You wouldn't notice when you've been terminated, and the other copy would still think that HE is YOU. So how would you tell it? And why should you care?
Those futuristic FX barely have to do with what the final user get as 'experience'. The real experience is about the feelings of the user.
Unfortunately, the most common feelings provoked by today's interfaces are anger and frustration. That's because the interface is littered with rough/unpolished edges, and because software is designed as a bag full of (unrelated) features - instead of as a mean to achieve an end - the process to actually use a feature is rarely taken into the design, not to say tested with users to test it and debug it with the user using it.
A really good development in user experience would be a way to force programmers to follow this kind of advice.
There's probably no prior art - not because it *couldn't* have been done three years ago, or because it couldn't have been conceived 30 years ago - but just because all the circumstances that make it not only possible, but commercially feasible, hadn't yet emerged. So your point sums up to this: when an emerging technology is mature enough to be commercially viable, the first one to implement it should get a monopoly on it?
The security problem shouldn't be solved by requiring every computer user to become a security expert.
A security system that people would actually use should require giving users just enough information for it to work, instead of overwhelming them. Surely IT professionals are intelligent enough to develop such a system. Or aren't they?
Personally, I like being able to flip through a book in a manner that no digital device ever will be able to emulate. Hey, that gives me an idea for a portable device with two e-ink cyclically-turnable sheets.
Dude, don't invest in myILibrary. They should be beaten with a cluebat. Their site is unusable (even after turning on javascript), and they have no idea about online business ("Click 'mailto:sales@myilibrary.com' to request the full list of titles'"? - that's so 90s...).
Until their clients can have a sense about what are they offering without having to 'go to the Advanced Search tab on the My Content page to search your collection' (which, btw, can't be seen anywhere on the front page), their site will be a 'drop in, leave forever 10 seconds after'.
So you've clustered a number of unintelligent human brains to build something that exhibits a higher degree of intelligence? I thought he was talking about Wikipedia.
there are probably several persons on this Earth named Jay Leno. How do we know which one you are referring to? The master spoke: 'That's why we call it a symmetry'. The apprentice was enlightened.
and the fact that no other attempt at it has worked in the history of consoles. Except for the backward compatibility of GameBoy, Playstation 1/2/3, GameCube/Wii, etc?
Wikipedia does NOT require that contributors have background knowledge True, but irrelevant. The point is about what should be done. The point is that people should not write Wikipedia articles just for the sake of writing Wikipedia articles (or passing a course)
the teacher is supervising their students' work, so I would expect the contributions from their students to be of better average value than the average wikipedia post. That depends on the quality of the teachers AND the students. I'd like to keep my expectations high when reading Wikipedia. Overall I am impressed by Wikipedia. I am not against students or anybody else writing Wikipedia articles. I am against writing WikiPedia articles merely as an exercise.
anything that is not of encyclopedic value should be corrected by the community. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work, not by dictating arbitrary rules about who should or shouldn't contribute based on someone's expectations about the quality of anybody else's work. I agree with your last point. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your position. To me, your assertions that
The point is about what should be done. The point is that people should not write Wikipedia articles just for the sake of writing Wikipedia articles (or passing a course) and
That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work, not by dictating arbitrary rules about who should or shouldn't contribute based on someone's expectations about the quality of anybody else's work. I agree with your last point. are direct contradictions. Do you or do you not support a criteria for limiting students contributing to Wikipedia as homework, based on your expectations of low quality?
- Wikipedia does NOT require that contributors have background knowledge (and that's by design, if you want otherwise go to Citizendium), - the teacher is supervising their students' work, so I would expect the contributions from their students to be of better average value than the average wikipedia post. - anything that is not of encyclopedic value should be corrected by the community. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work, not by dictating arbitrary rules about who should or shouldn't contribute based on someone's expectations about the quality of anybody else's work.
You fail to follow their logic. The idea "that the bible is a revelation from his inifite creator and is self authenticating and self-attesting", is included in the scripture.
If a high ping bastard and low ping bastard shoot each other at the same exact moment, the LPB will have his shot register first, and the HPB will die. So, what you're saying is...
In particular, the whole twilight realm was wonderfully atmospheric. Running along the impossibly high castle rooftops in the twilight, with the wind threatening to blow you off, was just magical, and Midna was a wonderfully engaging companion, obnoxious and vulnerable in ways that seemed far more real than the typical ultra-sterotypical FF character. Yes, that's what I mean. Though the sequence of goals is a traditional and boring "we have to find all the pieces of the magic item to defeat the bad guy", the dramatic scenes (specially those related to Minda) are quite well done. I loved the touching feelings when she gets ill and can't barely move, laying on your back.
[Character animation/simulation seems to be one thing that Nintendo is particularly good at. Like the cats and dogs, the way many the enemies and NPCs in twilight-princess moved was impressively smooth and natural, even during fights. That's something that definitely isn't true of many of their competitors -- even on powerful machines like the PS3, you see way too many headline games that have lavish high-resolution graphics, but jerky unrealistic character movement, completely devoid of any sense of momentum...] And the best is that it provides the little details that make the whole feel like a real world. Even though you know that everything is scripted, it doesn't feel scripted. On many other games, the NPCs are like information kiosks; here they feel like real people - just a little bit frozen at an scene. But their conversation changes as evolves if you come back at a later scene. That also contributes to make them feel a bit more realistic.
