I have no idea to what extent they've adjusted the Speech Recognition in OS X. It may in fact be the same engine, simply running better on a multitasking system.
More to the point of the topic... I remember reading an article by Andy Ihnatko a while back, wherein he described a home-automation project using X10, AppleScript, a Mac and a series of cheap microphones scattered throughout the house.
See, the big problem with most speech recognition systems is the problem of speaking within earshot. A mic up close to you will do a pretty good job of pickup obviously, and make the computer's job much faster and more accurate. But if you're already sitting in front of the computer, the speech recognition isn't much good for things other than the supplemental ("Insert Time and Date"). You already have the keyboard and mouse in front of you, which are much faster than many speech commands.
If you want to walk around your house and issue spoken commands, it's much more feasible to just buy a bunch of cheap PZM and omni microphones from Radio Scrap and put them everywhere. You don't even need that many; just think of the places you tend to 'park' (couch, standing by sink in kitchen, front hall, etc.) and aim appropriately. Doesn't take a lot of bleeding-edge stuff, but the design of how it works is much, much tricker, as one other poster pointed out.
I'm a graphic designer who's done a lot of interface design, as well as being an avid follower of human-computer interface trends and issues.
Does anyone have any suggestions as to how someone like myself would help contribute to an Open Source project? While I am not a programmer by any means, the interface is definitely somewhere that can use some help in all the Linux distros I've seen and used.
Also, being a Mac person, I don't really know which direction to turn in; i.e. does Gnome need help? Debian? etc. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Consider a 3D spinning folder icon, which somehow gives you an idea of how much data/what type of data is contained in the folder.
Wait... I'm considering it... considering.... aaaaand... I hate it!
3D interfaces are for 3D displays with 3D pointing devices, dude. Furthermore, I don't want things spinning on my desktop. It already tells me how much/what kind of data it is (in OS X, anyways... its a option to show a label below the filename).
Note that this implementation probably won't do MacOS style fast zooming (not that it's all that useful anyway).
I think zooming may play a much more important role in future GUIs. While the Dock's little parlour trick has limited functionality - apart from being a nifty demo - in its current form, I can see all sorts of situations where you could impart a huge amount of information through a 'zoom-up'.
For example, those icon badges mentioned before. I find myself wishing for both more informational icons, and a keyboard-activated zoom focus. The Mail icon shows you how much mail you've got, that's nice... but I want more info. It would be great to mouse over the icon and have the connections/progress listed. Or, roll over the clock and have a calendar zoom out at you like a springloaded folder... putting itself away when you roll away. This gives you a really high amount of information density in a small amount of screen space.
The SVG icons are great, the only problem I can see with them is for photographic material. Postscript-type files are fantastic and small for line art/gradients, but if you tried to vectorize a photo of Linus' head it would be a very large icon data-wise... much larger than a standard bitmap would be. I suspect this is why the OS X team went with the vector-transformed large bitmaps (someone else pointed out - or was it you RealMike? - that 256x256 icons are good for now, I'd respectfully point out that the 32x32 icons are still appropriate for most modern resolutions... 256 pixels will carry us well into the next 8 years barring otherworldly jumps in display resolution.)
Nowadays, it's sometimes hard to find the label on a real CD, but I figure if I'm gonna spend $15-20 on something, it's worth the extra five minutes necessary to examine the packaging.
The last few CDs my girlfriend bought (I, *ahem*, have abstained from buying lately...) had no Compact Disc logo anywhere on the exterior packaging. The logo was there, but it was stamped into the inner plasting molding of the CD tray, in the top-right/bottom-left corners. No ink was used, very small.
It's a trend I've noticed. No way to check the actual logo until after you've opened it... which of course means you cannot return it anymore.
I've often wondered if they (you know, they) have been minimizing the prominence of the CD logo in case they want to switch to I Can't Believe It's Not CD, or something.
...meaning that I have to do it faster, cheaper, or with better quality...
The kicker is Quality. That's the one intangible aspect that can be snuck through the entire process of manufacturing if a company is clever, and knows how to pass the buck.
Witness the PC industry (go ahead! witness it!)... what do you suppose the ratio is of quality PC parts to cheap-ass knockoffs? Resistors barfing all over the place, bad power supplies, bad cooling... these components were manufactured Quickly and Cheaply. The Quality bites the consumer in the ass.
Another example: Volkswagen's move from a German plant to a Mexican plant. Cheaper to buy, cheaper cars. Cheap, in every way.
So while I understand the poster's point about keeping yourself relevant, I think as a country the US ought to try and keep itself relevant in the global arena, in those areas where the US truly innovates.
Most people are too stupid to download the updates to fix that vulnerability, so they should blame themselves.
No, they should blame Microsoft. Like that article posted earlier about Slammer, the idea of blaming the victim for the crime is a little skewed. Microsoft needs to engineer better products. Because after all,
isn't that the digital equivalent of mugging and rape?
Er, a bit dramatic, but yeah, kind of. You can't (shouldn't?) call someone 'stupid' for getting mugged or raped.
How often do you upgrade your computers? One of the big selling points of a Mac is it's stability.
You betcha. My upgrade cycle is 3 years. That's a long time in computer-land, but to be perfectly honest, I don't even need to upgrade every 3 years. Whatever Mac I have at the time is always working. I've never had one break down on me, ever. 3 years is my limit, my spendorphin count gets too high and I have to buy something new. It's never a case of 'my machine doesn't do X anymore', unless you're talking about whole features (CD-R, Airport, etc.)
Another way to look at it - I've noticed that every machine I've bought is 3x faster than the last in Mhz. So I figure my 466 G4 will be about ripe in the Fall when we see (approx.) 1.5-1.8Ghz 970-based G5s.
I think that what he means by "blows through" is when you launch an application in XP, and you already have a foreground application running (say, Mozilla, or whatever), certain bits of the launching application appear to be partially in front of (but not completely) the foreground application while loading.
Just for your own edification, yeah, that's pretty much it. The kicker is, going from OS X at home, I saw this the 1st time and actually had time to do an Ellen-Feiss-style 'nugh?' and
Now I still do that just for my own amusement, at XP's expense. It's the little things.
I'm pretty sure I did a comparison when I first got access to XP and found they were bigger. You can change the size of the titlebar to something smaller however. I might be wrong, I've seen some pretty wierd optical illusions already today.
