further? Nope, still not in the book.
Actually I can't see a single then that he has done that can be considered far to the left, or even much past a tiny bit left of center. I'm pretty far to the left, so my vision is skewed. If you were far right, then I can see Obama being a leftist, in comparison to... er... Bush or Palin. But then again Palin makes Reagan look like a bleeding hard liberal (and also like the smartest human who has ever existed).
Also, the economy was already pretty much screwed when Bush jumped in, and the governments budget was also pretty much completely dead. (these two feed on each other, see). Obama has been a bit spendy, obviously, but some of it can be argued to be justified (i.e. the economy would have been worse if he didn't). Spending on its own isn't a bad thing.
Let me append your definition of "liberal" (I would quote you, but Slashdot hates Chrome); Yes, a liberal eschew government oppression (everyone does, or at least doesn't want it to oppress them specifically). Liberals (using myself as an example, guaranteed to never be universally applicable) don't want the government to do more. They want it to do more to help elevate people and to minimize oppression and its various sources; help people stand on their own two feet. They want it to do less war stuff, less violating of civil liberties, less corporate hand outs and general bending over to giant corporations. Less exploitation. Less subsidies. Less taking care of the top 1%. Etc...
I'm not a good example, since I'm more of a civil libertarian than a straight liberal.
As a wise man once said, "What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." And so, until you provide evidence, you are dismissed. Buh bye.
And that man was not Joe Biden. QED.
(I kid)
We also haven't seen the Move or Kinect influence the Wii's market-share yet, either.
I'm guessing it will be marginal, even if they do technically out-Wii the Wii. Why? There are tons more Wiis sitting in people's living rooms already, and the Wii already has years of branding and familiarity within that market. MS and Sony will have an uphill battle to steal Nintendo's mindshare (which =market).
Who knows though, you, Mr. AC, might be correct. But the cost of upgrading the anemic hardware in the Wii will be less than upgrading the robust hardware of the 360 or PS3.