You should take your Zelda copy back from the shelf and give it another try. Twilight Princess high points are not in the adventure (which is quite lame) but in the tourism. Contemplating dawn and sunset at different stations of the year, all while practicing fishing or climbing to the hills, is an artistic experience on its own.
The world is full with absolutely gorgeous outlooks, which change from one time to the next that you visit them if you take the time to relax and just watch. Never before, except in Severance - Blade of Darkness, I had an urge in a videogame to stop following the storyline and just sit there, watching the graphics.
Once you reach the main village, with the abundance of minigames and side-quests you may abandon the main history and still have a lot of fun with the game.
Take a chance to try Zelda:Twilight Princess. You'll love the Double Clawshots. Even though you can normally jump, the latest levels are designed so as you have to hang from one wall to other with extensible chains, all over the place.
I can't freely use useful software components that I find on my system without performing an unconscionably time-consuming degree of research on the licensing strictures Now that's FUD. You should only need to care about the license details of your GPL code if you were giving backups of your hard drive to your fellows, since GPL doesn't impose restrictions to use without redistribution. On the other hand, you must be aware of the license terms if you use proprietary code - those could lead you to copyright infringement just by having them on your system - so how is GPL worse in that respect? (Answer - it isn't).
coercion is voluntary action Also, i'm seeing that my wording was not clear and did not mean what I intended.
My original post should have been: "giving in to coercion" is a voluntary action, that you take in order to avoid some voluntary (but unpleasant for you) actions from the other part.
We are talking about the interaction between one individual and another individual, and that interaction must be one of either coercion or voluntary association. You are begging the question. In order to prove that freedom depends on coercion versus voluntary actions, you are assuming that all interactions are either coercion or voluntary association.
The "process" of receiving coercion (on the part of the victim) is, of course, involuntary. The process of deciding the terms which the other party will offer in a voluntary association is also involuntary. So how you tell one apart from the other?
Really, this isn't rocket science. This is common sense. Only if you agree with the philosophic principles of libertarianism. For any other ideology, this false dichotomy is not obvious at all; you see it as common sense because you believe in it. Can you make the mental exercise of viewing the logic of your argument from outside your moral frame of reference?
Slashdot Mirror
You wouldn't notice when you've been terminated, and the other copy would still think that HE is YOU. So how would you tell it? And why should you care?
Those futuristic FX barely have to do with what the final user get as 'experience'. The real experience is about the feelings of the user.
Unfortunately, the most common feelings provoked by today's interfaces are anger and frustration. That's because the interface is littered with rough/unpolished edges, and because software is designed as a bag full of (unrelated) features - instead of as a mean to achieve an end - the process to actually use a feature is rarely taken into the design, not to say tested with users to test it and debug it with the user using it.
A really good development in user experience would be a way to force programmers to follow
this kind of advice.
The security problem shouldn't be solved by requiring every computer user to become a security expert.
A security system that people would actually use should require giving users just enough information for it to work, instead of overwhelming them. Surely IT professionals are intelligent enough to develop such a system. Or aren't they?
*Heads to the design table*
Dude, don't invest in myILibrary. They should be beaten with a cluebat. Their site is unusable (even after turning on javascript), and they have no idea about online business ("Click 'mailto:sales@myilibrary.com' to request the full list of titles'"? - that's so 90s...).
Until their clients can have a sense about what are they offering without having to 'go to the Advanced Search tab on the My Content page to search your collection' (which, btw, can't be seen anywhere on the front page), their site will be a 'drop in, leave forever 10 seconds after'.
The apprentice was enlightened.
Now that you mention, Kepler would be proud of this theory.
Surprise surprise,
- Wikipedia does NOT require that contributors have background knowledge (and that's by design, if you want otherwise go to Citizendium),
- the teacher is supervising their students' work, so I would expect the contributions from their students to be of better average value than the average wikipedia post.
- anything that is not of encyclopedic value should be corrected by the community. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work, not by dictating arbitrary rules about who should or shouldn't contribute based on someone's expectations about the quality of anybody else's work.
You fail to follow their logic. The idea "that the bible is a revelation from his inifite creator and is self authenticating and self-attesting", is included in the scripture.
HAN HAD LOW LAG!!!!!!
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
You should take your Zelda copy back from the shelf and give it another try. Twilight Princess high points are not in the adventure (which is quite lame) but in the tourism. Contemplating dawn and sunset at different stations of the year, all while practicing fishing or climbing to the hills, is an artistic experience on its own.
The world is full with absolutely gorgeous outlooks, which change from one time to the next that you visit them if you take the time to relax and just watch. Never before, except in Severance - Blade of Darkness, I had an urge in a videogame to stop following the storyline and just sit there, watching the graphics.
Once you reach the main village, with the abundance of minigames and side-quests you may abandon the main history and still have a lot of fun with the game.
Take a chance to try Zelda:Twilight Princess. You'll love the Double Clawshots. Even though you can normally jump, the latest levels are designed so as you have to hang from one wall to other with extensible chains, all over the place.
Not if you give away the server to a third party without giving the source code.
My original post should have been: "giving in to coercion" is a voluntary action, that you take in order to avoid some voluntary (but unpleasant for you) actions from the other part.