Ooops, sorry, my bad. I thought you meant the Aqua titlebars were bigger than Classic's.
Ok ok! That was just an example. I meant, you can't change it to anything else. Anyway, I know some people who really like gradient based themes. I don't so much, prefer the flat look personally, but whatever floats your boat yes?
Yes... and no. I'm a big anti-theme guy actually, just on principle; I saw the horror that Kaleidoscope wreaked on too many Mac labs. Choice is good, obviously. By the way, you can theme OS X, using Duality or a similar app, and there are plenty (!) of non-striped themes available. (All the widgets are just stored as individual PDFs.)
No, they are there for branding basically. In any UI it should be pretty obvious what will be interactive and what won't be.
Okay, you're right, its a brand thing as well. I have found them useful anyways.
I don't really understand... the empty scrollbar was on a list view, the items didn't stretch all the way across, so it wouldn't be popping in and out.
Exactly. Rather than have the scrollers appear and disappear when resizing, they have opted to keep a 'filler' bar there so it looks less jerky. I'm undecided on whether or not it's better myself, as you're right, people don't read generally when resizing. But that's why its there.
No, too much contrast on screen is harsh on the eyes. Yes, too little can be bad as well (though for some people high/low contrast can make a big difference), but there was indeed a reason grey was chosen as the background colour, and it's because the early days of the web were dominated by technical articles, and grey was known to be less harsh on the eyes for extended periods.
Quick: tell me if you're browsing Slashdot with anything other than RGB 0,0,0 for text and 255,255,255 for white.:)
Blown through? Do you mean when you can see the UI repainting when the system is under load? I don't really know what you are talking about here...
Maybe I'm on crack, or my computer is.. but on my XP system, every time I launch a new browser window, or save an attachment, the UI blows through whatever's under it for a good 2 seconds... and this on an Athlon 1.8Ghz with a decent video card, lots of RAM, etc. So you tell me.
You are right of course about OS X's speed disadvantage in this area, but it's safe to say they are now where other OS display technologies are going.
Anyways, this has already gotten long. Sorry if it seems like I'm ranting, I just enjoy the discussion. Cheers.
But was it not OS designers that brought us the concept of a login and password?
Nope, not the designers; that was the *nix people.
The original interface designer's spec for a Login panel called for a small animated 3D man with a friendly mustache. The friendly man would walk up to you (on the screen) and present you with a giant bar full of buttons, all of which were dancing around, animated, all different colours. Then the man would sing a request to you, in a jaunty tune, asking if you could please identify yourself. You did this by waving the mouse cursor in circles around the one you wanted until it understood. Then the little man ate a sandwich and disappeared.
Yeah, you can thank those *nix bastards for the mess we have now.
Hey, I'll bite. I whine about interface colours all day.
Anyway, personally I think once you get over the big titlebars Windows XP is better than MacOS in terms of themes, the MacOS gui is cool for the first week, then the novelty wears off and it just gets distracting. In particular the stripes that invade it everywhere are just visual noise and ended up irritating me, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere to turn it off, or make it a gradient or something.
The 'big titlebars' thing is a myth. Somehow, the larger antialiased system font used in Aqua (Lucida Grande 12pt) makes people think the window bars are bigger, but not so. Booting classic real quick will show you that they're the same size.
I have to admit, I laughed at the comment about the stripes... especially ending it with 'option to make it a gradient or something.'
Gradients... are the bane of graphic designers. Gradients suck. They have their place, and that place is a small, subtle effect, or a contrast-y thin effect. Like the blue-orange gradient that pulses when XP starts up. Very specifically not like the task bar and sliders in Windows. XP goes completely nuts with this gradient effect which adds to its gaudy appearance. Another example: the rollover state of taskbar buttons actually inverts the gradient, so it goes from 'puffy' to 'concave'. Flexing, like so much cheap-ass plastic. You may laugh, but things like that make a big difference in perception. Sorta like cheap plastic knobs on the dashboard of a low-end car.
The stripes in Aqua do have a purpose; they denote negative space. I've found that this is very useful for 'clicking off' an item to remove focus. Or, say, in OmniWeb - I can see how big a graphic with a white background really is, as the 'negative' striped space is different from the default white BG of most browsers.
Some stuff is just confusing too. Look at this for instance [ranchero.com]. Look at the bottom, I guess that thing at the bottom left is a progress indicator? It doesn't stand out terribly well, nor is it obvious what it does. On the left hand list view there is what seems to be an empty scrollbar, but it could be anything for all I know. It's just a seemingly pointless gradient.
There are much more horrible Aqua basterdizations to point to, but this one is not as bad as you might think. The thing in the bottom-left is a progress bar. It doesn't stand out because there is no progress going on in the screenshot. Aqua progress bars either pulse or animate when active; they are clear when inactive. Believe me, you'd notice it. The bar on the right side of the left pane is an empty scrollbar; this is done so your text is not popping 12-pixel gaps when appearing/disappearing while resizing. It keeps the text more readable.
The main problem with XP of course is that not all the apps use the new theming APIs, meaning you end up with a mix of cruddy old icons and grey UIs. Anyway, you know why Windows and GTK traditionally use shades of grey and brown? It's easier on the eyes.
I'd say the main problem with XP is the hackneyed half-MDI interface they cling to, but that's just me. Windows used gray because MS had no interest in making the UI look like anything else for a long time (basically until OS X shipped). It's not inherently easier on the eyes... in fact a lack of contrast can have the opposite effect. The default grey of webpages gone by had more to do with a lack of background tag than any 'web usability' effort.
Personally speaking, the problem with XP is the huge chunks of UI that get 'blown through' each other all the time. I hated that on Mac OS Classic, and I still hate it in Windows. Makes your computer seem sloooow. At least Aqua never ever does that, what with the double-buffered display and everything.
So, the Mac colour scheme is good for marketing purposes, but I don't really see how it could be objectively classed as "better", it certainly is less usable than the old MacOS 9 style ui. But I guess they had to give it some distinguishing feature.
I diagree. The Aqua interface is good for marketing, and dragging the computer-using public kicking and screaming into a bold new world where we can count on antialiased text and an uncluttered GUI standard. It also looks fantastic on LCD screens.
Since I'm of much the same mind as the original poster, I'll respond to this. First of all, I can do damn near anything with my computer that I want to.
