4) Apple has always been an innovator. PDAs are not new. I don't see a lot of room for innovation with them.
One word:
iPod
hmmm.. Ok, more than one word. Innovation don't nessesarily mean thinking up new completely new ideas. It also means improving existing ideas.
At first glance. There is nothing special about the iPod. It's certainly nothing new. But when you take a closer look you find out that: It has a huge storage capasity for it's size, has fast connection, long battery life, better interface than similar devices, doubles as a portable (and bootable) harddrive. It's innovative.
I do think that this iWalk is a fake. And don't think that Apple will revile a PDA anytime soon. But I can't see why won't in the future. It's not like the PDA industry is overflowing with innovation or anything *cough* Palm *cough*. Apple are quite capable of producing a PDA that would be the next Newton or Palm Pilot Pro, or whatever.
As for you claim that there is not alot of room for innovation with PDAs. Maybe you should seek a job at Palm. There are thousands of ideas out there. Saying that there is no room for innovation in any is silly.
Dream on. I've made this point so many times before. I really doubt the Taco and the crew care, or can be bothered when it comes to CSS and design issues.
Can't blame them though, since they are coders and not designers.
Don't argue with him. He's right. In fact, you can't use a computer TODAY with Windows ME on it. Except as a paperweight or boat-anchor.
...Or a door-stop, balist for a hot air baloon, foot stool, weapon, childrens toy, modern art sculpture, as a brick in those 'eco' houses made of garbage, storage box, heater, noise generator, showroom prop, place to practice using a hammer or axe, bumper pad on the side of a shipping dock, spare parts, seat, monitor stand, trojan horse, party trick, scrap metal, fancy skateboard (just put some wheels on it), practice object for pyrotechnics expert, spare wheel, mouse house, dog chew toy, high-tech procastination machine.
See, Win ME is useful.
Re:Issues with the euro in day-to-day life
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
There's no 25 cents coin. Someone tell me why, because I don't understand it. Specially since a coffe here is about 125 pesetas, which is roughly 0.75 euro. We've got 2 and 20 cents coins, but anyway, I don't know why there're no 25 cents coins.
Probably because there is a 5 cent coin. I could be wrong here. But if you use a 20c coin and a 5c coin together, you could use that combination instead of a 25c coin.;)
One thing that shocked me was the fact that they have 1 and 2 cent coins. I was so glad when they phased out the little bastards here in NZ. But I spose since the euro is for many different contries, all much much larger and diverse than NZ, it's probably a nessesity.
I talking to a secretary once and she wanted to know a url for something. I mentioned a tilde (~) in the address and she literally said, with honesty, "Oh, you are getting technical on me." Had to point out where the key was.
Ha! I've used computers for 10 years (20yo). I've used win2k, win98/95/3.1, mac, and even installed Linux a few times. I've spent the last few months doing php and mysql, and the last 2 years doing HTML work. But if you had asked me what a tilde was. I would have ask what the f you were on about. You would have had to have said something iike "it's the squiggly thing above the tab key".
My point? I'm not sure I even had one. But it just goes to show...
Or that cold use it to promote there chips, and other stuff.
"I got the new AMD chip, and I get a much higher frame rate in Quake then my crappy Pentium *click*. Sorry, I meant to say Pentium the best ! Horray! *click*"
"Huh?"
"Stupid Intel... *click* were so cool, they dropped there prices by $20 on the new P6 6.8Ghz, avalible on-line at www.intel.com."
"Are you OK?"
"Yes, I'm fine now that have a Pentium 6 installed in my home and business computers *click*...implant chip!"
"I think you've had enough to drink tonight *click* but why not have a one more refreashing coke before you leave *click*."
"I swear....If I ever *click* get a new computer, it will come with a pentium chip. *click* AAAAARRRH!"
Sure it's Linux which is open source. But do you really need linux on a PDA? Wouldn't you be better off creating an OS that was talored specifily as a PDA OS (which can still be an open source OS)?
160x160 screen, 8MBs RAM, bigger than a Vx. Runs an OS that looks like a clone of PalmOS but without the ability to run palm apps. Sure it's open source. But do you really need that in a PDA?
Only syncs with Win (even palm syncs with Mac and Win).