Some people replying seem to have received the impression that I said a console somehow replaces a computer, which is absurd. Keeping on-topic, I am keeping the scope to games, and a computer's role in them. (Of course it can do email and all the rest, your taxes and whatnot.) The fact that the computer serves these multiple roles is germaine, but not to this thread. The fact is, many people use their PCs just for games (and probably email/surfing, although the consoles will do that as well, before long).
Danse, some points you made:
But, even if we're just considering games, the PC still wins. Much better selection of controllers (including keyboard/mouse), giving you just the right type of control for any given game. Compare playing a FPS game using keyboard/mouse to attempting to aim using those crappy thumb-nobs on most console controllers.
I don't compare them, I just use my keyboard from my Mac. The PS2 has two standard USB ports on the front. That fact sorta blows holes in your argument, since now I have nearly every PC keyboard or mouse at my disposal, as well as the myriad PS2 controllers, as well as most PS1 controllers from years ago.
Much more flexibility and immersiveness in games. No console can match the PC for depth of gameplay...
Er, sorry, not buying it. This used to be true, because its only in the last few years that consoles started to compete on a technical level with good PCs. I've played plenty of console games with major depth to them, compelling storylines, etc.
Try creating a mod for a console game.
An excellent point. You can't, of course. The power of the PC comes to the fore when used as a content-creation tool. Although one wonders if mods will ever surface on the console, given the rise of consoles with hard drives and ethernet ports.
There's another point - online gaming. Was a bastion of the PC gaming community, now is no longer.
See, I'm not really trying to do a one-over-the-other, but there is a trend. The consoles gain power, connectivity, and massive, massive game libraries every year. While a PC is great for a few specific genres of game that require a hi-res display and a keyboard/mouse (real time strategy, simulators) that's a few small genres compared to the whole. Arguably a console could perform every other genre of game better than a PC, for reasons stated before.
Racing? you want a big screen.
Fighting? big screen, 2+ players on the couch is best.
FPS? Jury's out. I use my keyboard with Medal of Honor on the PS2, and Unreal Tournament. Expect custom FPS controllers soon.
Adventure? big screen and sound.
I don't want the PC game to go away, I doubt it ever will, but just as the arcades of yeateryear fell before the home console, I think the PC game has seen its golden era already.
I, too, grew up with the various historical consoles. Since this comment was deemed 'interesting', let me ask you a few things.
Consoles... But I still do not own one.
That's cool. What I want to know is, how do you find maintaining this bleeding-edge level of gamer gear?
I ask because, honestly, the PC gaming rig puzzles me. Even with the basement-level prices you speak of ($400/box), it still strikes me as prohibitively expensive. I suppose it depends on your dedication ot the hobby.
Let me illustrate - I do most of my gaming on a PS2. My personal computer is a Mac, which isn't good for anything but the biggest mainstrain PC games (ala WarCraft).
PS2 = $US 200 (new when it came out)
PS2 game = $US 50
Now, this thing, if its anything like my PS1, will last me for about 3-4 years. I get to sit on a comfy couch, with friends who can also see clearly my large television, with my surround-sound stereo (that I already forked out for), and play 1st-rate video games. It boots very quickly, the graphics are great, most importantly the games are great. The controller is custom-designed just for gaming. It never crashes. I don't apply patches or download things, 99% of the unit's uptime is actively gaming.
Now, before you go off and shut me down, tell me.. you've got:
Gaming PC = $US 400
PC Game = $US 50
now add to that
PC Game Controller = $US 35
Large Gaming PC monitor = $250
Good PC Speakers = $100
Windows license to run said Games = $50
How is that better? You're paying a premium for graphics and sound that are only ever going to be marginally better.
I know its not all about economics, but the games, man! You must have as much money as possible to buy games. That is the whole point.
How often do you update your rig? If it's 'fast', as in fast enough to run a cutting-edge PC game all the time, the turnover must be at least one a year, no? (Of course, the PC is more functional than a PS2, but we are talking about games, no?)
I wish you luck, PC Gamer, but I fear your days are numbered. The consoles are custom-designed to eat your lunch.
Hate to break this to you, but I know a LOT of people that think IE is great. Mozilla has more features, but Chimera has more features than Safari. Outlook Express is a pretty good mail client, until the virus situation became untenable I used it all the time. Microsoft make some sucky apps, but many of them are quite good.
Oh, I know some people 'like' IE, but I haven't met anyone - at all - who doesn't immediately detest IE when they try something different. Anything different. Just for the pop-up blocking, that alone sends people running from the MS browser.
I should qualify my statement a bit more; I meant to say that Microsoft's bundled apps tend towards suckage. Entourage/Outlook are alright, do what they say, apart from the viruses of course.
Yes, you can uninstall IE. It's in Add/Remove Programs. No, that won't remove the WebBrowser control because apps need it to be there, just like Mac apps will when Apple start shipping WebCore as part of the OS. I fail to see the difference.
Hey, that's new! There it is, just like you said. Wait, it says it'll remove the 'access from the start menu and desktop'. Mmmm-hmmm. See, this is what I mean. I am in fact complaining about the Add/Remove Programs function, really - its like it throws a curtain over the screen, there's some banging and shuffling in the back, and then the curtain is thrown aside and an excited little man assures me that everything is gone.
I just don't trust that little man, y'know?
WebCore will remain a part of Safari, and not be migrated into the guts of the OS, you're wrong about that. Which brings me to...
This is false logic anyway, you don't need to uninstall one product to use the competition. Mozilla and IE can sit side-by-side, so really how "uninstallable" an app is is basically academic.
It's not academic. This is Slashdot, we're all control freaks about our computers, and something that keeps me from that control is going to piss me off, plain and simple. Sure I can run Mozilla beside IE, but IE is gonna get called, by all those insidious other hooks in 3rd party apps, and negate my browser choice, because they can. I want the option, dammit.
Yeah, you can. The quality of PowerPoint X was killing the Mac? I think not. Keynote is there because Jobs thought it was cool.
In short, will Apple invading all of the different types of software areas discourage developers to the point that it is no better than Microsoft, if only in terms of their attempted monopoly over all aspects of our computing experience?
In short, no. I'll tell you why.
There are three major differences between Apple's bundling of the iApps and Microsoft's value-add (uh, Plus?) software.
1. Apple's apps don't suck. Flame if you will. iTunes in particular, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who didn't think it's really the be-all of music interfaces. iCal has a huge following already, Mail kicks ass, iSync does what it says it does. iMovie practically kickstarted the real desktop moviemaking revolution, iDVD was an industry first. I have nasty things to say about iPhoto, but since the 2.0 rev is 4 days away I'll reserve judgement.