Why even bother? These people seem to be showing even less innovation than Palm.
I just cant see a resaon why anyone (except a small minorty) would want this. They could have atleast had a sceen like the Handera 330.
*sigh*
Sorry, but it's actually a fucken brilliant idea. Just because you can't think up a blindingly obvious solution to a potential problem. It doesn't make it a horrible idea.
Logically. It will evolve to have different services and protocols, just like the net does now. There could be public messages, private messages (kinda like e-mail or something) etc. Different companies could set-up message services for different uses etc. Some people might even make a system like usernet, they could have a 'good places to eat at' group that you could use/subscribe to. I'm sure there are 1000's of other ideas that this could be used for.
Do you have data to support this? If not it's just more FUD.
Your honestly trying to tell me that you have never heard of a case where dangerous chemicals where buried, and later cause people to be sick?
And putting toxic waste into a hole (a deep hole) is indeed a good solution, if you have made reasonable attempts to reduce the volume and toxicity, if you use some common sense about the disposal site, and if you make every effort to limit access.
The thing is, you can never make sure people don't come into contact with it. I'm not talking about tomorrow, I'm talking quite a bit in the future. I saw a whole documentary abut this very problem. They concluded that the only way to make sure that people don't come into contact with it was to make it inaccessible (since languages and symbols change). But even then, it was a hard task since the earth doesn't sit still.
You (and you are not alone by any means) make statements that have the implicit underlying assumption that people who make these decisions or design disposal containers or systems, haven't done any research or homework, they've simply "flipped a coin" to decide. I assure you this is not the case. It is HARD to get a LLRW disposal site licensed in this country. The reason is not science, it's FUD and NIMBY and political manoeuvring.
No I don't. I bet there's people have spent a lot of time on these problems of where they dump it. But it still doesn't change the fact that they dump it, or the fact that sometimes it is dumped illegally.
Also, did you ever think that maybe future generations might find a valuable use for this waste? We may not have the technology to make use of it, but I think our descendents may.
Sure they might! But that's a pretty fucken ridiculous reason to not do something about this problem, because there's always a high chance that it will still be a problem. I'm sure if they find a use for it. They can easily make some more waste.
Nothing you ever say will convince me that dumping toxic waste in a hole is a good solution. Or that the people who dump it have never made a mistake or shortcut which has affected peoples' health.
Of course they don't really dump toxic waste from power-plants in school playgrounds. My point was that they don't always get dumped in the proper place. Alot of crap does get dumped in the wrong place and it does affect people.
Putting toxic waste in a hole--even if it is far away from people--isn't a solution. It can leak, and people in the future may come across it unknowenly. It simple shifts the proplem to a place where it can't be seen so people can ignore it.
Your math is all wrong. Unless these people are going to build the tower, and only run it for an hour and then never use it again.
The 200MW figure isn't how much electricity it will produce in it's total lifetime, it's how much it electricity it will produce hourly (or something like that).
[RANT]
I mean...come on, it's nice that the/. community does scrutinize what professionals say. But do you really think that they wouldn't have done the figures on this thing already? You really think that your equation that you did in 1 minuet is anywhere near accurate considering you might not even know anything about the subject?
As I said before, it's nice that/. does scrutinize things like this. But I've just seen far to much of this 'this idea won't work and my math proves it in a few simple equations' crap, it's starting to get silly. What's even worse is when moderators mod it up, which automatically give more credibility to the post, and people start to belive it.
Yes, the pollution from nuclear plants is highly toxic, but you can stick it in a barrel and bury it in the deepest darkest hole you can find and be done with it.
Unfortunatly that deepest darkest hole can sometimes be the local schools' playground.
Here's another idea that I just remembered. Maybe/. editors should consider the use of TITLE tags. It's kinda like ALT tages for images, except you can use them in <A HREF> tags.
Simply use like this:
...The other day I was browsing the net, and I came across this horrible site called
<A HREF="http://goatse.cx" TITLE="Warning! This site is really gross. You have been warned">goatse.cx</A> just as my boss walked in. What happened next was the most...
I'd show you an example. But/. filters out this very usefuly tag.
Unfortunately it seems that/. editors have no scene of graphic design/typography (or basic grammar skills really) whatsoever.