2. Apple apps are uninstallable. This point is often lost on the Windows crowd. "Apple bundles a browser too! It's anticompetitive!" Microsoft tells you that IE is literally crazy-glued to their OS, as is WMP and others. Any Apple iApp is a single icon, that is tossable, without a fuss, without that wacky Install/Remove Programs nonsense.
3. Apple only extends itself where it feels it is needed. I could probably take some crap over that statement, but it seems to be true. The browser situation was sucking until Chimera came along, and Apple hired that guy. The iApps serve as proof-of-concept OS X apps, as well as fulfilling the 'what software?' problem of a new OS. Also, Apple is happy to point users in the direction of more powerful, flexible, paid applications if asked (i.e. Audion).
Besides, I think most people would agree that there are certain activities that a computer ought to do 'out of the box' that are more complex than users would have demanded in the past. CD burning, for example. Does including CD/DVD burning capabilities in iTunes and the Finder hurt Roxio's Toast? Probably not, Toast is more powerful.
Here, I thought I was all alone on the tabs thing. I was going to keep my big mouth shut (er, fingers tied?) about it but you've graciously stuck your neck out - on Slashdot no less.
The problem with Tabs, is as you said, there's not really a problem to begin with. Browser window-switching accomplishes the same thing, with unlimited constraints, and equal-or-less number of keystrokes/mouseclicks. So why do people live and die by tabs?
I think it comes down to a few weird little reasons... like, you can see how many tabs you have open at a glance. That's sorta nice. The instant-load thing, that's nice. But you know what it mostly is? (imho?)
You don't have to re-size or move your new window.
Seriously. Most browsers just don't know how to open a new window, because you can't tell it. Even clever browsers like OmniWeb that allow you to 'save' a window position are still going to cascade the windows, down-and-right, so you can grab the last toolbar. Then you have overlap after 5-6 windows and things get buried (the limit on tabs too).
Really, it comes down to people not wanting to Mess With Their Windows. I'm happy messing with my windows. It would be interesting to know the ratio of tab-browsing freaks to those who run the browser full-screen, no?
I agree, it was sickening, and brings to light a certain point about copyright that always sticks in my throat... Copyright continuing on to relatives.
I've had some brushed with asshole IP a few times in my travels. Notably, I once worked on a set of commercial CD-ROMs for some classic rock bands. We had a spectacular - nay, epic - struggle with Jimi Hendrix's sister, who for all intents and purposes lives off the ghost of her dead brother. She has all rights, and doesn't actually *do* anything. Long story short, we spent weeks and weeks bending over backwards, crossing and dotting all letters, only to have her change her mind at the last minute.
Another example: Grateful Dead. There are exactly 2 approachable sources for interview footage of Jerry Garcia: the BBC, and Some Guy in the States. Some Guy purposefully bought up all this footage, and now that's his job. He lives off Jerry's ghost.
Even if you are the rightful descendant/heir to some great artist, I don't, in my opinion, think you have the slightest shred of 'rights' to that work. None. Son, daughter, whatever. The only cocnession that makes sense is a wife/partner, and even then it just seems unjust. The LA Times article crowed about how this woman can now 'lovingly restore' her ancestor's works at her own personal expense, but she's selling tapes on eBay. Better than it dissappearing, but what if she was the one misrepresenting, defiling, or otherwise tainting the name of her ancester? No recourse.
It just makes no sense to me. Someone tell me why its a good idea to 'inherit' copyrights. If they made a ton of money with those rights, fine, let the children inherit that money. Rights, I don't think so.
This statistic, like most computer-use statistics, is erroneous and misleading.
IDG does not factor in sales from direct retail (i.e. Apple Store), or the online AppleStore incarnation. A better way to read that is: Apple has 1.93% of the PC market.
If you really want to see what percentage of the computer-using public is on Mac, check Google's stats. (can't find it now, but I know its there somewhere.)
There is a downward trend in marketshare, but this is indicative of the entire PC industry in general.
Sorry for the pickiness - I just hate seeing that bad IDG stat quoted over and over again.
Why aren't more people buying Macs (especially the slashdot crowd)?
Well, they are. Buying more Macs, that is. However, what you are essentially looking at is a split in the Slashdot crowd. Apple has created a rift in the *nix community - not a bad thing, IMHO, as rifts are encouraged in this kind of social dynamic.
This is a bit simplistic (and I'm sure some will let me know just how simplistic...) but here's how I see it:
Slashdot Reader #0 has been using UNIX for a while. Apple releases OS X. Reader #0 likes:
- *nix-like distro with BSD personality
- groovy interface
- the Support Fairy (i.e. having some)
- Mainstream apps (Photoshop, Office, a few big-name games, etc.)
- Apple's Open Source initiatives
- hi-quality integrated hardware that works seamlessly with OS
Slashdot Reader #1 has been using *nix or Windows for awhile. Apple releases OS X. Reader #1 hates:
- proprietary software (OSS be damned; if its 0wn3d by anyone, its bad. This is an arguable position)
- pseudo-proprietary hardware that is behind the bleeding edge of what you can build
- goofy interface
- premium pricing
- lack of games (because that's what they really want a 3.0Ghz PC for. Oh, you have a legitimate use? good for you. You are rare.)
- Apple, in general (possibly for past transgressions against them, possibly 'just 'cause)
(Of course, then there's me, Slashdot Reader #2: always used Macs, still use Macs, have a technical bent despite being a graphic designer, yet hangs out on Slashdot...)
The AUTONOMY design is just about the most radical thing to happen to cars since Ford. Especially considering that it comes from GM, who is not exactly known for their forward thinking.
I've been following this thing from some time.
Quick points:
- You can't really 'skin' it. Yes, the shells are interchangeable, but at the factory. A home user bolting on one of these in his/her garage is opening up all sorts of safety concerns.
- Yeah, it's Hydrogen, but it's not gonna blow up. Certainly not as dangerous as the tank of gas in your car. Go read the Wired article if you want details. It's not a rolling Hindenberg.
- The wheels can pivot in any direction, which is why the steering is different. No more parallel-parking mishaps, hopefully.
- They are still more expensive than regular cars, price- and energy-wise, but the trend is looking quite hopeful.
- The space-savings inside the car itself are remarkable, and allow for all sorts of kooky things, such as a floor-to-ceiling windshield. (how weird would that be on the highway?)
- The HyWire is a concept. They won't all be 'ugly'. The whole thing is still a good 10 years away.
GM has gone on the record saying that, because of the elimination of most of the moving parts, these cars could realistically last 20 years. Which is a big concern for GM, obviously having a 20-year-turnover on cars is going to nail their bottom line... until you figure in the savings on engine parts, assembly lines for those engine parts, etc. Suddenly the AUTONOMY is a lot more attractive, as they might eventually cost a fraction of what regular cars do. GM recoups the lost turnover sales from the other 80% of the planet who can now afford a vehicle. And we get cool pivoting space-cars that cost $5000 and go for 2 decades.
Slashdot Mirror
When will the exhibitors learn, a nice bath towel represents the height of utility. Any geek knows that.
More to the point of the topic... I remember reading an article by Andy Ihnatko a while back, wherein he described a home-automation project using X10, AppleScript, a Mac and a series of cheap microphones scattered throughout the house.
See, the big problem with most speech recognition systems is the problem of speaking within earshot. A mic up close to you will do a pretty good job of pickup obviously, and make the computer's job much faster and more accurate. But if you're already sitting in front of the computer, the speech recognition isn't much good for things other than the supplemental ("Insert Time and Date"). You already have the keyboard and mouse in front of you, which are much faster than many speech commands.
If you want to walk around your house and issue spoken commands, it's much more feasible to just buy a bunch of cheap PZM and omni microphones from Radio Scrap and put them everywhere. You don't even need that many; just think of the places you tend to 'park' (couch, standing by sink in kitchen, front hall, etc.) and aim appropriately. Doesn't take a lot of bleeding-edge stuff, but the design of how it works is much, much tricker, as one other poster pointed out.
I'm a graphic designer who's done a lot of interface design, as well as being an avid follower of human-computer interface trends and issues.
Does anyone have any suggestions as to how someone like myself would help contribute to an Open Source project? While I am not a programmer by any means, the interface is definitely somewhere that can use some help in all the Linux distros I've seen and used.
Also, being a Mac person, I don't really know which direction to turn in; i.e. does Gnome need help? Debian? etc. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Wait... I'm considering it... considering.... aaaaand... I hate it!
3D interfaces are for 3D displays with 3D pointing devices, dude. Furthermore, I don't want things spinning on my desktop. It already tells me how much/what kind of data it is (in OS X, anyways... its a option to show a label below the filename).
Note that this implementation probably won't do MacOS style fast zooming (not that it's all that useful anyway).
I think zooming may play a much more important role in future GUIs. While the Dock's little parlour trick has limited functionality - apart from being a nifty demo - in its current form, I can see all sorts of situations where you could impart a huge amount of information through a 'zoom-up'.
For example, those icon badges mentioned before. I find myself wishing for both more informational icons, and a keyboard-activated zoom focus. The Mail icon shows you how much mail you've got, that's nice... but I want more info. It would be great to mouse over the icon and have the connections/progress listed. Or, roll over the clock and have a calendar zoom out at you like a springloaded folder... putting itself away when you roll away. This gives you a really high amount of information density in a small amount of screen space. The SVG icons are great, the only problem I can see with them is for photographic material. Postscript-type files are fantastic and small for line art/gradients, but if you tried to vectorize a photo of Linus' head it would be a very large icon data-wise... much larger than a standard bitmap would be. I suspect this is why the OS X team went with the vector-transformed large bitmaps (someone else pointed out - or was it you RealMike? - that 256x256 icons are good for now, I'd respectfully point out that the 32x32 icons are still appropriate for most modern resolutions... 256 pixels will carry us well into the next 8 years barring otherworldly jumps in display resolution.)
The last few CDs my girlfriend bought (I, *ahem*, have abstained from buying lately...) had no Compact Disc logo anywhere on the exterior packaging. The logo was there, but it was stamped into the inner plasting molding of the CD tray, in the top-right/bottom-left corners. No ink was used, very small.
It's a trend I've noticed. No way to check the actual logo until after you've opened it... which of course means you cannot return it anymore.
I've often wondered if they (you know, they) have been minimizing the prominence of the CD logo in case they want to switch to I Can't Believe It's Not CD, or something.
The kicker is Quality. That's the one intangible aspect that can be snuck through the entire process of manufacturing if a company is clever, and knows how to pass the buck.
Witness the PC industry (go ahead! witness it!)... what do you suppose the ratio is of quality PC parts to cheap-ass knockoffs? Resistors barfing all over the place, bad power supplies, bad cooling... these components were manufactured Quickly and Cheaply. The Quality bites the consumer in the ass.
Another example: Volkswagen's move from a German plant to a Mexican plant. Cheaper to buy, cheaper cars. Cheap, in every way.
So while I understand the poster's point about keeping yourself relevant, I think as a country the US ought to try and keep itself relevant in the global arena, in those areas where the US truly innovates.
No, they should blame Microsoft. Like that article posted earlier about Slammer, the idea of blaming the victim for the crime is a little skewed. Microsoft needs to engineer better products. Because after all,
isn't that the digital equivalent of mugging and rape?
Er, a bit dramatic, but yeah, kind of. You can't (shouldn't?) call someone 'stupid' for getting mugged or raped.
You betcha. My upgrade cycle is 3 years. That's a long time in computer-land, but to be perfectly honest, I don't even need to upgrade every 3 years. Whatever Mac I have at the time is always working. I've never had one break down on me, ever. 3 years is my limit, my spendorphin count gets too high and I have to buy something new. It's never a case of 'my machine doesn't do X anymore', unless you're talking about whole features (CD-R, Airport, etc.)
Another way to look at it - I've noticed that every machine I've bought is 3x faster than the last in Mhz. So I figure my 466 G4 will be about ripe in the Fall when we see (approx.) 1.5-1.8Ghz 970-based G5s.
Just for your own edification, yeah, that's pretty much it. The kicker is, going from OS X at home, I saw this the 1st time and actually had time to do an Ellen-Feiss-style 'nugh?' and Now I still do that just for my own amusement, at XP's expense. It's the little things.
Ooops, sorry, my bad. I thought you meant the Aqua titlebars were bigger than Classic's.
Ok ok! That was just an example. I meant, you can't change it to anything else. Anyway, I know some people who really like gradient based themes. I don't so much, prefer the flat look personally, but whatever floats your boat yes?