The most obvious thing would be to make the main link to the article bold.
While I'm ranting here:
1) Long blocks of italics are hard to read, especially on a computer screen. Using a different font or colour would be much more readable, and easier to tell from the editors comments.
2) Line breaks and paragraphs are also good to separate text. I have never seen a blank line of the frontpage of/. It's silly, you already have to scroll since there's a lot of info. A few blank spaces for readabilities sake isn't going to hurt.
I've mentioned quite a few times--on articles about CSS, web standards and the like--that/. needs a re-design. This is what I mean. Not lots of nice flashy graphics, basic design things like proper spacing between elements and distinguishing different information.
About 10 people before you have mentioned this. And each time, someone has stated the blinding obvious fact that a flat-panel iMac would not use expensive laptop internals. Not to mention things like form factor.
*sigh*
Also, iMacs do provide better performace than iBooks.
new moderation option needed: (Score: -1, For f's sake girl/boy/woman/man! Think before you post!)
This sounds more like a "Lets build an unorthodox. unusual and attention-getting device so we can attract supporters for the idea!" concept rather than a truly practical and realistic one. Sounds like a varitable CueCat of Mars exploration.
IMHO, a windup grasshopper is just as complex, unorthodox, unusual and attention-getting as a flying insect. In fact, it's probably more complex.
That's the whole point. Who cares where they end up? With enough of them, over time they'll map everything anyway without any sort of guidance.
Sure. And if an infinite number of monkeys type at an infinite number of typewriters...
The amount of balloons that NASA could actually get to mars, probably wouldn't be enough to be able to go with the 'with enough time' idea.
They'd probably be better of with satellites for that kinda thing. Don't forget, they want to take soil samples to, balloons wouldn't make the most graceful landing if they're traveling fast or land on a bolder and topple off the side of it.
You're wrong here. The energy required to take photos can be stored in a spring. Apparently you've missed Slashdot's umpteen billion stories on the "wind-up radio". And so what if the grasshopper lands upside down, or on an angle? The images are going to undergo image processing back on Earth anyway--All you have to do is just rotate the image so that its oriented correctly. Use your head, man.
And how long would the springs last if they had to operate cameras, communication devices, mineral analysts computer as well as making them jump?
It's not just the direction angle of the photos (although they would have to record the direction it was taken). But if it's facing the ground or horizon, or the sky. It's impossible to correct that in a photolab, and if they could, it wouldn't be considered at scientific resource photo because the image would have been altered.
They might be able to use flywheels for power, but that would mean weight problems.
And you didn't explain how these spring loaded grasshoppers could jump canyons. Unless NASA made a complex, flying mothership they could deploy them in different places. But of course, that means making a flying device that could operate well in the mars atmosphere. Hmmmm....Wonder what they could use for that.
I think the grasshoppers also suffer from infinite monkeys syndome.
Both are good ideas. But I just don't think they are suited for this particular job. And to modify them to suit the job, would mean you'd probably end up with something more complex than this flying insect.
Balloons. Whats wrong with having a computer-controlled balloon with a cannister of hydrogen or helium beneath it?
But it would be pretty hard to get them where you want them to go. So it's prolly not the best.
If not balloons, why not use spring-loaded "grasshoppers" ? Essentially big wind-up toys, you can deploy thousands of these on the surface. They dont require intelligence, they dont consume fuel, and they dont require supervision of any sort.
If they can take photos, they will require fuel. Also, if you can't control them, then they're pretty usless. And I'd imagine that if they landed on the side of a bolder, they'd probably end up up-side down. If they where 'intelligent' they might be able to filp themselves back up. And they also can't cross big cliffs/canyons very well.
I think this guy fails to realize that the more complicated his device becomes, the more risks of failure you encounter, the higher the pricetag becomes, and the more problems you'll have no way of addressing. As the old saying goes, "Keep it simple, stupid!".
Some people forget there is a differece between something that's simple and a concept that is simple.
A flying insect is a complex concept. But really. If you read the artical, it's pretty simple. It has 2 sets of wings the occsilate, powered by mucsels that feed on chemicals. Pretty simple really. All they have to do it find the right design (since it's a complex concept). Much more simple that wind-up grasshoppers, that would have to take off, glide thought the air, and land perfectly, over any terrain (45 degree slopes etc.) without needing any sort of control.