Yes... and no. I'm a big anti-theme guy actually, just on principle; I saw the horror that Kaleidoscope wreaked on too many Mac labs. Choice is good, obviously. By the way, you can theme OS X, using Duality or a similar app, and there are plenty (!) of non-striped themes available. (All the widgets are just stored as individual PDFs.)
No, they are there for branding basically. In any UI it should be pretty obvious what will be interactive and what won't be.
Okay, you're right, its a brand thing as well. I have found them useful anyways.
I don't really understand... the empty scrollbar was on a list view, the items didn't stretch all the way across, so it wouldn't be popping in and out.
Exactly. Rather than have the scrollers appear and disappear when resizing, they have opted to keep a 'filler' bar there so it looks less jerky. I'm undecided on whether or not it's better myself, as you're right, people don't read generally when resizing. But that's why its there.
No, too much contrast on screen is harsh on the eyes. Yes, too little can be bad as well (though for some people high/low contrast can make a big difference), but there was indeed a reason grey was chosen as the background colour, and it's because the early days of the web were dominated by technical articles, and grey was known to be less harsh on the eyes for extended periods.
Quick: tell me if you're browsing Slashdot with anything other than RGB 0,0,0 for text and 255,255,255 for white. :)
Blown through? Do you mean when you can see the UI repainting when the system is under load? I don't really know what you are talking about here...
Maybe I'm on crack, or my computer is.. but on my XP system, every time I launch a new browser window, or save an attachment, the UI blows through whatever's under it for a good 2 seconds... and this on an Athlon 1.8Ghz with a decent video card, lots of RAM, etc. So you tell me.
You are right of course about OS X's speed disadvantage in this area, but it's safe to say they are now where other OS display technologies are going.
Anyways, this has already gotten long. Sorry if it seems like I'm ranting, I just enjoy the discussion. Cheers.
Nope, not the designers; that was the *nix people.
The original interface designer's spec for a Login panel called for a small animated 3D man with a friendly mustache. The friendly man would walk up to you (on the screen) and present you with a giant bar full of buttons, all of which were dancing around, animated, all different colours. Then the man would sing a request to you, in a jaunty tune, asking if you could please identify yourself. You did this by waving the mouse cursor in circles around the one you wanted until it understood. Then the little man ate a sandwich and disappeared.
Yeah, you can thank those *nix bastards for the mess we have now.
Anyway, personally I think once you get over the big titlebars Windows XP is better than MacOS in terms of themes, the MacOS gui is cool for the first week, then the novelty wears off and it just gets distracting. In particular the stripes that invade it everywhere are just visual noise and ended up irritating me, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere to turn it off, or make it a gradient or something.
The 'big titlebars' thing is a myth. Somehow, the larger antialiased system font used in Aqua (Lucida Grande 12pt) makes people think the window bars are bigger, but not so. Booting classic real quick will show you that they're the same size.
I have to admit, I laughed at the comment about the stripes... especially ending it with 'option to make it a gradient or something.'
Gradients... are the bane of graphic designers. Gradients suck. They have their place, and that place is a small, subtle effect, or a contrast-y thin effect. Like the blue-orange gradient that pulses when XP starts up. Very specifically not like the task bar and sliders in Windows. XP goes completely nuts with this gradient effect which adds to its gaudy appearance. Another example: the rollover state of taskbar buttons actually inverts the gradient, so it goes from 'puffy' to 'concave'. Flexing, like so much cheap-ass plastic. You may laugh, but things like that make a big difference in perception. Sorta like cheap plastic knobs on the dashboard of a low-end car.
The stripes in Aqua do have a purpose; they denote negative space. I've found that this is very useful for 'clicking off' an item to remove focus. Or, say, in OmniWeb - I can see how big a graphic with a white background really is, as the 'negative' striped space is different from the default white BG of most browsers.
Some stuff is just confusing too. Look at this for instance [ranchero.com]. Look at the bottom, I guess that thing at the bottom left is a progress indicator? It doesn't stand out terribly well, nor is it obvious what it does. On the left hand list view there is what seems to be an empty scrollbar, but it could be anything for all I know. It's just a seemingly pointless gradient.
There are much more horrible Aqua basterdizations to point to, but this one is not as bad as you might think. The thing in the bottom-left is a progress bar. It doesn't stand out because there is no progress going on in the screenshot. Aqua progress bars either pulse or animate when active; they are clear when inactive. Believe me, you'd notice it. The bar on the right side of the left pane is an empty scrollbar; this is done so your text is not popping 12-pixel gaps when appearing/disappearing while resizing. It keeps the text more readable.
The main problem with XP of course is that not all the apps use the new theming APIs, meaning you end up with a mix of cruddy old icons and grey UIs. Anyway, you know why Windows and GTK traditionally use shades of grey and brown? It's easier on the eyes.
I'd say the main problem with XP is the hackneyed half-MDI interface they cling to, but that's just me. Windows used gray because MS had no interest in making the UI look like anything else for a long time (basically until OS X shipped). It's not inherently easier on the eyes... in fact a lack of contrast can have the opposite effect. The default grey of webpages gone by had more to do with a lack of background tag than any 'web usability' effort.
Personally speaking, the problem with XP is the huge chunks of UI that get 'blown through' each other all the time. I hated that on Mac OS Classic, and I still hate it in Windows. Makes your computer seem sloooow. At least Aqua never ever does that, what with the double-buffered display and everything.
So, the Mac colour scheme is good for marketing purposes, but I don't really see how it could be objectively classed as "better", it certainly is less usable than the old MacOS 9 style ui. But I guess they had to give it some distinguishing feature.
I diagree. The Aqua interface is good for marketing, and dragging the computer-using public kicking and screaming into a bold new world where we can count on antialiased text and an uncluttered GUI standard. It also looks fantastic on LCD screens.
Just noticed that the Hulk commercial is available at Movie-List.
Anyone else think that the Hulk looks like Shrek?
Some people replying seem to have received the impression that I said a console somehow replaces a computer, which is absurd. Keeping on-topic, I am keeping the scope to games, and a computer's role in them. (Of course it can do email and all the rest, your taxes and whatnot.) The fact that the computer serves these multiple roles is germaine, but not to this thread. The fact is, many people use their PCs just for games (and probably email/surfing, although the consoles will do that as well, before long).
Danse, some points you made:
But, even if we're just considering games, the PC still wins. Much better selection of controllers (including keyboard/mouse), giving you just the right type of control for any given game. Compare playing a FPS game using keyboard/mouse to attempting to aim using those crappy thumb-nobs on most console controllers.
I don't compare them, I just use my keyboard from my Mac. The PS2 has two standard USB ports on the front. That fact sorta blows holes in your argument, since now I have nearly every PC keyboard or mouse at my disposal, as well as the myriad PS2 controllers, as well as most PS1 controllers from years ago.
Much more flexibility and immersiveness in games. No console can match the PC for depth of gameplay...
Er, sorry, not buying it. This used to be true, because its only in the last few years that consoles started to compete on a technical level with good PCs. I've played plenty of console games with major depth to them, compelling storylines, etc.
Try creating a mod for a console game.
An excellent point. You can't, of course. The power of the PC comes to the fore when used as a content-creation tool. Although one wonders if mods will ever surface on the console, given the rise of consoles with hard drives and ethernet ports.
There's another point - online gaming. Was a bastion of the PC gaming community, now is no longer.
See, I'm not really trying to do a one-over-the-other, but there is a trend. The consoles gain power, connectivity, and massive, massive game libraries every year. While a PC is great for a few specific genres of game that require a hi-res display and a keyboard/mouse (real time strategy, simulators) that's a few small genres compared to the whole. Arguably a console could perform every other genre of game better than a PC, for reasons stated before.
Racing? you want a big screen.
Fighting? big screen, 2+ players on the couch is best.
FPS? Jury's out. I use my keyboard with Medal of Honor on the PS2, and Unreal Tournament. Expect custom FPS controllers soon.
Adventure? big screen and sound.
I don't want the PC game to go away, I doubt it ever will, but just as the arcades of yeateryear fell before the home console, I think the PC game has seen its golden era already.
That's cool. What I want to know is, how do you find maintaining this bleeding-edge level of gamer gear?
I ask because, honestly, the PC gaming rig puzzles me. Even with the basement-level prices you speak of ($400/box), it still strikes me as prohibitively expensive. I suppose it depends on your dedication ot the hobby.
Let me illustrate - I do most of my gaming on a PS2. My personal computer is a Mac, which isn't good for anything but the biggest mainstrain PC games (ala WarCraft).
PS2 = $US 200 (new when it came out)
PS2 game = $US 50
Now, this thing, if its anything like my PS1, will last me for about 3-4 years. I get to sit on a comfy couch, with friends who can also see clearly my large television, with my surround-sound stereo (that I already forked out for), and play 1st-rate video games. It boots very quickly, the graphics are great, most importantly the games are great. The controller is custom-designed just for gaming. It never crashes. I don't apply patches or download things, 99% of the unit's uptime is actively gaming.
Now, before you go off and shut me down, tell me.. you've got:
Gaming PC = $US 400
PC Game = $US 50
now add to that PC Game Controller = $US 35
Large Gaming PC monitor = $250
Good PC Speakers = $100 Windows license to run said Games = $50
How is that better? You're paying a premium for graphics and sound that are only ever going to be marginally better.
I know its not all about economics, but the games, man! You must have as much money as possible to buy games. That is the whole point.
How often do you update your rig? If it's 'fast', as in fast enough to run a cutting-edge PC game all the time, the turnover must be at least one a year, no? (Of course, the PC is more functional than a PS2, but we are talking about games, no?)
I wish you luck, PC Gamer, but I fear your days are numbered. The consoles are custom-designed to eat your lunch.
Oh, I know some people 'like' IE, but I haven't met anyone - at all - who doesn't immediately detest IE when they try something different. Anything different. Just for the pop-up blocking, that alone sends people running from the MS browser.
I should qualify my statement a bit more; I meant to say that Microsoft's bundled apps tend towards suckage. Entourage/Outlook are alright, do what they say, apart from the viruses of course.
Yes, you can uninstall IE. It's in Add/Remove Programs. No, that won't remove the WebBrowser control because apps need it to be there, just like Mac apps will when Apple start shipping WebCore as part of the OS. I fail to see the difference.
Hey, that's new! There it is, just like you said. Wait, it says it'll remove the 'access from the start menu and desktop'. Mmmm-hmmm. See, this is what I mean. I am in fact complaining about the Add/Remove Programs function, really - its like it throws a curtain over the screen, there's some banging and shuffling in the back, and then the curtain is thrown aside and an excited little man assures me that everything is gone.
I just don't trust that little man, y'know?
WebCore will remain a part of Safari, and not be migrated into the guts of the OS, you're wrong about that. Which brings me to...
This is false logic anyway, you don't need to uninstall one product to use the competition. Mozilla and IE can sit side-by-side, so really how "uninstallable" an app is is basically academic.
It's not academic. This is Slashdot, we're all control freaks about our computers, and something that keeps me from that control is going to piss me off, plain and simple. Sure I can run Mozilla beside IE, but IE is gonna get called, by all those insidious other hooks in 3rd party apps, and negate my browser choice, because they can. I want the option, dammit.
Yeah, you can. The quality of PowerPoint X was killing the Mac? I think not. Keynote is there because Jobs thought it was cool.
I agree with you there. That was a surprise.
Brotherhood of Mutants
when as we all know the proper, grandiose, toungue-in-cheek name was
Brotherhood of EVIL Mutants
I mean, of course they're not human. The question is, are they eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil?
In short, no. I'll tell you why.
There are three major differences between Apple's bundling of the iApps and Microsoft's value-add (uh, Plus?) software.
1. Apple's apps don't suck. Flame if you will. iTunes in particular, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who didn't think it's really the be-all of music interfaces. iCal has a huge following already, Mail kicks ass, iSync does what it says it does. iMovie practically kickstarted the real desktop moviemaking revolution, iDVD was an industry first. I have nasty things to say about iPhoto, but since the 2.0 rev is 4 days away I'll reserve judgement.
2. Apple apps are uninstallable. This point is often lost on the Windows crowd. "Apple bundles a browser too! It's anticompetitive!" Microsoft tells you that IE is literally crazy-glued to their OS, as is WMP and others. Any Apple iApp is a single icon, that is tossable, without a fuss, without that wacky Install/Remove Programs nonsense.