Nice idea, but no real point unless the tumble weed can fly long distances.
"The trouble with the rovers is that they land in one spot and are very limited in the extent to which they can explore," says Robert Michelson, principal research engineer at the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) and lead developer of the Entomopter design. "It's frustrating to be looking through the camera of a rover and wonder what might be on the other side of the next ridge. If we could get a vehicle that could fly over that ridge, we could do surveys much more efficiently."
Slashdot Mirror
One word:
iPod
hmmm.. Ok, more than one word. Innovation don't nessesarily mean thinking up new completely new ideas. It also means improving existing ideas.
At first glance. There is nothing special about the iPod. It's certainly nothing new. But when you take a closer look you find out that: It has a huge storage capasity for it's size, has fast connection, long battery life, better interface than similar devices, doubles as a portable (and bootable) harddrive. It's innovative.
I do think that this iWalk is a fake. And don't think that Apple will revile a PDA anytime soon. But I can't see why won't in the future. It's not like the PDA industry is overflowing with innovation or anything *cough* Palm *cough*.
Apple are quite capable of producing a PDA that would be the next Newton or Palm Pilot Pro, or whatever.
As for you claim that there is not alot of room for innovation with PDAs. Maybe you should seek a job at Palm. There are thousands of ideas out there. Saying that there is no room for innovation in any is silly.
Dream on. I've made this point so many times before. I really doubt the Taco and the crew care, or can be bothered when it comes to CSS and design issues.
Can't blame them though, since they are coders and not designers.
See, Win ME is useful.
Probably because there is a 5 cent coin. I could be wrong here. But if you use a 20c coin and a 5c coin together, you could use that combination instead of a 25c coin. ;)
One thing that shocked me was the fact that they have 1 and 2 cent coins. I was so glad when they phased out the little bastards here in NZ. But I spose since the euro is for many different contries, all much much larger and diverse than NZ, it's probably a nessesity.
Ha! I've used computers for 10 years (20yo). I've used win2k, win98/95/3.1, mac, and even installed Linux a few times. I've spent the last few months doing php and mysql, and the last 2 years doing HTML work.
But if you had asked me what a tilde was. I would have ask what the f you were on about. You would have had to have said something iike "it's the squiggly thing above the tab key".
My point? I'm not sure I even had one. But it just goes to show...
"I got the new AMD chip, and I get a much higher frame rate in Quake then my crappy Pentium *click*. Sorry, I meant to say Pentium the best ! Horray! *click*"
"Huh?"
"Stupid Intel... *click* were so cool, they dropped there prices by $20 on the new P6 6.8Ghz, avalible on-line at www.intel.com."
"Are you OK?"
"Yes, I'm fine now that have a Pentium 6 installed in my home and business computers *click* ...implant chip!"
"I think you've had enough to drink tonight *click* but why not have a one more refreashing coke before you leave *click*."
"I swear....If I ever *click* get a new computer, it will come with a pentium chip. *click* AAAAARRRH!"
pshop> create PSD -s 1024 768 -c 32bit RGB -t my_image;
image 'my_iamge' created
pshop> draw square
pshop> width 200px, 300px
pshop> pos 500px, 500px
pshop> fill #F4F6B7
pshop> border 2px, #000000;
square created. id: 000931231.
pshop> edit square 000931241
pshop> border 3px, #990000;
error: square 000931241 does not exist.
error: comamnd 'border' undefined.
pshop> edit square 000931231
pshop> border 3px, #990000;
border changed for square 000931231
pshop> preview;
tret
etet
09
trfd
tert
pshop> edit square 000931231
pshop> pos 400px, 200px;
position changed for square 000931231
pshop> create ovel
pshop> width 100px, 100px
pshop> pos 300px, 300px
pshop> fill #F4F6B7
pshop> border 2px, #000000;
error: no object 'ovel'
pshop> create oval
pshop> width 100px, 100px
pshop> pos 300px, 300px
pshop> fill #F4F6B7
pshop> border 2px, #000000;
oval created id: 00346583.
*sigh*
I spose my point should have been more like this:
Sure it's Linux which is open source. But do you really need linux on a PDA? Wouldn't you be better off creating an OS that was talored specifily as a PDA OS (which can still be an open source OS)?
Runs an OS that looks like a clone of PalmOS but without the ability to run palm apps. Sure it's open source. But do you really need that in a PDA?
Only syncs with Win (even palm syncs with Mac and Win).
Why even bother? These people seem to be showing even less innovation than Palm.
I just cant see a resaon why anyone (except a small minorty) would want this. They could have atleast had a sceen like the Handera 330.
*sigh*
Logically. It will evolve to have different services and protocols, just like the net does now. There could be public messages, private messages (kinda like e-mail or something) etc. Different companies could set-up message services for different uses etc. Some people might even make a system like usernet, they could have a 'good places to eat at' group that you could use/subscribe to. I'm sure there are 1000's of other ideas that this could be used for.
You really need to try and think more lateraly.
I have an open mind. I'm just not in denial or brain dead.
Your honestly trying to tell me that you have never heard of a case where dangerous chemicals where buried, and later cause people to be sick?
And putting toxic waste into a hole (a deep hole) is indeed a good solution, if you have made reasonable attempts to reduce the volume and toxicity, if you use some common sense about the disposal site, and if you make every effort to limit access.
The thing is, you can never make sure people don't come into contact with it. I'm not talking about tomorrow, I'm talking quite a bit in the future. I saw a whole documentary abut this very problem. They concluded that the only way to make sure that people don't come into contact with it was to make it inaccessible (since languages and symbols change). But even then, it was a hard task since the earth doesn't sit still.
You (and you are not alone by any means) make statements that have the implicit underlying assumption that people who make these decisions or design disposal containers or systems, haven't done any research or homework, they've simply "flipped a coin" to decide. I assure you this is not the case. It is HARD to get a LLRW disposal site licensed in this country. The reason is not science, it's FUD and NIMBY and political manoeuvring.
No I don't. I bet there's people have spent a lot of time on these problems of where they dump it. But it still doesn't change the fact that they dump it, or the fact that sometimes it is dumped illegally.
Also, did you ever think that maybe future generations might find a valuable use for this waste? We may not have the technology to make use of it, but I think our descendents may.
Sure they might! But that's a pretty fucken ridiculous reason to not do something about this problem, because there's always a high chance that it will still be a problem. I'm sure if they find a use for it. They can easily make some more waste.
Nothing you ever say will convince me that dumping toxic waste in a hole is a good solution. Or that the people who dump it have never made a mistake or shortcut which has affected peoples' health.
My mistake then. But I'm still not sure what your point was.
Of course they don't really dump toxic waste from power-plants in school playgrounds. My point was that they don't always get dumped in the proper place. Alot of crap does get dumped in the wrong place and it does affect people.
Putting toxic waste in a hole--even if it is far away from people--isn't a solution. It can leak, and people in the future may come across it unknowenly. It simple shifts the proplem to a place where it can't be seen so people can ignore it.
Your math is all wrong. Unless these people are going to build the tower, and only run it for an hour and then never use it again.
The 200MW figure isn't how much electricity it will produce in it's total lifetime, it's how much it electricity it will produce hourly (or something like that).
[RANT]
I mean...come on, it's nice that the /. community does scrutinize what professionals say. But do you really think that they wouldn't have done the figures on this thing already? You really think that your equation that you did in 1 minuet is anywhere near accurate considering you might not even know anything about the subject?
As I said before, it's nice that /. does scrutinize things like this. But I've just seen far to much of this 'this idea won't work and my math proves it in a few simple equations' crap, it's starting to get silly.
What's even worse is when moderators mod it up, which automatically give more credibility to the post, and people start to belive it.
[/RANT]
Unfortunatly that deepest darkest hole can sometimes be the local schools' playground.
Simply use like this:
I'd show you an example. ButThe most obvious thing would be to make the main link to the article bold.
While I'm ranting here:
1) Long blocks of italics are hard to read, especially on a computer screen. Using a different font or colour would be much more readable, and easier to tell from the editors comments.
2) Line breaks and paragraphs are also good to separate text. I have never seen a blank line of the frontpage of /. It's silly, you already have to scroll since there's a lot of info. A few blank spaces for readabilities sake isn't going to hurt.