3. Apple only extends itself where it feels it is needed. I could probably take some crap over that statement, but it seems to be true. The browser situation was sucking until Chimera came along, and Apple hired that guy. The iApps serve as proof-of-concept OS X apps, as well as fulfilling the 'what software?' problem of a new OS. Also, Apple is happy to point users in the direction of more powerful, flexible, paid applications if asked (i.e. Audion).
Besides, I think most people would agree that there are certain activities that a computer ought to do 'out of the box' that are more complex than users would have demanded in the past. CD burning, for example. Does including CD/DVD burning capabilities in iTunes and the Finder hurt Roxio's Toast? Probably not, Toast is more powerful.
Here, I thought I was all alone on the tabs thing. I was going to keep my big mouth shut (er, fingers tied?) about it but you've graciously stuck your neck out - on Slashdot no less.
The problem with Tabs, is as you said, there's not really a problem to begin with. Browser window-switching accomplishes the same thing, with unlimited constraints, and equal-or-less number of keystrokes/mouseclicks. So why do people live and die by tabs?
I think it comes down to a few weird little reasons... like, you can see how many tabs you have open at a glance. That's sorta nice. The instant-load thing, that's nice. But you know what it mostly is? (imho?)
You don't have to re-size or move your new window.
Seriously. Most browsers just don't know how to open a new window, because you can't tell it. Even clever browsers like OmniWeb that allow you to 'save' a window position are still going to cascade the windows, down-and-right, so you can grab the last toolbar. Then you have overlap after 5-6 windows and things get buried (the limit on tabs too).
Really, it comes down to people not wanting to Mess With Their Windows. I'm happy messing with my windows. It would be interesting to know the ratio of tab-browsing freaks to those who run the browser full-screen, no?
I agree - you're probably right, but you haven't given reasons. CMD.EXE != Windows is not a cogent argument by itself.
I've had some brushed with asshole IP a few times in my travels. Notably, I once worked on a set of commercial CD-ROMs for some classic rock bands. We had a spectacular - nay, epic - struggle with Jimi Hendrix's sister, who for all intents and purposes lives off the ghost of her dead brother. She has all rights, and doesn't actually *do* anything. Long story short, we spent weeks and weeks bending over backwards, crossing and dotting all letters, only to have her change her mind at the last minute.
Another example: Grateful Dead. There are exactly 2 approachable sources for interview footage of Jerry Garcia: the BBC, and Some Guy in the States. Some Guy purposefully bought up all this footage, and now that's his job. He lives off Jerry's ghost.
Even if you are the rightful descendant/heir to some great artist, I don't, in my opinion, think you have the slightest shred of 'rights' to that work. None. Son, daughter, whatever. The only cocnession that makes sense is a wife/partner, and even then it just seems unjust. The LA Times article crowed about how this woman can now 'lovingly restore' her ancestor's works at her own personal expense, but she's selling tapes on eBay. Better than it dissappearing, but what if she was the one misrepresenting, defiling, or otherwise tainting the name of her ancester? No recourse.
It just makes no sense to me. Someone tell me why its a good idea to 'inherit' copyrights. If they made a ton of money with those rights, fine, let the children inherit that money. Rights, I don't think so.
This statistic, like most computer-use statistics, is erroneous and misleading.
IDG does not factor in sales from direct retail (i.e. Apple Store), or the online AppleStore incarnation. A better way to read that is: Apple has 1.93% of the PC market.
If you really want to see what percentage of the computer-using public is on Mac, check Google's stats. (can't find it now, but I know its there somewhere.)
There is a downward trend in marketshare, but this is indicative of the entire PC industry in general.
Sorry for the pickiness - I just hate seeing that bad IDG stat quoted over and over again.
Why aren't more people buying Macs (especially the slashdot crowd)?
Well, they are. Buying more Macs, that is. However, what you are essentially looking at is a split in the Slashdot crowd. Apple has created a rift in the *nix community - not a bad thing, IMHO, as rifts are encouraged in this kind of social dynamic.
This is a bit simplistic (and I'm sure some will let me know just how simplistic...) but here's how I see it:
Slashdot Reader #0 has been using UNIX for a while. Apple releases OS X. Reader #0 likes:
- *nix-like distro with BSD personality
- groovy interface
- the Support Fairy (i.e. having some)
- Mainstream apps (Photoshop, Office, a few big-name games, etc.)
- Apple's Open Source initiatives
- hi-quality integrated hardware that works seamlessly with OS
Slashdot Reader #1 has been using *nix or Windows for awhile. Apple releases OS X. Reader #1 hates:
- proprietary software (OSS be damned; if its 0wn3d by anyone, its bad. This is an arguable position)
- pseudo-proprietary hardware that is behind the bleeding edge of what you can build
- goofy interface
- premium pricing
- lack of games (because that's what they really want a 3.0Ghz PC for. Oh, you have a legitimate use? good for you. You are rare.)
- Apple, in general (possibly for past transgressions against them, possibly 'just 'cause)
(Of course, then there's me, Slashdot Reader #2: always used Macs, still use Macs, have a technical bent despite being a graphic designer, yet hangs out on Slashdot...)
I've been following this thing from some time.
Quick points:
- You can't really 'skin' it. Yes, the shells are interchangeable, but at the factory. A home user bolting on one of these in his/her garage is opening up all sorts of safety concerns.
- Yeah, it's Hydrogen, but it's not gonna blow up. Certainly not as dangerous as the tank of gas in your car. Go read the Wired article if you want details. It's not a rolling Hindenberg.
- The wheels can pivot in any direction, which is why the steering is different. No more parallel-parking mishaps, hopefully.
- They are still more expensive than regular cars, price- and energy-wise, but the trend is looking quite hopeful.
- The space-savings inside the car itself are remarkable, and allow for all sorts of kooky things, such as a floor-to-ceiling windshield. (how weird would that be on the highway?)
- The HyWire is a concept. They won't all be 'ugly'. The whole thing is still a good 10 years away.
GM has gone on the record saying that, because of the elimination of most of the moving parts, these cars could realistically last 20 years. Which is a big concern for GM, obviously having a 20-year-turnover on cars is going to nail their bottom line... until you figure in the savings on engine parts, assembly lines for those engine parts, etc. Suddenly the AUTONOMY is a lot more attractive, as they might eventually cost a fraction of what regular cars do. GM recoups the lost turnover sales from the other 80% of the planet who can now afford a vehicle. And we get cool pivoting space-cars that cost $5000 and go for 2 decades.