I've mentioned quite a few times--on articles about CSS, web standards and the like--that /. needs a re-design. This is what I mean. Not lots of nice flashy graphics, basic design things like proper spacing between elements and distinguishing different information.
Or if you where traveling. Just find a internet-cafe that has Macs, not too hard.
About 10 people before you have mentioned this. And each time, someone has stated the blinding obvious fact that a flat-panel iMac would not use expensive laptop internals. Not to mention things like form factor.
*sigh*
Also, iMacs do provide better performace than iBooks.
new moderation option needed: (Score: -1, For f's sake girl/boy/woman/man! Think before you post!)
This sounds more like a "Lets build an unorthodox. unusual and attention-getting device so we can attract supporters for the idea!" concept rather than a truly practical and realistic one. Sounds like a varitable CueCat of Mars exploration.
IMHO, a windup grasshopper is just as complex, unorthodox, unusual and attention-getting as a flying insect. In fact, it's probably more complex.
Sure. And if an infinite number of monkeys type at an infinite number of typewriters...
The amount of balloons that NASA could actually get to mars, probably wouldn't be enough to be able to go with the 'with enough time' idea.
They'd probably be better of with satellites for that kinda thing. Don't forget, they want to take soil samples to, balloons wouldn't make the most graceful landing if they're traveling fast or land on a bolder and topple off the side of it.
You're wrong here. The energy required to take photos can be stored in a spring. Apparently you've missed Slashdot's umpteen billion stories on the "wind-up radio". And so what if the grasshopper lands upside down, or on an angle? The images are going to undergo image processing back on Earth anyway--All you have to do is just rotate the image so that its oriented correctly. Use your head, man.
And how long would the springs last if they had to operate cameras, communication devices, mineral analysts computer as well as making them jump?
It's not just the direction angle of the photos (although they would have to record the direction it was taken). But if it's facing the ground or horizon, or the sky. It's impossible to correct that in a photolab, and if they could, it wouldn't be considered at scientific resource photo because the image would have been altered.
They might be able to use flywheels for power, but that would mean weight problems. And you didn't explain how these spring loaded grasshoppers could jump canyons. Unless NASA made a complex, flying mothership they could deploy them in different places. But of course, that means making a flying device that could operate well in the mars atmosphere. Hmmmm....Wonder what they could use for that.
I think the grasshoppers also suffer from infinite monkeys syndome.
Both are good ideas. But I just don't think they are suited for this particular job. And to modify them to suit the job, would mean you'd probably end up with something more complex than this flying insect.
I see your point. But I think that an entomopter will be a simple machine once they have the design of it right.
But it would be pretty hard to get them where you want them to go. So it's prolly not the best.
If not balloons, why not use spring-loaded "grasshoppers" ? Essentially big wind-up toys, you can deploy thousands of these on the surface. They dont require intelligence, they dont consume fuel, and they dont require supervision of any sort.
If they can take photos, they will require fuel. Also, if you can't control them, then they're pretty usless. And I'd imagine that if they landed on the side of a bolder, they'd probably end up up-side down. If they where 'intelligent' they might be able to filp themselves back up. And they also can't cross big cliffs/canyons very well.
I think this guy fails to realize that the more complicated his device becomes, the more risks of failure you encounter, the higher the pricetag becomes, and the more problems you'll have no way of addressing. As the old saying goes, "Keep it simple, stupid!".
Some people forget there is a differece between something that's simple and a concept that is simple.
A flying insect is a complex concept. But really. If you read the artical, it's pretty simple. It has 2 sets of wings the occsilate, powered by mucsels that feed on chemicals. Pretty simple really. All they have to do it find the right design (since it's a complex concept). Much more simple that wind-up grasshoppers, that would have to take off, glide thought the air, and land perfectly, over any terrain (45 degree slopes etc.) without needing any sort of control.
"The trouble with the rovers is that they land in one spot and are very limited in the extent to which they can explore," says Robert Michelson, principal research engineer at the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) and lead developer of the Entomopter design. "It's frustrating to be looking through the camera of a rover and wonder what might be on the other side of the next ridge. If we could get a vehicle that could fly over that ridge, we could do surveys much more efficiently."